BLM

Wyoming State Office  High Plains District

DRAFT 

Environmental Impact Statement for the

South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248 

Volume 1 of 2
	

Chapters 1 – 8
	

Mule Deer on Reclaimed Rangeland Reclaimed Belle Fourche River 

Coal Creek Mine, Wyoming Cordero Rojo Mine, Wyoming 

Reclaimed Tisdale Creek American Avocet in a Reclaimed Wetland 

Caballo Mine, Wyoming Belle Ayr Mine, Wyoming 

October 2008
	
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-09/001+1320 
 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS 

CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING 

Lead Agency:	 USDI, Bureau of Land Management, High Plains District Office, 

Casper, WY 

Cooperating Agencies: USDI, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

Western Region, Denver, CO 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Cheyenne, WY 

Wyoming Department of Transportation, Cheyenne, WY 

Abstract: This Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) assesses the environmental consequences 

of decisions to hold competitive, sealed-bid sales and issue leases for several tracts of federal coal 

located adjacent to existing surface coal mines in Campbell County, Wyoming, subject to standard and 

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

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

include approximately 8,161.0 acres containing approximately 873.6 million tons of in-place Federal coal. 

The four coal companies, operators of the adjacent Belle Ayr Mine, the adjacent Coal Creek Mine, the 

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

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

This Draft EIS describes the physical, biological, cultural, historic, and socioeconomic resources in and 

around the existing mines and the LBA tracts. The alternatives in the Draft EIS consider the impacts of 

leasing the tracts as they were applied for; leasing reconfigured tracts in order to avoid bypassing Federal 

coal or to increase competitive interest in a tract, and not leasing the tracts. The focus for the impact 

analysis was based upon resource issues and concerns identified during previous coal leasing analyses 

and public scoping conducted for these lease applications. Concerns related to leasing coal and its 

subsequent development include impacts to groundwater, air quality, wildlife, global climate change, 

impacts to human health, conflicts with oil and gas development, impacts to cultural and paleontological 

resources, impacts to wetland resources, nitrogen oxide emissions resulting from blasting of coal and 

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

ongoing surface coal mining and other proposed development in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, 

and coal combustion residues and other by-products from coal-fired power plants, are also of concern. 

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

any endangered or threatened species which are likely to be affected by the Proposed Action. 

The Draft EIS is open for a 60-day review period beginning on the date that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Comments that are 

postmarked or received on or before the end of the 60-day review period will be considered in the 

preparation of the final EIS. 

For Further Information Contact: 

Teresa Johnson 

Bureau of Land Management, High Plains District 

2987 Prospector Drive 

Casper, WY 82604 

(307) 261-7627 

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



SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS 


DRAFT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
 

Prepared by 

WWC Engineering 


Sheridan, Wyoming
 

Under the Direction of 

U.S. Department of the Interior 


Bureau of Land Management 


High Plains District Office 


Casper, Wyoming
 

and 

Cooperating Agencies 

U.S. Department of Interior 


Office of Surface Mining 


Reclamation and Enforcement 


Denver, Colorado
 

and 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 


Cheyenne, Wyoming
 

and 

Wyoming Department of Transportation 


Sheridan, and Cheyenne, Wyoming
 

September 2008 
 

 

 

Executive Summary 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

On July 6, 2004, RAG Coal West, Inc. (RAG)1 filed an application with the 

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

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

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

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

North Extension Lease by Application (LBA) Tract, was assigned case file 

number WYW161248. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a 

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

tract the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. 

In August 2004, RAG finalized the sale of the Belle Ayr Mine to Foundation 

Coal West (FCW), a directly held subsidiary of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. 

In this EIS, the applicant for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract will be referred to 

as FCW. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peabody Energy Corporation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-1 
Converse County Niobrara County 

Weston County 

387 

Executive Summary 

14 59 

16 LEGEND 

Rawhide Mine 

Buckskin Mine 

Hay Creek II 

LBA's Pending 

LBA's Issued 

Existing Leases (Prior to Decertification) 

Eagle Butte Mine Coal-Fired Power Plant 

(Existing, Proposed, 

LBA Tracts As Applied For (This EIS) 

To Buffalo 38 Miles Johnson County 

Campbell County 

Dry Fork Mine or Under Construction) 

Wyodak Mine 14 

90 

ROZET 90 

GILLETTE 

59 50 90 

Campbell County

Weston County Crook County

MOORCROFT 

Caballo Mine 

CABALLO WEST 

BELLE AYR NORTH 

Belle Ayr Mine 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

MAYSDORF II 

WEST COAL CREEK 

Coal Creek Mine 

116 

North Hilight Field 

West Jacobs Ranch 

RENO JUNCTION 

WRIGHT Jacobs Ranch Mine 

50 West 

Hilight Field 450 

387 

South 

Hilight Field Black Thunder Mine 

North Porcupine School Creek Mine 

South Porcupine (Proposed) 

To Newcastle 29 Miles 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

Campbell County 

Converse County West Antelope II 

Antelope Mine 

SCALE: 1"= 10 MILES 59 

To Douglas 46 Miles

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

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

16 
21 

48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

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

Hilight Road

35 36 31 32 34 35 49 33 34 33

State Highway 59

Executive Summary 

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

T. T. 32 36 31 49

N. N. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

20 

19 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 19 20 

29 28 27 30 26 25 28 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 

48 33 34 35 36 32 31 

N. 

34 36 31 32 33 35 48

N. 

T. T. 

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

Road 

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

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

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

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

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

LEGEND 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Alternative 2 

BLM's Study Area 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

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

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

29 

32 

0 
Executive Summary 

33 

28 

21 

34 

27 

22 

35 

26 

23 

36 

25 

31 

30 

32 

29 

20 

33 

28 

21 

34 

27 

22 

35 

26 

23 

36 

25 

31 

30 

32 

29 

20 

31 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

32 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

31 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

32 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

33 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

34 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

35 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

36 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

33 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

34 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

35 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

36 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

T. 

47 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

45 

N. 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

T. 

47 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

45 

N. 

Mills Road 

Breen 

Lawver

Hilight

T-7 Road

BNSF & UP RR

BNSF & UP RR

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight RoadRoad

Hilight Road

Hoadley Road

Road 

Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

Wagensen Road 

Hoadley Road 

0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

LEGEND 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

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

ES-4 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
13 18

26 

14 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 Highway 

BNSF RR 

Road 

Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Executive Summary 

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

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 

19 20 21 22 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

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

T. T. 34 36 31

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

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

N. N. 

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

18 

16 15 

17 16 15 14 13 17 14 13 18

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

30 25 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. 

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

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

LEGEND 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure ES-4. Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-5
24

22 

3 

22 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway 

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Executive Summary 

23
 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

30
 

20
 21

29
 28

20 21
 22 23
 

28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 29
 

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

H

BNSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 

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

N. N. 

6
 5 4 N. N. 

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

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

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

28 27 30 29 27 26 25 30
 29
 26 25

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

N. N. 

T. T. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

Hoadley Road 

22
 21
 24 19 20 21 23
 24
 19
 20 23

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

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

5000 10000 20000
 North Tract Under Alternative 3
 

South Tract Under Alternative 3 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure ES-5. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives. 

ES-6 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

33 

28 

0 
Executive Summary 

directly held subsidiary of Rio Tinto Energy America (formerly Kennecott 

Energy and Coal Company). 

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

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

the lands involved met the requirements of the regulations governing coal 

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

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

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

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

Casper, Wyoming; and the Maysdorf II LBA Tract was reviewed at a public 

meeting held on January 18, 2007, in Casper, Wyoming. The PRRCT 

recommended that BLM continue to process the Belle Ayr North, the West Coal 

Creek, the Caballo West, and the Maysdorf II coal lease applications at these 

respective meetings. 

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

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

fulfill the requirements of the NEPA by evaluating the environmental 

consequences of leasing the federal coal. 

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

an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) to evaluate the site-specific and cumulative environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts of leasing and developing the federal coal in an 

application area. Due to the proximity of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts, BLM made a decision to prepare a 

single EIS to evaluate the environmental impacts of coal mining that would 

result from the issuance of these four leases. BLM does not authorize mining 

by issuing a lease for federal coal, but the impacts of mining the coal are 

considered in this EIS because it is a logical consequence of issuing a 

maintenance lease to an existing mine. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will publish a notice announcing 

the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in the 

Federal Register. BLM will publish a Notice of Availability and Notice of Public 

Hearing in the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period on the DEIS will 

commence with publication of the EPA’s Notice of Availability. The BLM’s 

Federal Register notice will be used to solicit public comments on the DEIS and 

on the fair market value, the maximum economic recovery, and the proposed 

competitive sale of coal from the LBA tract. A formal public hearing will be 

held during the 60-day comment period. All comments received on the DEIS 

will be included, with responses, in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS). 

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

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

LBA sale process is, by law and regulation, an open, public, competitive sealedDraft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-7 
Executive Summary 

bid process. Bidding at a lease sale would be open to any qualified bidder. If a 

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

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

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

federal coal lease would be issued to the highest bidder at the sale if a federal 

sale panel determined that the high bid at that sale meets or exceeds the fair 

market value of the coal as determined by BLM’s economic evaluation, and if 

the U.S. Department of Justice determines that there are no antitrust 

violations if a lease is issued to the high bidder at the sale. 

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

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

Environmental Quality (WDEQ), and the Wyoming Department of 

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

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

tract. 

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

considered to be mineable at this time. Bishop Road, a county road, overlies 

some of the coal included in the tract. The Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) prohibits mining within 100 ft on either side 

of the right-of-way of any public road unless the appropriate public road 

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

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

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

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

zone within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract is included for consideration for 

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

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

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

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

mineable coal adjacent to the 100 ft buffer zone on either side of the road rightof-way. 

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

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

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

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

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

economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. 

A portion of Wyoming State Highway 59 and portions of the Haight Road 

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

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

100 ft on either side of the ROW of any public road unless the appropriate 

public road authority allows the road to be relocated or closed after public 

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

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

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

coal underlying the portion of Highway 59, Hilight Road, and Haight Road, 

their rights-of-way, and the 100 ft buffer zones within the Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract are included for consideration for leasing because that coal could be 

mined if WYDOT and/or the Campbell County Board of Commissioners, the 

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

3461.5(c)(2)(iii)]. If the highway and Haight and Hilight roads are not moved, 

including the coal underlying the highway and Haight and Hilight roads in the 

lease would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to the 

100 ft buffer zones on either side of the highway and road ROWs. CMC is 

evaluating the feasibility of relocating the county roads. 

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

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

the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. The cemetery was relocated during the summer of 

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

and Cordero Mining Co. is the surface owner. Since the Maysdorf Point 

Cemetery mitigation had not been completed prior to the preparation of this 

DEIS, the cemetery was described in full in the text. The mitigation of the 

cemetery will be addressed in the FEIS. 

The Proposed Actions and alternatives to those actions are analyzed in detail in 

this DEIS. 

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

competitive coal lease sale and issue a maintenance lease to the 

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

Caballo West, and the Maysdorf II LBA Tracts as applied for (Figures ES2, ES-3, ES-4, and ES-5, respectively). The Proposed Actions are 

described in Tables ES-1, ES-3, ES-4, and ES-6. 

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

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

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

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

Action Alternatives are described in Tables ES-1, ES-3, ES-4, and ES-6. 

Rejection of the lease applications would not preclude an application to 

lease the tracts in the future. 

•	 Alternatives 2 and 3 - Under Alternative 2 for each tract and Alternative 

3 for the Maysdorf II Tract, BLM would reconfigure the tract to include 

some or the entire LBA tract as applied for and may increase the size of 

the tract. BLM would hold a competitive lease sale and issue a 

maintenance lease for a tract that is larger than the applied-for tract. 

The Alternatives 2 and 3 are shown on Figures ES-2, ES-3, ES-4, and 

ES-5 and described in Tables ES-1, ES-3, ES-4, and ES-6. 

The analysis in this EIS assumes that FCW would be the successful bidder on 

the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, that ALC would be the successful bidder on the 

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

West Coal Creek LBA Tract, that CCC would be the successful bidder on the 

Caballo West LBA Tract, and that CMC would be the successful bidder on the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract if the sales were held, and that they would be mined as 

maintenance tracts for the respective applicant mines. 

Other alternatives that were considered but not analyzed in detail include 

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

tracts to the successful bidder (not the applicants) for the purpose of 

developing new stand-alone mines, and delaying the sale of one or more of the 

tracts as applied for to increase the benefit to the public afforded by higher coal 

prices and/or to allow more complete recovery of the potential coal bed natural 

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

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

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

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

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

action alternatives. The following discussion assumes that the county roads 

are moved. 

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

proposed project include air quality, cultural resources, Native American 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

paleontological resources, visual resources, noise, transportation resources, 

and socioeconomics. 

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

tracts) is located in the Powder River Basin (PRB), a part of the Northern Great 

Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. The Belle Ayr North, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are located in the 

eastern part of the PRB, in an area consisting primarily of a dissected rolling 

upland plain with low relief, broken by low red-capped buttes, mesas, hills, and 

ridges. Playas are common in the basin, as are buttes and plateaus capped by 

clinker or sandstone. Elevations in the general South Gillette analysis area 

range from about 4,515 ft to 4,885 ft above sea level and slopes range from flat 

to around 57 percent. In the individual tracts, the average slopes range from 4 

to 5 percent. 

ES-10 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table ES-1. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County Road 12) is Moved and tRecovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Belle Ayr Mine) Proposed Action 

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

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

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

⎯

Lease Area2 4,945.5 ac 1,578.7 ac Total Area To Be Disturbed2 11,621 ac 1,936.6 ac 

Permit Area2 11,935 ac 1,727 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 45.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 30.0 mmt 0 mmt 

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

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

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

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

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recoestimate for Ad Valorum taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of rec(projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (basemade for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. 

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

$9.98 per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (fof recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees × amount of percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legisldistribution to the federal government. 

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

Table ES-2. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County Road 12) is Not Moved and Not Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Belle Ayr Mine) Proposed Action 

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

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

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

Lease Area2 4,945.5 ac 1,578.7 ac Total Area To Be Disturbed2 11,621 ac 1,274.9 ac 

Permit Area2 11,935 ac 1,727 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 45.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 30.0 mmt 0 mmt 

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

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

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

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

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recovestimate for Ad Valorum taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of rec(projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, pamount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per topayments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figoutcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution to states. 

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

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

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

2005) × amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislat

distribution to the federal government. 

ES-12 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and R

Creek LBA Tract and Coal Creek Mine. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Coal Creek Mine) Proposed Action 

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

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

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

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

Lease Area2 5,918.0 ac 1,151.3 ac Total Area To Be Disturbed2 8,354.9 ac 1,925.4 ac 

Permit Area2 9,722.7 ac 3,162 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 25.0 mmt 0 mmt 

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

Average Number of Employees 125 0 

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

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

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

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recoestimate for Ad Valorum taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of rec(projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, pamount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per topayments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figoutcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

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

$9.98 per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees × amstate’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of repercent of distribution of mineral royalties to the federal government. 

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

Table ES-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Rev

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

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Caballo Mine) Proposed Action 

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

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

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

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

Lease Area2 11,704.5 ac 777.5 ac Total Area To Be Disturbed2 16,898.0 ac 1,349.9 ac 

Permit Area2 19,974.7 ac 1,294.1 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 50.0 mmt 0 mmt 

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

Average Number of Employees 549 0 

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

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

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

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, an

royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount oper ton estimate for Ad Valorum taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × am$9.98 per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 pefor AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.of bonus payments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent sharebased on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

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

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

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

state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments m

in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of re

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

ES-14 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
Table ES-5. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Rev

LBA Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (County Road 12) is Not Moved and thRecovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Caballo Mine) Proposed Action 

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

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

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

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

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

Permit Area2 19,974.7 ac 1,294.1 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 50.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 37.8 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 15.4 yrs 2.2 yr 

Average Number of Employees 549 0 

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

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

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

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, an

royalty payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount oper ton estimate for Ad Valorum taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percenAML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 bonus payments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. Theon the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

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

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

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

state’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments m

2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recen

percent of distribution of mineral royalties to the federal government. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-15 
.

Executive Summary 

Table ES-6. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

Tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59 and the BNSF & UP Railroad are Not Moved ais Not Recovered and if the Haight and Hilight Roads and the Maysdorf Point CemeUnderlying Coal is Recovered. 

Added 

No Action Alternative Added by Added by Alternat

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

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 572.9 mmt 504.0 mmt 533.0 mmt 326.4 m

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 571.5 mmt 499.5 mmt 527.3 mmt 322.5 mRecoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 525.9 mmt 449.6 mmt 474.5 mmt 290.2 m

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

Lease Area2 13,529.31 ac 4,653.8 ac 4,895.6 ac 2,825.Total Area To Be Disturbed2 14,694.0 ac 6,675.0 ac 6,917.3 ac 3,429.

Permit Area2 16,910.6 ac 16,832.4 ac 16,832.4 ac 6,850.

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

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

Remaining Life of Mine 11.4 yrs 9.7 yr 10.3 yr 6.3 y

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

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $854.0 million $805.0 – $972.3 $849.7 - $1026.5 $519.6 - 

million million millio

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post- $632.6 million $615.7 - $783.1 $649.9 - $826.7 $397.4 - 

2007)4 million million millio

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

right-of-way. 

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

state and private) because of the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal, and other mine support activities outside the lease boundariesleased or disturbed area to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow an easily defined legal land description

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming’

AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.3taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $9.98 per ton (amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees × amount of percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the lasamount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that chmineral royalties to states. 

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

ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal) federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus state’s 50 on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and 2005) × amoupercent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution of mineral royal

ES-16 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
Table ES-7.	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Re

LBA Tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59, the Haight and Hilight Roads, the Mayand the BNSF & UP Railroad are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovere

Added 

No Action Alternative Added by Added by Alternat

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

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 572.9 mmt 504.0 mmt 533.0 mmt 326.4 m

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 571.5 mmt 482.5 mmt 510.3 mmt 322.5 m

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 525.9 mmt 434.3 mmt 459.3 mmt 290.2 m

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

⎯

⎯

⎯

Lease Area2 13,529.31 ac 4,653.8 ac 4,895.6 ac 2,825.4 Total Area To Be Disturbed2 14,694.0 ac 6,200.8 ac 6,422.5 ac 3,353.9 

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

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

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

Remaining Life of Mine 11.4 yrs 9.4 yr 9.9 yr 6.3 y

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

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $854.0 million $777.6 – $939.3 $822.4 - $993.3 $519.6 - $

million million millio

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post- $632.6 million $594.8 - $756.4 $629.0 - $800.0 $397.4 - $

2007)4 million million millio

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

railroad right-of-way, Maysdorf Point Cemetery buffer zone, and the Haight and Hilight Roads rights-of-way. 

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

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recovestimate for Ad Valorum taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of rec(projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, pamount of recoverable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

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

$9.98 per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (foof recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees × amount of rpercent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for t2005) × amount of mineable coal minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legisladistribution of mineral royalties to the federal government. 

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

Executive Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

the West Coal Creek LBA Tract to 74 ft within the Caballo West LBA. Up to five 

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

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

thick. 

The existing topography on each LBA tract would be substantially changed 

during mining. A highwall with a vertical height equal to overburden plus coal 

thickness would exist in the active pits. Following reclamation, the average 

surface elevation would be lower due to removal of the coal. The reclaimed 

land surface would approximate premining contours and the basic drainage 

network would be retained; however, the reclaimed surface would contain fewer 

and gentler topographic features. This could contribute to reduced habitat 

diversity and wildlife carrying capacity on the LBA tracts. These topographic 

changes would not conflict with regional land use, and the postmining 

topography would adequately support anticipated postmining land use. 

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

considerable permanent change on each LBA tract under the Proposed Actions 

or action alternatives. The coal would be permanently removed and the 

replaced overburden would be a relatively homogeneous mixture compared to 

the premining layered overburden. 

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

during mining, but could occur after mining. There are currently 18 wells 

capable of producing oil or conventional gas located on the four LBA tract 

study areas. Of the 18 wells, 13 are considered to have recoverable reserves, 

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

reserves from these 13 wells are just over 273,700 barrels of oil and 12 million 

cubic feet (mmcf) of gas (A&C 2008). Any oil and conventional wells on the 

tracts would have to be plugged and abandoned during mining but could be 

recompleted after mining if the remaining reserves justify the expense of the 

recompletion. 

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

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

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

Gillette analysis area and 288 were capable of producing (WOGCC 2007). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Executive Summary 

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

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

receives a reasonable return, and encourage agreements between lessees or 

use BLM authority to minimize loss of publicly owned resources. 

Significant or unique paleontological resources have not been reported by the 

SGAC mines, although additional surveys for paleontological resources may be 

required. 

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

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

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

permitted 45-mmtpy production rate and there have been no exceedances of 

the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS at the Belle Ayr Mine. EPA has revoked 

the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3 but until the Wyoming enters into 

rulemaking to revise the WAAQS, that standard is still effective. The dispersion 

model showed a maximum concentration on the boundary of the Belle Ayr 

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

meter (μg/m3) in 2013 (Figure ES-6). There would be an increase in stripping 

ratio, which could increase fugitive dust emissions, but emissions would be 

expected to remain within daily and annual NAAQS limits. 

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

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

of the annual PM10 NAAQS at the permitted 25-mmtpy production rate and 

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

Coal Creek Mine. EPA has revoked the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3 but 

until the Wyoming enters into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS, that standard 

is still effective. The dispersion model showed a maximum concentration on 

the Coal Creek LNCM boundary of 23.11 μg/m3 in 2016 (Figure ES-7). There 

would be an increase in stripping ratio, which could increase fugitive dust 

emissions, but emissions would be expected to remain within daily and annual 

NAAQS limits. 

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

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

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

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

revoked the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3 but until the Wyoming enters 

into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS, that standard is still effective. The 

dispersion model showed a maximum concentration on the Caballo LNCM 

boundary of 46.98 μg/m3 in 2014 (Figure ES-8). There would be an increase in 

stripping ratio, which could increase fugitive dust emissions, but emissions 

would be expected to remain within daily and annual NAAQS limits. 

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

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

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-19 
48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

36 31 32 34 35 33 35 49 34	 33

State Highway 59

Hilight Road

Executive Summary 

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

T. 

36 31 32 49 

N. 

T. 

N. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

20 

21 24 19 21 22 22 23 23 24 19 20 

29 28 27 26 30 25 28 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 

48 33 34 35 36 31 32 

N. 

34 36 31 32 33 35 48

N. 

T. T. 

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

Road NOx=37.97 μg/m3 

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

PM10=42.02 μg/m3 

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

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

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

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

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Area Source Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Alternative 2 

5000 10000 20000 BLM's Study Area 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

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

for the Year 2013. 

ES-20	 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

0 
47 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road

Hilight Road

Executive Summary 

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

Hilight Road

RR B

H

NSF & UP

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

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

N. N. 

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

N. N. NOx=31.00 μg/m3 

8 

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

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

Hoadley Road 

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

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

T. Wagensen Road

46 33 

T. 32 

34 35 36 31 33 34 35 36 31 32 46

N. N. 

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

N. N. Lawver Road 

PM10=23.11μg/m3 

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

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

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

Breen Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

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

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

Area Source West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure ES-7.	 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOX Concentrations at the Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary for the Year 2016. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	 ES-21

17 
14 

26 

14 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 Highway 

BNSF RR 

Road 

Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Executive Summary 

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

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 

19 20 21 22 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

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

NOx=59.80 μg/m3 

T. T. 31 

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

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

N. N. 

9 10 8 7 9 10 11 12 11 12 7 

8 

16 15 

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 13 18 

PM10=46.98 μg/m3 

21 22 

20 21 22 23 24 19 23 24 19 20 

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

36 

T. 

31 32 33 34 48 

N. 

T. 

48 35 

N. 

36 31 32 33 34 35 

T. 

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

N. 

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

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

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Area Source Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

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

for the Year 2014. 

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

 Executive Summary 

the annual PM10 NAAQS at the permitted 65-mmtpy production rate and there 

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

revoked the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3 but until the Wyoming enters 

into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS, that standard is still effective. The 

dispersion model showed a maximum concentration on the Cordero Rojo LNCM 

boundary of 45.6 μg/m3 in 2007 (Figure ES-9). There would be an increase in 

stripping ratio, which could increase fugitive dust emissions, but emissions 

would be expected to remain within daily and annual NAAQS limits. 

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

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

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

may be sufficiently high at times to cause human health effects. As a result of 

these incidents, Wyoming Department of Environment Quality/Land Quality 

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

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

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

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

Mines. The WDEQ has not required the mines to implement any specific 

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

Public exposure to emissions caused by surface mining operations is most 

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

operations and travelers on publicly accessible roads and highways that pass 

through and near the area of the mining operations. There are occupied 

dwellings located approximately 0.75 mile north of the Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract, and three school bus stops are located on Bishop Road, one within the 

LBA tract (Figure ES-10). There are occupied dwellings located approximately 

0.2 mile and 1 mile west of the West Coal Creek LBA Tract, and two school bus 

stops are located on Hoadley Road, approximately 1 mile west of the LBA tract 

(Figure ES-11). There are occupied dwellings located over 0.6 mile west of the 

Caballo West LBA Tract, and three school bus stops are located along Bishop 

Road, adjacent to the LBA tract (Figure ES-12). There are occupied dwellings 

located approximately 0.4 mile south of the northern portion of the Maysdorf II 

LBA Tract and over 0.5 mile east of the LBA tract, and a school bus stop is 

located along Hoadley Road, approximately 1.25 miles south of the LBA tract 

(Figure ES-13). 

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

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

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

overburden would be removed and replaced with unconsolidated backfill. A 

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

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

and the cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG 

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

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

and areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG development. Roughly 30 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-23 
24

22 

3 

22 

47 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Executive Summary 

23
 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

30
 

20
 21

29
 28

20
 21 22 23
 

28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 29
 

34 32
 33 35 31 33 48
 

NOx=49.6 μg/m3 36 

N.

RR

H

BNSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 

PM10=45.6 μg/m3 T. T. 

48 34
 35
 36 31
 32

N. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

N. N. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

Hoadley Road 

21
 22
 24 19 20 21 23 24
 19
 20
 23

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

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary 

Haul Roads 

Area Source 

Receptor Location 

Dust Suppression Loadout 

0 5000 10000 20000
 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

29 28 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary
 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal
 Coal Leases
 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract
 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for
 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2)
 

North Tract Under Alternative 3
 

South Tract Under Alternative 3
 

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

Boundary for the Year 2007. 

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

33 
28 

21 

28 

48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

32 33 34 35

Hilight Road

Executive Summary 

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

T. 

36 31 32 49 

N. 

T. 33 34 35 36 31 49 

4 3 2 1

State Highway 59

N. 

T. 

N. 

T. 

T. 

4 3 2 1 6 5 48 6 5 

N. 

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

B 

CABALLO MINE OFFICE 

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

B 

19 22 21 22 23 23 24 24 20 19 20 

29 28 27 30 26 25 27 26 25 30 

B 

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

T. T. 

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

Road 

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

BELLE AYR MINE OFFICE 

13 18 16 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17

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

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

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

36 31

LEGEND 

B School Bus Stop Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Single Occupied Residence Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Multiple Occupied Residences Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for Exist Within this Area 

(Boundaries are Approximate) 

BLM's Alternative 2 

5000 10000 20000 BLM's Study Area 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

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

3 Miles of the Belle Ayr North LBA Study Area. 

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

29 

32 

17 

0 
25

29 

20 

17 

46 

Mills Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road 

Hilight Road

Wagensen Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Executive Summary 

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

Hilight Road

RR B

H

NSF & UP

ey adl R o oad

30 29 28 27 26 25 30 28 27 26 25 

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

N. 

T. 

N. 

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

COAL CREEK N. N. MINE OFFICE 

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

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

BLASTING Hoadley Road 

COMPANY 

OFFICE 

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

B 

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

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

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

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

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

22 23 24 19 21 22 24 19 20 21 23 

Breen Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

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

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

B School Bus Stop 0 5000 10000 20000 

Single Occupied Residence 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

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

3 Miles of the West Coal Creek LBA Study Area. 

ES-26 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
13 18

8 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 

Highway 

BNSF RR 

Corners 

Bishop 

Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Executive Summary 

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

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

T. T. 

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

N. N. 

T. T. 

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

N. N. 

Road

8 7 9 10 9 10 11 12 11 12 7 

B 8 

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

CABALLO MINE OFFICE 

B 

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

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

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

25 30 29 26 28 27 26 25 30 28 27 

B 

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

T. 

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

N. 

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

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

LEGEND
 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

B School Bus Stop 

Single Occupied Residence 0 5000	 10000 20000 

Multiple Occupied Residences 

Exist Within this Area 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) (Boundaries are Approximate) 

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

3 Miles of the Caballo West LBA Study Area. 

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

29 
36 36 31

28 

29 

21 

47 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway 

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Wagensen Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Executive Summary 

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

30 29 28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 

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

7 8 

10 

9 12 10 11 11 12 7 8 9

13 18 17 16 15 14 

13 18 16 15 14 17

CORDERO ROJO 

MINE OFFICE 

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

POINT
 CEMETARY
 

RR

H

BNSF & UP

ey o

R

adl

oad 

N. N. 

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

N. 

T. 

N. 

T. 

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

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

T. T. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

BLASTING Hoadley Road 

COMPANY 

OFFICE 

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

B 

28 27 26 25 29 28 27 26 25 30 30 

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

LEGEND 

B School Bus Stop 

Single Occupied Residence 

Multiple Occupied Residences 

Exist Within this Area 

(Boundaries are Approximate) 0 5000 10000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

20000 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal 

Coal Leases 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3 

South Tract Under Alternative 3 

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

3 Miles of the Maysdorf II LBA Study Area. 

ES-28	 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

32 

29 

33 
 Executive Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

The area of drawdown in the discontinuous overburden aquifers would be 

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

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

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

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

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

Wyoming Class III standards for use as livestock water. 

Mining does not directly disturb the hydrogeologic units below the mineable 

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

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

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

applicant mines located within the general South Gillette analysis area utilize 

water supply wells completed in aquifers stratigraphically below the Wyodak 

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

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

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

reclaiming operations. 

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

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

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

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

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

surface water flow, quality, and sediment discharge would approximate 

premining conditions. 

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

characteristics and sediment discharges would occur during mining of the LBA 

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

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

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

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

AVF investigations conducted within the general South Gillette analysis area 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Executive Summary 

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

No other AVFs have been identified within the LBA tracts. 

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

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

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

of approximately 193.9 acres of Waters of the U.S., including a total of 14.4 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

significant biological and hydrological importance. 

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

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

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

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

the authorization to make such determinations. Non-jurisdictional wetlands 

are generally associated with internally drained depressions/playas that are 

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

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

drained playas have been identified within the West Coal Creek general 

analysis area. 

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

8.6 acres of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., occur within the entire Caballo 

West wetlands analysis area. Approximately 6.5 of those acres are 

jurisdictional wetlands that occur along the water courses of Tisdale Creek. A 

playa, located adjacent to the LBA tract as applied for and within the wetlands 

analysis area, was delineated in 1996 as a jurisdictional wetland, but was later 

declared non-jurisdictional by the COE. Approximately 6.4 acres of nonjurisdictional wetlands are included in this playa. 

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

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

identified, approximately 133.5 acres are vegetated wetlands and the remaining 

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

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

separately because only the COE has the authorization to make such 

determinations. Non-jurisdictional wetlands are generally associated with 

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

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-31 
 

Executive Summary 

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

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

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

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

operations. Jurisdictional wetlands that are disturbed by mining must be 

replaced during the reclamation process. 

Consequences to soil resources from mining the LBA tracts would include 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

combined vegetation general analysis areas, are the Sagebrush/Grassland 

(38.1 percent) and Sandy Grassland (18.4 percent). Common plant species on 

these types include crested wheatgrass, smooth brome, needleandthread, 

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

Dominant shrubs/subshrubs in the Sagebrush/Grassland and Sandy 

Grassland vegetation communities include Wyoming big sagebrush and fringed 

sage. Lichens and manyspine plains pricklypear cactus are frequently large 

components of the vegetation cover. Mining would progressively remove this 

native vegetation. Reclamation and revegetation of mined areas would occur 

contemporaneously with mining on adjacent lands. Reestablished vegetation 

would be dominated by species mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures, 

which are approved by the WDEQ/LQD. The majority of these species would 

be native to the LBA tracts. Initially, the reclaimed land would be dominated 

by grassland vegetation, which would be less diverse than the premining 

vegetation. Estimates for the time it would take to restore sagebrush to 

premining density levels range from 20 to 100 years. An indirect long-term 

impact associated with this vegetative change would potentially be a decrease 

in available habitat for shrub-dependent species. However, a diverse, 

productive, and permanent vegetative cover would be established on the LBA 

tracts within about 10 years following reclamation, prior to release of the final 

reclamation bond. The decrease in plant diversity would not seriously affect 

the potential productivity of the reclaimed areas, and the proposed postmining 

land uses (wildlife habitat and rangeland) should be achieved even with the 

changes in vegetation composition and diversity. The reclamation plans for the 

LBA tracts would also include steps to control invasion by weedy (invasive, 

nonnative) plant species. 

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

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

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

ES-32 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 Executive Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

are longer term and include alterations in topography and vegetative cover 

following reclamation, which may decrease wildlife carrying capacity and 

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

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

and habitat disturbance would be incremental, with reclamation progressing as 

new disturbance occurs. The West Coal Creek LBA Tract is adjacent to a sagegrouse Core Population Area, as defined by the Sage-Grouse Implementation 

Team (Sage-Grouse Implementation Team 2008). There are 18 sage-grouse 

leks that have been documented within the combined evaluation area. Five of 

those 18 sites are classified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WGFD) as historical, and 5 others have been largely inactive over the last 10­

12 years. The eight leks with the most recent activity are all more than 2 miles 

from the specific wildlife general analysis area of each LBA tract. In the long 

term, following reclamation, wildlife carrying capacity and habitat diversity may 

be reduced due to gentler topography, less diverse vegetative cover, and 

reduction in sagebrush density. Efforts have been initiated in recent years by 

mining companies to increase the diversity of post-mine topography and to 

increase the amount of sagebrush in the reclamation. 

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

Ute ladies’-tresses orchid and black-footed ferret. Areas of suitable habitat for 

the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid within the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts and adjacent study areas were 

surveyed in August 2006, July 2007, August 2007, and in August 2005 and 

2006, respectively, and no individuals were located. The black-footed ferret is 

a nocturnally active mammal that depends almost entirely upon the prairie dog 

for its survival. No black-tailed prairie dog colonies are currently present on 

the LBA tracts as proposed and the area added by action alternatives. One 

small colony (approximately 40 acres) is within the Maysdorf II wildlife general 

analysis area and one small colony (approximately 56 acres) is located just over 

1 mile southwest of the Maysdorf II wildlife general analysis area. One small 

colony (approximately 34 acres in size) is located approximately 1 mile south of 

the West Coal Creek LBA Tract study area. 

Active mining would preclude other land uses. Recreational and grazing uses 

of the LBA tracts would be severely limited during mining. Oil and gas 

development would be curtailed and CBNG that is not recovered prior to 

mining would be irretrievably lost as the coal is removed. The surface of the 

tracts as applied for and approximately 97 percent of the tracts under the 

action alternatives is privately owned. 

Within 10 years after initiation of each reclamation phase, rangeland and 

wildlife use would return to near premining levels. The cumulative impacts of 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-33 
Executive Summary 

energy development (coal mining, oil and gas) in the PRB are and will continue 

to contribute to a reduction in hunting opportunities for some animals 

(pronghorn, mule deer, and sage grouse). 

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

Tracts have been surveyed for cultural resources at the Class I level. A 

majority of the tracts have been surveyed to a Class III level. A total of 74 

cultural sites and 60 isolated finds were documented in the survey areas. Of 

the 74 cultural sites, 44 are prehistoric, 21 are historic, and nine are multicomponent. Seven of the sites are recommended as eligible to the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and six are unevaluated. Until consultation 

with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has occurred and agreement 

regarding NRHP eligibility has been reached, all sites would be protected from 

disturbance. Any area within the LBA tracts not yet surveyed to a Class III 

level would require a Class III survey prior to disturbance. 

No sites of Native American religious or cultural importance have been 

identified on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf 

II LBA Tracts. Appropriate action must be taken to address concerns related to 

those sites if such sites or localities are identified at a later date. 

Some mining activities on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, 

and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts would be visible from Wyoming Highway 59 and 

several county roads in the vicinity of the tracts. Mining would affect 

landscapes classified by BLM as visual resource management (VRM) Class V, 

and the landscape character would not be significantly changed following 

reclamation. No unique visual resources have been identified on or near the 

LBA tracts. 

There are occupied dwellings and businesses located in the vicinity of the Belle 

Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts (Figures 

ES-11, ES-12, ES-13, and ES-14, respectively). These facilities would 

experience an adverse noise impact if mining activities (particularly blasting) 

occur within 2,500 ft of them under either the Proposed Actions or action 

alternatives. 

Leasing the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II 

LBA Tracts would extend the length of time that coal is shipped from the 

permitted Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines, respectively, 

which would extend the length of time that coal transportation facilities would 

be required. Vehicular traffic to and from the mines would continue for over 10 

additional years, depending on the LBA tracts involved and which alternatives 

are selected. Lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the ROW of a public 

road are considered unsuitable for leasing; however, they could be included in 

a tract to allow recovery of economically mineable coal outside of the ROW and 

buffer zone. Active pipelines and utility/power transmission lines would have 

to be relocated in accordance with previous agreements, or agreements would 

have to be negotiated for their removal or relocation. 

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

Royalty and bonus payments for the coal in the LBA tract would be collected by 

the federal government and split with the state. Assuming an average coal 

price of $9.98 per ton recovered and a potential range of bonus payments of 30 

to 97 cents per ton, the potential additional federal revenues from the four LBA 

tracts would range from approximately $1.1 to $1.5 billion, depending on the 

alternative selected and the bonus price at the time the coal is leased. The 

potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming from the four LBA tracts 

would range from $1.4 to $1.8 billion, depending on the alternative selected, 

the bonus price at the time the coal is leased, and the selling price of the coal. 

Mine life and employment (at or slightly above current levels) would be 

extended for over 10 additional years, depending on the LBA tracts involved 

and which alternatives are selected. 

With regard to Environmental Justice issues, it was determined that potentially 

adverse impacts do not disproportionately affect minorities, low-income groups 

or Native American tribes or groups. No tribal lands or Native American 

communities are included in this area, and no Native American treaty rights or 

Native American trust resources are known to exist for this area. 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected 

and the areas contained in the applications would not be offered for lease at 

this time. The tracts could be nominated for lease again in the future. Under 

the No Action Alternatives, the impacts described in the preceding paragraphs 

to topography and physiology, geology and minerals, soils, air quality, water 

resources, AVFs, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, T&E species, land use and 

recreation, cultural resources, Native American concerns, paleontological 

resources, visual resources, noise, transportation, and socioeconomics would 

occur due to mining the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo Mine coal leases, but these impacts would not be extended by mining onto 

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

Tracts, respectively. 

If impacts are identified during the leasing process that are not mitigated by 

existing required mitigation measures, BLM can include additional mitigation 

measures, in the form of stipulations on a new lease, within the limits of its 

regulatory authority. Any special stipulations identified by BLM where 

additional or increased monitoring measures are recommended to be added to 

the BLM leases are included in Appendix D of this EIS document. 

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

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

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

individually minor, but collectively significant, actions occurring over time. 

Since decertification of the Powder River Federal Coal Region in 1990, 19 coal 

leases containing more than 5.7 billion tons of federal coal have been issued 

following competitive sealed-bid sales. Three exchanges of federal coal in the 

Wyoming portion of the Powder River Federal Coal Region have also been 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-35 
 

 

Executive Summary 

completed. Thirteen additional coal lease applications, including the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tract applications, 

are currently pending. The pending LBA applications contain over 4.4 billion 

tons of coal. 

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

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

development in the PRB. The study evaluates current conditions as of a 

baseline year (2003) and projects development levels and potential associated 

cumulative impacts related to coal and coal-related development, oil and gas 

and related development, and other development through 2020. Due to 

variables associated with future coal production, two projected coal production 

scenarios (representing an upper and a lower production level) were developed. 

The projected development levels are based on projected demand and coal 

market forecasts and include production at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo Mines during the baseline year and projected production for 

2010, 2015, and 2020. 

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

but the Montana portion of the PRB is included in some studies. A series of 

reports have been prepared or are being prepared to present the result of the 

PRB Coal Review studies. The results of the PRB Coal Review studies that have 

been completed are summarized in Section 4.0 of this EIS. 

Cumulative impacts vary by resource, with potential impacts to air quality, 

groundwater quantity, wildlife habitat, and socioeconomics generally being the 

greatest concerns. 

The PRB Coal Review air quality study documents the modeled air quality 

impact of existing operations during 2002 and of projected development 

activities in 2010. The model was used to evaluate impacts of existing and 

projected source emissions on several source groups, including near-field 

receptors in Wyoming and Montana, receptors in nearby federally designated 

“Class I” areas, and receptors at “Class II” sensitive areas. The EPA guideline 

CALPUFF model system was used for the modeling analysis. 

The existing regional air quality conditions are generally very good, but the 

modeling showed substantial impacts at some receptors for years 2002 and 

2010. Table ES-8 presents the maximum modeled impacts on ambient air 

quality at the near-field receptors in Wyoming and Montana for 2002 and for 

the 2010 upper and lower coal development scenarios. Table ES-9 lists the 

projected modeled visibility impacts for 2002 for all analyzed Class I and 

sensitive Class II areas. For the upper and lower coal production scenarios, it 

shows the number of additional days that the impacts were projected to be 

greater than 1.0 dv (10 percent in extinction) for each site in 2010. 

ES-36 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1 

Table ES-8. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts (μg/m3). 

Pollutant 

NO2

Averaging 

Time 

Base 

Year 

(2002) 

Impacts 

2010 Lower 

Development 

Scenario 

Impacts 

2010 Upper 

Development 

Scenario 

Impacts NAAQS 

Wyoming 

AAQS 

M

Wyoming Near-field 

Annual 

37.3 42.4 49.0 100 100 

SO2 Annual 3.9 4.8 5.6 80 60 

24-hour 

14.5 33.5 34.8 365 260 

3-hour 

37.9 148.0 154.2 1,300 1300 

PM10 Annual 42.7 49.0 56.6 50 50 

24-hour 

335.5 378.8 439.9 150 150 

NO2 Annual 

1-hour 

8.85 

365.8 

Montana Near-field 

11.3 11.8 

415.9 519.5 

100 

--

--1 

--1 

SO2 Annual 

24-hour 3-hour 1-hour 

1.3 

18.9 74.7 

240.7 

2.3 

19.5 76.4 

246.4 

2.7 

20.4 79.8 

257.3 

80 

365 

1,300 

--

--1 

--1 

--1 

--1 

PM10 Annual 

24-hour 

19.6 

175.8 

22.5 

200.0 

27.7 

247.7 

50 

150 

--1 

--1 

No standard or increment. 

Bold values indicate exceedance of Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2006b) 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Table ES-9. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive 

Class II Areas. 

 2002 

2010 Lower 

Development 

Scenario 

2010 Upper 

Development 

Scenario 

Location 

No. of 

Days 

>10% 

Change in 

No. of Days 

> 10% 

Change in 

No. of Days 

> 10% 

Federally and Tribally Designated Class I Areas 

Badlands National Park 238 19 26 

Bob Marshall WA 12 2 4 

Bridger WA 47 4 7 

Fitzpatrick WA 42 3 5 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation 69 8 9 

Gates of the Mountain WA 14 6 7 

Grand Teton National Park 26 2 5 

North Absaroka WA 47 6 6 

North Cheyenne Indian Reservation 305 5 10 

Red Rock Lakes 16 3 5 

Scapegoat WA 14 4 4 

Teton WA 40 4 5 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park 98 15 22 

UL Bend WA 49 4 5 

Washakie WA 53 2 3 

Wind Cave National Park 261 11 15 

Yellowstone National Park 42 7 8 

Sensitive Class II Areas 

Absaroka Beartooth WA 53 3 5 

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 199 26 30 

Big Horn Canyon National Rec. Area 108 7 8 

Black Elk WA 263 16 22 

Cloud Peak WA 137 8 8 

Crow Indian Reservation 284 10 15 

Devils Tower National Monument 279 15 21 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 46 3 4 

Fort Laramie National Historic Site 153 27 30 

Jedediah Smith WA 23 1 2 

Jewel Cave National Monument 267 14 18 

Lee Metcalf WA 25 2 4 

Mount Naomi WA 8 6 8 

Mount Rushmore National Monument 248 19 25 

Popo Agie WA 47 7 8 

Soldier Creek WA 223 23 29 

Wellsville Mountain WA 6 5 7 

Wind River Indian Reservation 66 12 15 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2006a) 

ES-38 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 Executive Summary 

The PRB Coal Review groundwater and surface water studies are in progress, 

but a number of modeling analyses have previously been conducted to help 

predict the impacts of surface coal mining on groundwater resources in the 

PRB. In addition, each mine must monitor groundwater levels in the coal and 

underlying and overlying aquifers and assess the probable hydrologic 

consequences of mining as part of the mine permitting process. The 

monitoring programs track the extent of groundwater drawdown propagation to 

the west and the extent of recharge and quality of the water in the backfill 

areas of the mines. The monitoring data indicate that recharge is occurring in 

the backfill and that water from the backfill will generally be acceptable for 

premining uses, which is primarily livestock watering. Modeling and 

monitoring indicate that the groundwater drawdown impacts of coal mining 

and CBNG development are overlapping. 

The PRB Coal Review studies include an evaluation of the impacts to wildlife 

and aquatic species as of 2003 and an evaluation of the projected levels of 

disturbance in the PRB in 2010, 2015, and 2020, based on the projected 

development levels in those years. As discussed above, impacts to wildlife and 

fisheries can be classified as short-term and long-term. Short-term impacts 

are related to habitat disturbance during project development and operation. 

Long-term impacts result from changes in habitat after reclamation is 

completed. Habitat fragmentation can result from activities such as roads, well 

pads, mines, pipelines, and electrical power lines, as well as increased noise, 

elevated human presence, dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species, and 

dust from unpaved road traffic. 

The PRB Coal Review used the Regional Economic Models Inc. (REMI) Policy 

Insight regional economic model to project cumulative employment and 

population levels and associated impacts in the PRB for the upper and lower 

coal production scenarios in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Table ES-10 presents the 

recent and projected population levels for the counties included in the PRB 

Coal Review socioeconomic analysis. 

This DEIS presents BLM’s analysis of environmental impacts under authority 

of the NEPA and associated rules and guidelines. BLM will use this analysis to 

make a leasing decision. The decision to lease these lands is a necessary 

requisite for mining, but is not in itself the enabling action that will allow 

mining. The most detailed analysis prior to mine development would occur 

after the lease is issued, when the lessee files an application for a surface 

mining permit and mining plan approval, supported by extensive mining and 

reclamation plans, to the WDEQ/LQD. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ES-39 
 

Executive Summary 

Table ES-10. Recent and Projected PRB Population. 

Total 

Campbell Converse Crook Johnson Sheridan Weston Study 

Year County County County County County County Area 

Census 

2000 33,698 12,104 5,895 7,108 26,606 6,642 92,053 

2003 36,438 12,314 5,986 7,554 27,115 6,671 96,078 

2007 40,433 12,868 6,284 8,142 27,998 6,854 102,579 

Lower Coal Production Scenario 

2010 45,925 13,103 6,542 8,389 28,459 7,108 109,526 

2015 48,905 13,671 6,759 8,867 30,016 7,174 115,392 

2020 50,995 14,193 6,989 9,326 31,467 7,208 120,178 

Upper Coal Production Scenario 

2010 47,662 13,160 6,570 8,424 28,579 7,137 111,532 

2015 51,558 13,763 6,802 8,924 30,214 7,219 118,480 

2020 54,943 14,313 7,045 9,403 31,733 7,266 124,703 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2007 - historical data) and PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e) 

ES-40 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 


VOLUME 1 


EXECUTIVE SUMARY ................................................................................ES-1 


1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1-1 


1.1 	Background...............................................................................1-1 


1.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract................................................1-5 


1.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract ............................................1-10 


1.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract .................................................1-12 


1.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract....................................................1-14 


1.2 	 Purpose and Need for Action....................................................1-18 


1.3 	 Regulatory Authority and Responsibility ..................................1-20 


1.4 	 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs..................1-22 


1.5 	 Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans .............................1-22 


1.6 	 Consultation and Coordination................................................1-27 


2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..........................................2-1 


2.1 	 Alternatives for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract ...........................2-8 


2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Proposed Action ......................2-8 


2.1.2 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternative 1..........................2-13 


2.1.3 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternative 2..........................2-13 


2.2 	 Alternatives for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract........................2-16 


2.2.1 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Proposed Action...................2-16 


2.2.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternative 1........................2-20 


2.2.3 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternative 2........................2-20 


2.3 	 Alternatives for the Caballo West LBA Tract.............................2-22 


2.3.1 Caballo West LBA Tract Proposed Action........................2-22 


2.3.2 Caballo West LBA Tract Alternative 1 .............................2-26 


2.3.3 Caballo West LBA Tract Alternative 2 .............................2-26 


2.4 	 Alternatives for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract................................2-29 


2.4.1 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Proposed Action...........................2-29 


2.4.2 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 1................................2-35 


2.4.3 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 2................................2-36 


2.4.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 3................................2-39 


2.5 	 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail..................2-44 


2.5.1 New Mine Start ..............................................................2-44 


2.5.2 Delaying the Sale ...........................................................2-45 


2.6 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring.................2-47 


2.7 	 Hazardous and Solid Waste .....................................................2-48 


2.8 	 Summary of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences ....2-55 


2.8.1 Background ...................................................................2-55 


2.8.2 Summary of Alternatives................................................2-55 


3.0 	 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 


 CONSEQUENCES...............................................................................3-1 


3.1 	General Setting .........................................................................3-7 


Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications i 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.1.1 Climate and Meteorology..................................................3-7 


3.2 Topography and Physiography...................................................3-8 


3.2.1 Affected Environment.......................................................3-8 


3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ..........................................3-9 


3.2.2.1 	 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives........3-9 


3.2.2.2 	 No Action Alternative...................................3-11 


3.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring ........3-11 


3.2.4 Residual Impacts ...........................................................3-12 


3.3 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology .........................3-12 


3.3.1 General Geology and Coal Resources..........................3-12 


3.3.1.1 	Affected Environment ..................................3-12 


3.3.1.2 	Environmental Consequences......................3-14 


3.3.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives .................................3-14 


3.3.1.2.1.1 	 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract........................3-14 

3.3.1.2.1.2 	 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract........................3-15 


3.3.1.2.1.3 	 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract........................3-15 

3.3.1.2.1.4 	 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract........................3-15 

3.3.1.2.2 	No Action Alternative ...................3-16 


3.3.1.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


 Monitoring...................................................3-16 


3.3.1.4 Residual Impacts...........................................3-17 


3.3.2 Other Mineral Resources................................................3-17 


3.3.2.1 Affected Environment ....................................3-17 


3.3.2.1.1 Conventional Oil and Gas ............3-17 


3.3.2.1.2 Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) ......3-18 


3.3.2.1.3 Other Minerals.............................3-20 


3.3.2.2 	Environmental Consequences......................3-20 


3.3.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives .................................3-20 


3.3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ...................3-22 


3.3.2.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring...................................................3-22 


3.3.2.4 	Residual Impacts.........................................3-24 


3.3.3 Paleontology...................................................................3-24 


3.3.3.1 	Affected Environment ..................................3-24 


3.3.3.2 	Environmental Consequences......................3-25 


3.3.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives .................................3-25 


3.3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ...................3-26 


3.3.3.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring...................................................3-26 


ii Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.3.3.4 	Residual Impacts.........................................3-26 


3.4 Air Quality...............................................................................3-26 


3.4.1 Background ...............................................................3-27 


3.4.1.1 	Emission Sources........................................3-27 


3.4.2 Particulate Emissions.................................................3-28 


3.4.2.1 	 Affected Environment for Particulate 


 Emissions ...................................................3-28 


3.4.2.2 	 Environmental Consequences Related to 


Particulate Emissions..................................3-30 


3.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives .................................3-36 


3.4.2.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract .........................3-37 


3.4.2.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract .........................3-41 


3.4.2.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract .........................3-45 


3.4.2.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract .........................3-47 


3.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative .................3-54 


3.4.2.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and 


Monitoring for Particulate Emissions ...........3-54 


3.4.3 Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides .....................................3-57 


3.4.3.1 	 Affected Environment for NOx Emissions .....3-57 


3.4.3.1.1 Site Specific NOx Emissions .........3-58 


3.4.3.1.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract .........................3-58 


3.4.3.1.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract .........................3-59 


3.4.3.1.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract .........................3-59 


3.4.3.1.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract .........................3-60 


3.4.3.2 	 Environmental Consequences Related to Short-


Term NOx Emissions....................................3-60 


3.4.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives .................................3-62 


3.4.3.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract .........................3-63 


3.4.3.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract .........................3-63 


3.4.3.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract .........................3-63 


3.4.3.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract .........................3-63 


3.4.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ...................3-65 


Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications iii 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.4.3.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and 


Monitoring for NOx Emissions......................3-65 


3.4.4 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) ............................3-68 


3.4.4.1 	Visibility......................................................3-68 


3.4.4.1.1 Affected Environment for 


 Visibility ......................................3-69 


3.4.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences for 


Visibility ......................................3-69 


3.4.4.1.2.1 Proposed Action and 


Action Alternatives ....3-69 


3.4.4.1.2.2 No Action Alternative.3-72 

3.4.4.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, 


and Monitoring for Visibility 


 Impacts .......................................3-72 


3.4.4.2 	 Acidification of Lakes...................................3-73 


3.4.4.2.1 Affected Environment..................3-74 


3.4.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences .....3-74 


3.4.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and 


 Action Alternatives ....3-74 


3.4.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative.3-75 

3.4.4.2.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, 


 and Monitoring ...........................3-75 


3.4.5 Residual Impacts to Air Quality..................................3-75 


3.5 Water Resources......................................................................3-76 


3.5.1 Groundwater..............................................................3-76 


3.5.1.1 	Affected Environment ..................................3-76 


3.5.1.1.1 Recent Alluvium ..........................3-76 


3.5.1.1.2 Wasatch Formation......................3-79 


3.5.1.1.3 Wyodak-Anderson Coal................3-80 


3.5.1.1.4 Subcoal Fort Union Formation.....3-82 


3.5.1.1.5 Lance Formation-Fox Hills 


 Sandstone ...................................3-83 


3.5.1.2 	Environmental Consequences......................3-84 


3.5.1.2.1 	 Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives ...............................3-84 


3.5.1.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract .........................3-88 


3.5.1.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract .........................3-93 


3.5.1.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract .........................3-97 


3.5.1.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-102 


3.5.1.2.2 	 No Action Alternative ............... 3-105 


3.5.1.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring................................................. 3-106 


iv Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.5.2 Surface Water .......................................................... 3-107 


3.5.2.1 	Affected Environment ................................ 3-107 


3.5.2.2 	Environmental Consequences.................... 3-111 


3.5.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives ............................... 3-111 


3.5.2.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-112 


3.5.2.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract ....................... 3-113 


3.5.2.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-113 


3.5.2.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-113 


3.5.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ................. 3-114 


3.5.2.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring................................................. 3-114 


3.5.3 Water Rights ............................................................ 3-115 


3.5.3.1 	Affected Environment ................................ 3-115 


3.5.3.2 	Environmental Consequences.................... 3-118 


3.5.3.2.1 	 Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives ............................. 3-118 


3.5.3.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-119 


3.5.3.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA 


Tract ....................... 3-119 


3.5.3.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-120 


3.5.3.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract ....................... 3-120 


3.5.3.2.2 	 No Action Alternative ............... 3-121 


3.5.3.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and 


Monitoring................................................. 3-121 


3.5.4 Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-121 


3.6 Alluvial Valley Floors ............................................................. 3-122 


3.6.1 Affected Environment............................................... 3-122 


3.6.1.1 	 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract.......................... 3-122 


3.6.1.2 	 West Coal Creek LBA Tract........................ 3-123 


3.6.1.3 	 Caballo West LBA Tract............................. 3-124 


3.6.1.4 	 Maysdorf II LBA Tract................................ 3-124 


3.6.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-126 


3.6.2.1 	 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives.... 3-126 


3.6.2.2 	 No Action Alternative................................. 3-127 


3.6.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-128 


3.6.4 Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-128 


3.7 Wetlands............................................................................... 3-129 


3.7.1 Affected Environment............................................... 3-129 


Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications v 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.7.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract.......................... 3-131 


3.7.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract........................ 3-131 


3.7.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract............................. 3-133 


3.6.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract................................ 3-134 


3.7.2 	Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-135 


3.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives.... 3-135 


3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-136 


3.7.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-136 


3.7.4 	Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-137 


3.8 Soils...................................................................................... 3-137 


3.8.1 	Affected Environment............................................... 3-137 


3.8.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract.......................... 3-138 


3.8.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract........................ 3-139 


3.8.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract............................. 3-139 


3.8.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract................................ 3-139 


3.8.2 	Environmental Consequences ................................... 3-139 


3.8.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives.... 3-139 


3.8.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract .......... 3-140 


3.8.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract ........ 3-141 


3.8.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract ............. 3-141 


3.8.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract ................ 3-141 


3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-142 


3.8.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-142 


3.8.4 	Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-143 


3.9 Vegetation ............................................................................. 3-143 


3.9.1 	Affected Environment............................................... 3-143 


3.9.2 	Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-145 


3.9.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives.... 3-145 


3.9.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-148 


3.9.3 	 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Plant 


Species, and BLM Sensitive Species.......................... 3-148 


3.9.4 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-148 


3.9.5 	Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-149 


3.10 Wildlife.................................................................................. 3-149 


3.10.1 	General Setting ........................................................ 3-149 


3.10.1.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-149 


3.10.1.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-151 


3.10.1.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives ............................. 3-151 


3.10.1.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-152 


3.10.2 	Big Game ................................................................. 3-152 


3.10.2.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-152 


3.10.2.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-154 


3.10.2.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives ............................. 3-154 


3.10.2.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-155 


vi Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table of Contents 

3.10.3 

3.10.4 

3.10.5 

3.10.6 

3.10.7 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Other Mammals ....................................................... 3-155 


3.10.3.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-155 


3.10.3.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-161 


3.10.3.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives ............................. 3-161 


3.10.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-161 


Raptors .................................................................... 3-161 


3.10.4.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-161 


3.10.4.1.1 	Belle Ayr North LBA Tract........ 3-162 


3.10.4.1.2 	West Coal Creek LBA Tract...... 3-162 


3.10.4.1.3 	Caballo West LBA Tract ........... 3-163 


3.10.4.1.4 	Maysdorf II LBA Tract.............. 3-163 


3.10.4.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-164 


3.10.4.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives ............................. 3-164 


3.10.4.2.1.1 	Belle Ayr North 


 LBA Tract ........... 3-164 

3.10.4.2.1.2 	West Coal Creek 


 LBA Tract ........... 3-164 

3.10.4.2.1.3 	Caballo West LBA 


 Tract................... 3-165 

3.10.4.2.1.4 	Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract................... 3-165 

3.10.4.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-165 


Upland Game Birds.................................................. 3-166 


3.10.5.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-166 


3.10.5.1.1 	Belle Ayr North LBA Tract........ 3-170 


3.10.5.1.2 	West Coal Creek LBA Tract...... 3-170 


3.10.5.1.3 	Caballo West LBA Tract ........... 3-171 


3.10.5.1.4 	Maysdorf II LBA Tract.............. 3-172 


3.10.5.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-173 


3.10.5.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives ............................. 3-173 


Other Birds .............................................................. 3-177 


3.10.6.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-177 


3.10.6.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-180 


3.10.6.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives ............................. 3-180 


3.10.6.2.2 No Action Alternative ............... 3-181 


Amphibians, Reptiles, and Aquatic Species............... 3-181 


3.10.7.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-181 


3.10.7.1.1 	Belle Ayr North LBA Tract........ 3-182 


3.10.7.1.2 	West Coal Creek LBA Tract...... 3-182 


3.10.7.1.3 	Caballo West LBA Tract ........... 3-183 


3.10.7.1.4 	Maysdorf II LBA Tract.............. 3-183 


Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications vii 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.10.7.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-184 


3.10.7.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives ............................. 3-184 


3.10.7.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-184 


3.10.8 	 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate 


Animal Species, and BLM Sensitive Species.............. 3-184 


3.10.9 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring... 3-184 


3.10.10 Residual Impacts...................................................... 3-187 


3.11 Land Use and Recreation....................................................... 3-188 


3.11.1 	Affected Environment............................................... 3-188 


3.11.2 	Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-202 


3.11.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives.... 3-202 


3.11.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-204 


3.11.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-204 


3.11.4 	Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-204 


3.12 Cultural Resources................................................................ 3-205 


3.12.1 	Affected Environment............................................... 3-205 


3.12.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract......................... 3-208 


3.12.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract ....................... 3-209 


3.12.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract ............................ 3-209 


3.12.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract............................... 3-210 


3.12.2 	Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-211 


3.12.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives ... 3-211 


3.12.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................ 3-212 


3.12.3 	 Native American Consultation ................................. 3-212 


3.12.4 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-213 


3.12.5 	Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-213 


3.13 Visual Resources................................................................... 3-213 


3.13.1 	Affected Environment .............................................. 3-213 


3.13.2 	Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-214 


3.13.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives.... 3-214 


3.13.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-215 


3.13.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-215 


3.13.4 	Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-216 


3.14 Noise..................................................................................... 3-216 


3.14.1 	Affected Environment .............................................. 3-216 


3.14.2 	Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-218 


3.14.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives.... 3-218 


3.14.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-219 


3.14.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-219 


3.14.4 	Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-219 


3.15 Transportation ...................................................................... 3-219 


3.15.1 	Affected Environment .............................................. 3-219 


3.15.2 	Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-229 


3.15.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives.... 3-229 


3.15.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-230 


viii Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.15.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-230 


3.15.4 Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-231 


3.15.4.1 Coal Loss During Transport...................... 3-231 


3.16 Hazardous and Solid Waste ................................................... 3-233 


3.16.1 Affected Environment .............................................. 3-233 


3.16.2 Environmental Consequences.................................. 3-233 


3.16.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives.... 3-233 


3.16.2.2 No Action Alternative................................. 3-234 


3.16.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-234 


3.16.4 Residual Impacts..................................................... 3-234 


3.17 Socioeconomics ..................................................................... 3-234 


3.17.1 Local Economy ........................................................ 3-234 


3.17.1.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-234 


3.17.1.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-236 


3.17.1.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


Alternatives ............................ 3-236 


3.17.1.2.1.1 	 Belle Ayr North 


 LBA Tract.......... 3-238 

3.17.1.2.1.2 	 West Coal Creek 


 LBA Tract.......... 3-239 

3.17.1.2.1.3 	Caballo West 


 LBA Tract.......... 3-239 

3.17.1.2.1.4 	 Maysdorf II LBA 


 Tract ................. 3-239 

3.17.1.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-240 


3.17.2 Population............................................................... 3-240 


3.17.2.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-240 


3.17.2.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-240 


3.17.2.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


 Alternatives ............................. 3-240 


3.17.2.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-241 


3.17.3 Employment............................................................ 3-241 


3.17.3.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-241 


3.17.3.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-242 


3.17.3.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


 Alternatives ............................. 3-242 


3.17.3.2.1.1 	 Belle Ayr North 


LBA Tract.......... 3-242 


3.17.3.2.1.2 	 West Coal Creek 


LBA Tract.......... 3-242 


3.17.3.2.1.3 	 Caballo West LBA 


Tract ................. 3-242 


3.17.3.2.1.4 	 Maysdorf II LBA 


Tract ................. 3-242 


3.17.3.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-243 


3.17.4 Housing................................................................... 3-243 


Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications ix 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

3.17.4.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-243 


3.17.4.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-245 


3.17.4.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


 Alternatives ............................. 3-245 


3.17.4.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-245 


3.17.5 Local Government Facilities and Services................. 3-246 


3.17.5.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-246 


3.17.5.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-247 


3.17.5.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


 Alternatives ............................. 3-247 


3.17.5.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-247 


3.17.6 Social Setting .......................................................... 3-248 


3.17.6.1 Affected Environment ............................... 3-248 


3.17.6.2 Environmental Consequences................... 3-248 


3.17.6.2.1 	 Proposed Action and 


Alternatives 2 and 3................ 3-248 


3.17.6.2.2 	 No Action Alternative .............. 3-248 


3.17.7 Environmental Justice............................................. 3-249 


3.17.7.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-249 


3.17.7.2 Environmental Consequences.................... 3-249 


3.17.7.2.1 	Proposed Action and Action 


 Alternatives ............................. 3-249 


3.17.7.2.2 	No Action Alternative ............... 3-250 


3.17.8 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .. 3-250 


3.17.9 Residual Effects....................................................... 3-250 


3.17.9.1 Human Health Impact Assessment ........... 3-250 


3.18 	Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Plant Related Emissions 


 and By-Products.................................................................... 3-251 


3.18.1 Local Area............................................................... 3-251 


3.18.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................... 3-253 


3.19 	Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources....... 3-255 


4.0 	 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...........................4-1 


4.1 	 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Development ...........4-2 


4.1.1 Coal Development........................................................4-4 


4.1.1.1 Coal Mine Development .................................4-4 


4.1.1.2 Coal-Related Development...........................4-14 


4.1.1.2.1 	Coal Transportation...................4-14 


4.1.1.2.2 	 Electric Power Generation..........4-15 


4.1.1.2.3 	Transmission Lines....................4-17 


4.1.1.2.4 	 Coal Conversion Technology ......4-17 


4.1.2 Oil and Gas Development ..........................................4-19 


4.1.2.1 Conventional Oil and Gas............................4-19 


4.1.2.2 CBNG Development.....................................4-20 


4.1.2.3 Oil and Gas Related Development................4-21 


4.1.2.3.1 	Pipelines....................................4-22 


x Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

4.1.2.3.2 Refineries ..................................4-24 


4.1.3 	 Other Development Activity .......................................4-24 


4.1.3.1 	Other Mining...............................................4-24 


4.1.3.2 	Industrial Manufacturing ............................4-25 


4.1.3.3 	Wind Power .................................................4-25 


4.1.3.4 	Reservoirs ...................................................4-26 


4.1.3.5 	 Other Non-Energy Development...................4-26 


4.2 Cumulative Environmental Consequences ...............................4-27 


4.2.1 	 Topography and Physiography...................................4-30 


4.2.2 	 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology ...........4-31 


4.2.2.1 	Coal ............................................................4-31 


4.2.2.2 	 Oil and Gas .................................................4-32 


4.2.2.3 	 Other Mineral Resources .............................4-32 


4.2.2.4 	Paleontology ................................................4-32 


4.2.3 	Air Quality.................................................................4-33 


4.2.4 	Water Resources........................................................4-43 


4.2.4.1 	Groundwater ..............................................4-44 


4.2.4.2 	Surface Water.............................................4-53 


4.2.5 	Channel Stability.......................................................4-59 


4.2.6 	 Alluvial Valley Floors .................................................4-60 


4.2.7 	Soils..........................................................................4-60 


4.2.8 	 Vegetation, Wetlands and Riparian Areas ..................4-61 


4.2.8.1 	Vegetation ..................................................4-61 


4.2.8.2 	 Special Status Plant Species .......................4-62 


4.2.8.3 	 Noxious and Invasive Weed Species ............4-63 


4.2.8.4 	 Wetland and Riparian Species ....................4-64 


4.2.9 	 Wildlife and Fisheries ................................................4-65 


4.2.9.1 	Game Species .............................................4-65 


4.2.9.2 	Nongame Species........................................4-68 


4.2.9.3 	Fisheries.....................................................4-69 


4.2.9.4 	 Special Status Species ................................4-72 


4.2.10 	 Land Use and Recreation...........................................4-75 


4.2.10.1 	Grazing and Agriculture..............................4-76 


4.2.10.2 Urban Use ..................................................4-77 


4.2.10.3 Recreation ..................................................4-77 


4.2.11 	 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns....4-79 


4.2.11.1 Prehistoric Sites..........................................4-81 


4.2.11.2 Historic Sites ..............................................4-81 


4.2.11.3 	Native American Traditional Cultural 


 Places.........................................................4-81 


4.2.11.4 Site Protection ............................................4-82 


4.2.12 	Transportation and Utilities.......................................4-82 


4.2.13 	Socioeconomics .........................................................4-84 


4.2.13.1 	Employment and the Economic Base ..........4-86 


4.2.13.2 	Labor Market Conditions ............................4-88 


4.2.13.3 Personal Income .........................................4-88 


Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

4.2.13.4 	Population and Demographics ....................4-89 


4.2.13.5 Housing......................................................4-92 


4.2.13.6 Public Education ........................................4-94 


4.2.13.7 	Facilities and Services ................................4-96 


4.2.13.8 Fiscal Conditions........................................4-97 


4.2.13.9 Social Setting............................................ 4-100 


4.2.14 	 Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Plant Related 

Emissions and By-Products..................................... 4-102 

4.2.14.1	 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse 

 Gas Emissions.......................................... 4-103 

4.2.14.2	 Mercury, Coal Combustion Residues, and 

 Other By-Products.................................... 4-113 

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...............................................5-1 


6.0 REFERENCES CITED .........................................................................6-1 


7.0 GLOSSARY .........................................................................................7-1 


8.0 INDEX ................................................................................................8-1 


LIST OF TABLES 

Table ES-1. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Belle Ayr North 

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County 

Road 12) is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.....ES-11 

Table ES-2. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Belle Ayr North 

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County 

Road 12) is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not 

Recovered............................................................................ES-12 

Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Coal Creek 

LBA Tract and Coal Creek Mine...........................................ES-13 

Table ES-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Caballo West 

LBA Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (County 

Road 12) is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.....ES-14 

Table ES-5. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Caballo West 

LBA Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (County 

Road 12) is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not 

Recovered............................................................................ES-15 


xii Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Table ES-6. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59 and the BNSF & UP 

Railroad are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not 

Recovered and if the Haight and Hilight Roads and the 

Maysdorf Point Cemetery are Moved and the Underlying 

Coal is Recovered ................................................................ES-16 

Table ES-7.	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59, the Haight and 

Hilight Roads, the Maysdorf Point Cemetery, and the BNSF 

& UP Railroad are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is 

Not Recovered .....................................................................ES-17 

Table ES-8. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts .................ES-37 

Table ES-9. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and 

Sensitive Class II Areas .......................................................ES-38 

Table ES-10. Recent and Projected PRB Population..................................ES-40 

Table 1-1. Leases Issued and Exchanges Completed Since 

Decertification, Powder River Basin, Wyoming .........................1-6 

Table 1-2. Pending LBAs and Exchanges, Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming .................................................................................1-8 

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Measures for Surface Coal Mining Operations Required by 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives..............................2-49 

Table 2-2. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Belle Ayr North 

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County 

Road 12) is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered.......2-56 

Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Belle Ayr North 

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County 

Road 12) is Not Moved and Underlying Coal is Not 

Recovered..............................................................................2-57 

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for West Coal Creek 

LBA Tract and Coal Creek Mine.............................................2-58 

Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Caballo West LBA 

Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (County Road 12) 

is Moved and the Underlying Coal is Recovered .....................2-59 

Table 2-6. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Caballo West LBA 

Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (County Road 12) 

is Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered .........2-60 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xiii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Table 2-7. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59 and the BNSF & 

UP Railroad are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not 

Recovered and if the Haight and Hilight Roads and the 

Maysdorf Point Cemetery are Moved and the Underlying 

Coal is Recovered ..................................................................2-61 

Table 2-8. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface 

Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenues for Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59, the Haight and 

Hilight Roads and the Maysdorf Point Cemetery, and the 

BNSF & UP Railroad are Not Moved and the Underlying 

Coal is Not Recovered ............................................................2-62 

Table 2-9. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of 

Direct and Indirect Impacts for the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract............................................................2-63 

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of 

Cumulative Impacts ..............................................................2-70 


Table 3-1. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Belle Ayr Mine 

Disturbance Area and Mine Operations ...................................3-4 

Table 3-2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Coal Creek Mine 

Disturbance Area and Mine Operations ...................................3-4 

Table 3-3. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Caballo Mine 

Disturbance Area and Mine Operations ...................................3-5 

Table 3-4. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Cordero Rojo Mine 

Disturbance Area and Mine Operations ...................................3-5 

Table 3-5. Average Overburden, Interburden, and Coal Thicknesses 

and Approximate Postmining Surface Elevation Changes of 

the Four LBA Tracts ..............................................................3-10 

Table 3-6. Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations, 

Applicable AAQS, and PSD Increment Values ........................3-29 

Table 3-7. Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data ..............................3-67 

Table 3-8. 2002 Through 2007 Annual Mean NO2 Concentration 

 Data......................................................................................3-67 

Table 3-9. Approximate Distances and Directions from the General 

South Gillette Analysis Area to PSD Class I and Class II 

Sensitive Receptor Areas .......................................................3-70 

Table 3-10. Existing Acid Neutralizing Capacity in Sensitive Lakes...........3-74 

Table 3-11. Vegetation Types Identified and Mapped Within the 

Combined LBA Vegetation General Analysis Areas............... 3-145 

Table 3-12. Distribution of Surface Ownership Within the Each LBA 

Tract Study Area ................................................................. 3-188 


xiv Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Table 3-13. Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of 

 Record................................................................................. 3-198 

Table 3-14. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of 


 Record................................................................................. 3-198 

Table 3-15. Caballo West LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of 


 Record................................................................................. 3-198 

Table 3-16. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of 


 Record................................................................................. 3-199 

Table 3-17. Noise Related Impacts for the SGAC LBA Tracts .................. 3-218 


Table 3-18. Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the South 


Gillette Analysis Area LBA Tracts Under the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives 2 and 3........................................... 3-238 


Table 3-19. Estimated Equivalent CO2 Emissions* at the SGAC Mines ... 3-255 


Table 4-1. Status and Ownership of Wyoming PRB Coal Mines for 

2003, the PRB Coal Review Baseline Year................................4-6 


Table 4-2. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine 


Development, Lower Coal Production Scenario ......................4-10 


Table 4-3. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine 


Development, Upper Coal Production Scenario ......................4-11 


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


 Development Scenario ...........................................................4-14 

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


Coal-Related Development Scenario.......................................4-19 


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


Oil and Gas Development Scenario........................................4-20 


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


for the Wyoming PRB.............................................................4-22 


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


Related Development Disturbance and Water Production.......4-22 


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


Development Scenario – Task 3 Study Area ...........................4-30 


Table 4-10. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts ...................4-36 


Table 4-11. Maximum Predicted PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II


 Area Impacts.........................................................................4-39 

Table 4-12. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and 


Sensitive Class II Areas .........................................................4-40 


Table 4-13. Predicted Total Cumulative Change in Acid Neutralizing 


Capacity of Sensitive Lakes ...................................................4-42 


Table 4-14. Recoverable Groundwater in the Fort Union/Wasatch 


Aquifer System......................................................................4-44 


Table 4-15. Water Use as of 2002 in the Powder/Tongue River Basin.......4-54 


Table 4-16. Surface Water Availability in the Powder/Tongue River 


Basin ....................................................................................4-54 


Table 4-17. Water Use as of 2002 in the Northeast Wyoming River 


 Basins...................................................................................4-55 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Table 4-18. Surface Water Availability in the Northeast Wyoming River 

 Basins...................................................................................4-55 

Table 4-19. Summary of Proposed Limits for SAR and EC ........................4-57 

Table 4-20. Impact of CBNG Production Water on Perennial Streams.......4-59 

Table 4-21. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Pronghorn Ranges 

from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal 

Production Scenarios.............................................................4-66 

Table 4-22. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to White-tailed Deer 

Ranges from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal 

 Production Scenarios.............................................................4-67 

Table 4-23. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Mule Deer Ranges 

from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal 

 Production Scenarios.............................................................4-67 

Table 4-24. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Elk Ranges from 

Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

 Scenarios ..............................................................................4-67 

Table 4-25. Potential Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-grouse Leks 

from Coal Mine Development - Upper and Lower Coal 

 Production Scenarios.............................................................4-75 

Table 4-26. Land Use by Surface Ownership............................................4-76 

Table 4-27. AUMs and Acres of Cropland Estimated Unavailable on 

Lands Disturbed and Not Yet Reclaimed as a Result of 

Development Activities ..........................................................4-77 

Table 4-28. Square Miles of Projected Cumulative Disturbance and 

Number of Potentially Affected Cultural Resource Sites in 

the PRB Coal Review Task 3 Study Area – Lower and Upper 

Coal Production Scenarios.....................................................4-80 


Table 4-29. PRB Rail Lines Coal Hauling Capacity and Projected Use.......4-84 


Table 4-30. Recent and Projected PRB Population....................................4-90 


Table 4-31. Rental Housing Vacancy Rates, 2004 4Q and 2006 4Q..........4-92 


Table 4-32. Total Housing Stock in 2000 and 2005..................................4-92 


Table 4-33. Monthly Housing Rents in 20061 in the PRB Study Area 


And Percent Change from 2004 .............................................4-93 

Table 4-34. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated 

with Energy Resource Production Under the Lower Coal 

 Production Scenario ..............................................................4-99 

Table 4-35. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated 

with Energy Resource Production Under the Upper Coal 

 Production Scenario ..............................................................4-99 

Table 4-36. Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source (2007 and 

2030) .................................................................................. 4-110 

Table 4-37. Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source (2007 and 

2030) Under a Reduced CO2 Emissions Scenario................. 4-111 

Table 4-38. 2004 Percent Contribution to Worldwide Anthropogenic 

 Mercury Emissions.............................................................. 4-115 

xvi Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 


LIST OF FIGURES 


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

Tracts.................................................................................ES-2 

Figure ES-2. Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives ...............................ES-3 

Figure ES-3. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives..............................ES-4 

Figure ES-4. Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives...................................ES-5 

Figure ES-5. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives......................................ES-6 

Figure ES-6. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Belle Ayr Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2013 ...ES-20 

Figure ES-7. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 

2016 ................................................................................ES-21 

Figure ES-8. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Caballo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2014 .....ES-22 

Figure ES-9. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Cordero Rojo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 

2007 ................................................................................ES-24 

Figure ES-10. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the Belle 

Ayr North LBA Study Area ................................................ES-25 

Figure ES-11. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West Coal 

Creek LBA Study Area ......................................................ES-26 

Figure ES-12. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the Caballo 

West LBA Study Area .......................................................ES-27 

Figure ES-13. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the 

Maysdorf II LBA Study Area..............................................ES-28 

Figure ES-14. Extrapolated Extent of Life of Mine Cumulative Drawdown 

Within the Wyodak Coal Aquifer With the Addition of the 

South Gillette Area Coal LBA Tracts .................................ES-30 


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

Tract .......................................................................................1-2 

Figure 1-2. Belle Ayr Mine’s Federal Coal Leases and Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract as Applied for .................................................................1-9 

Figure 1-3. Coal Creek Mine’s Federal Coal Leases and West Coal Creek 

LBA Tract as Applied for........................................................1-11 

Figure 1-4. Caballo Mine’s Federal Coal Leases and Caballo West LBA 

Tract as Applied for ...............................................................1-13 

Figure 1-5. Cordero Rojo Mine’s Federal Coal Leases and Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract as Applied for ...............................................................1-15 


Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xvii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

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


Figure 2-2. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives...................................2-3 


Figure 2-3. Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives........................................2-4 


Figure 2-4. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives...........................................2-5 


Figure 3-1. General South Gillette Analysis Area .......................................3-3 


Figure 3-2. Stratigraphic Relationship and Hydrologic Characteristics of 

Upper Cretaceous, Lower Tertiary, and Recent Geologic Units, 

PRB, Wyoming.......................................................................3-13 

Figure 3-3. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the 

Belle Ayr Mine.......................................................................3-31 

Figure 3-4. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the 

Coal Creek Mine....................................................................3-32 

Figure 3-5. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the 

Caballo Mine .........................................................................3-33 

Figure 3-6. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the 

Cordero Rojo Mine.................................................................3-34 

Figure 3-7. Annual Coal Production and Overburden Removal vs. 

Ambient Particulates for the General South Gillette Analysis 

Area ......................................................................................3-35 

Figure 3-8. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Belle Ayr Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2008 ........3-39 

Figure 3-9. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Belle Ayr Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2013 ........3-40 

Figure 3-10. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the Belle Ayr 

North LBA Study Area ...........................................................3-42 

Figure 3-11. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2009 .....3-43 

Figure 3-12. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2016 .....3-44 

Figure 3-13. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West 

Coal Creek LBA Study Area ...................................................3-46 

Figure 3-14. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Caballo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2008 ..........3-48 

Figure 3-15. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Caballo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2014 ..........3-49 

Figure 3-16. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the West 

Caballo West LBA Study Area................................................3-50 

Figure 3-17. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Cordero Rojo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2005..3-52 

Figure 3-18. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the 

Cordero Rojo Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2007..3-53 

xviii Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Figure 3-19. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other 

Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 3 Miles of the 

Maysdorf II LBA Study Area...................................................3-55 

Figure 3-20. Visibility in the Badlands and Bridger Wilderness Area..........3-71 

Figure 3-21. Belle Ayr Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map, Resulting from 

Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the Belle Ayr 

North LBA Tract ....................................................................3-91 

Figure 3-22. Coal Creek Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map, Resulting from 

Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the West Coal 

Creek LBA Tract ....................................................................3-95 

Figure 3-23. Caballo Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map, Resulting from 

Currently Approved Mining with the Addition of the Caballo 

West LBA Tract ................................................................... 3-100 

Figure 3-24. Surface Drainage in the General South Gillette Analysis 

Area .................................................................................... 3-108 

Figure 3-25. Raptor Nest Sites and Sage-Grouse Leks Within and Adjacent 

to the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract.......................................... 3-157 

Figure 3-26. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies 

Within and Adjacent to the West Coal Creek LBA Tract........ 3-158 

Figure 3-27. Raptor Nest Sites and Sage-Grouse Leks Within and Adjacent 

to the Caballo West LBA Tract ............................................. 3-159 

Figure 3-28. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies 

Within and Adjacent to the Maysdorf II LBA Tract................ 3-160 

Figure 3-29. General South Gillette Analysis Area and Associated BLM 

Sage-Grouse Focus Areas.................................................... 3-168 

Figure 3-30. Average Male Sage-grouse Lek Attendance Within the 

Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area 

 (1968-2006) ........................................................................ 3-175 

Figure 3-31. Average Male Sage-grouse Lek Attendance Statewide and 

Within the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-grouse Working 

Group Area and the Thunder Basin National Grasslands 

 (1995-2006) ........................................................................ 3-175 

Figure 3-32. Surface Ownership Within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Alternatives......................................................................... 3-189 

Figure 3-33. Surface Ownership Within the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Alternatives......................................................................... 3-190 

Figure 3-34. Surface Ownership Within the Caballo West LBA Tract 

Alternatives......................................................................... 3-191 

Figure 3-35. Surface Ownership Within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Alternatives......................................................................... 3-192 

Figure 3-36. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives ................................ 3-194 

Figure 3-37. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives............................... 3-195 

Figure 3-38. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the 

Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives.................................... 3-196 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xix 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Figure 3-39. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives....................................... 3-197 

Figure 3-40. Relationship Between A-Scale Decibel Readings and Sounds 

of Daily Life ......................................................................... 3-217 

Figure 3-41. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the Belle 

Ayr North LBA Tract ............................................................ 3-220 

Figure 3-42. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the West 

Coal Creek LBA Tract .......................................................... 3-221 

Figure 3-43. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the 

Caballo West LBA Tract....................................................... 3-222 

Figure 3-44. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract.......................................................... 3-223 

Figure 3-45. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Belle Ayr 

North LBA Tract .................................................................. 3-224 

Figure 3-46. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the West Coal 

Creek LBA Tract .................................................................. 3-225 

Figure 3-47. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Caballo 

West LBA Tract ................................................................... 3-226 

Figure 3-48. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Maysdorf 

II LBA Tract......................................................................... 3-227 

Figure 3-49. Estimated Wyoming and Federal Revenues from 2006 Coal 

Production in Campbell County........................................... 3-237 


Figure 4-1. Wyoming Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating 

Current and Projected Levels of Development ..........................4-3 

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

1990 .......................................................................................4-5 

Figure 4-3. Projected Total Coal Production from Campbell and Converse 

Counties Under the Lower and Upper Production Scenarios ....4-9 

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

Evaluating Projected Environmental Consequences ...............4-29 

Figure 4-5. Extrapolated Extent of Life of mine Cumulative Drawdown 

Within the Wyodak Coal Aquifer With the Addition of the 

South Gillette Area Coal LBA Tracts ......................................4-48 

Figure 4-6. Projected Campbell County Population and Employment to 

 2020 .....................................................................................4-91 

Figure 4-7. Projected Housing Demand in the PRB Study Area Under 

the Lower Coal Production Scenario ......................................4-94 

Figure 4-8. Projected School Enrollment to 2020 Under the Lower Coal 

 Production Scenario ..............................................................4-96 

xx Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

VOLUME 2 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Federal and State Agencies and Permitting Requirements 

Appendix B. Unsuitability Criteria for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

Appendix C. Coal Lease-By-Application Flow Chart 

Appendix D. Bureau of Land Management Special Coal Lease Stipulations 

and Form 3400-12 Coal Lease 

Appendix E. Biological Assessment for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, South 

Gillette Area Coal EIS 

Appendix F. Biological Assessment for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract, South 

Gillette Area Coal EIS 

Appendix G. Biological Assessment for the Caballo West LBA Tract, South 

Gillette Area Coal EIS 

Appendix H. Biological Assessment for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, South 

Gillette Area Coal EIS 

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

Coal EIS 

Appendix J. CBNG and Conventional Oil and Gas Wells Capable Of 

Production on Sections In or Adjacent to the Belle Ayr North, 

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

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

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

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xxi 
 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report 

AAQS 

Ac 

ACC 

ac-ft 

ac-ft/yr 

AIRS 

ALC 

AML 

ANC 

ANFO 

APLIC 

AQD 

AQRV 

ARCO 

ARS 

AUM 

AVF 

BACT 

bcf 

bcy 

BLM 

BNSF 

BNSF-UP, BNSF&UP 

BN-UP, BN&UP 

BOE 

B.P. 

Btu

Btu/lb 

CAA 

CAAA 

CAGR 

CANDO 

CBNG 

CCBC 

CCC 

CCEDC 

CCSD 

CERCLA 

CFR 

cfs 

CHIA 

CMC 

CO

CO2

COE 

CREG 

CRI 

CWA 

cy 

dBA 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

acre(s) 

Antelope Coal Company 

acre-foot, acre-feet 

acre-foot per year, acre-feet per year 

Aerometric Information and Retrieval System 

Ark Land Company 

Abandoned Mine Land 

acidification neutralization capacity 

ammonium nitrate fuel oil 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

Air Quality Division 

air quality related values 

Atlantic Richfield Company 

Air Resource Specialists, Inc. 

animal unit month 

alluvial valley floor 

best available control technology 

billion cubic feet 

bank cubic yards 

Bureau of Land Management 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific 

Burlington Northern-Union Pacific 

barrels of oil equivalent 

before present 

 British thermal units 

British thermal units per pound 

Clean Air Act 

Clean Air Act Amendment 

compounded annual growth rate 

Converse Area New Development Organization 

coal bed natural gas 

Campbell County Board of Commissioners 

Caballo Coal Company 

Campbell County Economic Development Corporation 

Campbell County School District 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 

Code of Federal Regulations 

cubic feet per second 

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment 

Cordero Mining Company 

 carbon monoxide 

 carbon dioxide 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group 

Caballo Rojo, Inc. 

Clean Water Act 

cubic yards 

A-weighted decibels 

xxii Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DM&E Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation 

DOI Department of the Interior 

dv deciview, a measure of view impairment 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EC elemental carbon particles (re: air quality) 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ENCOAL Encoal Corporation 

EOR enhanced oil recovery 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EQC Environmental Quality Council 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

EUR estimated ultimate recovery 

EVG Erathem-Vanir Geological, PLLC 

F Fahrenheit 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCLAA Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 

FCW Foundation Coal West, Inc. 

FDM Fugitive Dust Model 

FEA Final Environmental Assessment 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLM Federal Land Management 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 

FR Federal Register 

ft feet, foot 

ft/day feet per day 

ft/mile feet per mile 

ft3 cubic feet 

FY fiscal year 

g Gram 

GAO General Accounting Office 

GAGMO Gillette Area Ground Water Monitoring Organization 

gpm gallons per minute 

GSP Gross State Product 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

hp horsepower 

hr hour 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

km kilometers 

kV kilovolts 

LAC limits of acceptable change (re: air quality) 

LBA lease by application 

lbs/mmBtu pounds per million British thermal units 

LFC liquids from coal 

LNCM Lands Necessary to Conduct Mining 

LOP life of project 

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan 

LW Lower Wyodak coal seam 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xxiii 
 

 

 

 

 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report 

MBHFI migratory birds of high federal interest 

μeq/L microequivalents per liter 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

μmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter 

mcf thousand cubic feet 

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

MDEQ/AWM Montana Department of Environmental Quality/Air and Waste 

Management Bureau 

MEI maximally exposed individual 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MLA Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 

MLE most likely exposure 

mm million 

mmbcy million bank cubic yards 

mmbo million barrels of oil 

mmcf million cubic feet 

mmcfpd million cubic feet of gas per day 

mmgpy million gallons per year 

mmt million tons 

mmtpy million tons per year 

mph miles per hour 

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

MW Megawatts 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

NAPG North American Power Group 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 

NO nitrogen oxide 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSPS National Source Performance Standards 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

NWLWG Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group 

O3 photochemical oxidants 

OC organic carbon particles 

ORV off road vehicle 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement 

PECs passive enclosure control systems 

PFYC Probable Fossil Yield Classification 

P.M. Prime Meridian 

PM2.5 particulates finer than 2.5 microns in effective diameter 

PM10 particulates finer than 10 microns in effective diameter 

PMT postmining topography 

ppm parts per million 

xxiv Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report 

PRB Powder River Basin 

PRBRC Powder River Basin Resource Council 

PRCC Powder River Coal Company 

PRRCT Powder River Regional Coal Team 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

R2P2 Resource Recovery and Protection Plan 

RAG RAG Coal West, Inc. 

RH relative humidity 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW Right-of-Way 

RV recreational vehicle 

SAR sodium absorption ratio 

SARA Superfund Amendment & Reauthorization Act of 1986 

scf/ton standard cubic feet per ton 

SCSD Sheridan County School District 

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

SEO State Engineer’s Office 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SPRB South Powder River Basin 

STB Surface Transportation Board 

T&E threatened and endangered 

TBCC Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC 

TBNG Thunder Basin National Grassland 

TCO temporary cessation of operations 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TJS Thunderbird, Jones & Stokes 

TPY tons per year 

TSP total suspended particulates 

TSS total suspended solids 

UP Union Pacific 

U.S. United States 

USC, U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDA-FS U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service 

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

UW University of Wyoming 

VMT vehicle miles traveled 

VOCs volatile organic compounds 

VRM visual resource management 

WA Wilderness Area 

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

WAQSR Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

WARMS Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System 

WCIC Wyoming Coal Information Committee 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications xxv 
 

 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WDEQ/AQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality 

Division 

WDEQ/LQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality 

Division 

WFA Western Fuels Association 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WMA Wyoming Mining Association 

WOC Wyoming Outdoor Council 

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center 

WRRI Water Resources Research Institute 

WSBLC Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners 

WSFC Wyoming School Facilities Commission 

WSGS Wyoming State Geological Survey 

WSO-RMG Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (BLM) 

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation 

xxvi Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

1.0 Introduction 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)1 analyzes the environmental impacts 

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

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. All are operating surface coal mines in the eastcentral PRB of Wyoming. The operators of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines filed four applications to lease the four tracts of federal coal 

included in maintenance coal tracts under the regulations at 43 CFR 3425, 

Leasing On Application. The Division of Minerals and Lands at the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Office reviewed all four applications and 

determined that the lease applications met the regulatory requirements for lease 

by applications (LBAs). The tracts are referred to as the Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract, the West Coal Creek LBA Tract, the Caballo West LBA Tract, and the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract. Figure 1-1 shows the four LBA tracts, other currently 

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

LBA tracts, in the Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB). 

A separate document, entitled Supplementary Information on the Affected 

Environment in the Combined Evaluation Area for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Applications EIS, has been prepared to provide detailed information on the affected 

environment in the general South Gillette analysis area. Copies of the 

supplementary information document are available on request and can be viewed 

at the BLM offices in Casper and Cheyenne. 

1.1 Background 

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

federal coal reserves in a tract north of and immediately adjacent to the Belle Ayr 

Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 10 miles south-southeast of 

Gillette, Wyoming (Figure 1-1). The tract, which was originally referred to as the 

Belle Ayr Mine North Extension LBA Tract, was assigned case file number 

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

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

LBA Tract. 

In August 2004, RAG finalized the sale of the Belle Ayr Mine to Foundation Coal 

West (FCW), a directly held subsidiary of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. In this 

EIS, the applicant for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract will be referred to as FCW. 

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

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

Coal Creek Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 25 miles southsoutheast of Gillette, Wyoming (Figure 1-1). The tract, which is referred to as the 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract, was assigned case number WYW172585. The federal 

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

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-1 

1 
Converse County Niobrara County 

Weston County 

387 

1.0 Introduction 

14 59 

16 LEGEND 

Rawhide Mine 

Buckskin Mine 

Hay Creek II 

LBA's Pending 

LBA's Issued 

Existing Leases (Prior to Decertification) 

Eagle Butte Mine Coal-Fired Power Plant 

(Existing, Proposed, 

LBA Tracts As Applied For (This EIS) 

To Buffalo 38 Miles Johnson County 

Campbell County 

Dry Fork Mine or Under Construction) 

Wyodak Mine 14 

90 

ROZET 90 

GILLETTE 

59 50 90 

Campbell County

Weston County Crook County

MOORCROFT 

Caballo Mine 

CABALLO WEST 

BELLE AYR NORTH 

Belle Ayr Mine 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

MAYSDORF II 

WEST COAL CREEK 

Coal Creek Mine 

116 

North Hilight Field 

West Jacobs Ranch 

RENO JUNCTION 

WRIGHT Jacobs Ranch Mine 

50 West 

Hilight Field 450 

387 

South 

Hilight Field Black Thunder Mine 

North Porcupine School Creek Mine 

South Porcupine (Proposed) 

To Newcastle 29 Miles 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

Campbell County 

Converse County West Antelope II 

Antelope Mine 

SCALE: 1"= 10 MILES 59 

To Douglas 46 Miles

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

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

16 

1-2
1.0 Introduction 

coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the Coal Creek Mine. 

ALC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc. 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. 

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

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

to the Caballo Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 8 miles southsoutheast of Gillette, Wyoming (Figure 1-1). The tract, which is referred to as the 

Caballo West LBA Tract, was assigned case number WYW172657. The federal 

coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the Caballo Mine. CCC is 

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

directly held subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corporation. 

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

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

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

approximately 15 miles south-southeast of Gillette, Wyoming (Figure 1-1). The 

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

WYW173360. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract 

for the Cordero Rojo Mine, which is operated by CMC, a directly held subsidiary of 

Rio Tinto Energy America (formerly Kennecott Energy and Coal Company). 

These federal coal lands are located within the decertified Powder River Federal 

Coal Region. The Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT), a federal/state 

advisory board established to review coal lease applications in the Powder River 

Federal Coal Region and to develop recommendations concerning management of 

federal coal in the Powder River Basin, reviewed the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract at a 

public meeting held on April 24, 2005, in Gillette, Wyoming; the West Coal Creek 

and Caballo West LBA Tracts were reviewed at a public meeting held on April 19, 

2006, in Casper, Wyoming; and the Maysdorf II LBA Tract was reviewed at a 

public meeting held on January 18, 2007, in Casper, Wyoming. The PRRCT 

recommended that BLM continue to process the Belle Ayr North, the West Coal 

Creek, the Caballo West, and the Maysdorf II coal lease applications at these 

respective meetings. 

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

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

requirements of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by evaluating 

the environmental impacts of leasing the federal coal. BLM does not authorize 

mining by issuing a lease for federal coal, but the impacts of mining the coal are 

considered in this EIS because it is a logical consequence of issuing a 

maintenance lease to an existing mine. BLM determined that one EIS would be 

prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts that would be expected to occur if 

leases are issued for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-3 
1.0 Introduction 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. This EIS has been prepared to evaluate the site-specific 

and cumulative environmental impacts of leasing and developing the federal coal 

included in the four application areas. For each of the four LBA tracts, BLM will 

use the analysis in this EIS to decide whether to hold a competitive, sealed-bid 

lease sale for the tract as applied for, hold a competitive sealed-bid lease sale for a 

modified tract, or reject the current lease application and not offer the tract for 

sale at this time. A separate Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued for each LBA 

tract and, if the decision is to offer the tract for lease, a separate sale will be held 

for each tract. For each lease sale that is held, the bidding at the sale will be open 

to any qualified bidder; it will not be limited to the applicant. 

For each lease sale that is held, a lease will be issued to the highest bidder if a 

federal panel determines that the high bid meets or exceeds the fair market value 

of the coal as determined by BLM’s economic evaluation and if the United States 

(U.S.) Department of Justice determines that there will be no antitrust violations if 

a lease is issued to the high bidder. 

In return for receiving a lease, a lessee must pay the federal government a bonus 

equal to the amount it bids at the time the lease sale is held (the bonus can be 

paid in 5 yearly installments), make annual rental payments to the federal 

government, and make royalty payments to the federal government when the coal 

is mined. Prior to 2008, federal bonus, rental, and royalty payments were equally 

divided with the state in which the lease was located. However, for fiscal year 

2008, Congress decreased the state’s royalty share to 48 percent, and increased 

the federal government’s share to 52 percent. The percentage of federal bonus, 

rental, and royalty payments distribution will revert back to 50 percent/50 

percent at the end of the 2008 fiscal year unless legislation is passed in the future 

to maintain or further modify the current percentage of distribution of royalties. 

Other agencies may use this analysis to make decisions related to leasing and 

mining the federal coal in this tract. Federal, state, and local agencies may qualify 

as cooperating agencies because of “jurisdiction by law or special expertise” (40 

CFR 1501.6, 1508.5). BLM invited the participation of potentially qualified 

agencies as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the South Gillette Area Coal 

Lease Applications EIS. In response, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement (OSM), the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), 

and the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT)) are cooperating 

agencies on this EIS. OSM has primary responsibility to administer federal 

programs that regulate surface coal mining operations and will use this EIS to 

make decisions related to the approval of the MLA mining plan if the tract is 

leased. WDEQ has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the 

Interior to regulate surface coal mining operations on federal and non-federal 

lands within the State of Wyoming. WYDOT's responsibilities include planning 

and supervising road improvement work, maintaining roads, and supporting 

airports and aviation in the state. 

1-4 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

Since decertification of the Powder River Federal Coal Region in 1990, 19 federal 

coal leases have been sold at competitive sealed-bid sales and three exchanges of 

federal coal in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Federal Coal Region have 

been completed (Table 1-1). This is the first application for a maintenance coal 

tract submitted by the Coal Creek and Caballo Mines since decertification (Table 

1-1 and Figure 1-1). The Belle Ayr Mine previously applied for the Belle Ayr LBA 

in 1997. The application was split into the Belle Ayr 1997 and Belle Ayr 2000 LBA 

Tracts at the applicant’s request. The Belle Ayr 2000 LBA Tract was processed and 

offered for lease in 2001, but the bid was rejected as insufficient to meet fair 

market value. The applicant did not request that the Belle Ayr 2000 LBA Tract be 

re-offered for sale but instead requested that the Belle Ayr 2000 LBA Tract be 

recombined with the Belle Ayr 1997 LBA Tract. BLM requested that the applicant 

update and resubmit the application for the Belle Ayr 1997 LBA Tract and 

subsequently rejected the application when that did not occur. The Cordero Rojo 

Mine recently acquired the South Maysdorf LBA Tract. The West Rocky Butte 

LBA, which is currently leased to the Caballo Mine, was originally leased to 

Northwestern Resources Co. 

Table 1-2 summarizes the 13 lease applications that are currently pending. 

1.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

The Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as applied for and the existing federal coal leases 

associated with the adjacent Belle Ayr Mine are shown in Figure 1-2. As applied 

for, the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal and 

includes approximately 1,578.7 acres. FCW estimates that the Belle Ayr North 

LBA Tract contains 208.0 million tons of in-place coal reserves. Not all of the coal 

included in the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract is considered to be mineable at this 

time. The Bishop Road, a county road, overlies some of the coal included in the 

tract. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) 

prohibits mining within 100 ft on either side of the right-of-way of any public road 

unless the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated or 

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

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

761.11(d)]. The coal underlying the portions of the Bishop Road, its right-of-way, 

and the 100 ft buffer zone within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract is included for 

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

Board of Commissioners, the authorized agency, determines that the road can be 

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

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

mineable coal adjacent to the 100 ft buffer zone on either side of the road right-ofway. 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 168.2 million tons of mineable coal reserves and 

that approximately 158.1 million tons would be recovered from the tract. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-5 
1.0 Introduction 

Table 1-1. Leases Issued and Exchanges Completed Since Decertification, 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 

Leases Issued 

LBA Name (Lease Number) 

Applicant Mine 

Current Lessee Acres Mineable Tons Successful 

Effective Date Leased1 of Coal1 Bid 

Jacobs Ranch (WYW117924) 1,708.620 147,423,560 $20,114,930.00 

Jacobs Ranch Mine 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. 

10/1/1992 

West Black Thunder (WYW118907) 3,492.495 429,048,216 $71,909,282.69 

Black Thunder Mine 

Thunder Basin Coal Co. 

10/1/1992 

North Antelope/Rochelle (WYW119554) 3,064.040 403,500,000 $86,987,765.00 

North Antelope & Rochelle Mines 

Powder River Coal Co. 

10/1/1992 

West Rocky Butte (WYW122586) 463.205 56,700,000 $16,500,000.00 

No Existing Mine2 

Caballo Coal Co. 

1/1/1993 

Eagle Butte (WYW124783) 1,059.180 166,400,000 $18,470,400.00 

Eagle Butte Mine 

Foundation Wyoming Land Co. 

8/1/1995 

Antelope (WYW128322) 617.200 60,364,000 $9,054,600.00 

Antelope Mine 

Antelope Coal Co. 

2/1/1997 

North Rochelle (WYW127221) 1,481.930 157,610,000 $30,576,340.00 

North Rochelle Mine 

Ark Land Co. 

1/1/1998 

Powder River (WYW136142) 4,224.225 532,000,000 $109,596,500.00 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

Powder River Coal Co. 

9/1/1998 

Thundercloud (WYW136458) 3,545.503 412,000,000 $158,000,008.50 

Jacobs Ranch Mine 

Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC 

1/1/1999 

Horse Creek (WYW141435) 2,818.695 275,577,000 $91,220,120.70 

Antelope Mine 

Antelope Coal Co. 

12/1/2000 

North Jacobs Ranch (WYW146744) 4,982.240 537,542,000 $379,504,652.00 

Jacobs Ranch Mine 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. 

5/1/2002 

NARO South (WYW154001) 2,956.725 297,469,000 $274,117,684.00 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

BTU Western Resources, Inc. 

9/1/2004 

West Hay Creek (WYW151634) 921.158 142,698,000 $42,809,400.00 

Buckskin Mine 

Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. 

1/1/2005 

1-6 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

Table 1-1. Leases Issued and Exchanges Completed Since Decertification, 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming (Continued). 

Leases Issued 

LBA Name (Lease Number) 

Applicant Mine 

Current Lessee Acres Mineable Tons Successful 

Effective Date Leased1 of Coal1 Bid 

Little Thunder (WYW150318) 5,083.500 718,719,000 $610,999,949.80 

Black Thunder Mine 

Ark Land LT Co. 

3/1/2005 

West Antelope (WYW151643) 2,809.130 194,961,000 $146,311,000.00 

Antelope Mine 

Antelope Coal Co. 

3/1/2005 

NARO North (WYW150210) 2,369.380 324,627,000 $299,143,785.00 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

BTU Western Resources, Inc. 

3/1/2005 

West Roundup (WYW151134) 2,812.510 327,186,000 $317,697,610.00 

North Rochelle Mine 

West Roundup Resources, Inc 

5/1/2005 

Eagle Butte West (WYW155132) 1,427.000 255,000,000 $180,540,000.00 

Eagle Butte Mine 

Foundation Wyoming Land Co. 

5/1/2008 

South Maysdorf (WYW174407) 2,900.240 288,082,000 $250,800,000.00 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

Cordero Mining Co. 

8/1/2008 

TOTALS 48,736.971 5,726,906,776 $3,114,354,027.69 

Exchanges Completed 

Exchange Name 

Case File Number 

Exchange Proponent 

Exchange Type Acres Mineable Tons of Federal Coal 

Effective Date Exchanged Coal Exchanged for: 

EOG (Belco) I-90 Lease Exchange WYW150152 599.170 106,000,000 Lease Rights to Belco 

EOG Resources (formerly Belco)3 I-90 Lease 

I-90 Lease Exchanged for New Lease (WYW0322794). 

4/1/2000 

Pittsburg & Midway Coal Exchange 2,045.530 84,200,000 6,065.77 acres of land 

WYW148816 and some minerals in 

Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Co. Lincoln, Carbon, and 

Private Land Exchanged for Federal Coal Sheridan Counties, 

1/27/2005 Wyoming. 

Gold Mine Draw Lease Exchange 623.000 47,700,000 Lease rights to 921.60 

WYW0321779, WYW154001 acres of leased federal 

Powder River Coal Co. coal underlying an 

AVF Lease Exchanged for New Lease AVF. 

6/25/2006 

TOTALS 3,267.700 237,900,000 

1 Information from Sale Notice. 
 2 The West Rocky Butte LBA was originally leased to Northwestern Resources Co. 
 3 The EOG Resources Belco Exchange lease is now owned by the Buckskin Mine.
 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-7 
 

1.0 Introduction 

Table 1-2. Pending LBAs and Exchanges, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 

Pending LBAs 

Estimated as 

LBA Name Applied for 

Lease Number Application Acres as Coal 

Applicant Mine Date Applied for (mmt) Status 

North Maysdorf 9/20/2001 445.89 54.66 2 Sale 10/18/2007 

WYW154432 Modified Bid rejected 

Cordero Rojo Mine 11/8/2004 Sale 3/19/2008 

Bid rejected 

Belle Ayr North 7/6/2004 1,578.74 191.9 3 Scoping period ended 

WYW161248 6/1/2007 

Belle Ayr Mine DEIS in preparation 

West Antelope II 4/6/2005 4,108.60 429.70 1 DEIS 2/2008 

WYW163340 Hearing 3/24/2008 

Antelope Mine FEIS in preparation 

North Hilight Field 10/7/2005 2,613.50 246.20 3 Scoping period ended 

WYW164812 9/3/2007 

Black Thunder Mine DEIS in preparation 

South Hilight Field 10/7/2005 1,976.69 235.20 3 Scoping period ended 

WYW174596 9/3/2007 

Black Thunder Mine DEIS in preparation 

West Hilight Field 1/17/2006 2,370.52 348.10 3 Scoping period ended 

WYW172388 9/3/2007 

Black Thunder Mine DEIS in preparation 

West Coal Creek 2/10/2006 1,151.26 57.00 3 Scoping period ended 

WYW172585 6/1/2007 

Coal Creek Mine DEIS in preparation 

Caballo West 3/15/2006 777.49 81.8 3 Scoping period ended 

WYW172657 6/1/2007 

Caballo Mine DEIS in preparation 

West Jacobs Ranch 3/24/2006 5,944.37 768.60 3 Scoping period ended 

WYW172685 9/3/2007 

Jacobs Ranch Mine DEIS in preparation 

Hay Creek II 3/24/2006 1,088.73 140.00 2 Scoping period ended 

WYW172684 Modified 3/29/2008 

Buckskin Mine 5/19/2008 DEIS in preparation 

Maysdorf II 9/1/2006 4,653.84 474.5 3 Scoping period ended 

WYW173360 6/1/2007 

Cordero Rojo Mine DEIS in preparation 

North Porcupine 9/29/2006 5,795.98 688.30 3 Scoping period ended 

WYW173408 Modified 9/3/2007 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 10/12/2007 DEIS in preparation 

South Porcupine 9/29/2006 3,185.87 408.40 3 Scoping period ended 

WYW176095 Modified 9/3/2007 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 10/12/2007 DEIS in preparation 

TOTALS 36,049.75 4,154.68 

1 Estimated tons of in-place coal as reported in the lease application. 2 Estimated tons of mineable coal as reported in the lease application. 3 Estimated tons of recoverable coal as reported by the applicant. 

1-8 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
49 

Bishop 

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

Bishop 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Haight Road 

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

Hilight Road

36 31 32 34 35 33 35 49 34 33

State Highway 59

1.0 Introduction 

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

T. 

N. 

T. 31 32 36 

N. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

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

30 25 29 28 27 26 28 27 26 25 30 

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

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

Road 

12 7 9 10 11 9 10 11 12 7 8

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

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

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

31 36 31 36 32 33 34 35 33 34 35 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

LEGEND 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-161248) 

Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-78629 

Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-80954 

Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-0317682 

Figure 1-2. Belle Ayr Mine's Federal Coal Leases and Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

8 

0 

1-9
 

1.0 Introduction 

The Belle Ayr Mine, as currently permitted, includes 11,935 acres and originally 

contained approximately 830.1 million tons of mineable coal reserves. The mine 

produced approximately 26.6 million tons of coal in 2007. As of July 1, 2008, an 

estimated 250.9 million tons of in-place coal reserves remained at the Belle Ayr 

Mine. FCW estimates that approximately 235.8 million tons of those remaining 

reserves would be recoverable and that those recoverable reserves will be depleted 

in approximately 8.3 years, based on the assumption that the production rate 

averages approximately 30 million tons per year (mmtpy). Belle Ayr Mine’s 

currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD on November 7, 2006) air quality permit (MD1476) allows up to 45 million tons of coal per year to be mined. If the average rate 

of production increases to the permitted level of 45 mmtpy, the remaining 

recoverable reserves would be depleted in about 5.2 years. 

The Belle Ayr North LBA Tract is contiguous with both the Belle Ayr Mine and the 

Caballo Mine, owned by CCC (Figure 1-1). Portions of the tract lie within the 

current mining permit boundaries of both mines. The area applied for is 

substantially similar to the adjacent mines, for which detailed site-specific 

environmental data have been collected and for which environmental analyses 

have previously been prepared to secure the existing leases and necessary mining 

permits. 

The FCW owns the surface of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. Current land uses of 

the tract include grazing by domestic animals and wildlife, hayland production, 

communication and power lines, oil and gas production, and transportation 

(Bishop Road). 

The mining method would be truck and shovel, which is the mining method 

currently in use at the Belle Ayr Mine. The coal would be used primarily for 

electric power generation. 

After mining, the land would be reclaimed to a rangeland function suitable for use 

by livestock and wildlife, as is the current practice at the Belle Ayr Mine. 

Industrial postmining land uses, which include, but are not limited to oil and gas 

wells, pipelines, roads, and utility easements, will also be reestablished as 

required. 

1.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

The West Coal Creek LBA Tract as applied for and the existing federal coal leases 

associated with the adjacent Coal Creek Mine are shown in Figure 1-3. As applied 

for, the West Coal Creek LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal and 

includes approximately 1,151.3 acres. ALC estimates that the West Coal Creek 

LBA Tract as applied for contains approximately 63.3 million tons of in-place and 

mineable coal reserves; and that approximately 57.0 million tons of that coal are 

recoverable. 

1-10 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

33 

28 

21 

34 

27 

22 

35 

26 

23 

36 

25 

31 

30 

32 

29 

20 

33 

28 

21 

34 

27 

22 

35 

26 

23 

36 

25 

31 

30 

32 

29 

20 

31 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

32 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

31 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

32 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

33 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

34 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

35 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

36 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

33 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

34 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

35 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

36 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

T. 

47 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

45 

N. 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

T. 

47 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

45 

N. 

Mills Road 

Breen 

Lawver 

Wagensen 

Hilight

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR

BNSF & UP RR

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road 

Road

Hilight Road 

Road 

Hoadley Road

Road 

Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

Hoadley Road 

0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

LEGEND 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-172585) 

Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-3446 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Figure 1-3. Coal Creek Mine's Federal Coal Leases and West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-11
1.0 Introduction 

The Coal Creek Mine, as currently permitted, includes 9,722.7 acres and originally 

contained approximately 318.2 million tons of mineable coal reserves. The mine 

produced approximately 10.2 million tons of coal in 2007. As of July 1, 2008, an 

estimated 241.7 million tons of in-place coal reserves remained at the Coal Creek 

Mine. ALC estimates that approximately 217.5 million tons of those remaining 

reserves would be recoverable and that those recoverable reserves will be depleted 

in approximately 16.2 years, based on the assumption that the production rate 

averages approximately 13.4 mmtpy. Coal Creek Mine’s currently approved (by 

WDEQ/AQD on March 30, 2006) air quality permit (MD-1343) allows up to 25 

million tons of coal per year to be mined. If the average rate of production 

increases to the permitted level of 25 mmtpy, the remaining recoverable reserves 

would be depleted in 8.7 years. 

The West Coal Creek LBA Tract is contiguous with Coal Creek Mine (Figure 1-3). 

Portions of the tract lie within the current mining permit boundary of the Coal 

Creek Mine. The area applied for is substantially similar to the adjacent mine, for 

which detailed site-specific environmental data have been collected and for which 

environmental analyses have previously been prepared to secure the existing 

leases and necessary mining permits. As shown in Figure 1-1, the West Coal 

Creek LBA Tract is not contiguous with any of the other existing mines in this 

area. 

The surface of the West Coal Creek LBA Tract is owned by Dennis Edwards and 

Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC. Current land uses of the tract include grazing by 

domestic animals and wildlife, oil and gas production, and recreation. 

The mining method would be a combination of truck and shovel and dragline, 

which are the mining methods currently in use at the Coal Creek Mine. The coal 

would be used primarily for electric power generation. 

After mining, the land would be reclaimed to a rangeland function suitable for 

use by livestock and wildlife, as is the current practice at the Coal Creek Mine. 

Industrial postmining land uses, which include, but are not limited to oil and 

gas wells, pipelines, roads, and utility easements, will also be reestablished as 

required. 

1.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

The Caballo West LBA Tract as applied for and the existing federal coal leases 

associated with the adjacent Caballo Mine are shown in Figure 1-4. As applied 

for, the Caballo West LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal and 

includes approximately 777.5 acres. CCC estimates that the Caballo West LBA 

Tract as applied for contains approximately 98.2 million tons of in-place coal 

reserves, of which about 87.5 million tons of coal reserves are mineable and 

approximately 81.8 million tons of coal reserves are recoverable. 

1-12 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
13 18

26 

26 

14 

State 

Bishop 

BNSF RR 

Fairview 

Union 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Chappel Road 

Road 

Corners 

Road 

Bishop Road

 59 Highway 

State

 59 Highway 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

1.0 Introduction 

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

14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 15

19 20 21 22 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

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

T. T. 31 32 33 34 34 36 

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

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

N. N. 

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

18 

16 15 

17 16 15 14 13 17 14 13 18

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

26 25 30 29 28 27 

25 30 29 28 27 

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

T. 

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

N. 

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

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

LEGEND 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-172657) 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Caballo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-3397 

Caballo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-78633 

0 5000 10000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

20000 

Caballo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-83394 

Caballo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-122586 

Figure 1-4. Caballo Mine's Federal Coal Leases and Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

34 

1-13
1.0 Introduction 

The Caballo Mine, as currently permitted, includes 19,974.7 acres and originally 

contained approximately 1,286.6 million tons of mineable coal reserves. The 

Caballo Mine produced approximately 31.2 million tons of coal in 2007. As of 

July 1, 2008, an estimated 893.7 million tons of in-place coal reserves remained 

at the Caballo Mine. CCC estimates that approximately 584.8 million tons of 

those remaining reserves are recoverable and that those recoverable reserves will 

be depleted in approximately 15.4 years, based on the assumption that the 

production rate averages approximately 37.8 mmtpy. Caballo Mine’s currently 

approved (by WDEQ/AQD on November 7, 2006) air quality permit (MD1477) 

allows up to 50 million tons of coal per year to be mined. If the average rate of 

production increases to the permitted level of 50 mmtpy, the remaining 

recoverable reserves would be depleted in about 11.7 years. 

The Caballo West LBA Tract is contiguous with both the Caballo Mine and the 

Belle Ayr Mine, owned by FCW (Figure 1-1). Portions of the tract lie within the 

current mining permit boundary of the Caballo Mine. The area applied for is 

substantially similar to the adjacent mines, for which detailed site-specific 

environmental data have been collected and for which environmental analyses 

have previously been prepared to secure the existing leases and necessary mining 

permits. 

The surface of the Caballo West LBA Tract is owned by the Paul D. Rourke Trust; 

James F. Rourke, et al.; and FCW. Current land uses of the tract include grazing 

by domestic animals and wildlife, recreation, agricultural activities, transportation 

(Bishop Road), and oil and gas production. 

The mining method would be a combination of truck and shovel and dragline. This 

would be an operational change since a dragline is not currently in use at the 

Caballo mine. The coal would be used primarily for electric power generation. 

After mining, the land would be reclaimed to a rangeland function suitable for use 

by livestock and wildlife, as is the current practice at the Caballo Mine. Industrial 

postmining land uses, which include but are not limited to oil and gas wells, 

pipelines, roads, and utility easements, will also be reestablished as required. 

1.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

The Maysdorf II LBA Tract as applied for and the existing federal coal leases 

associated with the adjacent Cordero Rojo Mine are shown in Figure 1-5. As 

applied for, the Maysdorf II LBA Tract consists of two separate blocks of federal 

coal and includes approximately 4,653.8 acres. Cordero Mining Company (CMC) 

estimates that the tract contains approximately 504 million tons of in-place coal 

reserves. Not all of the coal included in the Maysdorf II LBA Tract is considered by 

CMC to be mineable at this time. Approximately 1.6 million tons of the coal 

included in the tract are located within the BNSF & UP railroad right-of-way 

(ROW). CMC does not consider the coal underlying the ROW to be recoverable at 

1-14 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
24

21 

3 

22 

47 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

1.0 Introduction 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

30 

20 22 20 21 22 23 23 

29 28

30 29 28 27 26 25 27 26 25 

T. T. 6 5 4 47 RR B

H

NSF & UP

ey R o oad adl

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

N. N. 

1 3 2 2 1 6 5 N. 4 

N. 

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

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

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

Maysdorf Point Cemetary 29 30 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25

25 30 

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

N. N. 

T. T.
 

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

N. N. 

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

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

Hoadley Road 

21 22 24 19 20 21 23 24 19 20 23

25 30 25 30 

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

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for (WYW-173360) 

Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-8385 

Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-23929 

Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW-174407 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract (WYW-154432) 

0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 1-5. Cordero Rojo Mine's Federal Coal Leases and Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

33 

1-15
1.0 Introduction 

this time because the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad 

would make it economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. 

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

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

included in the tract. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA) prohibits mining within 100 ft on either side of the ROW of any public 

road unless the appropriate public road authority allows the road to be relocated 

or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding 

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

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

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

II LBA Tract are included for consideration for leasing because that coal could be 

mined if WYDOT and/or the Campbell County Board of Commissioners, the 

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

3461.5(c)(2)(iii)]. If the highway and Haight and Hilight roads are not moved, 

including the coal underlying the highway and Haight and Hilight roads in the 

lease would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to the 100 

ft buffer zones on either side of the highway and road ROWs. CMC estimates that 

approximately 3.0 million tons of mineable coal are included within the right-ofway of Highway 59 and associated 100 ft buffer zone that is within the LBA tract. 

There are currently no proposals by either the applicant or WYDOT to move the 

road. CMC estimates that approximately 17 million tons of mineable coal are 

included within the rights-of-way of the Haight and Hilight roads and associated 

100 ft buffer zones that are within the LBA tract. CMC is evaluating the feasibility 

of relocating the county roads. 

The Maysdorf Point Cemetery, a small rural cemetery owned by the Campbell 

County Cemetery District, overlies some of the coal included in the tract. SMCRA 

prohibits mining within 100 ft of a cemetery [30 CFR 761.11(g) and 43 CFR 

3461.5(c)(1)]. The coal underlying the cemetery and the buffer zone is included in 

the tract being considered for leasing because the coal could be mined if the 

cemetery is relocated in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. If 

the cemetery is not relocated, including the coal underlying the cemetery in the 

lease would allow maximum recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to the 100 

ft buffer zone on all sides of the cemetery. CMC estimates that approximately 0.2 

million tons of mineable coal included in the tract are located under the cemetery 

and a 100 ft buffer surrounding the cemetery. 

A small portion of the Maysdorf II tract is located within a “no-coal” zone, where 

coal-forming sediments were either not deposited or were eroded away after 

deposition. 

Excluding the federal coal reserves within the railroad right-of-way, the highway 

and county road rights-of-way and buffer zones, the Maysdorf Point Cemetery and 

buffer zone, and taking into account the no-coal zone, CMC estimates that the 

1-16 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as applied for contains approximately 482.5 million tons of 

mineable coal reserves and approximately 434.3 million tons of recoverable coal 

reserves. 

The Cordero Rojo Mine is comprised of the former Cordero Mine and the 

contiguous former Caballo Rojo Mine. Rio Tinto Energy America, the parent 

company of CMC (the operator of the former Cordero Mine), purchased 100 

percent of the stock of Caballo Rojo Inc. (CRI) (the operator of the former Caballo 

Rojo Mine) on February 19, 1997. The Cordero Mine originally included 8,517 

acres and contained approximately 593 million tons of mineable coal reserves. 

The Caballo Rojo Mine originally included 7,664 acres and contained 

approximately 493 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Cordero Rojo Mine 

personnel recently worked with the WDEQ/LQD to consolidate the CMC and CRI 

mining permits into a single mining permit (237-T8) for the Cordero Rojo Mine, 

which includes approximately 16,910.6 acres. The Cordero Rojo Mine produced 

approximately 40.5 million tons of coal in 2007. As of July 1, 2008, an estimated 

572.9 million tons of in-place coal reserves remained at the Cordero Rojo Mine. 

CMC estimates that approximately 525.9 million tons of the mine’s remaining 

reserves would be recoverable and that those recoverable reserves will be depleted 

in nearly 11.4 years, based on the assumption that the production rate averages 

approximately 46.3 mmtpy. Cordero Rojo Mine’s currently approved (by 

WDEQ/AQD on September 17, 2004) air quality permit (MD-1058) allows up to 65 

million tons of coal per year to be mined. If the average rate of production 

increases to the permitted level of 65 mmtpy, the remaining recoverable reserves 

would be depleted in about 8.1 years. 

As discussed above, the Maysdorf II LBA Tract as applied for consists of two 

separate blocks. The northern block is contiguous with both the Cordero Rojo 

Mine and the Belle Ayr Mine, owned by FCW (Figure 1-1). Portions of the northern 

block lie within the current mining permit boundaries of both mines. The 

southern block is contiguous with both the Cordero Rojo Mine and the Coal Creek 

Mine, owned by ALC (Figure 1-1). Portions of the southern block lie within the 

current mining permit boundary of the Cordero Rojo Mine. The area applied for is 

substantially similar to the adjacent mine, for which detailed site-specific 

environmental data have been collected and for which environmental analyses 

have previously been prepared to secure the existing leases and necessary mining 

permits. 

The surface of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract is owned by the United States of America; 

CMC; CRI; the Norma Duvall Trust; Earl Thrush, et al.; Western Railroad 

Properties, Inc.; Tony Hayden; Keidel Family LP; Campbell County Cemetery 

District; and Foundation Wyoming Land Company. The federally owned surface is 

administered by BLM. Current land uses of the tract include grazing by domestic 

animals and wildlife, agricultural activities, transportation (Hilight and Haight 

roads and the BNSF & UP tracks), and oil and gas production. See Section 3.11 

for additional land use discussion. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-17 
1.0 Introduction 

The mining method would be a combination of truck and shovel and dragline, 

which are the mining methods currently in use at the Cordero Rojo mine. The 

coal would be used primarily for electric power generation. 

After mining, the land would be reclaimed to a rangeland function suitable for use 

by livestock and wildlife, as is the current practice at the Cordero Rojo Mine. 

Industrial postmining land uses, which include, but are not limited to oil and gas 

wells, pipelines, roads, and utility easements, will also be reestablished as 

required. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action 

BLM administers the federal coal leasing program under the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920. A federal coal lease grants the lessee the exclusive right to obtain a 

mining permit, which would allow coal mining on the leased tract, subject to the 

terms of the lease, the mining permit, and applicable state and federal laws. 

Before a new lease can be mined, the lessee must obtain approval of a detailed 

permit to conduct mining operations. 

This EIS is being prepared in response to applications BLM received from the 

operators of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines, four 

existing mines, to lease four tracts of federal coal in the Wyoming PRB. In 

response to each application, BLM must decide whether to hold a competitive, 

sealed-bid lease sale for a tract as applied for, hold a competitive sealed-bid lease 

sale for a modified tract, or reject a current lease application and not offer the 

tract for sale at this time. 

FCW has applied for the coal reserves in the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract in order to 

extend the life of the Belle Ayr Mine. Mining operations at the Belle Ayr Mine 

would be extended for about 6.4 additional years if FCW acquires a lease for the 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract and the average production rate at the Belle Ayr Mine is 

30 mmtpy. At the permitted production level of 45 mmtpy, mining operations 

would be extended by about 3.5 years if FCW acquires a lease for the North Belle 

Ayr North LBA Tract. There would be additional production extension if the 

Bishop Road is moved and the underlying and isolated coal is mined. 

ALC has applied for the coal reserves in the West Coal Creek LBA Tract in order to 

extend the life of the Coal Creek Mine. Mining operations at the West Coal Creek 

Mine would be extended for about 4.3 additional years if ALC acquires a lease for 

the West Coal Creek LBA Tract and the average production rate at the Coal Creek 

Mine is 13.4 mmtpy. At the permitted production level of 25 mmtpy, mining 

operations would be extended by about 2.3 years if ALC acquires a lease for the 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract. 

CCC has applied for the coal reserves in the Caballo West LBA Tract in order to 

extend the life of the Caballo Mine. Mining operations at the Caballo Mine would 

1-18 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

be extended for about 2.2 additional years if CCC acquires a lease for the Caballo 

West LBA Tract and the average production rate at the Caballo Mine is 37.8 

mmtpy. At the permitted production level of 50 mmtpy, mining operations would 

be extended by about 1.6 years if CCC acquires a lease for the Caballo West LBA 

Tract. 

CMC has applied for the coal reserves in the Maysdorf II LBA Tract in order to 

extend the life of the Cordero Rojo Mine. Mining operations at the Cordero Rojo 

Mine would be extended for about 9.4 additional years if CMC acquires a lease for 

the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, the coal underlying Wyoming State Highway 59, the 

Haight and Hilight county roads, and the Maysdorf Point Cemetery is not mined, 

and the average production rate at the Cordero Rojo Mine is 46.3 mmtpy. At the 

permitted production level of 65 mmtpy, mining operations would be extended by 

about 6.7 years if CMC acquires a lease for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. There 

would be a slight additional production extension if the Haight and Hilight county 

roads and the Maysdorf Point Cemetery are moved and the underlying coal is 

mined. CMC applied for additional federal coal reserves (the North and South 

Maysdorf LBA Tracts) in 2001 (See Table 1-1). BLM estimates that the North 

Maysdorf LBA Tract includes approximately 54.7 million tons of mineable coal and 

that the South Maysdorf LBA Tract includes approximately 288 million tons of 

mineable coal. 

If an LBA tract is leased to the applicant as a maintenance tract, the permit to 

conduct mining operations for the adjacent mine would have to be amended to 

include the new lease area before it could be disturbed. This process takes several 

years to complete. FCW, ALC, CCC, and CMC are applying for federal coal 

reserves now so that they can complete the permitting process in time to mine the 

new federal reserves in a logical progression as existing reserves are depleted. 

As discussed above, the purpose of the four applications is to allow the applicant 

mines access to a continuing supply of low sulfur compliance coal which would be 

mined and sold to power plants for the purpose of electric power generation. 

According to the Energy Information Administration, coal is currently responsible 

for about 50 percent of the total generation in the electric power sector (EIA 2006, 

2007). Continued leasing of PRB coal enables coal-fired power plants to meet the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements without constructing new plants, revamping 

existing plants, or switching to existing alternative fuels. This helps provide a 

stable supply of power to meet increasing demand without a potentially significant 

increase in power costs for individuals and businesses. 

A primary goal of the National Energy Policy is to add energy supplies from diverse 

sources, including domestic oil, gas, and coal, as well as hydropower and nuclear 

power. BLM recognizes that the continued extraction of coal is essential to meet 

the nation’s future energy needs. As a result, private development of federal coal 

reserves is integral to the BLM coal leasing program under the authority of the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as well as Federal Land Policy Management 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-19 
1.0 Introduction 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 (FCLAA). 

The coal leasing program, managed by BLM, encourages the development of 

domestic coal reserves and reduction of the U.S. dependence on foreign sources of 

energy. As a result of the leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal 

resources in the PRB, the public receives lease bonus, rental, and royalty 

payments, and a reliable supply of low sulfur coal for power generation. 

This EIS analyzes the environmental impacts of issuing federal coal leases and 

mining the federal coal in the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II maintenance coal lease application tracts as required by NEPA and 

associated rules and guidelines. A decision to hold a competitive sale and issue a 

lease for the lands in any of these applications is a prerequisite for mining but it is 

not the enabling action that would allow mining to begin. BLM does not authorize 

mining operations by issuing a lease. After a lease has been issued but prior to 

mine development, the lessee must file a permit application package with the 

WDEQ/LQD and OSM for a surface mining permit and approval of the MLA 

mining plan. An analysis of a detailed site-specific mining and reclamation plan 

occurs at that time. Authorities and responsibilities of BLM and other concerned 

regulatory agencies are described in the following sections. 

1.3 Regulatory Authority and Responsibility 

The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II maintenance 

coal lease applications were submitted and will be processed and evaluated under 

the following federal authorities: 

• Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended; 

• Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960; 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); 

• Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 (FCLAA); 

• Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); and 

• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). 

BLM is the lead agency responsible for leasing federal coal lands under the 

Mineral Leasing Act as amended by Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments and is 

also responsible for preparation of this EIS to evaluate the potential environmental 

impacts of issuing each coal lease. 

OSM is a cooperating agency on this EIS. After a federal coal lease is issued, 

SMCRA gives OSM primary responsibility to administer programs that regulate 

surface coal mining operations and the surface effects of underground coal mining 

operations. WDEQ is also a cooperating agency on this EIS. Pursuant to Section 

503 of SMCRA, the WDEQ developed, and in November 1980 the Secretary of the 

Interior approved, a permanent program authorizing WDEQ to regulate surface 

coal mining operations and surface effects of underground mining on non-federal 

lands within the State of Wyoming. In January 1987, pursuant to Section 523(c) 

1-20 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

of SMCRA, WDEQ entered into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the 

Interior authorizing WDEQ to regulate surface coal mining operations and surface 

effects of underground mining on federal lands within the state. 

Pursuant to the cooperative agreement, a federal coal lease holder in Wyoming 

must submit a permit application package to OSM and WDEQ/LQD for any 

proposed coal mining and reclamation operations on federal lands in the state. 

WDEQ/LQD reviews the permit application package to insure the permit 

application complies with the permitting requirements and the coal mining 

operation will meet the performance standards of the approved Wyoming program. 

OSM, BLM, and other federal agencies review the permit application package to 

insure it complies with the terms of the coal lease, the MLA, NEPA, and other 

federal laws and their attendant regulations. If the permit application package 

does comply, WDEQ issues the applicant a permit to conduct coal mining 

operations. OSM recommends approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval 

of the MLA mining plan to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and 

Minerals Management. Before the MLA mining plan can be approved, BLM must 

concur with this recommendation. 

If a proposed LBA tract is leased to an existing mine, the lessee is required to 

revise its coal mining permit prior to mining the coal, following the processes 

outlined above. As a part of that process, a detailed new plan would be developed 

showing how the newly-leased lands would be mined and reclaimed. The area of 

mining disturbance would be larger than the newly-leased area to allow for 

activities such as overstripping, matching reclaimed topography to undisturbed 

topography, constructing flood control and sediment control facilities, and related 

activities. Specific impacts that would occur during the mining and reclamation of 

the LBA tract would be addressed in the mining and reclamation plan, and 

specific mitigation measures for anticipated impacts would be described in detail 

at that time. 

If a proposed LBA tract is leased to an existing mine, the lessee is required to 

revise its coal mining permit prior to mining the newly-leased coal, following the 

processes outlined above. As a part of that process, a detailed new plan would be 

developed showing how the newly-leased lands would be mined and reclaimed. 

The area of mining disturbance would be larger than the newly-leased area to 

allow for activities such as overstripping, matching reclaimed topography to 

undisturbed topography, constructing flood control and sediment control facilities, 

and related activities. Specific impacts that would occur during the mining and 

reclamation of the LBA tract would be addressed in the mining and reclamation 

plan, and specific mitigation measures for anticipated impacts would be described 

in detail at that time. 

WDEQ enforces the performance standards and permit requirements for 

reclamation during a mine’s operation and has primary authority in 

environmental emergencies. OSM retains oversight responsibility for this 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-21 
1.0 Introduction 

enforcement. Where federal surface or coal resources are involved, BLM has 

authority in emergency situations if WDEQ or OSM cannot act before 

environmental harm and damage occurs. In preparing this EIS, BLM also has a 

responsibility to consult with and obtain the comments and assistance of other 

state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with 

respect to potential environmental impacts. 

Appendix A presents other federal and state permitting requirements that must be 

satisfied to mine these LBA tracts. 

1.4 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 

In addition to the federal acts listed under section 1.3, guidance and regulations 

for managing and administering public lands, including the federal coal lands 

included in the FCW, ALC, CCC, and CMC applications, are set forth in 40 CFR 

1500 (Protection of Environment), 43 CFR 1601 (Planning, Programming, 

Budgeting), and 43 CFR 3400 (Coal Management). 

Specific guidance for processing applications is provided by BLM Manual 3420, 

Competitive Coal Leasing (BLM 1989) and the 1991 Powder River Regional Coal 

Team Operational Guidelines For Coal Lease-By-Applications (BLM 1991). The 

National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (BLM 2008) has been followed in 

developing this EIS. 

1.5 Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans 

Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments requires that lands considered for leasing 

be included in a comprehensive land use plan and that leasing decisions be 

compatible with that plan. The BLM Approved Resource Management Plan for 

Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office 

(BLM 2001a), an update of the Buffalo Resource Area Resource Management Plan 

(BLM 1985), governs and addresses the leasing of federal coal in Campbell 

County. 

The major land use planning decision that BLM must make concerning the federal 

coal resources is a determination of which federal coal lands are acceptable for 

further consideration for leasing. There are four screening procedures that BLM 

uses to identify these coal lands. These screening procedures require BLM to: 

•	 estimate development potential of the coal lands; 

•	 apply the unsuitability criteria listed in the regulations at 43 CFR 3461; 

•	 make multiple land use decisions that eliminate federal coal deposits from 

consideration for leasing to protect other resource values; and 

•	 consult with surface owners who meet the criteria defined in the regulations 

at 43 CFR 3400.0-5 (gg)(1) and (2). 

1-22 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

Only those federal coal lands that pass these screens are given further 

consideration for leasing. BLM has applied these coal screens to federal coal 

lands in the Wyoming PRB several times, starting in the early 1980s. Most 

recently, in 1993, BLM began the process of reapplying these screens to federal 

coal lands in Campbell, Converse, and Sheridan counties. This analysis was 

adopted in the 2001 BLM Buffalo Field Office RMP update (BLM 2001a) and the 

results were included as Appendix D of the update, which can be viewed in the 

2001 NEPA documents section on the Wyoming BLM website at 

http://www.wy.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/nepa/documents.html. 

Under the first coal screening procedure, a coal tract must be located within an 

area that has been determined to have coal development potential in order to be 

acceptable for further consideration for leasing [43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(1)]. The Belle 

Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications 

are within the area identified as having coal development potential by the BLM in 

the coal screening analyses published in the 2001 BLM Buffalo Field Office RMP 

update. 

The second coal screening procedure requires the application of the coal mining 

unsuitability criteria listed in the federal coal management regulations at 43 CFR 

3461. The coal mining unsuitability criteria were applied to high to moderate coal 

development potential lands in the Wyoming PRB, including the four LBA tracts 

and surrounding lands during the coal screening conducted for the 2001 BLM 

Buffalo Field Office RMP update. No lands included in the Belle Ayr North, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts were determined to be 

unsuitable for mining during the application of the unsuitability criteria for the 

2001 RMP update; however, site-specific unsuitability determinations for some 

criteria were deferred until an application to lease was filed. 

Appendix B of this EIS summarizes the unsuitability criteria, describes the 

general findings for the 2001 BLM Buffalo Field Office RMP update, and presents a 

validation of these findings for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, 

and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. 

Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 states that lands within 100 feet of the outside 

line of the ROW of a public road shall be considered unsuitable for surface coal 

mining, with certain exceptions. 

One of the exceptions to Unsuitable Criterion 3 allows surface coal mining in the 

ROW and buffer zone for a public road if the regulatory authority (or the 

appropriate public road authority designated by the regulatory authority) allows 

the public road to be relocated or closed after providing public notice and 

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

affected public and landowners will be protected [30 CFR 761.11(d) and 43 CFR 

3461.5(c)(2)(iii)]. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-23 
1.0 Introduction 

As discussed in Section 1.1 and shown in Figure 1-2, a portion of the Bishop Road 

crosses the northern edge of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. The 2001 BLM 

Buffalo RMP update deferred a decision on the unsuitability of public roads, such 

as the Bishop Road and the associated buffer zones, until a leasing action 

occurred, with the assumption that the exception discussed above would be 

applicable. BLM has determined that the portions of the Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract that includes the Bishop Road, its ROW, and a 100-foot buffer zone must be 

considered unsuitable for mining under Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 at this 

time. 

Although land within the Bishop Road ROW is now determined to be unsuitable 

for mining, it is included in the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. FCW is currently 

evaluating the feasibility of relocating the Bishop Road if they lease the Belle Ayr 

North LBA Tract but no plan has been formulated and the Campbell County Board 

of Commissioner has not approved road relocation; therefore the unsuitability 

designation related to the Bishop Road ROW remains in place. However, including 

this land in the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract would allow recovery of all the mineable 

coal adjacent to and outside of the road buffer zone and would comply with the 

coal leasing regulations, which do not allow leasing in less than 10-acre aliquot 

parts. Stipulations stating that no mining activity may be conducted within 100 ft 

of the Bishop Road ROW until a permit to move the road is approved will be 

attached if a lease is issued for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. The exclusion of 

the coal underlying the road ROW and associated buffer zone from mining activity 

by lease stipulation honors the finding of unsuitability for mining under 

Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 for the Bishop Road. 

As discussed in Section 1.1 and shown in Figure 1-5, a portion of Highway 59 

crosses the western edge of the northern block of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract and 

the Haight and Hilight county roads cross portions of the southern block. The 

2001 BLM Buffalo RMP update deferred a decision on the unsuitability of public 

roads, such as the Highway 59 ROW and the county roads and the associated 

buffer zones, until a leasing action occurred, with the assumption that the 

exception discussed above would be applicable. At this time, CMC does not have 

plans to relocate the highway and the exception does not apply. CMC is 

evaluating the feasibility of relocating the county roads but no plans have been 

formulated and the Campbell County Board of Commissioner has not approved 

the road relocations. As a result, BLM has determined that the portions of the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract that includes Highway 59, its ROW, and a 100-foot buffer 

zone on the east side of the ROW and the Haight and Hilight county roads, their 

rights-of-way, and 100-foot buffers must be considered unsuitable for mining 

under Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 at this time. 

Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 states that lands within 100 ft of a cemetery 

shall be considered unsuitable for surface coal mining. As discussed in Section 

1.1 and shown in Figure 1-5 the Maysdorf Point Cemetery, a small rural cemetery, 

is located within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. The 2001 BLM Buffalo RMP update 

1-24 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

1.0 Introduction 

did not specifically mention this cemetery, but unsuitability is inferred. CFR Title 

30 Subpart 761.11(g) states that the prohibition of mining within 100 ft of a 

cemetery does not apply if the cemetery is relocated in accordance with all 

applicable laws and regulations. The cemetery contains the remains of six 

relatives of the Haight Family as well as six other people and is located on land 

owned by the Campbell County Cemetery District. CMC, the Campbell County 

Cemetery District, and representatives for the Haight Family are working on a 

plan to relocate the remains currently located in the cemetery. If the cemetery 

relocation is approved and completed, Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 would no 

longer apply. 

Although lands within the Highway 59, the Haight Road, and Hilight Road rightsof-way and the Maysdorf Point Cemetery and their associated buffer zones are now 

determined to be unsuitable for mining, they are included in the Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract. CMC is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the county roads but no 

plans have been formulated and the Campbell County Board of Commissioner has 

not approved the relocation of the roads and CMC does not currently have plans 

to relocate the highway if CMC leases the Maysdorf II LBA Tract; therefore the 

unsuitability designations related to the highway and county road rights-of-way 

remain in place. In addition, if the Maysdorf II LBA Tract is leased and CMC does 

not get approval to relocate the cemetery, the unsuitability designation related to 

the cemetery remains in place. However, including these lands in the Maysdorf II 

LBA Tract would allow recovery of all the mineable coal adjacent to and outside of 

the cemetery buffer zone and would comply with the coal leasing regulations, 

which do not allow leasing in less than 10-acre aliquot parts. If permits to 

relocate the county roads and the cemetery are approved, including the lands in 

the tract would allow recovery of the coal underlying the roads and cemetery and 

associated buffer zones. Stipulations stating that no mining activity may be 

conducted within 100 ft of the road rights-of-way and the cemetery until permits 

to move the roads or cemetery are approved will be attached if a lease is issued for 

the Maysdorf II Tract. The exclusion of the coal underlying the road rights-of-way 

and the cemetery and associated buffer zones from mining activity by lease 

stipulation honors the finding of unsuitability for mining under Unsuitability 

Criterion Number 3 for State Highway 59, the Haight Road, the Hilight Road, and 

the Maysdorf Point Cemetery. 

The third coal screening procedure, a multiple land use conflict analysis, must be 

completed to identify and “eliminate additional coal deposits from further 

consideration for leasing to protect resource values of a locally important or 

unique nature not included in the unsuitability criteria,” in accordance with 43 

CFR 3420.1-4(e)(3). The 2001 Buffalo RMP update addresses two types of 

multiple land use conflicts: municipal/residential conflicts and multiple mineral 

development (coal versus oil and gas) conflicts. 

The municipal/residential multiple land use conflict was addressed in the 1985 

Buffalo RMP by applying buffers around the municipal planning boundaries for 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-25 
1.0 Introduction 

the major municipalities within the BLM Buffalo Field Office area, including 

Gillette. The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA 

Tracts do not lie within or in proximity to an identified buffer zone surrounding an 

existing community. Therefore, no federal coal lands within the four LBA tracts 

have been eliminated from further consideration for leasing due to 

municipal/residential conflicts. 

The 2001 Buffalo RMP includes two decisions related to multiple mineral 

development conflicts in Campbell, Converse, and Sheridan counties. With 

respect to oil and gas leasing in coal mining areas, the RMP update determines 

that oil and gas tracts that would interfere with coal mining operations would not 

be offered for lease but that, where possible, oil and gas leases will be issued with 

specific conditions to prevent a development conflict with coal mining operations. 

With respect to coal leasing in oil and gas fields, the 2001 Buffalo RMP update 

states that coal leasing in producing oil and gas fields would be deferred unless or 

until coal development would not interfere with the economic recovery of the oil 

and gas resources, as determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Both conventional and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) wells presently exist inside 

and around the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II 

LBA Tracts. BLM’s evaluation of the potential for conflict with the development of 

oil and gas resources within the four LBA tracts is included in the Other Mineral 

Resources discussion in Section 3.3 and in the Land Use and Recreation 

discussion in Section 3.11 of this EIS. BLM’s policy and guidance on conflicts 

between surface coal mines and conventional oil and gas and CBNG development 

is to optimize the recovery of these resources and ensure that the public receives a 

reasonable return, as explained in BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153 

(BLM 2006d). 

The fourth coal screening procedure requires consultation with surface owners 

who meet the criteria defined in the regulations at 43 CFR 3400.0-5(gg)(1) and (2). 

Chapter 7 includes a definition of the term “qualified surface owner”, based on 

these regulations. Surface owner consultation was conducted as part of the coal 

screening analysis published in the 2001 Buffalo RMP update. Private surface 

owners in the Gillette coal development potential area were provided the 

opportunity to express their preference for or against surface mining of federal 

coal under their private surface estate during that screening. At that time, no 

attempt was made to distinguish qualified surface owners and Appendix D of the 

2001 Buffalo RMP update states that “no area should be dropped from further 

consideration for leasing as a result of responses received from surface owners”. 

Therefore, no federal coal lands within the tracts have been eliminated from 

further consideration for leasing due to qualified surface owner conflicts at this 

time. The current surface ownership of the tracts is discussed in Section 1.1 of 

this chapter and in Section 3.11. Private surface owners who are found to be 

qualified must consent to leasing before BLM can offer the underlying federal coal 

for lease. BLM will review current surface ownership in the tracts that will be 

1-26 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

considered for leasing prior to holding a lease sale for each tract. Prior to holding 

a lease sale for a tract, surface owner consultation must be completed with any 

private surface owners who are determined to be qualified. 

In summary, the lands in the FCW, ALC, CCC, and CMC coal lease applications 

have been subjected to the four coal planning screens and determined acceptable 

for further consideration for leasing. Thus, a decision to lease the federal coal 

lands in these applications would be in conformance with the current BLM Buffalo 

RMP. 

1.6 Consultation and Coordination 

Initial Involvement 

BLM received the Belle Ayr North coal lease application on July 6, 2004; the West 

Coal Creek coal lease application on February 10, 2006; the Caballo West coal 

lease application on March 15, 2006; and the Maysdorf II coal lease application on 

September 1, 2006. The applications were initially reviewed by the BLM Wyoming 

State Office-Division of Mineral and Lands. BLM ruled that these applications and 

the lands involved met the requirements of regulations governing coal leasing on 

application (43 CFR 3425). 

The BLM State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming on March 14, 2007 that 

FCW had filed a lease application with BLM for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. 

The Governor was notified on September 18, 2006 that ALC had filed a lease 

application for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract and that CMC had filed a lease 

application for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. The Governor was notified that CCC 

had filed a lease application for the Caballo West LBA Tract on April 27, 2006. 

A notice announcing the receipt of the Belle Ayr North coal lease application 

published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2005, a BLM news release 

announcing the receipt of the Caballo West and West Coal Creek coal lease 

applications issued on March 27, 2006, and a notice announcing the receipt of the 

Maysdorf II coal lease application published in the Federal Register on December 

12, 2006 served as public notice that these coal lease applications had been 

received. Copies of the notices were sent to voting and nonvoting members of the 

PRRCT, including the governors of Wyoming and Montana, the Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe, the Crow Tribal Council, OSM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

National Park Service, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

The PRRCT reviewed the Belle Ayr North Tract at a public meeting held on April 

24, 2005, in Gillette, Wyoming, the West Coal Creek and Caballo West Tracts at a 

public meeting held on April 19, 2006, in Casper, Wyoming, and the Maysdorf II 

Tract at a public meeting held on January 18, 2007, in Casper, Wyoming. Each of 

the applicants presented information about their existing mine and the pending 

lease application to the PRRCT at those meetings. The PRRCT recommended that 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-27 
1.0 Introduction 

BLM continue to process these applications. The major steps in processing an 

LBA are shown in Appendix C. 

BLM published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

and Notice of Public Meeting in the Federal Register on March 29, 2007 and in the 

Gillette News-Record on April 4, 2007. The publications announced the time and 

location of a public scoping meeting and requested public comment on all four of 

the applications. Letters requesting public comment and announcing the time 

and location of the public scoping meeting were mailed to all parties on the 

distribution list on March 26, 2007. 

A public scoping meeting was held on April 11, 2007 in Gillette, Wyoming. At the 

public meeting, the applicants orally presented information about their mines and 

their need for the coal. The presentations were followed by a question and answer 

period, during which no oral comments were made. The scoping period extended 

from March 29 through June 10, 2007, during which time BLM received written, 

e-mailed, and telephoned comments from six entities. 

Chapter 5 provides a list of other federal, state, and local governmental agencies 

that were consulted in preparation of this EIS and the distribution list for this 

EIS. 

Issues and Concerns 

Issues and concerns that have been expressed by the public and government 

agencies relating to the potential impacts of leasing the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts, specifically, and to previous coal 

lease applications in general include: 

• 	potential conflicts between coal mining and existing and proposed 

conventional oil and coalbed natural gas development; 

• 	 potential cumulative impacts of coal leasing decisions combined with other 

existing and proposed development in the Wyoming Powder River Basin; 

• 	 validity and currency of resource data; 

• 	 potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources; 

• 	 potential impacts to Greater sage-grouse and other wildlife; 

• 	 potential impacts to listed threatened and endangered species and other 

species of concern; 

• 	 potential impacts to wetland resources; 

• 	 potential impacts related to coal loss during transport; 

• 	 potential air quality impacts (including cumulative impacts to visibility); 

• 	 potential surface and groundwater quality and quantity impacts; 

• 	 potential impacts of and possible mitigation for nitrogen oxide emissions 

resulting from blasting of coal and overburden; 

• 	 potential human health impacts; 

• 	 the need to include reasonably foreseeable actions such as the construction 

1-28 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
1.0 Introduction 

and operation of the DM&E railroad and power plants in the cumulative 

analysis; 

• 	 the need to address coal combustion residues and other by-products from 

coal-fired power plants; 

• 	 the need to address increasing coal production in the PRB in the cumulative 

analysis; 

• 	 the need to address site-specific greenhouse gas emissions; and 

• 	climate change. 

Draft EIS 

Parties on the distribution list were sent copies of this Draft EIS, and copies are 

available for review at the BLM offices in Casper and Cheyenne, Wyoming. The 

document is also available for review on the BLM Wyoming website at http:// 

www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/cfodocs/south_gillette.html. 

A notice announcing the availability of the draft EIS will be published in the 

Federal Register by the EPA. A 60-day comment period on the draft EIS will 

commence with publication of the EPA’s Notice of Availability. BLM will publish a 

Notice of Availability/Notice of Public Hearing in the Federal Register. The BLM’s 

Federal Register notice will announce the date and time of a public hearing to be 

held during the 60-day comment period. The purpose of the public hearing will be 

to solicit public comments on the draft EIS and on the fair market value, the 

maximum economic recovery, and the proposed competitive sale of federal coal 

from the LBA tracts. BLM will also publish a notice of public hearing in the 

Gillette News-Record. 

Final EIS and Future Involvement 

All substantive written comments received on the draft EIS will be included, with 

agency responses, in the Final EIS. Availability of the Final EIS will be published 

in the Federal Register by BLM and EPA. After a 30-day availability period, BLM 

will make separate decisions to hold or not to hold a competitive lease sale for the 

federal coal in each of the four tracts. 

A public ROD for each of the tracts will be mailed to parties on the mailing list and 

others who commented on this EIS during the NEPA process. The public and/or 

the applicant can appeal the BLM decision to hold or not to hold a competitive 

sale and issue a lease for any of the four tracts. The BLM decision must be 

appealed within 30 days from the date the Notice of Availability for the Record of 

Decision is published in the Federal Register. The decision can be implemented at 

that time if no appeal is received. If competitive lease sales are held, the lease 

sales will follow the procedures set forth in 43 CFR 3422, 43 CFR 3425, and BLM 

Handbook H-3420-1 (Competitive Coal Leasing). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 1-29 
1.0 Introduction 

Department of Justice Consultation 

After each competitive coal lease sale, but prior to issuance of the lease, BLM 

must solicit the opinion of the Department of Justice on whether the planned 

lease issuance creates a situation inconsistent with federal antitrust laws. The 

Department of Justice is allowed 30 days to make this determination. BLM can 

proceed with issuance of the lease if the Department of Justice has not responded 

in writing within the 30 days. 

1-30 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes the Proposed Action and alternatives for each of the four 

Lease by Application (LBA)1 tracts being evaluated by this Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). The four tracts are the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as applied for 

by Foundation Coal West (FCW), the West Coal Creek LBA Tract as applied for by 

Ark Land Company (ALC), the Caballo West LBA Tract as applied for by Caballo 

Coal Company (CCC), and the Maysdorf II LBA Tract as applied for by Cordero 

Mining Company (CMC). 

For each tract, the Proposed Action is to hold a competitive lease sale and issue a 

lease for the federal coal lands included in the tract as applied for by the 

applicant. Under each Proposed Action, the tract as applied for would be offered 

for lease at one competitive sealed bid lease sale, subject to standard and special 

lease stipulations developed for the Powder River Basin (PRB) and that tract. The 

boundaries of each tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed 

by each applicant. Figures 2-1 through 2-4 show the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts, respectively, under each 

Proposed Action. In each case, the Proposed Action assumes that the applicant 

would be the successful bidder on each tract, and that the tract would be mined 

as a maintenance lease for an existing mine. 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires the consideration 

and evaluation of other reasonable ways to meet proposal objectives while 

minimizing or avoiding environmental impacts. Thus, NEPA requires the 

evaluation of a No Action Alternative and a practical range of other “reasonable” 

alternatives that may avoid or minimize project impacts. Reasonable alternatives 

are defined by NEPA as those that are technically, economically, and 

environmentally practical and feasible. Reasonable alternatives are formulated to 

address issues and concerns raised by the public and agencies during scoping. 

These other alternatives should represent other means of satisfying the stated 

purpose and need for the federal action. 

The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) for each tract considered in this EIS is to 

reject the lease application. Under the No Action Alternative, a tract would not be 

offered for competitive sale, and the coal contained within the tract would not be 

mined as proposed. Rejection of an application would not affect currently 

permitted mining activities on existing leases at any of the applicant mines and 

selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude an application to lease 

any rejected tract in the future. Portions of the surface of each LBA tract would 

probably be disturbed due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the 

adjacent existing leases. 

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

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-1 

1 
21 

29 

48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

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

Hilight Road

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

State Highway 59

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

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

N. N. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

20 

19 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 19 20 

29 28 27 30 26 25 28 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 

48 33 34 35 36 32 31 

N. 

34 36 31 32 33 35 48

N. 

T. T. 

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

Road 

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

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

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

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

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

LEGEND 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Alternative 2 

BLM's Study Area 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

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

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

0 

2-2
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

33 

28 

21 

34 

27 

22 

35 

26 

23 

36 

25 

31 

30 

32 

29 

20 

33 

28 

21 

34 

27 

22 

35 

26 

23 

36 

25 

31 

30 

32 

29 

20 

31 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

32 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

31 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

32 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

33 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

34 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

35 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

36 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

33 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

34 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

35 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

36 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

28 

21 

16 

9 

4 

27 

22 

15 

10 

3 

26 

23 

14 

11 

2 

25 

24 

13 

12 

1 

30 

19 

18 

7 

6 

29 

20 

17 

8 

5 

T. 

47 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

45 

N. 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

T. 

47 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

T. 

45 

N. 

Mills Road 

Breen 

Lawver

Hilight

T-7 Road

BNSF & UP RR

BNSF & UP RR

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight RoadRoad

Hilight Road

Hoadley Road

Road 

Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

Wagensen Road 

Hoadley Road 

0 5000 10000 20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

LEGEND 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

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

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-3
13 18

26 

14 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 Highway 

BNSF RR 

Four Road Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

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

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 

19 20 21 22 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

29 26 25 30 29 28 27 25 30 28 27 

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 

30 25 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) 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 2-3. Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives. 

2-4 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
24

22 

3 

22 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway 

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

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

30
 

20
 21

29
 28

22 23
 

28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 29
 

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

H

BNSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 

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

N. N. 

6
 5 4 N. N. 

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

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

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

28 27 30 29 27 26 25 30
 29
 26 25

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

N. N. 

T. T. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

Hoadley Road 

22
 21
 24 19 20 21 23
 24
 19
 20 23

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

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

5000 10000 20000
 North Tract Under Alternative 3
 

South Tract Under Alternative 3 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 2-4. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

33 

28 

0 

2-5
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Competitive Coal Leasing Manual (BLM 

Manual 3420-1) requires BLM to evaluate modifying the configuration of federal 

coal tracts based on providing for maximum economic recovery of the coal 

resource, maintaining or increasing the potential for competition, and avoiding 

future bypass or captive tract situations. For NEPA purposes, BLM identifies 

alternate tract configurations and evaluates them as alternatives to the Proposed 

Action. BLM has identified a study area for each LBA Tract that includes each 

tract as applied for and adjacent unleased federal coal. Figures 2-1 through 2-4 

show these study areas for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, 

and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts, respectively. BLM is evaluating these study areas for 

the purpose of identifying potential alternate tract configurations to the Proposed 

Action that would be technically, economically, or environmentally preferable to 

the Proposed Action. 

The Leasing on Application regulations at 43 CFR 3425.1-9 state that: “The 

authorized officer may add or delete lands from an area covered by an application 

for any reason he/she determines to be in the public interest.” Accordingly, in 

evaluating alternate tract configurations, BLM could either increase or decrease 

the size of each tract as applied for. 

The potential tract configurations, and therefore the potential number of 

alternatives evaluated for NEPA purposes, can vary for each tract. In this EIS, one 

alternative, Alternative 2, is evaluated in addition to the Proposed Action and 

Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) for all of the tracts considered in this EIS. 

Under Alternative 2 for each tract, BLM is evaluating adding all or part of the BLM 

study area to the tract as applied for and/or reducing the size of the tract as 

applied for. One competitive sealed bid sale would be held for each tract as 

modified by BLM. For the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, one additional alternative, 

Alternative 3 is evaluated. Under Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract, BLM 

is considering splitting the BLM study area into two tracts (the North Maysdorf II 

and South Maysdorf II LBA Tracts). The lands included in the two tracts would be 

the lands included in the tract as modified by BLM. Two separate competitive 

sealed bid lease sales would be held. 

Two other alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail. They are: 

• 	 holding a competitive lease sale and issuing a lease for federal coal lands 

included in one or more of the LBA tracts (as applied for or as modified by 

BLM), with the assumption that one or more of the tracts would be 

developed as a new mine. A company or companies acquiring this coal for 

one or more new stand-alone mines would require considerable initial 

capital expenses, including the construction of new surface facilities (i.e., 

offices, shops, warehouses, coal processing facilities, coal loadout facilities, 

and rail spurs), extensive baseline data collection, and development of new 

mining and reclamation plans. If a new mine is required to mine the coal, 

the environmental impacts would be expected to be greater than if each 

2-6 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

tract were mined as an extension of an existing mine. In addition, a 

company or companies acquiring this coal for one or more new start mines 

would have to compete for customers with established mines in a 

competitive market. 

• 	 delaying the sale of one or more of the LBA tracts as applied for in order to 

take advantage of higher coal prices and/or to allow recovery of the 

potential coal bed natural gas (CBNG) resources in the tract prior to mining. 

This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it would not produce 

substantially different impacts from other alternatives analyzed in detail. 

Rental and royalty provisions in each proposed lease provide for the U.S. to 

benefit if coal prices increase by the time of mining. Moreover, recovery of a 

large portion of the economically-recoverable CBNG resources on the tracts 

would be anticipated after lease issuance. 

LBA tracts are nominated for leasing by companies with an interest in acquiring 

them but, as discussed in Chapter 1, the LBA process is, by law and regulation, 

an open, public, competitive sealed-bid process. If a tract is offered for lease, the 

applicant for that tract may or may not be the high bidder when the lease sale is 

held. For each tract, the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (and Alternative 3 for 

the Maysdorf II Tract) considered in this EIS assume that the applicant that 

applied for the tract would be the successful bidder if the federal coal included in 

the tract is offered for lease, and that each tract would be mined as a maintenance 

tract for an existing permitted mine. 

If a decision is made to hold a competitive lease sale for a tract of federal coal and 

a lease is issued, the lessee must obtain a permit to conduct coal mining 

operations before mining can begin on the tract. As discussed in Section 1.3, this 

permit application would undergo detailed review by state and federal agencies as 

part of the approval process. The detailed permit application for each tract could 

potentially differ from the more general mining plan used in this EIS to analyze 

the impacts of the Proposed Action, Alternative 2 of each tract, and Alternative 3 

for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, but the differences would not be expected to 

substantially change the impacts described here. These differences would 

typically be related to the details of mining and reclaiming the tract but major 

factors, like the approximate number of tons of coal to be mined and yards of 

overburden to be removed, the acres disturbed, etc., would not be substantially 

different from the plans used in this analysis. 

If any of the tracts are leased under the Proposed Action or the alternatives for 

each tract, it is assumed that an area larger than the tract would have to be 

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

the coal removal area would be due to activities such as overstripping, matching 

undisturbed topography, and construction of flood control and sediment control 

structures. This is referred to as the general analysis area for that tract. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-7 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

BLM has not identified a preferred alternative in this Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS). BLM’s coal leasing rules and regulations require that BLM 

consider comments from the public regarding maximum economic recovery of the 

coal lands being considered for lease, as well as any comments pertaining to fair 

market value of the coal lands under consideration in determining the preferred 

tract configuration alternative. These comments are sought and received in written 

or oral form during the DEIS review and the public hearing process. Public 

comments on environmental effects identified in the DEIS as well as fair market 

value and maximum economic recovery factors, geologic data, and coal data are 

used to assist in determining the preferred alternative. A preferred alternative will 

be developed after these processes are concluded and will be identified in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 

2.1 Alternatives for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, as applied for by FCW, 

would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to 

standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D). The 

boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed 

in the Belle Ayr North lease application (Figure 2-1). The Proposed Action 

assumes that FCW would be the successful bidder on 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 P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 18: Lots 17, 18, 19(W1⁄2, SE1⁄4); 113.48 acres 

Section 19: Lots 5 through 19; 606.93 acres 

Section 20: Lots 3 (SW1⁄4), 4 (W1⁄2, SE1⁄4), 5, 6, 

7 (S1⁄2), 9 (S1⁄2), 10 through 16; 450.43 acres 

Section 21: Lots 13, 14; 81.52 acres 

Section 28: Lots 3 through 6; 161.98 acres 

Section 29: Lots 1, 6; 81.63 acres 

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

Section 24: Lots 1, 8. 82.77 acres 

Total: 1,578.74 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 


Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plat as of April 10, 2006 and Coal 


2-8 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Plat as of March 8, 2006. The coal estate included in the tract described above is 

federally owned and the surface is owned by FCW. Ownership of the oil and gas 

estate is discussed in Section 3.11. 

Some of the coal in Belle Ayr North 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. As discussed in 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, 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 approximately 

27.2 million tons of mineable coal are included within the right-of-way and 

associated 100 ft buffer zone that is within the LBA tract and that if the county 

road is not moved approximately 12.7 million tons of mineable coal would be 

isolated east of the Bishop Road. 

The federal coal lands underlying the county road right-of-way and the adjacent 

buffer zones are included in the tract because that would allow maximum recovery 

of the mineable coal adjacent to but outside of the county road and buffer zone if 

the road is not moved; and would also allow recovery of the coal under the road if 

it is moved. If a lease is issued for this tract, a stipulation will be attached stating 

that no mining activity may be conducted within 100 ft of the road right-of-way 

until permit to move the county road is approved. 

If the Bishop Road is moved, FCW estimates that the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as 

applied for includes approximately 208.1 million tons of in-place and mineable 

coal. FCW assumes that about 94 percent of that coal, or about 191.9 million 

tons of coal, could be recovered from the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, based on 

historical recovery practices. FCW estimates that at the projected average annual 

coal production rate of 30 million tons per year (mmtpy), mining this coal would 

extend this mine life by about 6.4 years. As a basis for estimating impacts, 

annual production is assumed to increase to 30 mmtpy by 2015 and hold at that 

rate through 2020 and to the end of mine life. Future production rates are 

difficult to estimate since mines must increase or reduce rates in line with annual 

demand and competition for coal sales. BLM estimated future rates for the 

purpose of estimating impact using the Powder River Basin Coal Review Task 2 

report – Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities 

(BLM 2005d). This results in an average production rate from mid 2008 to the 

end of mine life of 30 mmtpy. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-9 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

If the Bishop Road is not moved, FCW estimates that as applied for the Belle Ayr 

North LBA Tract contains approximately 208.1 million tons of in-place coal 

reserves. Excluding the federal coal reserves within the Bishop Road right-of-way 

and buffer zone and the isolated coal, FCW estimates that the Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract contains approximately 164.7 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using 

FCW’s projected recovery factor of 94 percent of the mineable coal reserves 

included in tract as applied for, the tract would contain about 154.8 million tons 

of recoverable coal. At the average annual coal production rate of 30 mmtpy, 

mining this coal would extend mine life by about 5.2 years. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality 

of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal 

reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of 

the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of coal included in the tract 

will be published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for sale. 

The Belle Ayr North LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the Belle Ayr 

Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract would be an 

extension of the existing Belle Ayr Mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be 

the same as those identified in the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD) Mine Permit 214 Term T6, approved 

November 25, 2003 and the BLM Resource Recovery and Protection Plan (R2P2), 

which was approved March 8, 2007. 

FCW’s currently approved air quality permit from the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) for the Belle Ayr Mine 

allows up to 45 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Belle Ayr Mine 

produced: 

• 11.8 million tons of coal in 2001, 

• 17.5 million tons of coal in 2002, 

• 17.9 million tons of coal in 2003, 

• 18.7 million tons of coal in 2004, 

• 19.5 million tons of coal in 2005, 

• 24.6 million tons of coal in 2006, and 

• 26.6 million tons of coal in 2007 


(Wyoming Department of Employment 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 


and 2007). 


Under the currently approved mining plan (the No Action Alternative), the Belle 

Ayr Mine would mine its remaining 235.8 million tons of recoverable coal reserves 

on the existing Belle Ayr leases in nearly 8 years at an average production rate of 

approximately 30 mmtpy. Under the Proposed Action and if the Bishop Road is 

moved, FCW estimates that annual coal production would average approximately 

2-10 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

30 million tons, mine life would be extended by more than 6 additional years, and 

coal production at the Belle Ayr Mine would continue for just over 14 years 

beyond mid 2008. If the road is not moved, FCW estimates that annual coal 

production would average approximately 30 million tons, mine life would be 

extended by more than 5 additional years, and coal production at the Belle Ayr 

Mine would continue for nearly 14 years beyond mid 2008. 

If FCW acquires the Belle Ayr North LBA tract as applied for and if the Bishop 

Road is moved, they estimate that a total of 427.7 million tons of coal would be 

recovered after July 1, 2008, with an estimated 191.9 million tons coming from 

the LBA tract. As of June 30, 2008, approximately 544.5 million tons of coal had 

been mined from within the current permit area of the Belle Ayr Mine. 

If FCW acquires the Belle Ayr North LBA tract as applied for and if the Bishop 

Road is not moved, they estimate that a total of 390.6 million tons of coal would 

be recovered after July 1, 2008, with an estimated 154.8 million tons coming from 

the LBA tract. 

Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as 

roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would 

be built as needed. Two telephone lines, one high-pressure gas pipeline, and a 

portion of the Bishop Road would require relocation prior to mining. 

Topsoil removal with suitable heavy equipment, such as rubber-tired scrapers, 

would proceed ahead of overburden removal. Whenever possible, direct haulage to 

a reclamation area would be done, but due to scheduling, some topsoil would be 

temporarily stockpiled. As required by the reclamation plan, heavy equipment 

again would be used to haul and distribute the stockpiled topsoil. 

The Belle Ayr Mine is one of several mines currently operating in the PRB where 

the coal seams are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin. Mining 

would be conducted as an extension of the one pit located within the current 

permit area. Overburden removal has been and would continue to be conducted 

using trucks and shovels. Other equipment used during overburden removal and 

backfilling would include dozers, scrapers, excavators, front-end loaders, graders, 

and water trucks. Most overburden and all coal have been and would continue to 

be drilled and blasted to facilitate efficient excavation. The design of the Belle Ayr 

Mine seeks to confine disturbance to the active mine blocks. As overburden is 

removed, most would be directly placed into areas where coal has already been 

removed. 

Replaced (backfilled) overburden is graded to approximate original land surface 

contour, as required by WDEQ and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement (OSM) rules. Elevations consistent with an approved post-mining 

topography (PMT) plan would be established as quickly as possible to construct a 

stable landscape and restore drainage. Backfilled and recontoured overburden is 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-11 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

sampled and analyzed to verify suitability as subsoil. Material that is found to be 

unsuitable for reclamation (i.e., material that is not suitable for use in 

reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high 

concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium or adverse pH levels) 

would either be removed and treated, or adequately covered with suitable 

overburden material prior to topsoiling. Under certain conditions, the PMT may 

not be immediately achievable. This occurs when there is an excess of material 

that may require temporary stockpiling, when there is insufficient material 

available from current overburden removal operations, or when future mining 

could redisturb an area already mined. Once a seedbed has been prepared, 

vegetation that is consistent with the postmining land use would be reestablished. 

Coal would be produced from one coal seam that FCW refers to as the WyodakAnderson. The seam averages 72 ft in thickness and ranges from about 66 to 76 

ft thick inside the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. Coal would be mined at several 

working faces to enable blending of the coal to meet customer quality 

requirements, to comply with BLM lease requirements for maximum economic 

recovery of the coal resource, and to optimize coal removal efficiency with available 

equipment. Coal would be loaded with electric-powered shovels into off-highway 

haul trucks for transport to crushing facilities. Coal haul roads would be 

temporary structures built within the mine areas. The Belle Ayr Mine utilizes two 

existing coal crushing facilities located within the FCW Mine permit area, which 

provide the capacity to produce the permitted production tonnage. All coal 

crushing operations and conveying, transferring, and storage facilities are 

equipped with atomizer/fogger systems for dust control. A system of crushers, 

feeders, and transfer conveyors move the prepared coal to interim storage in four 

concrete silos located adjacent to the unit train loadout facility. While sufficient 

storage capacity exists, facilities may be constructed in the future to improve 

operating efficiency and air quality protection. For example, a stilling shed may be 

built and a covered overland conveyor and near-pit crusher system may be 

constructed and moved as the mining operation progresses. 

Full-time employment at the Belle Ayr Mine is currently 358. If FCW acquires the 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract under the Proposed Action, they anticipate that 

employment levels would increase to 366 for the additional 5 to 7 years that it 

would take to mine the coal included in the tract. This is based on the 

assumption that the annual coal production rate would average approximately 30 

mmtpy. 

FCW applied for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, but the tract is also adjacent to 

the Caballo Mine, operated by CCC (see Figure 1-2). As a result, CCC is 

potentially in a position to mine the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. If a company 

other than FCW were to acquire the tract, the rate of coal production, mining 

sequence, equipment, and facilities would be different than if FCW acquired the 

tract as a maintenance lease, as described above. However, the area of 

2-12 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

disturbance and the impacts of removing the coal would not be substantially 

different from the area of disturbance and the impacts of FCW mining the tract. 

2.1.2 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternative 1 

Under the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, 

FCW’s application to lease the coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

would be rejected. The tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, 

and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. 

Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activities or 

employment on the existing leases at the Belle Ayr Mine. The Belle Ayr Mine 

currently owns or leases approximately 4,946 acres of federal coal, 760 acres of 

private coal, and 640 acres of state coal, all of which are within the existing Belle 

Ayr Mine permit boundaries. A total of approximately 11,621 acres will eventually 

be affected in mining the current leases. If the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract is not 

leased, FCW estimates that the annual production at the Belle Ayr Mine would 

average 30 million tons, and the average full-time employment level is expected to 

be 358 persons. 

In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining 

these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption 

that the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if 

the No Action Alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action 

Alternative would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If 

the decision is made to reject the Belle Ayr North lease application at this time, 

the tract could be leased as a maintenance lease in the future while the adjacent 

mine is in operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in 

operation, it may or may not be leased in the future. This tract does not include 

enough coal reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation; however, 

the coal reserves included in the tract could potentially be combined with 

unleased federal coal to the west to create a larger tract, which could be mined by 

a new operation in the future. 

2.1.3 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 for the Belle Ayr North 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 for 

this tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D). 

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 federal coal would 

be mined as a maintenance lease for the existing Belle Ayr Mine. Assumptions 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-13 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

concerning mining methods, facilities, hazardous materials, mitigation and 

monitoring requirements, etc. are the same as described for the Proposed Action. 

As applied for, the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal 

coal (Figure 1-2). 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 Belle Ayr North 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 BLM study area includes the tract 

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

as applied for (Figure 2-1). Under this alternative, BLM could add all or part of 

the adjacent lands to the tract, or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as 

discussed in Section 2.0. The original BLM study area was redelineated on June 

20, 2007 to describe the tract based on 10-acre aliquot parts rather than physical 

boundaries (the Bishop Road). FCW was aware of and agreed to the change. 

The area BLM is evaluating adding to the tract as applied for includes the 

following lands: 

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

Section 17: Lots 13, 14; 

Section 18: Lots 19 (NE1⁄4); 

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

7 (N1⁄2), and 9 (N1⁄2); 

82.53 acres 

10.34 acres 

82.19 acres 

Total Added: 175.06 acres 

BLM would remove the following as applied for lands from leasing consideration if 

this alternative is selected: 

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

Section 24: Lots 1, 8. -82.77 acres 

Total (Net Change): 92.29 acres 

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

under Alternative 2 is as follows: 

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

Section 17: Lots 13, 14; 82.53 acres 

Section 18: Lots 17, 18, 19; 123.82 acres 

Section 19: Lots 5 through 19; 606.93 acres 

Section 20: Lots 3 through 7, 9 through 16; 532.62 acres 

2-14 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Section 21: Lots 13, 14; 

Section 28: Lots 3 through 6; 

Section 29: Lots 1, 6. 

81.52 acres 

161.98 acres 

81.63 acres 

Total: 1,671.03 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Master Title Plat as of April 10, 2006 and Coal 

Plat as of March 8, 2006. The coal estate in the tract described above is federally 

owned and the surface estate is owned by FCW. Ownership of the oil and gas 

estate is discussed in Section 3.11. 

Some of the coal in Belle Ayr North 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. As discussed in 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, 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 approximately 

45 million tons of mineable coal are included within the right-of-way and 

associated 100 ft buffer zone that is within the LBA tract under Alternative 2 and 

that if the county road is not moved approximately 13 million tons of mineable 

coal would be isolated east of the Bishop Road. 

The federal coal lands underlying the county road right-of-way and the adjacent 

buffer zones and the isolated coal are included in the tract because that would 

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

county road and buffer zone if the road is not moved; and would also allow 

recovery of the coal under the road if it is moved. If a lease is issued for this tract, 

a stipulation will be attached stating that no mining activity may be conducted 

within 100 ft of the road right-of-way until permit to move the county road is 

approved. 

If the Bishop Road is moved, FCW estimates that the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

under Alternative 2 includes approximately 221.1 million tons of in-place coal and 

217.6 million tons of mineable coal. FCW assumes that about 94 percent of that 

coal, or about 204.6 million tons of coal, could be recovered from the Belle Ayr 

North LBA Tract, based on historical recovery practices. FCW estimates that at 

the projected average annual coal production rate of 30 mmtpy, mining this coal 

would extend this mine life by just under 7 years. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-15 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

If the Bishop Road is not moved, FCW estimates that as applied for the Belle Ayr 

North LBA Tract contains approximately 221.1 million tons of in-place coal 

reserves. Excluding the federal coal reserves within the Bishop Road right-of-way 

and buffer zone and the isolated coal, FCW estimates that the Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract contains approximately 159.6 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using 

FCW’s projected recovery factor of 94 percent of the mineable coal reserves 

included in tract as applied for, the tract would contain about 150.1 million tons 

of recoverable coal. FCW estimates that under Alternative 2 that at the estimated 

average annual coal production rate of 30 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend 

this mine life by approximately 5 years. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality 

of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal 

reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of 

the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of coal included in the tract 

will be published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for sale. 

2.2 Alternatives for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

2.2.1 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the West Coal Creek LBA Tract, as applied for by ALC, 

would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to 

standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D). The 

boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed 

in the West Coal Creek lease application (Figure 2-2). The Proposed Action 

assumes that ALC would be the successful bidder on the 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 P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 18: Lots 14 through 17; 

Section 19: Lots 7 through 10, 15 through 18; 

Section 30: Lots 5 through 20. 

161.95 acres 

323.60 acres 

665.71 acres 

Total: 1,151.26 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plat as of August 10, 2006. The ownership 

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

2-16 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

owned by Dennis Edwards and Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC. Ownership of the 

oil and gas estate is discussed in Section 3.11. 

ALC estimates that the West Coal Creek LBA Tract includes approximately 63.3 

million tons of in-place and mineable coal. Using ALC’s projected recovery factor 

of 90 percent of the mineable coal reserves, the LBA tract as applied for would 

contain about 57.0 million tons of recoverable coal. At an average annual coal 

production rate of 13.4 mmtpy, mining would extend mine life by just over 4 

years. As a basis for estimating impacts, annual production is assumed to 

increase to 14 mmtpy by 2015 and hold at that rate through 2020 and to the end 

of mine life. Future production rates are difficult to estimate since mines must 

increase or reduce rates in line with annual demand and competition for coal 

sales. BLM estimated future rates for the purpose of estimating impact using the 

Powder River Basin Coal Review Task 2 report – Past and Present and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development Activities (BLM 2005d). This results in an average 

production rate from 2008 to the end of mine life of 13.4 mmtpy. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality 

of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal 

reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of 

the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of coal included in the tract 

will be published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for sale. 

The West Coal Creek LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the Coal 

Creek Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

would be an extension of the existing Coal Creek Mine, the facilities and 

infrastructure would be the same as those identified in the WDEQ/LQD Mine 

Permit 483 Term T5, approved September 7, 2005 and the BLM R2P2, which was 

approved April 15, 2004. 

ALC’s currently approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD for the Coal 

Creek Mine allows up to 25 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Coal 

Creek Mine produced: 

• no coal in 2001, 

• no coal in 2002, 

• no coal in 2003, 

• no coal in 2004, 

• no coal in 2005, 

• 3.1 million tons of coal in 2006, and 

• 10.2 million tons of coal in 2007 

(Wyoming Department of Employment 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 

2006 and TBCC 2007). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-17 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Under the currently approved mining plan (the No Action Alternative), the Coal 

Creek Mine would mine its remaining 217.5 million tons of recoverable coal 

reserves on the existing Coal Creek leases in nearly 17 years at an average 

production rate of approximately 13.4 mmtpy. Under the Proposed Action ALC 

estimates that annual coal production would average approximately 13.4 million 

tons, mine life would be extended by just more than 4 additional years, and coal 

production at the Coal Creek Mine would continue for just over 20 years beyond 

mid 2008. 

If ALC acquires the West Coal Creek LBA tract as applied for, they estimate that a 

total of 274.5 million tons of coal would be recovered after July 1, 2008, with an 

estimated 57.0 million tons coming from the LBA tract. As of June 30, 2008, 

approximately 68.9 million tons of coal had been mined from within the current 

permit area of the Coal Creek Mine. 

Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as 

roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would 

be built as needed. Three overhead powerlines, one buried telephone line, and 

three buried pipelines would require relocation prior to mining. 

Topsoil removal with suitable heavy equipment, such as rubber-tired scrapers, 

would proceed ahead of overburden removal. Whenever possible, direct haulage to 

a reclamation area would be done but, due to scheduling, some topsoil would be 

temporarily stockpiled. As outlined in the reclamation plan, heavy equipment 

again would be used to haul and distribute the stockpiled topsoil. 

The Coal Creek Mine is one of several mines currently operating in the PRB where 

the coal seams are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin. Mining 

would be conducted in four separate, semi-independent pits; three located within 

the current permit area and one located within the proposed lease area. The 

multi-pit concept has been and would be utilized to reduce operating costs by 

blending production from areas having different stripping ratios and coal quality, 

and also to help stabilize manpower requirements. Overburden removal has been 

and would continue to be conducted using trucks and shovels or loaders, 

draglines, and direct cast blasting. Other equipment used during overburden 

removal and backfilling would include dozers, scrapers, excavators, front-end 

loaders, graders, and water trucks. Most overburden and all coal have been and 

would continue to be drilled and blasted to facilitate efficient excavation. The 

design of the Coal Creek Mine seeks to confine disturbance to the active mine 

blocks. As overburden is removed, most would be directly placed into areas where 

coal has already been removed. 

Replaced (backfilled) overburden is graded to approximate original land surface 

contour, as required by WDEQ and OSM rules. Elevations consistent with an 

approved PMT plan would be established as quickly as possible to construct a 

stable landscape and restore drainage. Backfilled and recontoured overburden is 

2-18 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

sampled and analyzed to verify suitability as subsoil. Material that is found to be 

unsuitable for reclamation (i.e., material that is not suitable for use in 

reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high 

concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium or adverse pH levels) 

would either be removed and treated, or adequately covered with suitable 

overburden material prior to topsoiling. Under certain conditions, the PMT may 

not be immediately achievable. This occurs when there is an excess of material 

that may require temporary stockpiling, when there is insufficient material 

available from current overburden removal operations, or when future mining 

could redisturb an area already mined. Once a seedbed has been prepared, 

vegetation that is consistent with the postmining land use would be reestablished. 

Coal would be produced from one coal zone that Thunder Basin Coal Company 

(TBCC) refers to as the Wyodak-Anderson. The seam averages 36 ft in thickness 

inside the West Coal Creek LBA Tract. The Wyodak-Anderson zone is split into 

two mineable seams: locally referred to as the R1 and the R3 coal seams. Coal 

would be mined at several working faces to enable blending of the coal to meet 

customer quality requirements, to comply with BLM lease requirements for 

maximum economic recovery of the coal resource, and to optimize coal removal 

efficiency with available equipment. Coal would be loaded with shovels, loaders, 

or backhoes into off-highway haul trucks for transport to crushing facilities. Coal 

haul roads would be temporary structures built within the mine areas. The Coal 

Creek Mine utilizes two existing coal crushing facilities located within the Coal 

Creek Mine permit area, which provides the capacity to produce at the permitted 

level. All coal crushing operations and conveying, transferring, and storage 

facilities are equipped with baghouses or passive control equipment for dust 

control. There are two existing coal storage silos. A covered overland conveyor 

and near-pit crusher system have been constructed and will be moved as the 

mining operation progresses. While sufficient storage capacity exists, future 

changes in facilities may be constructed to improve operating efficiency and air 

quality protection. For example, a covered slot storage barn, covered dome, or 

other appropriate storage structure may be built. 

Full-time employment at the Coal Creek Mine is currently 150 persons. If ALC 

acquires the West Coal Creek LBA Tract under the Proposed Action, they 

anticipate that employment levels would increase to 160 for the additional 4 years 

that it would take to mine the coal included in the tract. This is based on the 

assumption that the annual coal production rate would average approximately 

13.4 mmtpy. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, the West Coal Creek LBA Tract is adjacent to existing 

leases at the Coal Creek Mine, but is not adjacent to leases at any of the other 

existing mines in this area (see Figure 1-3). If a company other than ALC were to 

acquire the tract, the rate of coal production, mining sequence, equipment, and 

facilities would be different than if ALC acquired the tract as a maintenance lease, 

as described above. However, the area of disturbance and the impacts of 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-19 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

removing the coal would not be substantially different from the area of 

disturbance and the impacts of TBCC mining the tract. 

2.2.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternative 1 

Under the West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, 

ALC’s application to lease the coal included in the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

would be rejected, the tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, 

and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. 

Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activity and 

employment on the existing leases at the Coal Creek Mine. The Coal Creek Mine 

currently owns or leases approximately 5,918.0 acres of federal coal, 120.1 acres 

of private coal, and 805.7 acres of state coal; all of which are within the existing 

Coal Creek Mine permit boundary. A total of approximately 8,355 acres will 

eventually be affected in mining the current leases. If the West Coal Creek LBA 

Tract is not leased, ALC estimates that the annual production at the Coal Creek 

Mine would average 13.4 million tons, and the average full-time employment level 

is expected to remain at 150 persons. 

In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining 

these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption 

that the West Coal Creek LBA Tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future 

if the No Action Alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action 

Alternative would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If 

the decision is made to reject the West Coal Creek lease application at this time, 

the tract could be leased as a maintenance lease in the future while the adjacent 

mine is in operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in 

operation, it may or may not be leased in the future. This tract does not include 

enough coal reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation; however, 

the coal reserves included in the tract could potentially be combined with 

unleased federal coal to the west and south to create a larger tract, which could be 

mined by a new operation in the future. 

2.2.3 West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract, BLM would reconfigure the 

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

tract, and issue a lease to the successful bidder. The modified tract would be 

subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and this 

tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D). 

Alternative 2 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 

2-20 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

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, which includes the tract as 

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

applied for (Figure 2-2). Under this alternative, BLM could add some or all of the 

adjacent lands to the tract or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed 

in Section 2.0. 

The area BLM is evaluating in addition to the tract as applied for includes the 

following lands: 

T.46N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 18: Lots 7 through 10; 162.00 acres 

The legal description of BLM’s reconfiguration 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; 

Section 19: Lots 7 through 10, 15 through 18; 

Section 30: Lots 5 through 20. 

323.95 acres 

323.60 acres 

665.71 acres 

Total: 1,313.26 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plat as of August 8, 2006. The coal estate 

in the tract described above is federal and the surface estate is owned by Dennis 

Edwards and Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC. Ownership of the oil and gas estate is 

discussed in Section 3.11. 

The coal in West Coal Creek LBA Tract that was added under this alternative is 

not currently considered to be recoverable by ALC due to the presence of the Coal 

Creek Mine railroad spur right-of-way (ROW). The coal adjacent to and underlying 

the ROW is not considered to be recoverable at this time because the cost that 

would be associated with moving the railroad spur would make it economically 

unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. There would also be a quantity of coal 

north of the railroad spur that would be isolated from the mining operations if the 

coal under the railroad was not mined. Although these lands would likely not be 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-21 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

mined, they are included in the BLM study area to allow maximum recovery of all 

the mineable coal that is adjacent to but outside of the railroad spur ROW. 

ALC estimates that the West Coal Creek LBA Tract under Alternative 2 contains 

approximately 63.3 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using ALC’s projected 

recovery factor of 90 percent of the mineable coal reserves included in BLM’s tract 

reconfiguration, the tract would contain about 57.0 million tons of recoverable 

coal. ALC estimates that at the projected average annual coal production rate of 

13.4 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this mine life by just over 4 years. As 

a basis for estimating impacts, annual production is assumed to increase to 14 

mmtpy by 2015 and hold at that rate through 2020 and to the end of mine life. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality 

of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal 

reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of 

the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of coal included in the tract 

will be published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for sale. 

2.3 Alternatives for the Caballo West LBA Tract 

2.3.1 Caballo West LBA Tract Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the Caballo West LBA Tract as applied for by CCC 

would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to 

standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D). The 

boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed 

in the Caballo West lease application (Figure 2-3). The Proposed Action assumes 

that CCC would be the successful bidder on the 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 P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 12, 19; 81.88 acres 

Section 8: Lot 10; 39.67 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 10, 11 (N1⁄2, SE1⁄4), 

12 (NE1⁄4), 15 (N1⁄2, SE1⁄4), 16; 521.76 acres 

Section 18: Lot 5, 12 (NE1⁄4); 52.32 acres 

Section 20: Lots 1, 2 (NE1⁄4), 8 (N1⁄2, SE1⁄4). 81.86 acres 

Total: 777.49 acres 

2-22 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plat as of March 8, 2006. The ownership 

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

owned by the Paul D. Rourke Trust; James F. Rourke, et al.; and FCW. 

Ownership of the oil and gas estate is discussed in Section 3.11. 

CCC estimates that the Caballo West LBA Tract includes approximately 98.2 

million tons of in-place coal and that approximately 87.5 million tons of those inplace coal reserves are mineable. Using CCC’s projected recovery factor of 93.5 

percent of the mineable coal reserves, the tract as applied for would contain about 

81.8 million tons of recoverable coal. At the estimated annual average coal 

production rate of 37.8 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this mine life by 

just over 2 years. As a basis for estimating impacts, annual production is 

assumed to reach 39 mmtpy by 2015 and hold at that rate through 2020 to end of 

mine life. Future production rates are difficult to estimate since mines must 

increase or reduce rates in line with annual demand and competition for coal 

sales. BLM estimated future rates for the purpose of estimating impact using the 

Powder River Basin Coal Review Task 2 report – Past and Present and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development Activities (BLM 2005d). This results in an average 

production rate from 2008 to the end of mine life of 37.8 mmtpy. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality 

of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal 

reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of 

the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of coal included in the tract 

will be published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for sale. 

The Caballo West LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the Caballo 

Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the Caballo West LBA Tract would be an 

extension of the existing Caballo Mine, the facilities and infrastructure would be 

the same as those identified in the WDEQ/LQD Mine Permit 433 Term T5, 

approved July 23, 2003 and the BLM R2P2, which was approved May 26, 2006. 

CCC’s currently approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD for the Caballo 

Mine allows up to 50 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Caballo Mine 

produced: 

• 27.1 million tons of coal in 2001, 

• 26.0 million tons of coal in 2002, 

• 22.7 million tons of coal in 2003, 

• 26.5 million tons of coal in 2004, 

• 30.5 million tons of coal in 2005, 

• 32.7 million tons of coal in 2006, and 

• 31.2 million tons of coal in 2007, 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-23 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

(Wyoming Department of Employment 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 

2006, CCC 2007). 

Under the currently approved mining plan (the No Action Alternative), the Caballo 

Mine would mine its remaining 584.8 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on 

the existing Caballo leases in approximately 15.4 years at an average production 

rate of approximately 37.8 mmtpy. CCC estimates that annual coal production 

would average approximately 37.8 million tons, mine life would be extended by 

about 2.2 additional years, and coal production at the Caballo Mine would 

continue for nearly 18 years beyond mid 2008. 

If CCC acquires the Caballo West LBA tract as applied for they estimate that a 

total of 666.6 million tons of coal would be recovered after July 1, 2008, with an 

estimated 81.8 million tons coming from the LBA tract. As of June 30, 2008 

approximately 510.4 million tons of coal had been mined from within the current 

permit area of the Caballo Mine. 

Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as 

roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would 

be built as needed. An estimated four overhead powerlines, one buried telephone 

line and eight buried pipelines would require relocation prior to mining. 

Topsoil removal with suitable heavy equipment, such as rubber-tired scrapers, 

would proceed ahead of overburden removal. Whenever possible, direct haulage to 

a reclamation area would be done but, due to scheduling, some topsoil would be 

temporarily stockpiled. As outlined in the reclamation plan, heavy equipment 

again would be used to haul and distribute the stockpiled topsoil. 

The Caballo Mine is one of several mines currently operating in the PRB where the 

coal seams are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin. Mining would 

be conducted in two separate, semi-independent pits; one located primarily within 

the current permit area and one located primarily within the proposed lease area. 

The multi-pit concept has been and would be utilized to reduce operating costs by 

blending production from areas having different stripping ratios and coal quality, 

and could also help stabilize manpower requirements. Overburden removal has 

been and would continue to be conducted using trucks and shovels, draglines, 

and/or direct cast blasting. Other equipment used during overburden removal 

and backfilling would include dozers, scrapers, excavators, front-end loaders, 

graders, and water trucks. Most overburden and all coal have been and would 

continue to be drilled and blasted to facilitate efficient excavation. The design of 

the Caballo Mine seeks to confine disturbance to the active mine blocks. As 

overburden is removed, most would be directly placed into areas where coal has 

already been removed. 

Replaced (backfilled) overburden is graded to approximate original land surface 

contour, as required by WDEQ and OSM rules. Elevations consistent with an 

2-24 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

approved PMT plan would be established as quickly as possible to construct a 

stable landscape and restore drainage. Backfilled and recontoured overburden is 

sampled and analyzed to verify suitability as subsoil. Material that is found to be 

unsuitable for reclamation (i.e., material that is not suitable for use in 

reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high 

concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium or adverse pH levels) 

would either be removed and treated, or adequately covered with suitable 

overburden material prior to topsoiling. Under certain conditions, the PMT may 

not be immediately achievable. This occurs when there is an excess of material 

that may require temporary stockpiling, when there is insufficient material 

available from current overburden removal operations, or when future mining 

could redisturb an area already mined. Once a seedbed has been prepared, 

vegetation that is consistent with the postmining land use would be reestablished. 

Coal would be produced from one coal seam that CCC refers to as the Wyodak 

inside the CCC mine permit area. The seam averages 62 ft in thickness inside the 

Caballo West LBA Tract. Coal would be mined at several working faces to enable 

blending of the coal to meet customer quality requirements, to comply with BLM 

lease requirements for maximum economic recovery of the coal resource, and to 

optimize coal removal efficiency with available equipment. Coal would be loaded 

with electric-powered shovels into off-highway haul trucks for transport to 

crushing facilities. Coal haul roads would be temporary structures built within 

the mine areas. The Caballo Mine utilizes one existing coal crushing facility 

located within the CCC Mine permit area, which provides the capacity to produce 

at the permitted level. The truck dump is covered by a stilling shed for control of 

fugitive emissions. All coal crushing operations and conveying, transferring, and 

storage facilities are equipped with atomizer/fogger systems or baghouses for dust 

control. A system of transfer conveyors moves the prepared coal to interim 

storage in four concrete silos located adjacent to the unit train loadout facility. 

While sufficient storage capacity exists, future changes in facilities may be 

constructed to improve operating efficiency and air quality protection. For 

example, a covered slot storage barn, covered dome, or other appropriate storage 

structure may be built. A covered overland conveyor and near-pit crusher system 

may be constructed and moved as the mining operation progresses. 

Full-time employment at the Caballo Mine is currently 549. If CCC acquires the 

Caballo West LBA Tract under the Proposed Action, employment levels would 

remain the same for the additional 2 years that it would take to mine the coal 

included in the tract. This is based on the assumption that the annual coal 

production rate would average approximately 37.8 mmtpy. 

CCC applied for the Caballo West LBA Tract, but the tract is also adjacent to the 

Belle Ayr Mine, operated by FCW (see Figure 1-4). As a result, FCW is potentially 

in a position to mine the Caballo West LBA Tract. If a company other than CCC 

were to acquire the tract, the rate of coal production, mining sequence, 

equipment, and facilities would be different than if CCC acquired the tract as a 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-25 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

maintenance lease, as described above. However, the area of disturbance and the 

impacts of removing the coal would not be substantially different from the area of 

disturbance and the impacts of CCC mining the tract. 

2.3.2 Caballo West LBA Tract Alternative 1 

Under the Caballo West LBA Tract Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, CCC’s 

application to lease the coal included in the Caballo West LBA Tract would be 

rejected, the tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the 

coal included in the tract would not be mined. 

Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activity and 

employment on the existing leases at the Caballo Mine. The Caballo Mine 

currently owns or leases approximately 11,704.5 acres of federal coal, 1,308.0 

acres of private coal, and 160.1 acres of state coal; all of which are within the 

existing CCC Mine permit boundary. A total of approximately 16,898.0 acres will 

eventually be affected in mining the current leases. If the Caballo West LBA Tract 

is not leased, CCC estimates that the annual production at the Caballo Mine after 

July 1, 2008 will average 37.8 million tons, and the average full-time employment 

level is expected to remain near 549 persons. 

In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining 

these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption 

that the Caballo West LBA Tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if 

the No Action Alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action 

Alternative would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If 

the decision is made to reject the Caballo West lease application at this time, the 

tract could be leased as a maintenance lease in the future while the adjacent mine 

is in operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in operation, 

it may or may not be leased in the future. This tract does not include enough coal 

reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation; however, the coal 

reserves included in the tract could potentially be combined with unleased federal 

coal to the west to create a larger tract, which could be mined by a new operation 

in the future. 

2.3.3 Caballo West LBA Tract Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 for the Caballo West LBA Tract, BLM would reconfigure the 

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

tract, and issue a lease to the successful bidder. The modified tract would be 

subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and this 

tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D). 

Alternative 2 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 

mined as a maintenance lease for the Caballo Mine. Assumptions concerning 

2-26 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

mining methods, facilities, hazardous materials, mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, etc. are the same as described for the Proposed Action. 

As applied for, the Caballo West LBA Tract consists of a single block of federal coal 

(Figure 1-4). 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 Caballo West 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 BLM study area includes the tract 

as applied for and unleased federal coal adjacent to the southwestern edge of the 

tract as applied for (Figure 2-3). Under this alternative, BLM could add some or 

all of the adjacent lands to the tract or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as 

discussed in Section 2.0. The original BLM study area was redelineated on June 

20, 2007 to describe the tract based on 10-acre aliquot parts rather than physical 

boundaries (the Bishop Road). CCC was aware of and agreed to the change. 

The area BLM is evaluating in addition to the tract as applied for includes the 

following lands: 

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

Section 17: Lots 11 (SW1⁄4), 12 (NW1⁄4, S1⁄2), 15 (SW1⁄4); 51.42 acres 

Section 18: Lot 12 (NW1⁄4, S1⁄2), 13; 72.82 acres 

Section 20: Lots 2 (NW1⁄4, S1⁄2), 8 (SW1⁄4); 41.02 acres 

Section 21: Lots 11, 12. 81.25 acres 

Total: 246.51 acres 

The legal description of BLM’s reconfiguration of the Caballo West LBA Tract 

under Alternative 2 is as follows: 

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

Section 7: Lots 12, 19; 81.88 acres 

Section 8: Lot 10; 39.67 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 12, 15, 16; 573.18 acres 

Section 18: Lot 5, 12, 13; 125.14 acres 

Section 20: Lots 1, 2, 8; 122.88 acres 

Section 21: Lots 11, 12. 81.25 acres 

Total: 1,024.00 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plat as of March 8, 2006. The coal estate 

in the tract described above is federal and the surface estate is owned by the Paul 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-27 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

D. Rourke Trust; James F. Rourke, et al.; and FCW. Ownership of the oil and gas 

estate is discussed in Section 3.11. 

Some of the coal in 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 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 approximately 33.3 million tons of 

mineable coal is included within and south of the right-of-way and associated 

layback on both sides of the county road, that is within the LBA tract under 

Alternative 2. 

The federal coal lands underlying the county road right-of-way the adjacent buffer 

zones are included in the tract because that would allow maximum recovery of the 

mineable coal adjacent to but outside of the road rights-of-way and adjacent 

buffer zones if the road; and would also allow recovery of the coal under the road 

it is moved. If a lease is issued for this tract, stipulations will be attached stating 

that no mining activity may be conducted within 100 ft of the road right-of-way 

until a permit to move the road is approved. 

If the Bishop Road is moved, CCC estimates that the Caballo West LBA Tract 

under Alternative 2 includes approximately 131.4 million tons of in-place coal. 

CCC estimates that the Caballo West LBA Tract contains approximately 105.5 

million tons of mineable coal reserves. CCC assumes that about 93.5 percent of 

that coal, or about 98.6 million tons of coal, could be recovered from the Caballo 

West LBA Tract, based on historical recovery practices. As a basis for estimating 

impacts, annual production is assumed to reach 39 mmtpy by 2015 and hold at 

that rate through 2020 to end of mine life. This results in an average production 

rate from 2008 to the end of mine life of 37.8 mmtpy. 

If the Bishop Road is not moved, CCC estimates that the Caballo West LBA Tract 

under Alternative 2 includes approximately 131.4 million tons of in-place coal 

reserves. Excluding the federal coal reserves within and south of the Bishop Road 

right-of-way and buffer zone and the coal within the layback area, CCC estimates 

that the Caballo West LBA Tract under Alternative 2 contains approximately 98.1 

million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using CCC’s projected recovery factor of 

93.5 percent of the mineable coal reserves included in BLM’s tract reconfiguration, 

2-28 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

the tract would contain about 91.7 million tons of recoverable coal. CCC 

estimates that under Alternative 2 that at the estimated average annual coal 

production rate of 37.8 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this mine life by 

nearly 3 years. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality 

of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal 

reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of 

the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of coal included in the tract 

will be published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for sale. 

2.4 Alternatives for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

2.4.1 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the Maysdorf II LBA Tract as applied for by CMC 

would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to 

standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB (Appendix D). The 

boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed 

in the Maysdorf II lease application (Figure 2-4). The Proposed Action assumes 

that CMC would be the successful bidder on the Maysdorf II LBA Tract if it is 

offered for sale. 

The Maysdorf LBA II Tract is divided into two discrete parcels hereafter referred to 

as the northern and southern blocks. The legal description of the proposed 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract coal lease lands as applied for by CMC under the Proposed 

Action is as follows: 

T. 46 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 4: Lots 8, 9, 16, 17; 163.79 acres 

Section 5: Lots 5, 12, 13, 20; 165.03 acres 

Section 9: Lots 6 through 8; 122.86 acres 

Section 10: Lots 7 through 10; 162.62 acres 

Section 11: Lots 13 through 16; 161.87 acres 

Section 14: Lots 1 through 4; 161.69 acres 

Section 15: Lots 1 through 4; 162.59 acres 

T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; 490.18 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and SW1⁄4NW1⁄4; 639.73 acres 

Section 18: Lots 5 through 14, 19, 20; 481.50 acres 

Section 20: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 154.31 acres 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-29 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

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 P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; 647.10 acres 

Section 13: Lots 1 through 8. 325.04 acres 

Total: 4,653.83 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plats as of June 9, 2005, August 18, 2005, 

and April 10, 2006. The coal estate in the tract described above is federally owned 

and the surface estate is owned by the United States of America (administered by 

BLM); CMC; Cordero Rojo, Inc. (CRI); the Norma Duvall Trust; Earl Thrush, et al.; 

Western Railroad Properties, Inc.; Tony Hayden; Keidel Family LP; Campbell 

County Cemetery District; and Foundation Wyoming Land Company. Ownership 

of the oil and gas estate is discussed in Section 3.11. 

Some of the coal in the Maysdorf II LBA Tract as applied for is not currently 

considered to be mineable for various reasons. CMC estimates that approximately 

1.6 million tons of in-place coal reserves included in the Maysdorf II LBA Tract are 

located under the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific (BNSF & UP) 

railroad right-of-way and an appropriate mining related offset. The coal 

underlying the right-of-way and offset is not considered to be mineable at this 

time because the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad would 

make it economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. 

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

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

included in the tract. As discussed in Section 1.1, the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 ft on either side of the right-of-way of 

any public road (43 CFR 3461). The coal underlying the portion of Highway 59, 

the Haight and Hilight county roads, and their rights-of-way, and the 100 ft buffer 

zones within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract could be mined if Wyoming Department of 

Transportation (WYDOT) and the Campbell County Board of Commissioners, the 

authorized agencies, determine that the road can be moved [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. 

CMC does not have plans to relocate the highway at this time but 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 right-ofway 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 

2-30 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

buffer zones that are within the LBA tract. This amount also includes coal that 

would be isolated from mining if the county roads are not moved. 

The Maysdorf Point Cemetery, a small rural cemetery owned by the Campbell 

County Cemetery District, overlies some of the coal included in the tract. The 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 ft of a 

cemetery [30 CFR 761.11(g) and 43 CFR 3461.5(c)(1)]. The coal underlying the 

cemetery and the buffer zone could be mined if the cemetery is relocated in 

accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. CMC, the Campbell County 

Cemetery District, and representative for the Haight Family are working on a plan 

to relocate the remains currently located in the cemetery. CMC estimates that 

approximately 0.2 million tons of in-place coal are included within 100 ft of the 

cemetery. 

The federal coal lands underlying the railroad right-of-way, underlying Highway 59 

and the Haight and Hilight roads, their rights-of-way and the adjacent buffer 

zones, and the Maysdorf Point Cemetery and the adjacent buffer zone are included 

in the tract because that would allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal 

adjacent to but outside of the railroad right-of-way, road rights-of-way and 

adjacent buffer zones, and the cemetery and associated buffer zone if the railroad, 

roads, and cemetery are not moved; and would also allow recovery of the coal 

under the railroad, roads, and cemetery if they are moved. If a lease is issued for 

this tract, stipulations will be attached stating that no mining activity may be 

conducted within 100 ft of the road rights-of-way and the cemetery until permits 

to move the highway or cemetery are approved. 

In addition, a small portion of the Maysdorf II tract is located within a “no-coal” 

zone, where coal-forming sediments were either not deposited or were eroded away 

after deposition. 

If the county roads and the cemetery are moved, CMC estimates that the Maysdorf 

II LBA Tract as applied for includes approximately 504.0 million tons of in-place 

coal. CMC estimates that the Maysdorf II LBA Tract contains approximately 499.5 

million tons of mineable coal reserves. CMC assumes that about 90 percent of 

that coal, or about 449.6 million tons of coal, could be recovered from the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract, based on historical recovery practices. As a basis for 

estimating impacts, annual production is assumed to reach 48 mmtpy by 2015 

and hold at that rate through 2020 to end of mine life. Future production rates 

are difficult to estimate since mines must increase or reduce rates in line with 

annual demand and competition for coal sales. BLM estimated future rates for 

the purpose of estimating impact using the Powder River Basin Coal Review Task 

2 report – Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities 

(BLM 2005d). This results in an average production rate from 2008 to the end of 

mine life of 46.3 mmtpy. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-31 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

If the county roads and the cemetery are not moved, CMC estimates that the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as applied for contains approximately 482.5 million tons of 

mineable coal reserves. CMC assumes that about 90 percent of that coal, or 

about 434.3 million tons of coal, could be recovered from the Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract. CMC estimates that at the projected average annual coal production rate of 

46.3 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this mine life by just over 9 years. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality 

of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal 

reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of 

the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of coal included in the tract 

will be published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for sale. 

Cordero Rojo Mine is comprised of the former Cordero Mine and the contiguous 

former Caballo Rojo Mine. CMC worked with WDEQ/LQD to consolidate the 

Cordero and Caballo Rojo mining permits into a single mining permit for the 

Cordero Rojo Mine. WDEQ/LQD approved the permit consolidation (Permit 237­

T8) on March 26, 2007. 

The Maysdorf II LBA Tract would be mined as an integral part of the Cordero Rojo 

Mine under the Proposed Action. Since the Maysdorf II LBA Tract would be an 

extension of the existing Cordero Rojo Mine, the facilities and infrastructure would 

be the same as those identified in the WDEQ/LQD Mine Permit 237-T8 and the 

BLM R2P2, which was approved April 24, 2003. 

CMC’s currently approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD for the Cordero 

Rojo Mine allows up to 65 million tons of coal per year to be mined. The Cordero 

Rojo Complex (Cordero and Caballo Rojo combined) produced: 

• 43.5 million tons of coal in 2001, 

• 38.2 million tons of coal in 2002, 

• 36.1 million tons of coal in 2003, 

• 38.7 million tons of coal in 2004, 

• 37.8 million tons of coal in 2005, 

• 39.7 million tons of coal in 2006, and 

• 40.5 million tons of coal in 2007 

(Wyoming Department of Employment 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 

2006, CRM 2008). 

Under the currently approved mining plan (the No Action Alternative), the Cordero 

Rojo Mine would mine its remaining 525.9 million tons of recoverable coal 

reserves on the existing Cordero Rojo leases in over 5 years at an average 

production rate of approximately 46.3 mmtpy. Under the Proposed Action and if 

the roads and the cemetery are moved, CMC estimates that annual coal 

2-32 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

production would average approximately 46.3 million tons, mine life would be 

extended by nearly 10 additional years, and coal production at the Cordero Rojo 

Mine would continue for over 21 years beyond mid 2008. If the road is not moved, 

CMC estimates that annual coal production would average approximately 46.3 

million tons, mine life would be extended by just over 9 additional years, and coal 

production at the Cordero Rojo Mine would continue for nearly 21 years beyond 

mid 2008. 

If CMC acquires the Maysdorf II LBA Tract as applied for and if the roads and 

cemetery are moved, they estimate that a total of 975.5 million tons of coal would 

be recovered after July 1, 2008, with an estimated 449.6 million tons coming from 

the LBA tract. As of June 30, 2008, approximately 769.3 million tons of coal had 

been mined from within the current permit area of the Cordero Rojo Mine. 

If CMC acquires the Maysdorf II LBA Tract as applied for and if the roads and 

cemetery are not moved, they estimate that a total of 960.2 million tons of coal 

would be recovered after July 1, 2008, with an estimated 434.3 million tons 

coming from the LBA tract. 

Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as 

roads, power lines, substations, and flood and sediment control measures would 

be built as needed. The Belle Fourche River runs south to north through the 

existing Cordero Rojo Mine and through a small portion of the southern block of 

the LBA tract. Approximately 6 miles of the natural channel have been diverted to 

date within the Cordero Rojo Mine’s current permit area. CMC would propose 

another diversion of the Belle Fourche River if they acquire a lease for the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract. It is assumed that overhead powerlines, buried telephone 

line and buried pipelines will require relocation prior to mining. Site inventories 

are being performed to identify the significance of these structures. 

Topsoil removal with suitable heavy equipment, such as rubber-tired scrapers, 

would proceed ahead of overburden removal. Whenever possible, direct haulage to 

a reclamation area would be done but, due to scheduling, some topsoil would be 

temporarily stockpiled. As outlined in the reclamation plan, heavy equipment 

again would be used to haul and distribute the stockpiled topsoil. 

The Cordero Rojo Mine is one of several mines currently operating in the PRB 

where the coal seams are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin. 

Mining would be conducted in three separate, semi-independent pits; all three are 

currently located within the current permit boundary and would progress into the 

proposed lease area. The multi-pit concept has been and would be utilized to 

reduce operating costs by blending production from areas having different 

stripping ratios and coal quality, and also to help stabilize manpower 

requirements. Overburden removal has been and would continue to be conducted 

using trucks and shovels, draglines, and/or direct cast blasting. Other equipment 

used during overburden removal and backfilling would include dozers, scrapers, 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-33 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

excavators, front-end loaders, graders, and water trucks. Most overburden and all 

coal have been and would continue to be drilled and blasted to facilitate efficient 

excavation. The design of the Cordero Rojo Mine seeks to confine disturbance to 

the active mine blocks. As overburden is removed, most would be directly placed 

into areas where coal has already been removed. 

Replaced (backfilled) overburden is graded to approximate original land surface 

contour, as required by WDEQ and OSM rules. Elevations consistent with an 

approved PMT plan would be established as quickly as possible to construct a 

stable landscape and restore drainage. Backfilled and recontoured overburden is 

sampled and analyzed to verify suitability as subsoil. Material that is found to be 

unsuitable for reclamation (i.e., material that is not suitable for use in 

reestablishing vegetation or that may affect groundwater quality due to high 

concentrations of certain constituents, such as selenium or adverse pH levels) 

would either be removed and treated, or adequately covered with suitable 

overburden material prior to topsoiling. Under certain conditions, the PMT may 

not be immediately achievable. This occurs when there is an excess of material 

that may require temporary stockpiling, when there is insufficient material 

available from current overburden removal operations, or when future mining 

could redisturb an area already mined. Once a seedbed has been prepared, 

vegetation that is consistent with the postmining land use would be reestablished. 

Coal would be produced from one coal seam that CMC refers to as the Wyodak or 

the Wyodak-Anderson inside the CMC mine permit area. Up to five noncoal splits 

or partings occur within the seam and they are typically local, discontinuous 

lenses of carbonaceous clay or shale that are less than 1 ft thick. The northern 

block of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract has a coal thickness of approximately 65 ft. 

The coal in the southern block is divided by a 2 ft parting with approximately 10 ft 

of coal above and 40 ft of coal below the parting. 

Coal would be mined at several working faces to enable blending of the coal to 

meet customer quality requirements, to comply with BLM lease requirements for 

maximum economic recovery of the coal resource, and to optimize coal removal 

efficiency with available equipment. Coal would be loaded with electric-powered 

shovels into off-highway haul trucks for transport to crushing facilities. Coal haul 

roads would be temporary structures built within the mine areas. The Cordero 

Rojo Mine utilizes two existing coal crushing facilities located within the CMC 

Mine permit area; the north pit facility located within the old CRI Mine permit area 

and the south plant facility located within the old CMC Mine permit area, which 

provides the capacity to produce at the permitted level. A haulroad was permitted 

and constructed in 1997 to provide a direct route between the two coal processing 

plant facilities. All coal crushing operations and conveying, transferring, and 

storage facilities are equipped with atomizer/fogger systems for dust control. 

There are four existing coal storage silos and a covered storage slot. While 

sufficient storage capacity exists, future changes in facilities may be constructed 

to improve operating efficiency and air quality protection. For example, a covered 

2-34 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

slot storage barn, covered dome, or other appropriate storage structures may be 

built. In addition, a covered overland conveyor and near-pit crusher system may 

be constructed and moved as the mining operation progresses. 

Full-time employment at the Cordero Rojo Mine is currently 510. If CMC acquires 

the Maysdorf II LBA Tract under the Proposed Action, they anticipate that 

employment levels would increase to 573 over the 10 additional years that it 

would take to mine the coal included in the tract. This is based on the 

assumption that the annual coal production rate would average approximately 

46.3 mmtpy. 

CMC applied for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, but the tract is also adjacent to the 

Belle Ayr Mine, operated by FCW (see Figure 1-5). As a result, FCW is potentially 

in a position to mine a portion of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. If a company other 

than CMC were to acquire the tract, the rate of coal production, mining sequence, 

equipment, and facilities would be different than if CMC acquired the tract as a 

maintenance lease, as described above. However, the area of disturbance and the 

impacts of removing the coal would not be substantially different from the area of 

disturbance and the impacts of FCW mining the tract. 

2.4.2 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 1 

Under the Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, CMC’s 

application to lease the coal included in the Maysdorf II LBA Tract would be 

rejected, the tract would not be offered for competitive sale at this time, and the 

coal included in the tract would not be mined. 

Rejection of the application would not affect permitted mining activity and 

employment on the existing leases at the Cordero Rojo Mine. The Cordero Rojo 

Mine currently leases approximately 10,629 acres of federal coal, 2,000 acres of 

private coal, and 640 acres of state coal; all of which are within the existing CMC 

mine permit boundaries. A total of approximately 14,694 acres will eventually be 

affected in mining the current leases. If the Maysdorf II LBA Tract is not leased, 

CMC estimates that the annual production at the Cordero Rojo Mine after January 

1, 2008 will average 46.3 million tons, and the average full-time employment level 

is expected to remain near 510 persons. 

In order to compare the economic and environmental consequences of mining 

these lands versus not mining them, this EIS was prepared under the assumption 

that the Maysdorf II LBA Tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if the 

No Action Alternative is selected. However, selection of the No Action Alternative 

would not preclude leasing and mining of this tract in the future. If the decision is 

made to reject the Maysdorf II lease application at this time, the tract could be 

leased as a maintenance lease in the future while the adjacent mine is in 

operation. If it is not leased while the existing adjacent mine is in operation, it 

may or may not be leased in the future. This tract is at the lower limits of having 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-35 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

enough coal reserves to economically justify mining by a new operation; however, 

the coal reserves included in the tract could potentially be combined with 

unleased federal coal to the west and south to create a larger tract, which could be 

mined by a new operation in the future. 

2.4.3 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, BLM would reconfigure the 

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

tract, and issue a lease to the successful bidder. The modified tract would be 

subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and this 

tract if it is offered for sale (Appendix D). 

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 

mined as a maintenance lease for the Cordero Rojo Mine. Assumptions 

concerning mining methods, facilities, hazardous materials, mitigation and 

monitoring requirements, etc. are the same as described for the Proposed Action. 

As applied for, the Maysdorf II LBA Tract consists of a two non-contiguous blocks 

of federal coal (Figure 1-5). In order to evaluate the potential that an alternate 

configuration of the tract would provide for more efficient recovery of the federal 

coal, increase competitive interest in the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, and/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 BLM study area includes 

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

the tract as applied for (Figure 2-4). Under this alternative, BLM could add some 

or all of the adjacent land to the tract or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as 

discussed in Section 2.0. 

The area BLM is evaluating in addition to the tract as applied for includes the 

following lands: 

T.47N., R.72W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 1: Lots 9 through 13, and NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 241.80 acres 

The legal description of BLM’s reconfiguration of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract under 

Alternative 2 is as follows: 

T. 46 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 4: Lots 8, 9, 16, 17; 163.79 acres 

Section 5: Lots 5, 12, 13, 20; 165.03 acres 

Section 9: Lots 6 through 8; 122.86 acres 

Section 10: Lots 7 through 10; 162.62 acres 

2-36 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Section 11: Lots 13 through 16; 161.87 acres 

Section 14: Lots 1 through 4; 161.69 acres 

Section 15: Lots 1 through 4; 162.59 acres 

T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; 490.18 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and SW1⁄4NW1⁄4; 639.73 acres 

Section 18: Lots 5 through 14, 19, 20; 481.50 acres 

Section 20: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 154.31 acres 

Section 21: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 157.69 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 P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 1: Lots 9 through 13, and NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 241.80 acres 

Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; 647.10 acres 

Section 13: Lots 1 through 8. 325.04 acres 

Total: 4,895.63 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plats as of June 9, 2005, August 18, 2005, 

and April 10, 2006. The coal estate in the tract described above is federal and the 

surface estate is owned by the United States of America (administered by BLM); 

CMC; CRI; the Norma Duvall Trust; Earl Thrush, et al.; Western Railroad 

Properties, Inc.; Tony Hayden; Keidel Family LP; Campbell County Cemetery 

District; and Foundation Wyoming Land Company. Ownership of the oil and gas 

estate is discussed in Section 3.11. 

Some of the coal in the Maysdorf II LBA Tract under this alternative is not 

currently considered to be mineable for various reasons. CMC estimates that 

approximately 1.6 million tons of in-place coal reserves included in the Maysdorf II 

LBA Tract are located under the BNSF & UP railroad right-of-way and an 

appropriate safety offset. The coal underlying the right-of-way and offset is not 

considered to be mineable at this time because the cost that would be associated 

with moving the railroad would make it economically unfeasible to recover the 

underlying coal. 

A portion 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 Section 1.1, the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 ft on either side of the right-of-way of 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-37 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

any public road (43 CFR 3461). The coal underlying the portions of Highway 59, 

the Haight and Hilight roads, and their rights-of-way, 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 3.9 million tons of mineable coal are 

included within the right-of-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. 

The Maysdorf Point Cemetery, a small rural cemetery owned by the Campbell 

County Cemetery District, overlies some of the coal included in the tract. Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 ft of a cemetery 

[30 CFR 761.11(g) and 43 CFR 3461.5(c)(1)]. The coal underlying the cemetery 

and the buffer zone could be mined if the cemetery is relocated in accordance with 

all applicable laws and regulations. CMC, the Campbell County Cemetery District, 

and representatives for the Haight Family are working on a plan to relocate the 

remains currently located in the cemetery. CMC estimates that approximately 0.2 

million tons of in-place coal are included within 100 ft of the cemetery. 

The federal coal lands underlying the railroad right-of-way, underlying Highway 59 

and the Haight and Hilight roads, their rights-of-way and the adjacent buffer 

zones, and the Maysdorf Point Cemetery and the adjacent buffer zone are included 

in the tract because that would allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal 

adjacent to but outside of the railroad right-of-way, the road rights-of-way and 

adjacent buffer zones, and the cemetery and associated buffer zone if the railroad, 

roads, and cemetery are not moved; and would also allow recovery of the coal 

under the railroad, roads, and cemetery if they are moved. If a lease is issued for 

this tract, stipulations will be attached stating that no mining activity may be 

conducted within 100 ft of road rights-of-way and the cemetery until permits to 

move the highway or cemetery are approved. 

In addition, a small portion of the Maysdorf II tract is located within a “no-coal” 

zone, where coal-forming sediments were either not deposited or were eroded away 

after deposition. 

If the county roads and the cemetery are moved, CMC estimates that under 

Alternative 2 the Maysdorf II LBA Tract includes approximately 533.0 million tons 

of in-place coal. CMC estimates that the Maysdorf II LBA Tract contains 

approximately 527.3 million tons of mineable coal reserves. CMC assumes that 

about 90 percent of that coal, or about 474.5 million tons of coal, could be 

recovered from the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, based on historical recovery practices. 

As a basis for estimating impacts, annual production is assumed to reach 48 

mmtpy by 2015 and hold at that rate through 2020 to end of mine life. This 

2-38 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

results in an average production rate from 2008 to the end of mine life of 46.3 

mmtpy. 

If the county roads and the cemetery are not moved, CMC estimates that under 

Alternative 2 the Maysdorf II LBA Tract includes approximately 533.0 million tons 

of in-place coal. CMC estimates that the Maysdorf II LBA Tract contains 

approximately 510.3 million tons of mineable coal reserves. CMC assumes that 

about 90 percent of that coal, or about 459.3 million tons of coal, could be 

recovered from the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, based on historical recovery practices. 

CMC estimates that at the projected average annual coal production rate of 46.3 

mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this mine life by nearly 10 years. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tract offered for sale as part of the fair market value determination 

process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality 

of the coal included in the tract may not be in agreement with the mineable coal 

reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s estimate of 

the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of coal included in the tract 

will be published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for sale. 

In addition to those described in the Proposed Action, sediment control measures 

needed under Alternative 2 would include measures for Caballo Creek. While 

Caballo Creek is outside of the BLM study area, it would likely be disturbed due to 

overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the north block. Approximately 3.6 

miles of the natural channel have been diverted to date by FCW within the Belle 

Ayr Mine’s current permit area. CMC would propose another diversion of Caballo 

Creek if they acquire a lease for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

2.4.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, BLM is considering dividing the 

tract into two tracts and offering one or both of those tracts for sale. A separate, 

competitive sealed bid sale would be held for each tract that is offered for sale, and 

each tract would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed 

for the PRB and for that tract (Appendix D). 

If one or both of the tracts are offered for lease, Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II 

LBA Tract assumes that CMC would be the successful bidder and that the federal 

coal would be mined to extend the life of the existing Cordero Rojo Mine. 

Assumptions concerning mining methods, facilities, hazardous materials, 

mitigation and monitoring requirements, etc. would be the same as described for 

the Maysdorf II LBA Tract Proposed Action. 

As discussed under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract consists of two non-contiguous blocks of federal coal. Under Alternative 3, 

the North Maysdorf II LBA Tract would consist of the northernmost one-half of the 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-39 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

northern block of coal and the South Maysdorf II LBA Tract would consist of the 

southern one-half of the northern block plus the southern block of coal, as shown 

in Figure 2-4. 

As previously discussed, BLM has identified a study area which includes the tract 

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

as applied for (Figure 2-4). BLM is evaluating the potential that adding some or all 

of these lands to the area offered for lease would provide for more efficient recovery 

of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, 

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

this area would be bypassed in the future. Under this alternative, BLM could add 

all, part, or none of the adjacent lands to the tract or BLM could reduce the size of 

the tract, as discussed in Section 2.0. The lands that would be included in the 

north tract under BLM’s Alternative 3 are: 

T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; 490.18 acres 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and SW1⁄4NW1⁄4; 639.73 acres 

Section 18: Lots 5 through 14, 19, 20; 481.50 acres 

T. 47 N., R. 72 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 1: Lots 9 through 13, and NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 241.80 acres 

Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; 647.10 acres 

Section 13: Lots 1 through 8; 325.04 acres 

Total: 2,825.35 acres 

The lands that would be included in the south tract under BLM’s Alternative 3 

are: 

T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 20: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 154.31 acres 

Section 21: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 157.69 acres 

Section 28: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 165.80 acres 

Section 29: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 164.45 acres 

Section 32: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; 162.94 acres 

Section 33: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; 164.64 acres 

T. 46 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming 

Section 4: Lots 8, 9, 16, 17; 163.79 acres 

Section 5: Lots 5, 12, 13, 20; 165.03 acres 

Section 9: Lots 6 through 8; 122.86 acres 

2-40 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Section 10: Lots 7 through 10; 162.62 acres 

Section 11: Lots 13 through 16; 161.87 acres 

Section 14: Lots 1 through 4; 161.69 acres 

Section 15: Lots 1 through 4. 162.59 acres 

Total: 2,070.28 acres 

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain 

Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plats as of June 9, 2005, August 18, 2005, 

and April 10, 2006. The coal estate in the tracts described above is federally 

owned and the surface estate is owned by the United States of America 

(administered by BLM); CMC; CRI; the Norma Duvall Trust; Earl Thrush, et al.; 

Western Railroad Properties, Inc.; Tony Hayden; Keidel Family LP; Campbell 

County Cemetery District; and Foundation Wyoming Land Company. Ownership 

of the oil and gas estates is discussed in Section 3.11. 

Some of the coal in the North Maysdorf II LBA Tract under this alternative is not 

currently considered to be mineable for various reasons. A portion Wyoming State 

Highway 59 overlies some of the coal included in the north tract. As discussed in 

Section 1.1, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 

100 ft on either side of the ROW of any public road (43 CFR 3461). The coal 

underlying the portion of Highway 59, its ROW, and the 100 ft buffer zone within 

the North Maysdorf II LBA Tract study area could be mined if WYDOT, the 

authorized agency, determines that the road can be moved [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. 

CMC does not have plans to relocate the highway. CMC estimates that within the 

ROW and associated 100 ft buffer zone, the North Maysdorf II LBA Tract under 

Alternative 3 contains approximately 3.9 million tons of mineable coal. 

Although these lands would not be mined, the federal coal lands underlying 

Highway 59, its ROW, and the adjacent buffer zone are included in the tract 

because that would allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent to but 

outside of the highway and buffer zone if the highway is not moved; and would 

also allow recovery of the coal under the highway if it is moved. If a lease is issued 

for this tract, a stipulation stating that no mining activity may be conducted 

within 100 ft of the Highway 59 ROW until a permit to move the highway is 

approved will be attached. 

CMC estimates that the North Maysdorf II LBA Tract under Alternative 3 contains 

approximately 326.4 million tons of in-place coal and that approximately 322.5 

million tons of those in-place coal reserves are mineable. Using CMC’s projected 

recovery factor of 90 percent of the mineable coal reserves, the BLM study area 

would contain about 290.2 million tons of recoverable coal. CMC estimates that 

at the projected average annual coal production rate of 46.3 mmtpy, mining this 

coal would extend this mine life by just over 6 years. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-41 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Some of the coal in South Maysdorf II LBA Tract under this alternative is not 

currently considered to be mineable at this time. Under Alternative 3, CMC 

estimates that within the BNSF & UP railroad right-of-way, the South Maysdorf II 

LBA Tract contains approximately 1.6 million tons of the mineable coal reserves. 

The coal underlying the right-of-way is not considered to be recoverable at this 

time because the cost that would be associated with moving the railroad would 

make it economically unfeasible to recover the underlying coal. 

Portions of the Haight Road (County Road 44) and the Hilight Road (County Road 

52) overlie some of the coal included in the South Maysdorf II LBA Tract. As 

discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.1, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act prohibits mining within 100 ft on either side of the right-of-way of any public 

road (43 CFR 3461). The coal underlying the portion of the Haight and Hilight 

roads, and their rights-of-way, and the 100 ft buffer zones within the South 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract could be mined if the Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners, the authorized agency, determine that the road can be moved [30 

CFR 761.11(d)]. CMC is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the county roads. 

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 South Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

The Maysdorf Point Cemetery, a small rural cemetery owned by the Campbell 

County Cemetery District, overlies some of the coal included in the South 

Maysdorf II LBA study area. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

prohibits mining within 100 ft of a cemetery [30 CFR 761.11(g) and 43 CFR 

3461.5(c)(1)]. The coal underlying the cemetery and the buffer zone could be 

mined if the cemetery is relocated in accordance with all applicable laws and 

regulations. CMC, the Campbell County Cemetery District, and representatives 

for the Haight Family are working on a plan to relocate the remains currently 

located in the cemetery. CMC estimates that approximately 0.2 million tons of 

mineable coal are included within 100 ft of the cemetery. 

The federal coal lands underlying the railroad right-of-way, and the Haight and 

Hilight roads, their rights-of-way and the adjacent buffer zones, and the Maysdorf 

Point Cemetery and the adjacent buffer zone are included in the tract because that 

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

railroad right-of-way, the road rights-of-way and adjacent buffer zones, and the 

cemetery and associated buffer zone if the railroad, roads, and cemetery are not 

moved; and would also allow recovery of the coal under the railroad, roads, and 

cemetery if they are moved. If a lease is issued for this tract, stipulations will be 

attached stating that no mining activity may be conducted within 100 ft of road 

rights-of-way and the cemetery until permits to move the roads or cemetery are 

approved. 

2-42 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

In addition, a small portion of the South Maysdorf II study area under Alternative 

3 is located within a “no-coal” zone, where coal-forming sediments were either not 

deposited or were eroded away after deposition. 

If the county roads and the cemetery are moved, CMC estimates that the South 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract includes approximately 206.6 million tons of in-place coal. 

CMC estimates that the South Maysdorf II LBA Tract contains approximately 

204.8 million tons of mineable coal reserves. CMC assumes that about 90 percent 

of that coal, or about 184.3 million tons of coal, could be recovered from the South 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract, based on historical recovery practices. CMC estimates that 

at the projected average annual coal production rate of 46.3 mmtpy, mining this 

coal would extend this mine life by nearly 4 years. 

If the county roads and the cemetery are not moved, CMC estimates that the 

South Maysdorf II LBA Tract under Alternative 3 includes approximately 206.6 

million tons of in-place coal. CMC estimates that the Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

contains approximately 187.8 million tons of mineable coal reserves. CMC 

assumes that about 90 percent of that coal, or about 169.1 million tons of coal, 

could be recovered from the South Maysdorf II LBA Tract, based on historical 

recovery practices. CMC estimates that at the projected average annual coal 

production rate of 46.3 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend this mine life by 

nearly 4 years. 

Under Alternative 3, CMC estimates that the annual coal production would 

average approximately 46.3 million tons, regardless of whether CMC acquires the 

North Tract, the South Tract, or both as maintenance leases for the Cordero Rojo 

Mine. The life of the Cordero Rojo Mine would be extended by approximately 8 

years, and the average number of employees would be approximately 518 persons 

if CMC acquires only the North Tract as a maintenance lease. The life of the 

Cordero Rojo Mine would be extended by approximately 2 years, and the average 

number of employees would be approximately 512 persons if CMC acquires only 

the South Tract as a maintenance lease. 

BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included in the tracts offered for sale as part of the fair market value 

determination process. BLM’s estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and 

average quality of the coal included in the tracts may not be in agreement with the 

mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. BLM’s 

estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves and average quality of coal included 

in the tracts will be published in the sale notice for the tract, if it is offered for 

sale. 

Mine support structures needed under Alternative 3 would be similar to those 

needed under Alternative 2. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-43 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 

2.5.1 New Mine Start 

Under this alternative, as under the Proposed Actions and Alternatives 2 and 3, 

BLM would hold a separate, competitive, sealed-bid sale for the lands included in 

each LBA tract. This alternative assumed, however, that the successful qualified 

bidder for a tract would be someone other than the applicant and that this bidder 

would plan to open a new mine to develop the coal resources in one or more of the 

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

A company or companies acquiring this coal for one or more new stand-alone 

mines would require considerable initial capital expenses, including the 

construction of new surface facilities (i.e., offices, shops, warehouses, coal 

processing facilities, coal loadout facilities, and rail spurs), extensive baseline data 

collection, and development of new mining and reclamation plans. In addition, a 

company or companies acquiring this coal for one or more new start mines would 

have to compete for customers with established mines in a competitive market. 

BLM currently estimates that a tract would potentially need to include as much as 

500 to 600 million tons of coal in order to attract a buyer interested in opening a 

new mine in the Wyoming PRB. This is based on several assumptions. First, it is 

assumed that an operator would need to construct facilities capable of producing 

30 mmtpy in order to take advantage of the economies of scale offered by the coal 

deposits in the PRB. Secondly, it is assumed that 20 to 30 years of coal reserves 

would be needed to justify the expense of building the facilities described above. 

Given these assumptions, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, and Caballo West 

LBA Tracts do not include sufficient coal resources to consider opening a new 

mine and it is unlikely that a company or companies would lease these LBA tracts 

in order to open a new mine. Even though the Maysdorf II LBA Tract contains 

more than the estimated tons of coal to attract an interested buyer, it is unlikely 

that a company would undertake the expense of opening a new mine in the area. 

The potential difficulty in obtaining an air quality permit is another issue that 

could discourage new mine starts in the PRB. A new mine would create a new 

source of air quality impacts. As discussed in Chapter 3, the WDEQ/AQD 

administers a permitting program to assist the agency in managing the state's air 

resources. Under this program, anyone planning to construct, modify, or use a 

facility capable of emitting designated pollutants into the atmosphere must obtain 

an air quality permit to construct. Coal mines fall into this category. 

In order to obtain a construction permit, an operator may be required to 

demonstrate that the proposed activities will not increase air pollutant levels 

above annual standards established by the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations, which can be found on the internet at 

http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/standards.asp. From 2001 through 2006, there were 

2-44 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

29 monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard at seven operating mines 

in the Wyoming PRB. Nineteen of these exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002, 

while two, three, and five exceedances occurred in 2003, 2004, and 2005, 

respectively. There were no exceedances in 2006 (Shamley 2007). In the first 

months of 2007, there were nine exceedances at five mines. None of the 

exceedances to date have occurred at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, or 

Cordero Rojo Mines. Although many of these exceedances have been attributed to 

high winds, concerns about future potential exceedances of the Nation Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) may make it more difficult for an operator 

planning on opening a new mine to demonstrate that new operations would not 

result in air pollution levels that are above annual Wyoming standards. 

In view of the issues discussed above, development of new mines on one or more 

of the LBA tracts included in this EIS is considered unlikely and this alternative is 

not analyzed in detail in this EIS. 

The environmental impacts of developing one or more new mines to recover the 

coal resources in one or more of these LBA tracts would be greater than under the 

Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative, or Alternatives 2 or 3 because of the 

need for new facilities, new rail lines, new employment, and the creation of 

additional sources of particulates (dust). In the event that one or more lease sales 

are held and the applicants are not the successful bidder(s), the successful 

bidder(s) would be required to submit detailed mining and reclamation plans for 

approval before any of the tract(s) could be mined, and this NEPA analysis would 

be reviewed and supplemented as necessary prior to approval of those mining and 

reclamation plans. 

2.5.2 Delaying the Sale 

Under this alternative, BLM would delay the sale of an LBA tract as applied for. 

The prices received for coal from the PRB have generally been increasing in recent 

years. If that trend continues, the bonus and royalty payments to the government 

might be higher if the tract is offered for sale at a later date. Also, delaying the 

sale of one or more of the tracts would allow CBNG resources to be more 

completely recovered prior to mining. Under this alternative, it is assumed that a 

tract could be developed later as either a maintenance tract or a new start mine, 

depending on how long the sale was delayed. 

There is no assurance at this time that delaying the sale would result in a higher 

coal price or a higher bonus bid. Damage to railroad tracks in Wyoming and other 

states limited coal shipments during much of 2005. These shipping constraints 

combined with increasing world energy demands and natural disasters in other 

parts of the country led to large increases in coal prices in 2005. Rail capacity 

increased in 2006 and prices have moderated in 2006 and 2007. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-45 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

There are two major sources of revenue to state and federal governments from the 

leasing and mining of federal coal: 1) the competitive bonus bid paid at the time 

the coal is leased, and 2) federal and state royalties and taxes collected when the 

coal is sold. 

If coal prices do increase, the fair market value of the coal resources in the LBA 

tracts could potentially increase, which could result in an increased bonus bid if 

the coal is leased at a later date. However, postponing a lease sale would not 

necessarily lead to higher royalty or tax income to the state and federal 

governments. Royalty and tax payments are the larger of the two revenue sources 

and they increase automatically when coal prices increase because they are 

collected at the time the coal is sold. They cannot be collected until the coal is 

leased and permitted, which takes several years. If leasing is delayed, then by the 

time the coal is mined, the higher coal prices may or may not persist. If the 

higher coal prices do persist, they may enable the coal lessee to negotiate longer 

term contracts at higher prices, which would result in longer term, higher royalty, 

and tax revenues. On the other hand, if an existing mine runs out of coal reserves 

before prices rise, it would potentially have to shut down before additional coal 

could be leased and permitted for mining. Under this scenario, the fair market 

value of the coal could actually decrease because the added expense of reopening 

a mine or starting a new mine would have to be factored into the fair market 

value. 

Other considerations include the value of leaving the mineable coal for future 

development versus the value of making low-sulfur coal available now, in 

anticipation of cleaner fuel sources being developed in the future. Continued 

leasing of PRB coal enables coal-fired power plants to meet CAA requirements 

without constructing new plants, revamping existing plants, or switching to 

existing alternative fuels, which may significantly increase power costs for 

individuals and businesses. If cleaner fuel sources are developed in the future, 

they could be phased in with less economic impact to the public. 

A range of the potential future economic benefits of delaying leasing until coal 

prices rise could be quantified in an economic analysis, but the benefits would 

have to be discounted to the present, which would make them similar to the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3. 

CBNG resources are currently being recovered from oil and gas leases on all four 

LBA tracts. There are several mechanisms in place that can be used to allow 

continuing recovery of the CBNG resources prior to mining if the federal coal in 

the tracts is leased now. These include: 

• 	 BLM can attach a Multiple Mineral Development stipulation to each lease, 

which states that BLM has the authority to withhold approval of coal 

mining operations that would interfere with the development mineral leases 

issued prior to the coal lease. 

2-46 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

• 	 Mining of each LBA tract cannot occur until the coal lessee has a permit to 

mine the tract approved by the WDEQ/LQD and a Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920 (MLA) mining plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Before 

the MLA mining plan can be approved, BLM must approve the R2P2 for 

mining the tract. Prior to approving the R2P2, BLM can review the status of 

CBNG development on the tract and the mining sequence proposed by the 

coal lessee. The permit approval process generally takes the coal lessee 

several years. This would allow time for a large portion of the CBNG 

resources to be recovered from each tract. 

• 	BLM has a policy in place on CBNG-coal conflicts (BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2006-153) that directs BLM decision makers to optimize 

the recovery of both resources and ensure that the public receives a 

reasonable return (BLM 2006d). 

This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it would not produce 

substantially different impacts from other alternatives analyzed in detail. Rental 

and royalty provisions in each proposed lease provide for the U.S. to benefit if coal 

prices increase by the time of mining. Moreover, recovery of a large portion of the 

economically-recoverable CBNG resources on the tracts would be anticipated after 

lease issuance because of the mechanisms discussed above. The environmental 

impacts of mining the coal later as part of an existing mine would be expected to 

be similar and about equal to the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 for 

each LBA tract. If a new mine is required to mine the coal, the environmental 

impacts would be expected to be greater than if each tract were mined as an 

extension of an existing mine. 

2.6 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

SMCRA and Wyoming State Law require surface coal mines to collect extensive 

baseline information and implement extensive monitoring programs and 

mitigation measures. The currently approved permits to conduct mining 

operations for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines include 

these requirements. Monitoring programs and mitigation measures that are 

required by regulation are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and the 

Action Alternatives considered in this EIS for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. These data collection 

requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the No 

Action Alternative as part of the current approved permit to conduct mining 

operations for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. 

These data collection requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring 

commitments would be extended to include mining operations on the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts if they are 

leased and permitted for mining. A mining and reclamation plan would have to be 

approved for each tract before mining would be permitted, regardless of who 

acquires the tract. The major mitigation and monitoring measures that are 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-47 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

required by state or federal regulation are summarized in Table 2-1. More specific 

information about some of these mitigation and monitoring measures and their 

results at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines are 

described in Chapter 3. 

If impacts are identified during the leasing process that are not mitigated by 

existing required mitigation measures, BLM can require additional mitigation 

measures in the form of stipulations on the new lease, within the limits of its 

regulatory authority. In general, the levels of mitigation and monitoring required 

for surface coal mining by SMCRA and Wyoming State law are more extensive 

than those required for other surface disturbing activities; however, concerns are 

periodically identified that are not monitored or mitigated under existing 

procedures. 

2.7 Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Under the Proposed Action and Action Alternatives for each LBA tract, the 

procedures and requirements for handling of hazardous and solid wastes would be 

the same as the procedures and requirements for the existing mining operations. 

Solid waste that is produced at the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines consists of floor sweepings, shop rags, empty lubricant 

containers, welding rod ends, metal shavings, worn tires, packing material, used 

filters, and office and food wastes. A portion of the solid wastes produced at the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines is disposed of within the 

mines’ permit boundaries in accordance with WDEQ-approved solid waste 

disposal plans. Solid waste from the Belle Ayr, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines is 

also disposed of at the Campbell County landfill. Sewage is handled by WDEQpermitted sewage systems present on the existing mine facilities. Maintenance 

and lubrication of most of the equipment takes place at existing shop facilities at 

the mines. Major lubrication, oil changes, etc. of most equipment are performed 

inside the service building lubrication bays at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo Mines, where used oil and grease are currently contained and 

deposited in storage tanks. All of the collected used oils and grease are then 

recycled off site or used for energy recovery, including, at some of the mines, 

blending with diesel fuel oil for use as equipment fuel. These practices would not 

change if the applicants acquire the LBA tracts. 

FCW, TBCC, CCC, CMC and have reviewed the EPA’s Consolidated List of 

Chemicals Subject to Reporting Under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (as amended) and EPA’s List of Extremely 

Hazardous Substances as defined in 40 CFR 355 (as amended) for hazardous 

substances used at their mining operations. 

FCW, TBCC, CCC, and CMC maintain files containing Material Safety Data Sheets 

for all chemicals, compounds, and/or substances that are or would be used 

during the course of mining. FCW, TBCC, CCC, and CMC are responsible for 

2-48 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives. 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by 

Resource Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 

Topography & Physiography 

Restoring to approximate original contour or other approved topographic configuration. 

Geology & Minerals Identifying & selectively placing or mixing chemically or physically unsuitable overburden 

materials to minimize adverse effects to vegetation or groundwater. 

Soils Salvaging soil suitable to support plant growth for use in reclamation; 

Protecting soil stockpiles from disturbance and erosional influences; Selectively placing at least four ft. of suitable overburden on the graded backfill surface below replaced topsoil to meet guidelines for vegetation root zones. 

Air Quality Dispersion modeling of mining plans for annual average particulate pollution impacts on 

ambient air; Using particulate pollution control technologies; Using work practices designed to minimize fugitive particulate emissions; 

Using EPA- or state-mandated BACT, including: 

Fabric filtration or wet scrubbing of coal storage silo and conveyor vents, 

Watering or using chemical dust suppression on haul roads and exposed soils, 

Containment of truck dumps and primary crushers, Covering of conveyors, Prompt revegetation of exposed soils, 

High efficiency baghouse dust collection systems or PECs, or atomizers/foggers on the crusher, conveyor transfer, storage bin and train loadout, meeting a standard of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot (dscf) of exit volume, 

Watering of active work areas, Reclamation plan to minimize surface disturbances subject to wind erosion, 

Paving of access roads, 

Haul truck speed limits, Limited material drop heights for shovels and draglines. 

WDEQ/Lapprovereport.
 WDEQ/Ladvance overburdMonitorireclaimesoil ameSamplincomplianOn-site 

and/or TOff-site 

and/or TOn-site 

These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines in reclamation plans (the No Action Alternatives). If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts were leased, these 

monitoring plans would be part of mining plan revisions covering the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts t

can occur on the tracts under the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-49 

1 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives (Continued). 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by 

Resource Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 

Air Quality (continued) Following voluntary and required measures to avoid exposing the public to NO2 from 

blasting clouds, including: 

Phone notification of neighbors and workers prior to blasting, Monitoring weather and atmospheric conditions prior to decisions to blast, 

Timing blasts to avoid temperature inversions and to minimize inconvenience to neighbors, 

Closing public roads when appropriate to protect the public, Minimizing blast sizes, Posting signs on major public roads. 

Surface Water Building and maintaining sediment control ponds or other devices during mining; 

Restoring approximate original drainage patterns during reclamation; Restoring stock ponds and playas during reclamation. 

MonitorsedimenMonitorMonitorquality. 

Groundwater Quantity Evaluating cumulative impacts to water quantity associated with proposed mining; 

Replacing existing water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by mining with water of equivalent quantity. 

Monitoroverburunderbu

Groundwater Quality 

Evaluating cumulative impacts to water quality associated with proposed mining; Replacing existing water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by mining with water of equivalent quality. 

Monitoroverburunderbu

Alluvial Valley Floors 

Identifying all AVFs that would be affected by mining; Determining significance to agriculture of all identified AVFs affected by mining (WDEQ); Protecting downstream AVFs during mining; Restoring essential hydrologic function of all AVFs affected by mining. 

Monitoressentiadeclared 

Wetlands Identifying all wetlands that would be affected by mining; 

Identifying jurisdictional wetlands (COE); Replacing all jurisdictional wetlands that would be disturbed by mining; Replacing functional wetlands as required by surface managing agency, surface landowner, or WDEQ/LQD. 

Monitorusing saidentify wetland

These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines in reclamation plans (the No Action Alternatives). If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts were leased, these monitoring plans would be part of mining plan revisions covering the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts t

can occur on the tracts under the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 

1 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives (Continued). 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by 

Resource Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 

Vegetation Permanently revegetating reclaimed areas according to a comprehensive revegetation plan 

using approved permanent reclamation seed mixtures consisting predominantly of 

species native to the area; Reclaiming 20 percent of reclaimed area with native shrubs at a density of one per square meter; Controlling erosion on reclaimed lands prior to seeding with final seed mixture using mulching, cover crops, or other approved measures; Chemically and mechanically controlling weed infestation; Direct hauling of topsoil; Selectively planting shrubs in riparian areas; Planting sagebrush; Creating depressions and rock piles; Using special planting procedures around rock piles; Posting reclamation bond covering the cost of reclamation. 

Monitordiversity reclamayears); Monitorneed for establisUse of crevegetasuitabil

Wildlife and Sensitive Species 

Restoring pre-mining topography to the maximum extent possible; Planting a diverse mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs in configurations beneficial to wildlife; Designing fences to permit wildlife passage; Raptor-proofing power transmission poles; Using raptor-safe power lines Creating artificial raptor nest sites; Increasing habitat diversity by creating rock clusters and shallow depressions on reclaimed land; 

BaselinmonitorMonitorof Mana

Cottonwood plantings along reclaimed drainages; Replacing drainages, wetlands, and AVFs disturbed by mining; Reducing vehicle speed limits to minimize mortality; Instructing employees not to harass or disturb wildlife; Following approved raptor mitigation plans. Avoiding bald eagle disturbance; Restoring bald eagle foraging areas disturbed by mining; Restoring mountain plover habitat disturbed by mining; Surveying for mountain plover; Surveying for black-tailed prairie dog. 

These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines in reclamation plans (the No Action Alternatives). If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts were leased, these monitoring plans would be part of mining plan revisions covering the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts tcan occur on the tracts under the Action Alternatives. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-51 

1 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives (Continued). 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by 

Resource Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 

Threatened, Endangered, Surveying for Ute ladies'-tresses; Baselin

Proposed, Searching for black-footed ferrets if prairie dog colonies are on or move onto tract; monitorand Candidate Same as Wildlife Resource and Sensitive Species above. Species Land Use Suitably restoring reclaimed area for historic uses (grazing and wildlife); Monitor

to bond 

Cultural Conducting Class I & III surveys to identify cultural properties on all state and federal MonitorResources lands and on private lands affected by federal undertakings; topsoil 

Consulting with SHPO to evaluate eligibility of cultural properties for the NRHP; activitieAvoiding or recovering data from significant cultural properties identified by surveys, authoriaccording to an approved plan; encounNotifying appropriate federal personnel if historic or prehistoric materials are uncovered during mining operations; Instructing employees of the importance of and regulatory obligations to protect cultural 

resources. 

Native Notifying Native American tribes with known interest in this area of leasing action and No spec

American requesting help in identifying potentially significant religious or cultural sites. Concerns Paleontological Notifying appropriate federal personnel if potentially significant paleontological sites are No specResources discovered during mining. Visual Restoring landscape character during reclamation through return to approximate No specResources original contour and revegetation with native species. Noise Protecting employees from hearing loss. MSHA iTransportation Facilities Relocating existing pipelines, if necessary, in accordance with specific agreement No spec

between pipeline owner and coal lessee. 

Socioeconomics Paying royalty and taxes as required by federal, state, and local regulations. Surveyi

No mitigation measures are proposed. volume 

These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines in reclamation plans (the No Action Alternatives). If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts were leased, these 

monitoring plans would be part of mining plan revisions covering the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts t

can occur on the tracts under the Action Alternatives. 

2-52 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 

1 
1 

2.0 Propose

Table 2-1. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining 

SMCRA and State Law for all Alternatives (Continued). 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by 

Resource Stipulations, State or Federal Law1 

Hazardous & Solid Waste Disposing of solid waste and sewage within permit boundaries according to approved No specia

plans; required Storing and recycling waste oil; response Maintaining of files containing Material Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals, compounds, and/or substances used during course of mining; Ensuring that all production, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous 

materials is in accordance with applicable existing or hereafter promulgated federal, 

state, and government requirements; Complying with emergency reporting requirements for releases of hazardous materials as established in CERCLA, as amended; Preparing and implementing spill prevention control and countermeasure plans, spill 

response plans, inventories of hazardous chemical categories pursuant to Section 312 of SARA, as amended; Preparing emergency response plans. 

These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines in reclamation plans (the No Action Alternatives). If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts were leased, thand monitoring plans would be part of mining plan revisions covering the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tmining can occur on the tracts under the Action Alternatives. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-53 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

ensuring that all production, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous 

and extremely hazardous materials as a result of mining are in accordance with 

all applicable existing or hereafter promulgated federal, state, and local 

government rules, regulations, and guidelines. All mining activities involving the 

production, use, and/or disposal of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials 

are and would continue to be conducted so as to minimize potential environmental 

impacts. 

FCW, TBCC, CCC, and CMC must comply with emergency reporting requirements 

for release of hazardous materials. Any release of hazardous or extremely 

hazardous substances in excess of the reportable quantity, as established in 40 

CFR 117, is reported as required by Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. The materials 

for which such notification must be given are the extremely hazardous substances 

listed in Section 302 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act 

and the hazardous substances designated under Section 102 of CERCLA, as 

amended. If a reportable quantity of a hazardous or extremely hazardous 

substance is released, immediate notice must be given to the WDEQ Solid and 

Hazardous Waste Division, WDEQ Water Quality Division, and all other 

appropriate federal and state agencies. 

Each mining company is expected to prepare and implement several plans and/or 

policies to ensure environmental protection from hazardous and extremely 

hazardous materials. These plans/policies include: 

• 	 Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans; 

• 	 Spill Response Plans; 

• 	 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans; 

• 	 Inventories of Hazardous Chemical Categories Pursuant to Section 313 of 

SARA, as Amended; and 

• 	 Emergency Response Plans. 

All mining operations are also required to be in compliance with regulations 

promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic 

Substances Control Act, Mine Safety and Health Act, Department of 

Transportation, and the Federal Clean Air Act. In addition, mining operations 

must comply with all attendant state rules and regulations relating to hazardous 

material reporting, transportation, management, and disposal. 

Compliance with these rules is the current practice at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. Acquisition of the LBA tracts by the applicants 

would not change these current practices nor the type and quantity of any wastes 

generated and disposed of by the mines. 

2-54 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.8 	Summary of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 

2.8.1 	Background 

The decision-making process for public lands in Wyoming is conducted in 

compliance with NEPA, which requires all federal agencies to involve interested 

publics in their decision-making, consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

actions, develop measures to mitigate environmental impacts, and prepare 

environmental documents that disclose the impacts of proposed actions and 

alternatives. 

This draft EIS analyzes in detail different alternatives for the Belle Ayr North, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts described in the discussion 

above. 

2.8.2 	Summary of Alternatives 

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

under the Action Alternatives are shown on Figures 2-1 through 2-4, respectively. 

A summary comparison of projected coal production, surface disturbance, mine 

life, and federal and state revenues for the Action Alternatives for the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and the Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are 

presented in Tables 2-2 through 2-8, respectively. 

Table 2-9 presents a comparative summary for all four LBA tracts of the direct 

and indirect environmental impacts of implementing each alternative as compared 

to the No Action Alternative. Each No Action Alternative assumes completion of 

currently permitted mining at the applicant mine for comparison to anticipated 

mining if the associated LBA tract is leased. Table 2-10 presents a comparative 

summary for the four LBA tracts regarding the cumulative environmental impacts 

of implementing each alternative for each tract. The environmental consequences 

of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are analyzed in Chapters 3 and 4. 

These summary impact tables are derived from the following explanation of 

impacts and magnitude. NEPA requires all agencies of the federal government to 

include, in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other 

major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, 

a detailed statement by the responsible official on: 

(i) 	 the environmental impact of the Proposed Action, 

(ii) 	 any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the 

proposal be implemented, 

(iii) alternatives to the Proposed Action, 

(iv)	 the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-55 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-2. 	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County Road 12) is Moved and Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Belle Ayr Mine) Proposed Action In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 208.1 mmt 

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 204.2 mmt 

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

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

Lease Area2 4,945.5 ac 1,578.7 ac Total Area To Be Disturbed2 11,621 ac 1,936.6 ac 

Permit Area2 11,935 ac 1,727 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 45.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 30.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 8.3 yrs 6.4 yr 

Average Number of Employees 358 8 

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

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

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

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recoverable for Ad Valorum taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of recoverable coal8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton focoal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus psold in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of percent of distribution to states. 

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

per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus stpayment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and minus state’s 50 percent share. T hese figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distri

2-56 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-3. 	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

LBA Tract and Belle Ayr Mine if the Bishop Road (County Road 12) is Not Moved and the Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Belle Ayr Mine) Proposed Action In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 208.1 mmt 

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 250.9 mmt 164.7 mmt 

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

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

Lease Area2 4,945.5 ac 1,578.7 ac Total Area To Be Disturbed2 11,621 ac 1,274.9 ac 

Permit Area2 11,935 ac 1,727 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 45.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 30.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 8.3 yrs 5.2 yr 

Average Number of Employees 358 8 

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

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

1	 Assumes 94 percent recovery of mineable coal. This table excludes all coal that is beneath the Bishop County Road right-of-way. 2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed a

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recoverable for Ad Valorum taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of recoverable coal8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton focoal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus psold in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of percent of distribution to states. 

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

per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus stpayment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distri

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-57 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

Creek LBA Tract and Coal Creek Mine. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Coal Creek Mine) Proposed Action In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 241.7 mmt 63.3 mmt 

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

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

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

Lease Area2 5,918.0 ac 1,151.3 ac Total Area To Be Disturbed2 8,354.9 ac 1,925.4 ac 

Permit Area2 9,722.7 ac 3,162 ac 

Current Air Quality Permitted Production 25.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 13.4 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 16.2 yrs 4.3 yr 

Average Number of Employees 150 10 

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

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

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

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recoverable for Ad Valorum taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of recoverable coal8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton focoal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus psold in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

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

per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus stpayment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distrfederal government. 

2-58 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenu

Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (County Road 12) is Moved and the Underly

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Caballo Mine) Proposed Action In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 893.7 mmt 98.2 mmt 

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

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

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

Lease Area2 11,704.5 ac 777.5 ac Total Area To Be Disturbed2 16,898.0 ac 1,349.9 ac 

Permit Area2 19,974.7 ac 1,294.1 ac Current Air Quality Permitted Production 50.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 37.8 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 15.4 yrs 2.2 yr 

Average Number of Employees 549 0 

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

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

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

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recoverable for Ad Valorum taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of recoverable coal8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28per ton focoal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus psold in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

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

per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus stpayment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distrfederal government. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-59 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-6. 	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Revenu

Tract and Caballo Mine if the Bishop Road (County Road 12) is Not Moved and the Recovered. 

No Action Alternative Added by 

Item (Existing Caballo Mine) Proposed Action In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 893.7 mmt 98.2 mmt 

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

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

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

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

Permit Area2 19,974.7 ac 1,294.1 ac Current Air Quality Permitted Production 50.0 mmt 0 mmt 

Average Annual Post-2007 Coal Production 37.8 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life of Mine (post-2007) 15.4 yrs 2.2 yr 

Average Number of Employees 549 0 

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

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

1	 Assumes 93.5 percent recovery of mineable coal. This table excludes all coal beneath the Bishop County Road right-of-way. 2 	 The lease area includes federal coal leases only and does not include state and private coal within the permit boundary. The disturbed a

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and W

payments, AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recoverable for Ad Valorum taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of recoverable coal8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton focoal minus federal’s 50 percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus psold in 2004 and 2005) × amount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of percent of distribution of mineral royalties to states. 

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

per ton (projected for 8,400-Btu coal) price × amount of recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.40 percent, plus $9.98 per ton (for 8,400-Btu coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus state’s 50 percent share, plus $0.28 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus stpayment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and minus state’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distrfederal government. 

2-60 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-7. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

Tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59 and the BNSF & UP Railroad are Not Moved and tRecovered and if the Haight and Hilight Roads and the Maysdorf Point Cemetery are MCoal is Recovered. 

Item 

No Action Alternative 

(Existing Cordero Rojo Mine) 

Added by 

Proposed Action 

Added by 

Alternative 2 

Added 

Alternat

(North T

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 572.9 mmt 504.0 mmt 533.0 mmt 326.4 m

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 571.5 mmt 499.5 mmt 527.3 mmt 322.5 m

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 525.9 mmt 449.6 mmt 474.5 mmt 290.2 m

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

Lease Area2 13,529.31 ac 4,653.8 ac 4,895.6 ac 2,825.Total Area To Be Disturbed2 14,694.0 ac 6,675.0 ac 6,917.3 ac 3,429.

Permit Area2 16,910.6 ac 16,832.4 ac 16,832.4 ac 6,850.

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

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

Remaining Life of Mine 11.4 yrs 9.7 yr 10.3 yr 6.3 y

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

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $854.0 million $805.0 – $972.3 $849.7 - $1026.5 $519.6 - 

million million milli

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post­ $632.6 million $615.7 - $783.1 $649.9 - $826.7 $397.4 - 

2007)4 million million millio

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

right-of-way. 

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

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

3 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming

AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $9.98 per ton (

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

percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the laamount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that chmineral royalties to states. 

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

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

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

on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and 2005) × amoupercent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution of mineral 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-61 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-8. 	 Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, Mine Life, and Reven

Tract, Assuming Wyoming Highway 59, the Haight and Hilight Roads, the Maysdorf PBNSF & UP Railroad are Not Moved and the Underlying Coal is Not Recovered. 

Added 

No Action Alternative Added by Added by Alternat

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

In-Place Coal (as of 6/30/08) 572.9 mmt 504.0 mmt 533.0 mmt 326.4 m

Mineable Coal (as of 6/30/08) 571.5 mmt 482.5 mmt 510.3 mmt 322.5 m

Recoverable Coal (as of 6/30/08)1 525.9 mmt 434.3 mmt 459.3 mmt 290.2 m

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

Lease Area2 13,529.31 ac 4,653.8 ac 4,895.6 ac 2,825.Total Area To Be Disturbed2 14,694.0 ac 6,200.8 ac 6,422.5 ac 3,353.

Permit Area2 16,910.6 ac 16,832.4 ac 16,832.4 ac 6,850.

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

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

Remaining Life of Mine 11.4 yrs 9.4 yr 9.9 yr 6.3 y

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

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2007)3 $854.0 million $777.6 – $939.3 $822.4 - $993.3 $519.6 - 

million million millio

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post- $632.6 million $594.8 - $756.4 $629.0 - $800.0 $397.4 - 

2007)4 million million millio

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

of-way, Maysdorf Point Cemetery buffer zone, and the Haight and Hilight Roads rights-of-way. 

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

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

3	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming include severance taxes, property and production (Ad Valorum) taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming

AML fees, and bonus bids. State revenues are based on $0.4312 per ton estimate for severance taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $0.0569 per ton estimate for sales and use taxes × amount of recoverable coal, plus $9.98 per ton (

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

percent share, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the laamount of mineable coal minus federal’s 50 percent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that chmineral royalties to states. 

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

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

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

on LBA leased coal of $0.30 to $0.97 per ton (based on the range of bonus payments made for the last 6 LBAs sold in 2004 and 2005) × amoupercent share. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percent of distribution of mineral 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for t

Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal CrMaysdorf II LBA Tract2. 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE 	 MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

TOPOGRAPHY & PHYSIOGRAPHY (Applicable for all four tracts) Lower surface elevation Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Same as No 

Permanent topographic moderation, which could result in:  Microhabitat reduction Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Habitat diversity reduction Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Big game carrying capacity reduction Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in water runoff and peak flows Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Increased precipitation infiltration Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in erosion Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Potential enhanced vegetative productivity Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Potential acceleration of groundwater recharge Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Diversion of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek during Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

mining GEOLOGY AND MINERALS (Applicable for all four tracts) Removal of coal Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Same as No 

Removal and replacement of topsoil and overburden Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Same as No 

Physical characteristic alterations in replaced overburden Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Same as No 

Loss of unrecovered CBNG though venting and/or depletion of Minor to moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Same as No hydrostatic pressure Loss of access for development of sub-coal oil and gas resources Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

and other minerals Destruction of paleontological resources that are not exposed on Moderate, permanent on the existing mine areas Same as No 

the surface AIR QUALITY (Applicable for all four tracts) Particulate Emissions: 

Elevated concentrations associated with projected average Moderate, short term for existing approved mining Same as No 

production of 13 to 46 mmtpy in compliance with ambient operations years 

standard 

Potential for public exposure to particulate emissions along Minor to moderate, short term for existing approved Same as No 

Wyo Highway 59 and in occupied dwellings and businesses in mining operations years 

area 

Potential for human health impacts as a result of exposure to Minor to moderate, short term for existing approved Same as No 

particulate emissions mining operations years 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-63 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for t

Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal CrMaysdorf II LBA Tract2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE 	 MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

AIR QUALITY (Continued) NOx Emissions from Machinery: 

Elevated concentrations associated with average production 

of 13 to 46 mmtpy in compliance with ambient standard 

Potential for public exposure to NOx emissions from 

machinery along Wyo Highway 59, various county roads, and for occupied dwellings and businesses located in area 

Potential for human health impacts as a result of exposure to 

NOx emissions 

NOx Emissions from Blastingin Compliance with Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek , Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Blasting Conditions: 

Potential for public exposure 

Potential for human health impacts as a result of exposure to NOx emissions 

Visibility: 

Elevated concentrations of fine particulate matter associated with average production of 13 to 46 mmtpy 

Acidification of Lakes: 

SO2 emissions derived from burning Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal 

Creek, and Cordero Rojo coal to produce power 

WATER RESOURCES (Applicable for all four tracts) Groundwater 

Removal of coal and overburden aquifers Replacement of existing coal and overburden with unconsolidated backfill material Depressed water levels in overburden and coal aquifers adjacent to mine Change in hydraulic properties in backfilled areas Increase in TDS concentrations in backfilled areas Use of subcoal aquifers for water supply 

Moderate, short term for existing approved mining operations Moderate, short term for existing approved mining operations a Moderate, short term for existing approved mining operations No projected events No projected events Moderate, short term for existing approved mining operations Moderate, short term in vicinity of power plants Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, permanent on existing mine areas Moderate, short to long term on existing mine and surrounding area Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Negligible, short term on existing mine and surrounding area 

Same as No years Same as No years Same as No years Same as No years Same as No years Same as No years Same as No from 2 to 10 Same as No Same as No Same as No surrounding Same as No Same as No Same as No years 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts fo

and Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tract2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE 	 MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

WATER RESOURCES (Continued) Surface Water 

Diversion and disruption of surface drainage systems, particularly to a portion of the Belle Fourche River Reconstruction of surface drainage systems Increased runoff and erosion rates on disturbed lands due to vegetation removal Increased infiltration on reclaimed lands due to topographic moderation Increased runoff on reclaimed lands due to loss of soil structure Potential for adverse downstream effects as a result of sediment produced by large storms 

Water Rights 

Disruption of water supply for water-rights holders with wells 

completed in the coal or overburden aquifer within the fivefoot drawdown area or with surface water rights within the disturbance area 

ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS (Applicable for all four tracts) While final determinations have not been made by WDEQ/LQD, it is believed that there are no AVFs significant to agriculture on the 

proposed lease tracts Removal and restoration of AVFs determined not to be significant to agriculture Disruptions to streamflows supplying downstream AVFs WETLANDS
 (Applicable for all four tracts) 
Removal of jurisdictional wetlands and loss of wetland function until reclamation occurs Removal of non-jurisdictional wetlands and loss of wetland function until reclamation occurs 

Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Permanent on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Moderate, long term for existing approved mining operations Minor to moderate, long term on existing mine and surrounding area Moderate, short term on existing leases Negligible, short term on existing leases Moderate, short term on existing leases; jurisdictional wetlands would be replaced as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Moderate, short term to long term on existing leases; non-jurisdictional wetlands would be replaced as required by the surface land owner or WDEQ/LQD 

Same as No Same as No Same as No Same as No Same as No Same as No operations Same as No surrounding Same as No Same as No Same as No Same as No 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-65 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts fo

and Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tract2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE 	 MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

SOILS (Applicable for all four tracts) Changes in physical properties after reclamation: 

Increased near-surface bulk density and decreased soil Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

infiltration rate resulting in increased potential for soil erosion More uniformity in soil type, thickness, and texture Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Decreased runoff due to topographic modification Moderate, beneficial, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Changes in biological properties in soils that are stockpiled before reclamation: 

Reduction in organic matter Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in microorganism population Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in seeds, bulbs, rhizomes, and live plant parts Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Changes in chemical properties: 

More uniform soil nutrient distribution Moderate, beneficial, long term on existingmine areas Same as No 

VEGETATION (Applicable for all four tracts) During mining: 

Progressive removal of existing vegetation Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Increased erosion Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Wildlife habitat and livestock grazing loss Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

After revegetation: 

Changes in vegetation patterns Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in vegetation diversity Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Reduction in shrub density Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Decreased big game habitat carrying capacity Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Decreased habitat for shrub dependent species Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Potential invasion of non-native plant species Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

WILDLIFE (Applicable for all four tracts) Displacement of all wildlife from active mining areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Increased competition on adjacent undisturbed or reclaimed Moderate, short term on adjacent areas Same as No 

lands, especially big game Restriction of wildlife movement, especially big game Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Increased mortality of small mammals Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts fo

and Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tract2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME 

WILDLIFE (Continued) (Applicable for all four tracts) Surface and noise disturbance of active sage-grouse leks Disturbance of sage-grouse nesting and wintering habitat during mining Loss of sage-grouse nesting habitat after reclamation Alteration of plant and animal communities after reclamation Abandonment of raptor nests Loss of foraging habitat for raptors Loss of nesting and foraging habitat for Migratory Birds of Management Concern Reduction in waterfowl resting and feeding habitat Loss of habitat for aquatic species, amphibians, and reptiles during mining Road kills by mine-related traffic Reduction in habitat carrying capacity and habitat diversity on reclaimed lands Potential reduction in microhabitats on reclaimed lands Localized avoidance of foraging areas by big game THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES Belle Ayr North-(See Appendix F) Black-footed ferrets Ute ladies’-tresses West Coal Creek-(See Appendix G) Black-footed ferrets Ute ladies’-tresses Caballo West-(See Appendix H) Black-footed ferrets Ute ladies’-tresses Maysdorf II-(See Appendix I) Black-footed ferrets Ute ladies’-tresses 

MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

Moderate, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No As determined by previous consultation with USFWS No effect for all species May affect, nAs determined by previous consultation with USFWS No effect for all species May affect, nAs determined by previous consultation with USFWS No effect for all species May affect, nAs determined by previous consultation with USFWS No effect for all species May affect, n

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-67 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts fo

and Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tract2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE RESOURCE NAME 

LAND USE AND RECREATION (Applicable for all four tracts) Reduction of livestock grazing Loss of wildlife habitat Loss of access for sub-coal oil and gas development Removal of oil and gas production facilities Loss of access to public land available for recreation and grazing (Maysdorf II Tract only) CULTURAL RESOURCES (Applicable for all four tracts) Sites that are not eligible for NRHP Sites that are eligible for NRHP Sites that are unevaluated for eligibility NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS (Applicable for all four tracts) VISUAL RESOURCES (Applicable for all four tracts) During mining: 

Alteration of landscape by mining facilities and operations Visibility of mining operations from highway? Following reclamation: Smoother sloped terrain Reduction in sagebrush density 

NOISE 
(Applicable for all four tracts) 
Increased noise levels 

MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPA

PRO

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short term on existing Cordero Rojo mine Same as No area mine area 

Ineligible sites may be destroyed without further work Same as No on expanded mine areas Impacts to sites that are eligible for the NHRP are not Same as No permitted; eligible sites would be avoided or mitigated through data recovery prior to mining on expanded mine areas Impacts to unevaluated sites are not permitted; Same as No unevaluated sites would be evaluated prior to mining on expanded mine areas No impact identified on existing mine areas Same as No 

Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No  Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Moderate to substantial, short term on existing mines, Same as No surrounding areas, and occupied dwellings within 2,500 feet of mining activities 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-9. 	 Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts fo

and Alternatives 2 and 3 and the No Action Alternative for the Belle Ayr North, West West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tract2 (Continued). 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE 	 MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMP

PR

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES (Applicable for all four tracts) Use of railroads and existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Moderate, for duration of existing approved mining Same as No 

Cordero Rojo mine rail infrastructure to ship coal operations years Employee and service contractor use of highways to and from mine Moderate, for duration of existing approved mining Same as No sites operations years Relocation of pipelines Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Relocation of utility lines Negligible, short to long term on existing mine areas Same as No Relocation of county roads to recover coal under lease Moderate, long term to permanent on existing mine Same as No 

areas 

HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE (Applicable for all four tracts) Waste generated by mining operations Negligible for duration of existing approved mining Same as No 

operations years 

SOCIOECONOMICS (Applicable for all four tracts) Employment Moderate, beneficial short term for existing approved Same as No 

mining operations years 

Revenues from royalties and taxes to the state government Moderate, beneficial short term for existing approved Same as No 

mining operations years 

Revenues from royalties and taxes to the federal government Moderate, beneficial short term for existing approved Same as No 

mining operations years 

Revenues from taxes to local economy Moderate, beneficial short term for existing approved Same as No 

mining operations years 

Additional housing and infrastructure needs No new impact related to existing mine areas Same as No 

years 

1 Refer to Chapter 3 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts. 2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-69 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF I

PRO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AL

TOPOGRAPHY & PHYSIOGRAPHY 

Alteration of topography following reclamation of coal disturbance Permanent topographic moderation following reclamation Same as No A

areas Long term to permanent limited changes in discrete, Alteration of topography to accommodate coal-related, oil and gas, scattered areas Same as No Aand oil- and gas-related facilities GEOLOGY AND MINERALS Recovery of coal resulting in reduction in coal resources and Moderate, long term to permanent Same as No Adisturbance and replacement of overburden and topsoil Surficial disturbance and reclamation on oil and gas well sites and Moderate, long term to permanent Same as No Aassociated facilities 

PALEONTOLOGY Coal, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Permanent potential adverse effects to scientifically Same as No A

disturbance of PFYC Class 5 Wasatch and Class 3 Fort Union significant fossils that are present but not visible prior to Formations disturbance 

AIR QUALITY Impacts to Montana near-field receptors 

- 24-hour PM10 A maximum modeled impact in one area above NAAQS Same as No A

for the baseline year and both coal production scenarios for 2010 

- All other parameters Modeled impacts in compliance with NAAQS and Same as No A

Montana AAQS 

Impacts to Wyoming near-field receptors 

- 24-hour PM10 Modeled impact above NAAQS at some receptors for both Same as No A

coal production scenarios for 2010 

- Annual PM10 

Maximum modeled impact above NAAQS at one receptor Same as No Afor the upper production scenario for 2010 

- All other parameters Modeled impacts in compliance with NAAQS and 

Wyoming AAQS Same as No A

Non-regulatory PSD Impacts at Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas 

- Class I Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation Modeled impacts above Class I increment levels for 24­ Same as No A

hour PM10, annual PM10, 24-hour SO2, 3-hour SO2 for 

baseline year and both coal production scenarios for 2010; above Class I increment for annual NO2 for upper 

coal production scenario for 2010 

- Class I Washakie Wilderness Area and Wind Cave National Modeled impacts above Class I increment levels for 24­ Same as No A

Park and Class II Crow Indian Reservation hour PM10 for baseline year and both coal production 

scenarios for 2010 

- All other Class I and Sensitive Class II modeled receptors Modeled impacts within Class I increment levels for Same as No A

baseline year and both coal production scenarios for 2010 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Continu

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF IM

PROP

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALT

Visibility Impacts 199 or more days with a change of 1.0 dv or greater at Same as No Action 

three Class I areas and seven sensitive Class II areas for the baseline year and both coal productions scenarios 

Acid deposition Impacts All modeled impacts below the depositions threshold Same as No Action 

values for nitrogen and sulfur compounds 

- Florence Lake Modeled impact above 10 percent ANC Same as No Action 

- Upper Frozen Lake Modeled impact above 1 μeq/L Same as No Action - All other modeled sensitive lakes Modeled impact below threshold values Same as No Action 

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES Removal of coal aquifer and replacement with backfill material Moderate, permanent for mining areas Same as No Action Lowering of water levels in aquifers around the mines Moderate, long term in area immediately west of mines Same as No Action Water level decline in sub-coal aquifers as a result of all No cumulative impacts anticipated Same as No Action development Change in groundwater quality as a result of all development No cumulative impacts anticipated Same as No Action Overlapping drawdown in the coal aquifer caused by surface Additive, long term in area immediately west of surface Same as No Action mining and CBNG development coal mines SURFACE WATER RESOURCES Surface disturbance of intermittent and ephemeral streams and Moderate, short term Same as No Action scattered ponds and reservoirs as a result of coal mining, coalrelated, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Discharge of coal mining and CBNG produced waters into Moderate, short term Same as No Action intermittent and ephemeral streams Sediment input into intermittent and ephemeral streams and Moderate, short term Same as No Action scattered ponds and reservoirs as a result of coal mining, coalrelated, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS Coal mining disturbance of AVFs determined to be significant to Not permitted by regulation Same as No Action agriculture Coal mining disturbance of AVFs determined not to be significant AVFs disturbed by mining must be restored to essential Same as No Action to mining hydrologic function. No cumulative impacts 

anticipated 

SOILS Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, short term and long term impacts through Same as No Action disturbance and replacement of soil resources accelerated wind or water erosion, declining soil quality 

factors through compaction, reduced microbial populations and organic matter, and potential mixing of soil zones 

CBNG water disposal impacts to soil resources Potential increase in soil alkalinity depending on SAR Same as No Action 

levels in water and method of water disposal 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-71 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Continu

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF IM

PROP

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALT

VEGETATION Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, short to long term impacts due to potential Same as No Action 

removal and replacement of native vegetation differences in species composition and presence and 

size of woody species on reclaimed lands 

Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Potential incremental loss of alteration of potential of Same as No Action 

impacts to Special Status Plant Species known habitat Coal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Potential displacement of native species and changes in Same as No Action 

dispersal of noxious and invasive species species composition WETLAND AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION CBNG-related discharge of produced water Moderate, short to long term creation of wetlands in Same as No Action 

areas that previously supported upland vegetation 

WILDLIFE Direct and indirect coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- Moderate, short term Same as No Action and gas-related development impacts to game and non-game species, including direct mortality, habitat fragmentation, animal displacement, noise, and increased human presence Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, short term loss of all types of habitat present Same as No Action disturbance of game and nongame species habitat during project in disturbed areas development and operation Coal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, long term change in habitat with potential Same as No Action habitat changes after reclamation changes in associated wildlife populations FISHERIES Alteration or loss of habitat due to coal mining, coal-related, oil Moderate, short to long term Same as No Action and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Changes in water quality as a result of surface disturbance or Moderate, short to long term Same as No Action introduction of contaminants into drainages caused by coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Changes in available habitat as a result of water withdrawals or Moderate, short term Same as No Action discharges related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Direct and indirect coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- Moderate, short term Same as No Action and gas-related development impacts, including direct mortality, breeding area, nest, or burrow abandonment, noise and increased human presence Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, short term loss of all types of special status Same as No Action disturbance of habitat during project development and operation species habitat present in disturbed areas Coal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, long term change in habitat with potential Same as No Action habitat changes after reclamation changes in associated populations of special status 

species 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Propose

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Contin

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF IM

PROP

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTE

LAND USE AND RECREATION Loss of forage and range improvements and restriction of Moderate, short term Same as No Action livestock movement due to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Disturbance of developed recreation sites by coal mining, coal- Negligible, short term Same as No Action related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Reduction or degradation of opportunities for dispersed Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Action recreation activities related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development CULTURAL RESOURCES Disturbance of cultural resource sites Moderate, permanent Same as No Action TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES Movement of segments of existing highways, pipelines, Moderate, long term to permanent, disruptive effects Same as No Action transmission lines, or railroads to accommodate coal mining would be minimized development TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES Increased vehicular traffic on roads and highways due to coal Moderate, short term Same as No Action mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development, and associated impacts including traffic accidents, road wear, air emissions, dust, noise, and vehicle collisions with wildlife and livestock Construction and operation of additional railroad and pipeline Moderate, short to long term Same as No Action facilities and transmission lines to transport coal, oil and gas, and electricity 

SOCIOECONOMICS Increases in employment related to coal mining, coal-related, oil Significant, short to long term Same as No Action 

and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Increases in personal income due to employment, increases Significant, beneficial, short to long term Same as No Action 

related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gasrelated development 

Increase in population due to employment increases related to Significant, short to long term Same as No Action 

coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Expansion of housing supply due to employment increases Significant, short to long term Same as No Action 

related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gasrelated development Increases in school enrollment due to employment, increases Moderate, short term Same as No Action 

related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gasrelated development 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-73 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-10. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Continu

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE, TYPE, AND DURATION OF I

PROPO

RESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ALTE

SOCIOECONOMICS (Continued) Need for additional local government facilities and services due to Moderate, short to long term Same as No Action 

employment increases related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Increased federal, state, and local revenues related to coal mining, Significant, beneficial, short to long term Same as No Action coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development 

1 Cumulative impact discussion in this table and in Chapter 4 is based on the PRB Coal Review analyses (BLM 2005a-f, 2006b). 2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

(v)	 any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would 

be involved in the Proposed Action should it be implemented (42 USC '

4332[C]). 

Impacts can be beneficial or adverse, and they can be a primary result of an 

action (direct) or a secondary result (indirect). They can be permanent, long-term 

(persisting beyond the end of mine life and reclamation) or short-term (persisting 

during mining and reclamation and through the time the reclamation bond is 

released). Impacts also vary in terms of significance. The basis for conclusions 

regarding significance are the criteria set forth by the Council on Environmental 

Quality (40 CFR 508.27) and the professional judgment of the specialists doing the 

analyses. Impact significance may range from negligible to substantial; impacts 

can be significant during mining but be reduced to insignificant following 

completion of reclamation. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 2-75 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter describes the existing conditions of the physical, biological, cultural, 

and socioeconomic resources in the general South Gillette analysis area for all 

four of the LBA1 tracts (the affected environment) and analyzes the direct and 

indirect impacts to those resources that would be associated with mining the 

tracts (the environmental consequences) if they are leased under the Proposed 

Action or Alternative 2 or 3 for each tract. 

Additional information about the affected environment in the general South 

Gillette analysis area is contained in a separate document entitled 

Supplementary Information on the Affected Environment in the General South 

Gillette Analysis Area for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, 

and Maysdorf II Coal Lease Applications EIS, which is available on request. 

The probable environmental consequences of the No Action Alternative for each 

tract (Alternative 1, rejecting the application) with respect to each of the 

environmental resources are also considered in this analysis. 

In addition, this chapter considers regulatory compliance, mitigation, monitoring, 

residual impacts, the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, 

and the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur 

with implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3 for each tract. As 

discussed in Chapter 2, regulatory compliance and mitigation and monitoring 

measures that are required by federal and/or state law are considered to be part 

of the Action Alternatives for each tract. 

The elements of the human environment (BLM 2008a) that could potentially be 

affected by the Action Alternatives for each tract include air quality, cultural 

resources, Native American religious concerns, T&E species, migratory birds, 

hazardous or solid wastes, water quality, wetlands/riparian zones, floodplains, 

invasive non-native species, and environmental justice. Four other elements 

(areas of critical environmental concern, prime or unique farmlands, wild and 

scenic rivers, and wilderness) are not present in the analysis area and are not 

addressed further. In addition to the elements that are potentially present in the 

general South Gillette analysis area, this EIS discusses the status and potential 

effects of mining each LBA tract on topography and physiography, geology and 

mineral resources, soils, water quantity, alluvial valley floors, vegetation, wildlife, 

land use and recreation, paleontological resources, visual resources, noise, 

transportation resources, and socioeconomics. 

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

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-1 

1 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The resources that are addressed in this EIS were identified during the scoping 

process or interdisciplinary team review as having the potential to be affected. 

Figure 3-1 shows the general South Gillette analysis area for general resource 

discussions. The general South Gillette analysis area does not have a defined 

boundary but includes a general area around the combined BLM study areas for 

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

(the tracts as applied for and the additional area evaluated under other action 

alternatives for each tract), and the combined resource analysis areas (the BLM 

study area for an LBA tract plus a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer around the study 

area). 

Tables 3-1 through 3-4 shows the total leased and total disturbance areas for the 

existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines (which represent 

the No Action Alternatives), and how the leased areas and estimated disturbance 

areas would change under the Action Alternatives. 

As indicated in Table 3-1, Belle Ayr’s current coal leases include approximately 

6,345 acres and, under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, the 

mine would disturb a total of approximately 11,621 acres in order to recover that 

coal. According to Belle Ayr Mine’s 2007 Annual Report submitted to 

WDEQ/LQD, the mine had disturbed a total of about 5,477 acres as of January 7, 

2007 (FCW 2007). Of that area of disturbance, approximately 2,174 acres were 

occupied by permanent or temporary facilities (stockpiles, hydrologic control 

structures, mine buildings and coal loading facilities, railroad loop, environmental 

monitoring areas, etc.), 1,006 acres were being actively mined, and 2,297 acres 

had been mined and reclaimed or were in the process of being reclaimed (FCW 

2007). 

Coal Creek’s current coal leases include approximately 6,854 acres and, under the 

currently approved mining and reclamation plan, the mine would disturb a total of 

approximately 8,355 acres in order to recover that coal (Table 3-2). According to 

Coal Creek Mine’s 2006-2007 Annual Report submitted to WDEQ/LQD, the mine 

had disturbed a total of about 1,975 acres as of December 31, 2006 (TBCC 2007). 

Of that area of disturbance, approximately 874 acres were occupied by permanent 

or temporary facilities (stockpiles, hydrologic control structures, mine buildings 

and coal loading facilities, railroad loop, environmental monitoring areas, etc.), 

530 acres were being actively mined, and 571 acres had been mined and 

reclaimed or were in the process of being reclaimed (TBCC 2007). 

As indicated in Table 3-3, Caballo’s current coal leases include approximately 

11,705 acres and, under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, the 

mine would disturb a total of approximately 16,898 acres in order to recover that 

coal. According to Caballo Mine’s 2006 Annual Report submitted to WDEQ/LQD, 

the mine had disturbed a total of about 6,571 acres as of October 7, 2006 (CCC 

2006). Of that area of disturbance, approximately 1,544 acres were occupied by 

3-2 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
49 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Fairview 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Road 

State

 59 Highway

Hilight Road

BNSF RR 

Haight Road 

Wagensen Road 

Four Corners Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Hoe

Road

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Road Hilight

ey R o oad H adl

T. 

N. 

T. 

49 

CABALLO N. 
 WEST LBA
 TRACT
 LEGEND 

Existing Lease Boundaries 

BELLE AYR 

NORTH LBA Caballo

Mine TRACT Caballo West LBA Tract 

as Applied for 

T. T. BLM's Caballo West LBA 

48 48 Study Area (Alternative 2)

N. N. 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

as Applied for Bishop Road BLM's Belle Ayr North LBA 

Belle Ayr
 (Alternative 2)

Mine
 BLM's Belle Ayr North LBA 

Study Area 

T. T. 

Cordero-Rojo 47 47 Mine N. N. Maysdorf II LBA Tract

MAYSDORF II 

LBA TRACTS 

T. Hoadley T. Road 

46 46 

as Applied for 

BLM's Maysdorf II LBA 

Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3 

South Tract Under Alternative 3 

Pending North Maysdorf 

LBA Tract 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

as Applied for N. N. 

Coal Creek 

Mine BLM's West Coal Creek LBA 

Study Area (Alternative 2) 

Lawver Road 

WEST COAL 

CREEK LBA T. T. 

45 TRACT
 

N. N. 

Lawver Road

SCALE: 1"=3 MILES 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

Figure 3-1. General South Gillette Analysis Area. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

45 

3-3
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-1. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Belle Ayr Mine Disturbance 

Area and Mining Operations. 

No Action Alternative 

(Existing Permit Area) 

Proposed 

Action Alternative 2 

Additional Lease Area (Acres) --- 1,578.7 1,671.0 

Total Lease Area (Acres)1 6,345.3 7,924.0 8,016.3 

Increase in Lease Area (Percent) --- 24.9 26.3 

Estimated Additional Mine 

Disturbance Area (Acres)2 --- 1,274.9 1,658.4 

Estimated Total Mine Disturbance 

Area (Acres) 

Increase in Estimated Disturbance 

Area (Percent) 

11,621.0 

---

12,895.9 

11.0 

13,279.4 

14.3 

Estimated Additional 

Coal (Million Tons)3

Recoverable 

--- 158.1 152.8 

Estimated Recoverable Coal 

Mine as of 1/08 (Million Tons) 

Increase in Estimated Recoverable 

Coal as of 1/08 (Percent) 

for 

249.5 

---

407.6 

63.4 

402.3 

61.2 

1	 Includes federal, state, and private coal. 

2	 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, 

haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 

3	 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal × recovery factor (94 percent). 

Table 3-2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Coal Creek Mine Disturbance 

Area and Mining Operations. 

No Action Alternative Proposed 

(Existing Permit Area) Action Alternative 2 

Additional Lease Area (Acres) --- 1,151.3 1,313.3 

Total Lease Area (Acres)1 6,854.4 8,005.7 8,167.7 

Increase in Lease Area (Percent) --- 16.8 19.2 

Estimated Additional Mine 

Disturbance Area (Acres)2 --- 1,925.4 2,210.1 

Estimated Total Mine Disturbance 

Area (Acres) 8,354.9 10,280.3 10,565.0 

Increase in Estimated Disturbance 

Area (Percent) --- 23.0 26.5 

Estimated Additional Recoverable 

Coal (Million Tons)3 --- 57.0 57.0 

Estimated Recoverable Coal for 

Mine as of 1/08 (Million Tons) 223.2 280.2 280.2 

Increase in Estimated Recoverable 

Coal as of 1/08 (Percent) --- 25.5 25.5 

1	 Includes federal, state, and private coal. 

2	 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, 

haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 

3	 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal × recovery factor (90 percent). 

3-4 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-3. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Caballo Mine Disturbance 

Area and Mining Operations. 

No Action Alternative Proposed 

(Existing Permit Area) Action Alternative 2 

Additional Lease Area (Acres)	 --- 777.5 1,023.4 

Total Lease Area (Acres)1	 11,704.5 12,482.0 12,727.9 

Increase in Lease Area (Percent) ---	 6.6 8.7 

Estimated Additional Mine 

Disturbance Area (Acres)2 --- 1,213.0 1,253.6 

Estimated Total Mine Disturbance 

Area (Acres) 16,898.0 18,111.0 18,151.6 

Increase in Estimated Disturbance 

Area (Percent) --- 7.2 7.4 

Estimated Additional Recoverable 

Coal (Million Tons)3 --- 81.8 91.7 

Estimated Recoverable Coal for 

Mine as of 1/08 (Million Tons) 600.3 682.1 692.0 

Increase in Estimated Recoverable 

Coal as of 1/08 (Percent) --- 13.6 15.3 

1 Includes federal, state, and private coal. 

2 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, 

haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 

3 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal × recovery factor (93.5 

percent). 

Table 3-4. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Cordero Rojo Mine 

Disturbance Area and Mining Operations. 

No Action Alternative Proposed Alternatives 2 

(Existing Permit Area) Action and 3 

Additional Lease Area (Acres) --- 4,653.8 4,895.6 

Total Lease Area (Acres)1 14,442.4 19,096.2 19,338.0 

Increase in Lease Area (Percent) --- 32.2 33.9 

Estimated Additional Mine 

Disturbance Area (Acres)2 --- 6,200.8 6,422.5 

Estimated Total Mine Disturbance 

Area (Acres) 14,694.0 20,894.8 21,116.5 

Increase in Estimated Disturbance 

Area (Percent) --- 42.2 43.7 

Estimated Additional Recoverable 

Coal (Million Tons)3 --- 434.3 459.3 

Estimated Recoverable Coal for 

Mine as of 1/08 (Million Tons) 274.1 708.4 733.4 

Increase in Estimated Recoverable 

Coal as of 1/08 (Percent) --- 158.4 167.6 

Includes federal, state, and private coal. 

2	 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, 

haul roads, highwall reduction, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 

3	 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal × recovery factor (90 percent). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-5 

1 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

permanent or temporary facilities (stockpiles, hydrologic control structures, mine 

buildings and coal loading facilities, railroad loop, environmental monitoring 

areas, etc.), 1,338 acres were being actively mined, and 3,689 acres had been 

mined and reclaimed or were in the process of being reclaimed (CCC 2006). 

Cordero Rojo’s current federal coal leases include approximately 14,442 acres 

and, under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, the mine would 

disturb a total of approximately 14,694 acres in order to recover that coal (Table 

3-4). According to Cordero Rojo’s 2006-2007 Annual Report submitted to 

WDEQ/LQD, the mine had disturbed a total of about 11,354 acres as of June 30, 

2007 (CMC 2007a). Of that area of disturbance, approximately 2,969 acres were 

occupied by permanent or temporary facilities (stockpiles, hydrologic control 

structures, mine buildings and coal loading facilities, railroad loop, environmental 

monitoring areas, etc.), 4,615 acres were being actively mined, and 3,770 acres 

had been mined and reclaimed or were in the process of being reclaimed (CMC 

2007a). 

If the LBA tracts are leased to the applicants as maintenance tracts under the 

Proposed Actions or other action alternatives, the permit area for the adjacent 

mine would have to be amended to include the new lease area before it could be 

disturbed by mining activities. Tables 3-1 through 3-4 also show how the leased 

areas and disturbance areas would change for the tracts as applied for and Action 

Alternatives for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf 

II LBA Tracts, respectively. The estimates of recoverable coal, associated 

disturbance, and mine lives shown in Tables 3-1 through 3-4 and elsewhere in 

this chapter assume that coal currently unsuitable for mining due to the presence 

of public roads and/or the Maysdorf Point Cemetery is not mined. If the 

authorized agencies determine that the roads and/or the Maysdorf Point Cemetery 

can be moved, the estimated tons of recoverable coal, associated disturbance, and 

Cordero Rojo Mine life would increase as discussed in Section 2.4. Portions of the 

LBA tracts lie inside current mine permit areas (Figure 1-5). If the tracts are 

leased, the area that would have to be added to an existing mine permit area 

would be that portion of the LBA tract that lies outside the existing permit 

boundary plus an adjacent strip of land that would be used for highwall reduction 

after mining and such mine-related activities as construction of diversions, flood 

and sediment control structures, roads, and stockpiles. Some portions of the 

tracts have been disturbed by the current mining operations in order to recover 

the coal in the existing coal leases (Figure 3-1). The environmental consequences 

of leasing the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II 

LBA Tracts under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3 would be similar in 

nature, but selection of a Proposed Action would disturb slightly smaller area of 

land surface. 

Surface mining and reclamation have been ongoing in the eastern PRB for about 3 

decades. During this time, effective mining and reclamation technologies have 

been developed and continue to be refined. Mining and reclamation operations 

3-6 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

are regulated under SMCRA and Wyoming statutes. WDEQ technically reviews all 

mine permit application packages to ensure that the mining and reclamation 

plans comply with all state permitting requirements and that the proposed coal 

mining operations comply with the performance standards of the DOI-approved 

Wyoming program. BLM attaches special stipulations to all coal leases (Appendix 

D), and there are a number of federal and state permit approvals that are required 

in order to conduct surface mining operations (Appendix A). The regulations are 

designed to ensure that surface coal mining impacts are mitigated. 

Impacts can range from beneficial to adverse and they can be a primary result of 

an action (direct) or a secondary result (indirect). They can be permanent, longterm (persisting beyond the end of mine life and reclamation), or short-term 

(persisting during mining and reclamation and until the time the reclamation 

bond is released). Impacts also vary in terms of significance. The basis for 

conclusions regarding significance are the criteria set forth by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.27) and the professional judgment of the 

specialists doing the analyses. Impact significance may range from negligible to 

substantial; impacts can be significant during mining but be reduced to 

insignificance following completion of reclamation. 

3.1 General Setting 

The general South Gillette analysis area is located in the PRB, a part of the 

Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. Vegetation is 

primarily sagebrush and mixed grass prairie. 

3.1.1 Climate and Meteorology 

The climate in the general South Gillette analysis area is typical of a semi-arid, 

high plains environment with relatively large seasonal and diurnal variations in 

temperature and seasonal variation in precipitation. The average annual 

precipitation at a NOAA meteorological station (Gillette 9ESE), located about 18 

miles northwest of the general South Gillette analysis area, is 15.60 inches (WRCC 

2007). June (2.69 inches) and May (2.60 inches) are the wettest months, and 

January (0.57 inch) and February (0.55 inch) are the driest. Snowfall averages 

56.5 inches per year, with most occurring in March (10.4 inches) and April (8.5 

inches). Potential evapotranspiration, at approximately 31 inches (NOAA 1969), 

exceeds annual precipitation. Summers are relatively short and warm, while 

winters are longer and cold. The average daily mean temperature is 45.2 degrees 

F. The highest recorded temperature was 107 degrees F and the lowest was 

minus 40 degrees F. July is the warmest month, with a mean daily temperature 

of 71.0 degrees F, and January is the coldest month, with a mean daily 

temperature of 21.7 degrees F. The frost-free period is 100-130 days. 

In the general South Gillette analysis area, surface wind speeds range from more 

than 30 mph during the winter and spring to 10 to 12 mph during the summer. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-7 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The area also experiences extreme wind gusts, especially during thunderstorm 

activity that occurs in June, July, and August. Distinct diurnal changes occur, 

with average wind velocities increasing during the day and decreasing during the 

night. Local variations in wind speed and direction are primarily due to differences 

in topography. Wind speeds are highest in the winter and spring (October through 

April) and are predominantly from the western and northern sectors. During the 

warmer months (May through September), wind directions are more random, 

although winds from the northern or southeastern sectors are slightly more 

predominant. 

During periods of strong wind, dust may impact air quality across the region. An 

average of 15 air-stagnation events occurs annually in the PRB with an average 

duration of 2 days each (BLM 1974). 

3.2 Topography and Physiography 

3.2.1 Affected Environment 

The general South Gillette analysis area is a high plains area within the eastern 

portion of the PRB. The PRB is an elongated, asymmetrical structural downfold 

that is bounded by the Black Hills on the east; the Big Horn Mountains on the 

west; the Hartville Uplift, Casper Arch, and Laramie Mountains on the south; and 

the Miles City Arch and the Yellowstone River on the north. The general South 

Gillette analysis area is located on the gently dipping eastern limb of the 

structural downfold. The regional dip in the general South Gillette analysis area is 

to the west. 

Landforms of the area consist of a dissected rolling upland plain with low relief, 

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

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

in the PRB range from less than 2,500 ft to greater than 6,000 ft above sea level. 

The major river valleys have wide, flat floors and broad floodplains. The drainages 

dissecting the area are incised, typically are ephemeral or intermittent, and do not 

provide year-round water sources. 

The general South Gillette analysis area is drained by the Caballo Creek and Belle 

Fourche River, which are the most prominent topographic features. The 

topography is comprised of intermittent and ephemeral drainage bottomlands, 

rough breaks, and gently rolling uplands. Unmined lands surrounding the 

general South Gillette analysis area are characterized by low rolling hills. Surface 

mine lands, both active and reclaimed, dominate the landscape in the vicinity of 

the general South Gillette analysis area and east of Wyoming Highway 59. 

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

4,885 ft above sea level and slopes range from flat to around 57 percent. In the 

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

3-8 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Habitat types within the general South Gillette analysis area include sagebrushgrassland, upland-grassland, seeded pastures/cropland, and areas of previous 

disturbance. Nearly 43 percent of the combined vegetation analysis areas is 

currently sagebrush-Sagebrush/Grassland. Other habitats present in limited 

extent include bottomland or riparian areas and some open water along the Belle 

Fourche River and Caballo Creek. Rough breaks and bottomland or riparian 

areas occur along the ephemeral drainages. Caballo Creek passes from west to 

east through the north central part of the general South Gillette analysis area and 

the Belle Fourche River passes through the southern part of the area from 

southwest to northeast. Overall, the LBA tracts are similar in topography. 

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Surface coal mining would permanently alter the topography of each LBA tract 

that is leased and mined. Topsoil would be removed from the land and stockpiled 

or placed directly on recontoured areas. Overburden would be blasted and 

stockpiled or directly placed into already mined pits, and coal would be removed. 

The existing topography on each LBA tract would be substantially changed during 

mining. Highwalls with vertical heights equal to overburden/interburden plus 

coal thickness would exist in the active pits. If necessary, streams would be 

diverted into temporary channels to prevent pits from being flooded. 

Typically, a direct permanent impact of coal mining and reclamation is 

topographic moderation. After reclamation, the restored land surfaces are 

generally gentler, with more uniform slopes and restored basic drainage networks. 

The original topography in Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts ranges from relatively flat to gently rolling hills. As 

discussed above, slopes range from flat to around 57 percent and the average 

slopes range from 4 to 5 percent. The expected postmining topography would be 

similar to the premining topography, but somewhat gentler and more uniform. 

Following reclamation, the average surface elevation on each LBA tract as 

proposed would be lower due to coal removal. The removal of the coal would be 

partially offset by the swelling that occurs when the overburden (and interburden, 

if present) is blasted, removed, and replaced. Table 3-5 present the approximate 

postmining surface elevation change for each LBA tract as applied for under the 

Action Alternatives. After the coal is removed, the land surface would be restored 

to approximate original contour or to a configuration approved by WDEQ/LQD 

when the mining and reclamation permit for the existing mine is amended to 

include coal removal from the LBA tract. 

Direct adverse impacts resulting from topographic moderation include a reduction 

in microhabitats (e.g., cutbank slopes) for some wildlife species and a reduction in 

habitat diversity, particularly a reduction in slope-dependent shrub communities 

and associated habitat. These impacts, which would be greater in those areas 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-9 
1 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-5. Average Overburden, Interburden, and Coal Thicknesses and Approximate Postmining Su

of the Four LBA Tracts. 

Overburden 

Interburden Coal Swell Coal Reco

LBA Tract and Thickness Thickness Thickness Factor Facto

Configuration (ft) (ft) (ft) (percent) (percen

Belle Ayr North 

Proposed Action 295 -- 72 13 94 

Alternative 2 295 -- 72 13 94 

West Coal Creek 

Proposed Action 81 1-6 36 19 88 

Alternative 2 81 1-6 36 19 88 

Caballo West 

Proposed Action 270 -- 74 19 94 

Alternative 2 286 -- 74 19 94 

Maysdorf II 

Proposed Action 303 0.3 63 16 93 

Alternative 2 303 0.3 62 16 93 

Alternative 3 322 0 65 16 93 North
 Alternative 3 
 207 2 50 16 93 

South 

Reclaimed (postmining) surface elevation change calculated as: ((overburden thickness + interburden thickness) × swell factor) factor). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

characterized as rough breaks, may result in a long-term reduction in the carrying 

capacity for some species. A direct beneficial impact of the lower and flatter 

terrain would be reduced water runoff, which would allow increased infiltration 

and result in a minor reduction in peak flows. This may help counteract the 

potential for increased erosion that could occur as a result of higher near-surface 

bulk density of the reclaimed soils (Section 3.8.2.1). It may also increase 

vegetative productivity, and potentially accelerate recharge of groundwater. 

The approximate original drainage pattern for each LBA tract, including the 

diverted portions of Caballo Creek and the Belle Fourche River, would be restored. 

Stockponds and playas would be replaced to provide livestock and wildlife 

watering sources. These topographic changes would not conflict with regional 

land use, and the postmining topography would be designed to adequately 

support anticipated land use. 

These impacts are occurring on the existing Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek Mine coal leases as coal is mined and mined-out areas are reclaimed. 

Under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3, the areas that would be 

permanently topographically changed would increase as shown in Tables 3-1 

through 3-4. 

3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

would not occur on the LBA tracts. Mining operations and the associated impacts 

to topography and physiography would continue as permitted on the existing 

Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek Mine leases. Table 3-5 present 

the approximate postmining surface elevation change for the existing Caballo, 

Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek Mines. Portions of the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts that are contiguous to 

operating mines would be disturbed to recover the coal in the existing leases. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

The mined-out areas must be restored to approximate original contour or other 

topographic configuration approved by WDEQ/LQD. Topographic configurations 

would be developed and approved as part of the required mining and reclamation 

plans for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. 

WDEQ/LQD monitors topographic restoration by checking the as-built topography 

in the annual reports filed by the mines to see if it conforms to the approved 

topography. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-11 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.2.4 Residual Impacts 

Topographic moderation is a permanent consequence of mining. The indirect 

impacts of topographic moderation on wildlife habitat diversity would also be 

considered permanent. 

3.3 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology 

3.3.1 General Geology and Coal Resources 

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment 

Stratigraphic units in the general South Gillette analysis area that would be 

impacted if the tracts under consideration for leasing are mined include, in 

descending order, recent (Quaternary age) alluvial and eolian deposits; the Eocene 

age Wasatch Formation (the overburden), and the Paleocene age Fort Union 

Formation (which contains the target coal seams). Figure 3-2 is a chart showing 

the stratigraphic relationships of the surface and subsurface geologic units in the 

general South Gillette analysis area. Additional information about these units is 

included in the Groundwater section of this document (Section 3.5). 

Surficial deposits in the general South Gillette analysis area include alluvial and 

eolian deposits and weathered Wasatch Formation. Alluvial deposits occupy the 

Caballo Creek and Belle Fourche River valleys and the lower portions of tributary 

draws where they join the stream channels. 

The Eocene Wasatch Formation forms most of the overburden in the general 

South Gillette analysis area. The boundary between the Wasatch Formation and 

the underlying Paleocene Fort Union Formation is not distinct. From a practical 

standpoint, the top of the mineable coal zone is considered as the contact between 

the two formations. Table 3-5 indicates the overburden thicknesses in the Belle 

Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts as applied 

for and under other action alternatives. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the 

regional dip in this area is to the west; as a result, the overburden thickness is 

generally thinner to the east and increases to the west. 

As shown in Figure 3-2, the Fort Union Formation is divided into three members: 

the Tongue River, the Lebo, and the Tullock, in descending order. 

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

Fort Union. There is one mineable coal zone within the general South Gillette 

analysis area. Locally, this coal zone is referred to as either the Wyodak or the 

Wyodak-Anderson. The mineable coal seams are referred to as the Anderson and 

Canyon, Wyodak-Anderson, and Wyodak coal beds by mines in the eastern PRB. 

The “Wyodak-Anderson Zone” is the official USGS nomenclature. The average 

thickness Wyodak coal seam within each LBA tract is shown in Table 3-5. Up to 

3-12 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UPPER 

CRETACE

OUS 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

RECENT ALLUVIUM 

HOLOCENE 

This unit is comprised predominantly of marine shales with only occasional local 

thin sandstone lenses. Maximum yields are minor and overall the unit is not water 

bearing. Water obtained from this unit is poor with high concentrations of sodium 

and sulfate as the predominant ions in solution. 

Geologic Unit Hydrologic Characteristics 

Typically fine grained and poorly sorted sands interbedded with silts and clays in 

ephemeral drainages. Occasional very thin, clean interbedded sand lenses. More 

laterally extensive, thicker, and coarse-grained along the larger stream courses. 

Excessive dissolved solids generally make this aquifer unsuitable for domestic and 

agricultural use and marginal for livestock (Class III) use standards. Low 

infiltration capacity in ephemeral draws unless covered by sandy eolian blanket. 

Low to moderate infiltration along Little Rawhide Creek. 

CLINKER 

HOLOCENE TO 

PLEISTOCENE 

Baked and fused bedrock resulting from burning coal seams which ignite on the 

outcrop from lightning, manmade fires or spontaneous combustion. The reddish 

clinker (locally called scoria, red dog, etc.) formed by melting and partial fusing of 

overburden above the burning coal. The baked rock varies greatly in the degree of 

alteration; some is dense and glassy while some is vesicular and porous. It is 

commonly used as a road construction material and is an aquifer wherever 

saturated. Considered to be part of the Wasatch Formation. 

WASATCH FORMATION 

EOCENE 

Lenticular fine sands interbedded in predominantly very fine grained siltstone and 

claystone may yield low to moderate quantities of poor to good quality water. The 

discontinuous nature and irregular geometry of these sand bodies result in low 

overall permeabilities and very slow groundwater movement in the overburden on a 

regional scale. Water quality in the Wasatch Formation generally does not meet 

Wyoming Class I (drinking water) standards due to the dissolved mineral content. 

Some wells do, however, produce water of considerably better quality that does 

meet the Class I standard. 

FORT UNION FORMATION

PALEOCENE 

TONGUE

RIVER 

MEMBER 

LEBO 

MEMBER 

TULLOCK 

MEMBER 

The coal serves as a regional groundwater aquifer and exhibits highly variable 

aquifer properties. Permeability and porosity associated with the coal arise almost 

entirely from fractures. Coal water typically does not meet Class I or Class II 

(irrigation) use standards. In most cases, water from coal wells is suitable for 

livestock use. The coal water is used throughout the region as a source of stock 

water and occasionally for domestic use. 

W = Wyodak Coal; R = Roland; S = Smith. 

The Lebo member, also referred to as the “Lebo Confining Layer” or “Lebo Shale”. 

Has a mean thickness of 711 ft in the PRB and a thickness of about 400 ft in the 

vicinity of Gillette. The Lebo typically yields small quantities of poor quality 

groundwater. Where sand content is locally large, caused by channel or deltaic 

deposits, the Lebo may yield as much as 10 gpm. 

The Tullock member has a mean thickness of 785 ft in the PRB and a mean sand 

content of 53 percent which indicates that the unit generally functions well as a 

regional aquifer. Yields of 15 gpm are common but vary locally and may be as 

much as 40 gpm. Records from the SEO indicate that maximum yields of 

approximately 300 gpm have been achieved from this aquifer. Water quality in the 

Tullock Member often meets Class I standards. The extensive sandstone units in 

the Tullock Member are commonly developed regionally for domestic and industrial 

uses. The City of Gillette is currently using eight wells completed in this zone to 

meet part of its municipal water requirements. 

R 

S 

W 

LANCE FM/ 

HELL CREEK FM 

FOX HILLS 

SANDSTONE 

PIERRE SHALE 

Marine sandstones and sandy shales. Has a mean thickness of 666 ft and a mean 

sand content over 50 percent in the PRB. Yields up to 200 gpm are common; 

however, yields can be significantly less. Water quality is good, with TDS 

concentrations commonly less than 1,000 mg/L. The City of Gillette is currently 

using five wells completed in this aquifer to meet municipal water requirements. 

This unit is comprised predominantly of marine shales with only occasional local 

thin sandstone lenses. Maximum yields are minor and overall the unit is not water 

bearing. Water obtained from this unit is poor with high concentrations of sodium 

and sulfate as the predominant ions in solution. 

UPPER

CRETACEOUS 

Stratigraphy from Stratigraphic Nomenclature Committee, Wyoming Geological Association, 1969. 

Figure 3-2. Stratigraphic Relationship and Hydrologic Characteristics of Upper 

Cretaceous, Lower Tertiary, and Recent Geologic Units, PRB, 

Wyoming. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-13 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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

discontinuous lenses of carbonaceous clay or shale that are less than 1 ft thick. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a “no-coal” zone is present within the Maysdorf II tract. 

It trends east-west throughout the central portion of Section 4 and 5, T.46N., 

R.71W. It is postulated that an ancient drainage channel (or paleochannel) eroded 

and removed the coal in this area and replaced it with unconsolidated fine sand, 

occasional gravel, and silty clays (CMC 2007b). 

The Fort Union coal seams are subbituminous and are generally low-sulfur, lowash coals. Typically, the coal being mined in the PRB has a higher heating value 

and lower sulfur content south of Gillette than north of Gillette. In the tracts 

under consideration for leasing, the heating value of the coal seams is expected to 

average approximately 8,481 Btu/lb, with an average of about 0.30 percent sulfur, 

4.76 percent ash, and 30.07 percent moisture. 

3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.3.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

The geology from the base of the lowest coal seam mined to the land surface would 

be subject to permanent change after the coal is removed on the LBA tracts under 

the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3. The subsurface characteristics of these 

lands would be radically changed by mining. The replaced overburden and 

interburden (backfill) would be a mixture of the geologically distinct layers of 

sandstone, siltstone, and shale that currently exist. As a result, there would be 

an alteration of the physical characteristics of the backfill. 

3.3.1.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Mining would remove an average of 295 ft of overburden and 72 ft of coal on about 

1,579 acres under the Proposed Action. Mining would remove an average of 295 ft 

of overburden and 72 ft of coal on about 1,669 acres under BLM’s tract 

configuration for Alternative 2. These acreage figures represent the estimated area 

of actual coal removal under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Table 3-5 

presents the average overburden and coal thicknesses for the Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract as applied for and Alternative 2. 

The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous 

(compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly 

recompacted mixture averaging about 338 ft in thickness under the Proposed 

Action and under Alternative 2. Approximately 195.5 million additional tons of 

coal would be recovered under the Proposed Action, compared to an estimated 

207.2 million tons under BLM’s tract configuration for Alternative 2. 

3-14 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.3.1.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Mining would remove an average of 81 ft of overburden and 36 ft of coal on about 

1,151 acres under the Proposed Action. Mining would remove an average of 81 ft 

of overburden and 36 ft of coal on about 1,313 acres under BLM’s tract 

configuration for Alternative 2. These acreage figures represent the estimated area 

of actual coal removal under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Table 3-5 

presents the average overburden and coal thicknesses for the West Coal Creek 

LBA Tract as applied for and Alternative 2. 

The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous 

(compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly 

recompacted mixture averaging about 105 ft in thickness under the Proposed 

Action and Alternative 2. Approximately 57 million additional tons of coal would 

be recovered under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. 

3.3.1.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Mining would remove an average of 270 ft of overburden and 74 ft of coal on about 

778 acres under the Proposed Action. Mining would remove an average of 286 ft 

of overburden and 74 ft of coal on about 1,024 acres under BLM’s tract 

configuration for Alternative 2. These acreage figures represent the estimated area 

of actual coal removal under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Table 3-5 

presents the average overburden and coal thicknesses for the Caballo West LBA 

Tract as applied for and Alternative 2. 

The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous 

(compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly 

recompacted mixture averaging about 326 ft in thickness under the Proposed 

Action and about 345 ft in thickness under Alternative 2. Approximately 81.8 

million additional tons of coal would be recovered under the Proposed Action, 

compared to an estimated 91.7 million tons under BLM’s tract configuration for 

Alternative 2. 

3.3.1.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Mining would remove an average of 303 ft of overburden and 63 ft of coal on about 

4,654 acres under the Proposed Action. Mining would remove an average of 303 ft 

of overburden and 62 ft of coal on about 4,895 acres under BLM’s tract 

configuration for Alternative 2. Mining would remove an average of 322 ft of 

overburden and 65 ft of coal on about 2,825 acres under BLM’s tract configuration 

for the north block under Alternative 3 and an average of 207 ft of overburden and 

50 ft of coal on about 2,070 acres under BLM’s tract configuration for the south 

block under Alternative 3. These acreage figures represent the estimated area of 

actual coal removal under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3. Table 3­

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-15 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

5 presents the average overburden and coal thicknesses for the Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract as applied for and Alternatives 2 and 3. 

The replaced overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous 

(compared to the premining layered overburden and interburden) and partly 

recompacted mixture averaging about 356 ft in thickness under the Proposed 

Action and under Alternative 2, and about 378 and 244 ft in thickness over the 

north and south blocks, respectively, under Alternative 3. Approximately 437.9 

million additional tons of coal would be recovered under the Proposed Action, 

compared to an estimated 458.9 million tons under BLM’s tract configuration for 

Alternative 2 and 3. 

3.3.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

and associated disturbance and impacts would not occur on the LBA tracts. 

Mining operations and associated impacts would continue as permitted on the 

existing adjacent mine coal leases. Table 3-5 presents the average overburden 

and coal thicknesses for the existing Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal 

Creek Mine permit areas. There would be impacts to the overburden on portions 

of the LBA tracts adjacent to the existing mines as a result of recovery of the 

remaining coal in the existing leases. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.3.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Drilling and sampling programs are conducted on existing leases by all mine 

operators to identify overburden material that may be unsuitable for reclamation 

(i.e., material that is not suitable for use in reestablishing vegetation or that may 

affect groundwater quality due to high concentrations of certain constituents, 

such as selenium, or adverse pH levels). As part of the mine permitting process, 

each mine operator develops a management plan to ensure that this unsuitable 

material is not placed in areas where it may affect groundwater quality or 

revegetation success. Each mine operator also develops backfill monitoring plans 

as part of the mine permitting process to evaluate the quality of the replaced 

overburden. These plans are in place for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines and would be developed for the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts if they are leased. 

3-16 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.3.1.4 Residual Impacts 

Geology from the base of the coal to the surface would be subject to significant, 

permanent change. 

3.3.2 Other Mineral Resources 

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment 

3.3.2.1.1 Conventional Oil and Gas 

The following discussion is based on information in the Task 2 Report (Past, 

Present & Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities) of the Powder River 

Basin Coal Review (BLM 2005d), on a December 2007 review of WOGCC data, and 

on a 2008 reserve estimate prepared by Allen & Crouch Petroleum Engineers, Inc. 

(A&C) of conventional oil and gas resources in the general South Gillette analysis 

area (A&C 2008). 

The Powder River structural basin is one of the richest petroleum provinces in the 

Rocky Mountain Area. Hydrocarbons occur in reservoirs ranging from 

Mississippian to early Tertiary, in both structural and stratigraphic traps. As 

discussed in the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report, oil was first produced from the 

PRB in 1887 from the Lower Cretaceous Newcastle Sandstone on the east flank of 

the basin near Moorcroft, Wyoming. In the 1960s and 1970s, drilling moved into 

deeper parts of the basin that resulted in the discovery of prolific oil fields in 

stratigraphic traps in Upper and Lower Cretaceous rocks. The discovery of oil 

from the Lower Cretaceous Muddy sandstone on the Montana side of the basin set 

off a flurry of exploration that resulted in a number of discoveries in Wyoming in 

the Muddy Sandstone. Muddy Sandstone production fields in the vicinity of the 

general South Gillette analysis area include portions of the Hilight Field and other 

smaller fields. Drilling continued for deeper targets and resulted in the recovery of 

oil and gas in deeper reserves in the Hilight Field and other fields in the PermianPennsylvanian Minnelusa Formation. Through 2005, there had been a 15-year 

period of very little conventional oil and gas development activity in the PRB (BLM 

2005d). 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) data indicate that the 

Mowry Shale, Muddy Sandstone, and Minnelusa Formation have produced both 

oil and conventional gas to date in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Approximately 77 percent of the wells have been completed in the Minnelusa 

Formation, which produce from discontinuous, marginal marine, eolian sandstone 

deposits. As a result, Minnelusa Formation reservoirs tend to be small and 

irregularly distributed. Depths to productive traps range from 5,000 feet to 

15,000 feet, with most in the 8,000 to 14,000 feet range. The Upper Minnelusa 

sandstone play is well established, and most of the Minnelusa wells in the general 

South Gillette analysis area were drilled in the early 1980s. Field development 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-17 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

has tended to occur on a 40-acre well spacing. Conventional oil and/or gas wells 

have been drilled on all four LBA tracts. 

A total of 223 conventional oil and gas wells have been drilled in a 57-section area 

within or immediately adjacent to the four LBA tract study areas, including a total 

of 60 within the four LBA tract study areas. As of December 2007 only two oil 

wells have been drilled within in the LBA tracts since 2000, with the most recent 

well completed in 2006 (WOGCC 2007a). No conventional gas wells have been 

completed within the four LBA tracts study areas since 1997. 

There are currently 18 wells capable of producing oil or conventional gas located 

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

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

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

of oil and 12 million cubic feet (mmcf) of gas (A&C 2008). 

Higher oil prices experienced recently have helped prevent the abandonment of 

low-producing wells and could potentially increase conventional oil and gas 

exploration in the PRB. Enhanced oil recovery using carbon dioxide (CO2) flooding 

has the potential to increase convention oil recovery in the south Gillette analysis 

area but the infrastructure (e.g., CO2 pipelines, etc.) is not currently in place (BLM 

2005d). 

Section 3.11 includes a discussion of the ownership of the oil and gas resources in 

the four LBA tract study areas. Conventional oil and gas wells located in the 

individual LBA tracts oil and gas general analysis areas that are capable of 

production are listed in Appendix J. 

3.3.2.1.2 Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

CBNG has been commercially produced in the PRB since 1989 when production 

began at the Rawhide Butte Field, northwest of Gillette (De Bruin and Lyman 

1999). Extensive development of CBNG in the Wyodak-Anderson coal has 

occurred in the vicinity of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. Extensive CBNG development has also occurred 

immediately west of the general South Gillette analysis area. 

WOGCC records show that as of December 13, 2007, 445 wells had been drilled 

for CBNG production in 57-section area encompassing or immediately adjacent to 

the general South Gillette analysis area and 288 were capable of producing 

(WOGCC 2007a). There are 153 CBNG wells within the four LBA tracts. 

CBNG is also being produced locally from other deeper seams in the PRB. Fifteen 

wells have been completed in the deeper Pawnee coal seam on and west of the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract. All of these Pawnee wells are either shut-in or are 

producing water (WOGCC 2007a). 

3-18 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group (RMG) has prepared a 

variety of detailed analyses of CBNG resources near the mining areas for the coal 

leasing and other actions over the past few years. The RMG recently completed a 

report that describes the existing/affected environment of the coal mining areas 

and adjacent lands, with respect to CBNG resources, and documents the observed 

and inferred resource depletion that has and will continue to occurred (WSO-RMG 

2006). The following discussion includes references to site specific CBNG/LBA 

analysis reports and the more recent report regarding CBNG resources in the 

general South Gillette analysis area. 

CBNG wells were initially drilled on 40-acre spacing in the Wyoming PRB. 

Production/reservoir analyses that have been submitted to the WOGCC in various 

public hearings have indicated that CBNG wells in the PRB will produce reserves 

from larger areas than 40 acres. As a result, the WOGCC established an 80-acre 

spacing pattern as the default spacing for CBNG wells completed in the PRB 

within the Fort Union and Wasatch Formations. Most CBNG wells on and near 

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

were drilled on a 40-acre pattern, either because the wells were drilled before the 

spacing was changed to 80 acres or under the authorization of spacing exceptions 

granted by WOGCC. Certain townships in the PRB are exempt from the 80-acre 

spacing pattern rule, including Ts.46 through 48N., R.71W. (WOGCC 2005b). 

Although CBNG has been produced in this area for almost 10 years, there are still 

undrilled 40-acre spacing units in and around the general South Gillette analysis 

area and there has been little recent interest in drilling additional wells in this 

area. 

The WOGCC well data from the mining townships generally shows that operator 

interest in the eastern PRB mining areas peaked prior to 2000 and declined 

rapidly following 2001. Activity had declined to almost negligible levels during 

2005 (WSO-RMG 2007). 

The Reservoir Management Group and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have 

collected extensive CBNG data, including coal gas content, from coal cores taken 

across the PRB. These include samples in the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone at 

locations near existing PRB mines. The cores were taken from depths comparable 

to the mined seams, ranging from 134 to 407 ft. All of the near-mines cores were 

collected in 2000, well after mine dewatering had been initiated and near the peak 

period of CBNG drilling in the mining areas. The core data generally show that 

coal seams were already substantially depleted of CBNG in the vicinity of the 

mines at the time the samples were taken (WSO-RMG 2007). 

The ownership of oil and gas resources in the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts, which includes the CBNG resources, is 

discussed in Section 3.11. CBNG wells capable of production on or in sections 

adjacent to the LBA tracts are listed in Appendix J. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-19 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.3.2.1.3 Other Minerals 

Bentonite, uranium, and scoria are commercially produced in the PRB in addition 

to conventional oil and gas and CBNG (WSGS 2004a and 2005a). 

Layers of bentonite (decomposed volcanic ash) of varying thickness are present 

throughout the PRB. Some of the thicker layers are mined around the edges of 

the PRB. Bentonite has a large capacity to absorb water, and because of this 

characteristic it is used in a number of processes and products, including drilling 

mud and cat litter. No mineable bentonite reserves have been identified on the 

LBA tracts under the Action Alternatives. 

There are substantial uranium resources in Johnson, Campbell, and Converse 

counties. As of 2006, there was one operating in-situ uranium recovery site in the 

Wyoming, which was located in the southern PRB (WSGS 2006). No known 

uranium reserves exist within the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Scoria, also called clinker or burn has been and continues to be a major source of 

aggregate for road construction in the area due to the shortage of more competent 

materials. Scoria consists of sediments that were baked, fused, or melted in place 

when the underlying coal burned spontaneously. Scoria is present within the 

general South Gillette analysis area, predominantly east of the coal limit. Scoria 

occurs only in limited amounts on the LBA tracts as applied for under the 

Proposed Actions or within the additional areas evaluated under the other action 

alternatives. See Section 3.5.1.1.2 for additional information on scoria. 

A search of the BLM Land and Mineral Use Records revealed that no active mining 

claims are presently located on the LBA tracts as applied for under the Proposed 

Actions or within the additional areas evaluated under Alternatives 2 or 3 (BLM 

2007a). 

3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.3.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

During mining, other minerals present on the LBA tracts could not be developed. 

Some of these minerals could, however, be developed after mining. The 

conventional oil and gas reservoirs and the CBNG reservoirs below the WyodakAnderson coal would not be directly disturbed by removal of the mineable coal. 

The oil and gas lessees could drill wells to recover oil and gas resources from any 

oil and conventional gas or CBNG reservoirs below the mineable coal seams 

following mining and reclamation. This would only occur if they believe that the 

value of the reserves would justify the expense of drilling the wells. 

Although the general South Gillette analysis area generally appears to be 

unfavorable for additional conventional oil and gas discoveries, the entire study 

3-20 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

area has not been tested. The formations producing conventional oil and gas in 

the general South Gillette analysis area occur at much greater depths than would 

be affected by mining. The average depths of the producing wells in the area 

range from approximately 8,310 – 8,860 feet for the Mowry Shale, approximately 

8,500 – 9,050 feet for the Muddy Sandstone, and nearly 10,125 – 10,800 feet for 

the Minnelusa Formation. However, conflicts could arise between the 

conventional oil and gas production and mining if conventional wells are in 

production at the time the well locations are to be mined. 

Before mining operations could begin, all conventional oil and gas wells would 

have to be plugged and abandoned, and all production equipment would have to 

be removed. The remaining recoverable oil and conventional gas reserves that 

have not been recovered prior to mining could not be recovered until mining and 

reclamation has been completed. A&C (2008) reviewed the existing conventional 

oil and gas production data in the general South Gillette analysis area. Sufficient 

production data are available from Minnelusa wells in the vicinity of the tracts to 

prepare reserve estimates using decline analyses. As discussed above, WOGCC 

records show that there are currently 18 conventional oil and gas wells that are 

capable of producing located on the four LBA tracts’ study areas. These 18 wells 

include 16 active wells, one temporarily abandoned well, and one shut-in well. 

Seven injector wells are located on the LBA tract study areas. While these wells 

are not capable of producing, they are important to continued field production. 

According the A&C’s 2008 evaluation, actively producing wells within the LBA 

tracts appear to have exhausted most of their recoverable reserves, with 

approximately 8 percent of the recoverable oil and 2 percent of the recoverable gas 

remaining in these wells. There has been little interest in exploration and 

development of Minnelusa reservoirs in this area in recent years. 

Before mining operations could begin, all active CBNG wells would have to be 

plugged and abandoned, and all gas production equipment would have to be 

removed. CBNG resources that have not been recovered from the WyodakAnderson zone prior to mining would be lost when the coal is removed. 

CBNG production requires withdrawal of water from the coal seams to reduce 

hydrostatic pressure and enable methane desorption from the coals. Mine-related 

dewatering of the coal seams reduces hydrostatic pressure and allows the 

methane to escape in the same way that CBNG well dewatering of the coal seam 

does. BLM WSO-RMG’s review and other CBNG reservoir analyses indicate that 

depletion of the hydrostatic pressures and methane resources starts to occur 

adjacent to mining areas a short time after mining begins. Coal mining operations 

have been ongoing for more than 20 years and are continuing at the Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines and other surface coal mines in this 

area. The ongoing reduction of hydrostatic pressure in the coal due to mining has 

been accelerated by extensive CBNG production from surrounding lands. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-21 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

BLM WSO-RMG’s analyses of the production and reservoirs indicate that the 

CBNG resource within the Wyodak-Anderson seam has been substantially 

depleted, either by mining or by recovery from producing wells. Approximately 65 

percent of the CBNG wells drilled on or adjacent to the LBA tracts remain in 

production and it seems likely that these will have exhausted their economic 

reserves prior to initiation of mining in the LBA tracts. Most production or 

reservoir analyses submitted to WOGCC at various public hearings indicate that a 

CBNG well will generally produce reserves from larger areas than 40 acres; 

therefore, it is likely that any undrilled spacing units in the BLM study area have 

been drained by production from the existing wells and nearby mining activity. 

Overall, BLM WSO-RMG’s analyses suggest that there are insufficient reserves 

remaining in the tracts to support additional drilling. As a result, mining the 

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

Tracts is unlikely to affect, or to be affected by, CBNG production from the 

Wyodak-Anderson coal seams. 

Production from the coal zones underlying the Wyodak-Anderson could be delayed 

as the parcel is mined. If production from these lower seams is established on the 

LBA tracts in the future, additional measures would be required to accommodate 

both mining and CBNG production (see Section 3.3.2.3). 

Section 3.11.1 includes a discussion on the ownership of the oil and gas resources 

on the LBA tracts and the oil and gas facilities in the area of the tracts. 

3.3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

would not occur on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. Mining operations would continue to limit the 

development of other mineral resources described above on the existing adjacent 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine coal leases. Mineral 

development limitations related to mining operations at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA 

tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plan. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.3.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

The reservoir analyses conducted by the A&C indicate that most of the recoverable 

conventional oil and gas and CBNG resources on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts have been extracted by the 

existing wells. Potential does exist for conflicts between coal operations and 

3-22 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

CBNG and conventional oil and gas wells completed in formations and coal zones 

below the Wyodak-Anderson seam. 

If the federal coal in the tract is leased and conflicts do develop between the 

operators of the oil and gas wells and the surface coal mine operator, there are 

several mechanisms that can be used to facilitate recovery of the conventional oil 

and gas and CBNG resources prior to mining. These include: 

• 	 BLM will attach a Multiple Mineral Development stipulation to the Federal 

coal lease, which states that BLM has the authority to withhold approval of 

coal mining operations that would interfere with the development of mineral 

leases issued prior to the coal lease (see Appendix D). 

• 	 Conventional oil and gas wells must be plugged and abandoned while 

mining and reclamation operations are in progress but could be 

recompleted or redrilled following mining if the value of the remaining 

reserves would justify the expense of reestablishing production. 

• 	BLM has a policy in place on CBNG-coal conflicts (BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2006-153), which directs BLM decision-makers to 

optimize the recovery of both resources and ensure that the public receives 

a reasonable return (BLM 2006a). This memorandum offers royalty 

incentives to CBNG operators to accelerate production in order to recover 

the natural gas while simultaneously allowing uninterrupted coal mining 

operations. In addition, this memorandum also states that it is the policy of 

the BLM to encourage oil and gas and coal companies to resolve conflicts 

between themselves; when requested, the BLM will assist in facilitating 

agreements between the companies. 

• 	 Mining of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf 

II LBA Tracts cannot occur until the coal lessees have a permit to mine the 

tract approved by the WDEQ/LQD and a MLA mining plan approved by the 

Secretary of the Interior. Before the MLA mining plans can be approved, 

BLM must approve each R2P2 for mining the tracts. Prior to approving the 

each R2P2, BLM can review the status of CBNG and conventional oil and 

gas development on the tract and the mining sequence proposed by the coal 

lessee. The permit approval process generally takes the coal lessee several 

years, during which time CBNG resources can be recovered. 

• 	 Prior to mining the Federal coal, the coal lessee can negotiate an agreement 

with owners and operators of existing oil and gas facilities on the tract, 

including owners and operators of oil and gas well and pipeline facilities, 

regarding removal and relocation of those facilities prior to mining. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-23 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.3.2.4 Residual Impacts 

CBNG resources not recovered prior to mining would be vented to the atmosphere 

and permanently lost. 

3.3.3 Paleontology 

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment 

The formation exposed on the surface of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts is the sedimentary Eocene Wasatch 

Formation, which is known to produce fossil vertebrates of scientific significance 

throughout Wyoming, including the PRB (Delson 1971, Winterfeld 1978, EVG 

2001). 

BLM ranks areas according to their potential to contain vertebrate fossils or 

noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. The Wasatch Formation is 

ranked as fulfilling BLM Paleontology Condition No. 1, which is described in the 

Paleontological Resource Management Handbook 8270-I as “areas that are known 

to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant 

fossils.” According to the handbook, “consideration of paleontological resources 

will be necessary if the Field Office review of available information indicates that 

such fossils are present in the area”. 

The BLM in Wyoming uses an additional planning tool, called the Possible Fossil 

Yield Classification (PFYC), to classify geological units, usually at the formation or 

member level, according to the probability that they will yield paleontological 

resources that are of concern to land managers. This classification system is 

based largely on how likely a geologic unit is to produce scientifically significant 

fossils. BLM considers the Wasatch Formation to fulfill either the PFYC Class 4 or 

Class 5, depending on the nature of bedrock exposures present. PFYC classes 4 

and 5 are described as follows: 

Class 4 - These geologic units are Class 5 units (see below) that have lowered 

risks of human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural 

degradation. 

Class 5 - Fossilferous geologic units that regularly and predictably produce 

vertebrate fossils and/or scientifically significant non-vertebrate (plant and 

invertebrate) fossils, and that are at risk of natural degradation and/or 

human-caused adverse impacts. 

Although the Wasatch Formation is known to produce fossil vertebrates of 

scientific significance in Wyoming, outcrops of the Wasatch Formation in the PRB 

are not generally well-exposed and the conditions of deposition of the formation 

have contributed to a low preservation potential for fossils. Vertebrate fossils that 

3-24 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

have been described from the Wasatch Formation include mammals such as early 

horses, tapiroids, condylarths, primates, insectivores, marsupials, creodonts, 

carnivores, and multituberculates; reptiles such as crocodilians, alligators, lizards, 

and turtles; birds; eggs; amphibians; and fish. Non-marine invertebrates such as 

mollusks and ostrocods have also been described from the Wasatch. 

Fossil plant material is common in the Wasatch Formation. The fossil plants 

inventoried are primarily leaves and fossilized wood. The leaves usually occur as 

lignitic impressions in sandstone and siltstone and as compact masses in shale. 

Leaves are the most abundant fossils found during paleontological surveys and 

are frequently encountered during mining operations. Fossilized wood often 

occurs near the top of a coal seam, in carbonaceous shale or within channel 

sandstone. Exposures of fossil logs are common, but usually very fragmentary. 

Like fossil leaves, fossil logs can be readily collected in the PRB. 

Paleontological surveys were conducted in conjunction with the cultural resource 

inventories of the current Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine 

permit areas and the BLM study areas for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts (the tracts as applied for and the 

additional area evaluated under other action alternatives). Pedestrian 

examinations for fossil indications were conducted along rock outcrops. One of 

the primary goals of the paleontological surveys was to locate unique pockets of 

fossilized bone such as those reported elsewhere in the Wasatch Formation in the 

PRB. Such concentrations of fossilized bone were not found, nor were any fossil 

vertebrates. Several fossil localities occur in exposures of the Wasatch Formation 

south of the Belle Fourche River in Sections 9, 10, and 14, T.46N., R.71W. None 

of the fossil material found at these localities or at other localities within the 

general South Gillette analysis area is considered to have much scientific 

significance and as a result no specimens were collected. Vertebrate fossils 

appear to be very scarce. Fossil wood is much more common and observed at 

many unrecorded locations, particularly associated with coal. 

No significant or unique paleontological resource localities have been recorded on 

federal lands in the general South Gillette analysis area and no specific mitigation 

has been recommended for paleontology. 

3.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.3.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

The rock outcrops present on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, 

and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts were examined for the presence of fossils, as 

discussed above, and no scientifically significant fossils were located. Fossils with 

scientific significance could be present on the tract but not exposed at the surface. 

If the tracts are leased under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3, 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-25 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

paleontological resources located on the tract that are not exposed on the surface 

would be destroyed when the overburden is removed. 

3.3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

would not occur on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. Mining operations and the associated potential impacts to 

paleontological resources described above would continue as permitted on the 

existing adjacent mine coal leases and on portions of the LBA tracts adjacent to 

the applicant mines, which would be disturbed to recover the coal in the existing 

leases. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.3.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

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

are leased, BLM will attach a stipulation to each lease requiring the operator to 

report significant paleontological finds to the authorized federal agency and 

suspend production in the vicinity of the find until an approved paleontologist can 

evaluate the paleontological resource (Appendix D). 

3.3.3.4 Residual Impacts 

Paleontological resources that are not identified and removed prior to or during 

mining operations would be lost. 

3.4 Air Quality 

The information in this section and in the supplemental air quality Information 

appendix (Appendix K) is based on the air quality information provided by the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines and from various state 

and federal sources. This section summarizes the affected environment in the 

general South Gillette analysis area and the potential air quality impacts if the 

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

leased and mined. Appendix K provides background information on the air quality 

regulatory framework, regional conditions, dispersion model methodology, the 

BACT process, etc. Existing and projected cumulative air quality impacts are 

discussed in Section 4.2.3. 

3-26 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.1 Background 

The air quality of any region is controlled primarily by the magnitude and 

distribution of pollutant emissions and the regional climate. The transport of 

pollutants from specific source areas is strongly affected by local topography. In 

the mountainous western United States, topography is particularly important in 

channeling pollutants along valleys, creating upslope and downslope circulations 

that may entrain airborne pollutants, and blocking the flow of pollutants toward 

certain areas. In general, local effects are superimposed on the general weather 

regime and are most important when the large-scale wind flow is weak. 

Wyoming can be characterized as having a combination of both highland and midlatitude semiarid climates. The dominant factors that affect the climate of the 

area are elevation, local relief, and the mountain barrier effect. This barrier effect 

can produce marked temperature and precipitation differences between windward 

and leeward slopes. Generally, temperature decreases and precipitation increases 

with increasing elevation. See Section 3.1.1 for additional information about the 

climate in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

The general South Gillette analysis area, shown in Figure 3-1, is located in the 

east-central portion of the PRB, a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes 

most of northeastern Wyoming. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the topography is 

primarily rolling plains and tablelands of moderate relief (with occasional valleys 

and buttes). Elevations range from about 4,520 ft to 4,885 ft above sea level. The 

Big Horn Mountains lie approximately 60 miles to the west and the Black Hills lie 

approximately 60 miles to the east. 

Air Quality regulations applicable to surface coal mining may include 

NAAQS/WAAQS, PSD, NSPS, and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Title V). 

These regulatory programs are described in Appendix K. Air pollution impacts are 

limited by local, state, tribal, and federal air quality regulations and standards, 

and state implementation plans, or SIPs, established under the federal CAA and 

the CAAA of 1990. In Wyoming, air pollution impacts are managed by 

WDEQ/AQD under the WAQSR and the EPA-approved SIP. 

3.4.1.1 Emission Sources 

Air quality conditions in rural areas in the PRB are likely to be very good, as they 

are characterized by limited air pollution emission sources (few industrial facilities 

and residential emissions in the relatively small communities and isolated 

ranches) and good atmospheric dispersion conditions, resulting in relatively low 

air pollutant concentrations. Occasional high concentrations of CO and 

particulate matter may occur in more urbanized areas (e.g., cities of Gillette, 

Sheridan, and Buffalo) and around industrial facilities, especially under stable 

atmospheric conditions that occur during winter. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-27 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Surface coal mining activities generate fugitive dust and particulate and gaseous 

tailpipe emissions from large mining equipment. Specifically, activities such as 

blasting, excavating, loading and hauling of overburden and coal, and wind 

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

crushing, storage, and handling facilities are the most common stationary or point 

sources associated with surface coal mining and preparation. Particulate matter 

is the pollutant emitted from coal mine point sources, although small amounts of 

gaseous pollutants are emitted from small boilers and off-road diesel engines. 

Wyoming’s ambient air standards for particulates are shown in Table 3-6. 

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

Overburden and coal blasting sometimes produces gaseous, orange-colored clouds 

that contain NO2. Exposure to NO2 may have adverse health effects, as discussed 

in Section 3.4.3. NO2 is one of several products resulting from the incomplete 

combustion of explosives used in the blasting process. Wyoming’s ambient air 

standards for NO2 are shown in Table 3-6. 

Other existing air pollutant emission sources within the region include: 

•	 CO and NOx from internal combustion engines used at natural gas and CBNG 

pipeline compressor stations; 

•	 CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and VOCs from gasoline and diesel vehicle tailpipe 

emissions; 

•	 Particulate matter (dust) generated by vehicle travel on unpaved graded roads, 

agricultural activities such as plowing, and paved road sanding during the 

winter months, as well as windblown dust from neighboring areas; 

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

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

Dave Johnston plant, located about 78-91 miles south-southwest of the LBA 

tracts, and the Wyodak, Wygen, and Neil Simpson plants, located 9-22 miles 

north of the LBA tracts; and 

•	 Air pollutants transported from emission sources located outside the PRB. 

3.4.2 Particulate Emissions 

3.4.2.1 Affected Environment for Particulate Emissions 

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. PM10 is particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns 

or less that can potentially penetrate into the lungs and cause health problems. 

In 1997, EPA set separate standards for fine particles (PM2.5), based on their link 

to serious health problems. In 2006, EPA again revised the air quality standards 

for particulate matter by tightening 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 

3-28 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Envi

Table 3-6. Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations, Applicable AAQS, and PSD Increm

Criteria Averaging Background Primary Secondary PSD C

Pollutant Time1 Concentration NAAQS2 NAAQS2 WAAQS Increm

Carbon 1-hour 3,3364 40,000 40,000 40,000 --

monoxide 8-hour 1,381 10,000 10,000 10,000 --

Nitrogen Annual 55 100 100 100 2

dioxide Ozone 8-hour 706 157 157 157 --

Sulfur dioxide 3-hour 1817 --- 1,300 1,300 25 

24-hour 627 365 --- 260 5 

Annual 137 80 --- 60 2 

PM108 24-hour 549 150 150 150 8 

Annual 139 -- -- 50 4 

PM 8 1310 2.5 24-hour 35 35 65 --

Annual 410 15 15 15 --

1 Annual standards are not to be exceeded; short-term standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

2 Primary standards are designed to protect public health; secondary standards are designed to protect public welfa

3 All NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD increments are intended to evaluate a threshold of concern and do not 

Increment Consumption Analysis. 

4 Data collected by Amoco at Ryckman Creek for an eight-month period during 1978-1979, summarized in Riley Rid

5 Data collected at Thunder Basin National Grassland, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2002. 

6 Data collected at Thunder Basin National Grassland, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2002-2004 (8-hour 4th high). 7 Data collected by Black Hills Power & Light at Wygen 2, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2002. 8 On October 17, 2006, EPA published final revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter that took effect on Decem

revision strengthens the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 μg/m3 and revokes the annual PM10 standard of 50 

Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS. 

9 Data collected at the Eagle Butte Mine, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2002. 10 Data collected at the Buckskin Mine in 2002. 

Source: (BLM 2005a and WDEQ/AQD) 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-29 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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. 

While retaining the TSP standard until March 2000, Wyoming added the PM10 

standard in 1989. Wyoming also adopted a PM2.5 standard in March 2000. In 

view of the December 2006 revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter, the 

State of Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS for particulate 

matter so that they remain as stringent as or more stringent than the NAAQS. 

Even with the evolution of state or federal small size particulate standards, TSP is 

still monitored in some PRB locations as a surrogate for PM10 and as an indication 

of overall atmospheric levels of particulate matter. 

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, 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 date back to 1980 and data for PM10 date back to 

1989. Through 2004, approximately 57,000 TSP samples had been collected and 

approximately 47,550 PM10 samples had been collected through 2007. 

Information about the regulatory framework, the monitoring network, and PM10 

concentration trends since monitoring began are included in Appendix K. Existing 

site specific air quality information is included in the SGAC EIS Supplementary 

Information document, which is available on request. 

Historical particulate matter ambient air quality data for the general South Gillette 

analysis area air quality monitoring sites generally show the same results as 

described above for the PRB as a whole. The locations of PM10, PM2.5, and TSP (if 

monitored) particulate emission monitoring samplers at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines are shown on Figures 3-3 through 3-6, 

respectively. The progression of mining operations requires that the location and 

number of particulate monitors be adjusted in order to provide the best 

documentation of the ambient air quality. Figure 3-7 presents the average annual 

emission measured by general South Gillette analysis area particulate monitors 

from 1997 through 2007 for PM10 emission. Annual coal and overburden 

production for the general South Gillette analysis area mines for these years are 

also shown on Figure 3-7. 

No exceedances of the 24-hour or annual PM10 particulate standards had been 

documented by the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, or Cordero Rojo Mines through 

2006. 

3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences Related to Particulate Emissions 

Particulates include solid particles and liquid droplets that can be suspended in 

air. Particulates, especially fine particles, have been linked to numerous 

3-30 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
21 

5 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Four 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

UP RR 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

2

Hilight

Road

4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3

State Highway 59

1 6 

8 9 10 11 

Road 

8 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 

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

BA-1 19 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 19 20 20 

30 29 28 27 26 25 28 27 26 25 30 

BA-4 & T. T. BA-4S Belle Ayr Mine 32 Plant Facilities 35 36 31 48 33 34 35 36 31 32 48 33 34 N. N. 

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

Road BA-3 

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

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

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

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

N 

LEGEND 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Alternative 2 

W 0% E BLM's Study Area 

TSP, PM2.5, and PM10 Air Quality
 Sampling Locations as of 2007
 

Meteorological Station
 

KEY 5000 10000 20000 

Windrose 0 3 6 10 16 21 >21 Period: 1995-2000 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) KNOTS S 

Figure 3-3. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Belle Ayr Mine. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

0 

3-31
33 

16 

9 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

Hilight Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Wagensen 

Lawver 

Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

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

Hilight Road

ey H adl R o oad

T. T. 33 34 35 47 

N. 

T. 

34 35 36 31 32 36 31 32 33 47 

N. 

T. 

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

N. N. 

7-1 

8
 

9 10
 9 10 11 12 7 8 11 12 7 

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

Hoadley Road 

Coal Creek Mine 

Plant Facilities 23 24 19 20 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 

26-1A 26-1B

26 25 30 29 28 27 29 28 27 26 25 30 26-2 

T. 

34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 46 

N. 

T. 

46 

N. 

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

N. N. Lawver Road 

12 11 12 7 8 10 7 8 9 10 11 

13 18 13 18 14 17 16 15 15 14 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. R. 70 W. R. 69 W. 

N 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) W 0% E 

TSP and PM10 Air Quality 

Sampling Locations as of 2007 

Meteorological Station 

KEY 5000 10000 20000 

Windrose 0 3 6 10 15 21 >21 Period: 1995-2000 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) KNOTS S 

Figure 3-4. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Coal Creek Mine. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

17 

0 

3-32
14 

27 

26 

State 

BNSF RR 

Fairview 

BNSF & UP RR 

Road

 59 Highway 

State

 59 

Highway 

BNSF RR 

Road 

Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Bishop Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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

30 29 

28 27 26 25 29 28 25 30 Four 

T. T. 36 31 32 33 34

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

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

N. N. 

11 12 7 C-9 9 10 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 

18 

16 15 

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 13 

C-1 

20 21 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 19 

Caballo Mine
 Plant Facilities
 

25 C-8 30 29 28

29 28 27 26 26 25 30 

T. 

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

N. 

36 31 N. 

T. 

1 

T. 3 47 6 5 4 

N. 2 47 3 2 1 6 5 4 

N. 

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

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

N 

LEGEND 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

West Caballo LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) W 0% E 

PM10 Air Quality Sampling 

Locations as of 2007 

Meteorological Station 

0 5000 10000 20000 KEY 

Windrose 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 0 3 6 10 

KNOTS 

16 21 >21 S Period: 1995-2000 

Figure 3-5. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Caballo Mine. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

27 

22 

3-33
33 

3 

22 

3 

48 

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Hilight Road 

Haight Road 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. T. T. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 32

Highway State 59

Hilight Road

32 33 34 34 35 48 35 36 31 31 36 Cordero Rojo Mine N. N. North Plant Facilities 

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

8 9 9 10 11 12 7 10 11 12 7 8 CRC-W 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 17 16 Cordero Rojo Mine 

South Plant Facilities 

13 18 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 CRC-E 

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

T. 

36 

T. 

47 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 

N. 

31 32 33 47 

N. 

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

N. N. 

CRC-S 

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

13 18 17 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

Hoadley Road 

24 19 24 19 21 20 21 23 20 22 23

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

N 

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary
 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for
 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2)
 

North Tract Under Alternative 3 

W 0% E 

South Tract Under Alternative 3 

PM10 Air Quality Sampling
 Locations as of 2007
 

Meteorological Station
 

Precipitation Gage 

KEY 5000 10000 20000 

Windrose 0 3 6 10 16 21 >21 Period: 1995-2000 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) KNOTS S 

Figure 3-6. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the Cordero Rojo Mine. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

16 

0 

3-34
ANNUAL AVERAGE PM10

360300240180120

60

0 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

 vs. PRODUCTION 

302520151050 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 


 Coal Production (million tons) and


 Overburden Removal (million cubic yards)


 Annual Average

 Concentration (μg/m 10 PM 3 
 )

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 3-7. Annual Coal Production and Overburden Removal vs. Ambient Particulates for the General 

South Gillette Analysis Area (1997 through 2007). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

Production Year 

SGAC Coal Production	 SGAC Mines

Average Annual SGAC Overburden Removal PM10 Concentration 

3-35
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

respiratory-related illnesses and can adversely affect individuals with pre-existing 

heart or lung diseases (EPA 2007a). They are also a major cause of visibility 

impairment in many parts of the United States. While individual particles cannot 

be seen with the naked eye, collectively they can appear as black soot, dust 

clouds, or gray hazes. 

3.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

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

would be mined as an integral part of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines, respectively. 

Potential particulate emissions related to mining operations at the existing mines 

are described below. Because of the similarities in mining rates and mining 

operations, the potential impacts of mining the LBA tracts have been inferred from 

the projected impacts of mining the existing coal leases as currently permitted. 

Receptor locations were placed at approximately 500-meter intervals along the 

ambient air quality (or LNCM) boundaries. As discussed in Appendix K, a PM10 

concentration of 15 μg/m3 was added to most modeled emissions to account for 

background fugitive dust. The Caballo Mine used a 14.4 μg/m3 concentration 

value for PM10 modeling. Predicted PM10 emissions from the other regional mining 

operations were inventoried using those mines’ most recent WDEQ/AQD air 

quality permit applications. Impacts on ambient air from the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines and other regional mines vary by year due 

to annual changes in emission strength, emission density, pit proximity to defined 

ambient air boundaries, and pit configuration. Emissions for each year are 

ranked and candidate worst-case years are further evaluated regarding proximity 

to neighboring mining operations and emissions. The total PM10 concentration at 

each receptor was determined by summing the concentration due to each active 

mine in the general area and adding the appropriate background concentration. 

The resulting particulate levels were then compared to the average annual PM10 

standard of 50 μg/m3 to determine compliance with the annual WAAQS. This 

constitutes a demonstration of compliance with the “long-term” or annual WAAQS. 

As discussed in Appendix K, surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB have not 

been subject to PSD requirements. Only some fraction of the mine emissions 

included in the WDEQ/AQD air quality permit analyses consumes increment 

based on permits in place in the baseline year of 1997. As a result, the 

concentrations predicted by the WDEQ/AQD air quality permit analyses should 

not be compared to PSD increments. 

The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine point source emissions 

inventories includes all coal preparation and processing facilities (i.e., crushers, 

material transfer points, silos, and loadouts). All point source parameters for the 

regional mining operations, which were obtained from WDEQ/AQD files, were also 

3-36 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

considered in the modeling analysis. As discussed in Appendix K, a proposed new 

point source that has the potential to emit more than 250 tpy of any criteria 

pollutant (the primary pollutant being particulate matter) must undergo a 

regulatory PSD increment consumption analysis as well as a BACT review. 

In Wyoming, monitoring results have been used in lieu of short-term (24-hour) 

modeling for assessing short-term coal mining-related impacts in the PRB. WDEQ 

has chosen this procedure in accordance with an agreement between EPA and the 

State of Wyoming. That agreement recognizes that appropriate models do not 

exist to accurately predict 24-hour impacts. Twenty-four-hour impacts have been 

estimated from recent monitoring and emission control activities. There have been 

no violations for exceeding the 24-hour or annual ambient air standards at the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines through August 2007 and 

none are expected from mining the LBA tracts. 

The estimated average overburden thickness is generally greater in each of the 

LBA tracts than within the current leases, but the thickness of the coal in the LBA 

tracts is about the same as in the existing mine areas (see Table 3-5). The 

acquisition and mining of the LBA tracts by the applicant mines could result in an 

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

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

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

somewhat if removal of the larger volume of overburden material results in a 

slower rate of mining advancement through the LBA tracts. This would potentially 

decrease the number of acres disturbed annually and cause haul distances to 

increase more slowly. 

Current mining techniques (i.e., haulage, blasting, etc.) would be expected to 

continue for a longer period of time than is shown in the currently approved air 

quality permits. Material movement of overburden and coal would continue to 

utilize shovels and trucks in overburden and shovels and trucks in coal. Facilities 

shown in the current air quality permits would not change as a result of proposed 

mining of the LBA tracts. There are no plans to change blasting procedures or 

blast sizes associated with the mining of the LBA tracts. In addition, current 

BACT measures for particulates would continue to be employed. 

3.4.2.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

FCW projects that the annual coal production is expected to average 30 million 

tons, with or without the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. Belle Ayr Mine’s currently 

approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD limits annual coal production to 

45 million tons of coal. According to FCW, if they acquire the additional coal in 

the LBA tract, production would continue at an average rate of 30 mmtpy for a 

longer period of time (approximately 6 years). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-37 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1271 for the Belle Ayr Mine on 

November 18, 2005. This air quality permit was issued based on an analysis 

using emission factors, estimation methods, and model selection consistent with 

WDEQ/AQD policy. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1476 on 

September 7, 2006 to modify operations at the Belle Ayr Mine and to increase 

permitted annual production to 45 mmtpy (FCW 2007). 

Particulate emission inventories for the mining activities at Belle Ayr Mine were 

prepared for all years in the currently anticipated life of the mine. Two years were 

then selected for worst-case dispersion modeling of PM10 based on mine plan 

parameters and emission inventories. Fugitive emission sources and point 

sources were modeled using the ISCLT3 Model to estimate average annual PM10 

concentrations. 

Long-term modeling indicates the currently projected mine activities will be in 

compliance with the annual PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the Belle Ayr 

Mine. Based on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, the 

years 2008 and 2013 were selected as the worst-case years. The dispersion model 

showed a maximum concentration on the Belle Ayr LNCM boundary of 39.79 

μg/m3 in 2008 and 42.02 μg/m3 in 2013. Coal production in both years was 

modeled at the maximum permitted production level of 45 million tons (FCW 

2006). The locations of the maximum-modeled PM10 concentrations for 2008 and 

2013 are shown on Figures 3-8 and 3-9, respectively. 

An inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for the MD-1476 air 

quality permit showed a maximum potential to emit 61.5 tpy; therefore, a PSD 

increment consumption analysis was not necessary. Because this value is below 

the 100 tpy major source threshold limit specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the 

WAQSR, Belle Ayr Mine will not be subject to the Title V Operating Permit program 

(FCW 2006). 

Modeling conducted for the current Belle Ayr Mine permit predicted no 

exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS at a 45-mmtpy production rate and there 

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

estimates that the mine would produce at an average annual rate of 30 mmtpy if it 

acquires and mines the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. At that average rate of 

production, there would be an extension of over 5 years in the time the mine 

would produce and there would be an increase in overburden thickness, but 

fugitive dust emissions are projected remain within daily and annual AAQS limits. 

Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most 

likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the 

area of the mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be 

affected. There are occupied dwellings and school bus stops located in the vicinity 

of the mines, including several along State Highway 59, which is located less than 

1⁄4-mile west of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. Roads, highways, currently 

3-38 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
21 

48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Hilight Road

36 31 32 34 35 33 35 49	 34 33

State Highway 59

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

T. T. 36 31 32 49 

N. N. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

20 

21 19 22 23 24 22 23 24 19 20

29 28 27 26 30 25 28 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 

48 33 34 35 36 31 32

N. 

34 36 31 32 33 35 48

N. 

T. T. 

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

Road NOx=38.52 μg/m3 

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

PM10=39.79 μg/m3 

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

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

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

33 34 35	 32 33 34 35 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 36 31

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Area Source Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Alternative 2 

5000 10000 20000 BLM's Study Area 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-8.	 Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOX Concentrations at the Belle Ayr Mine Ambient Air Boundary 

for the Year 2008. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

0 

3-39
48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

State Highway 59

Hilight Road

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

T. 

36 31 32 49 

N. 

T. 

49 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 

N. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

20 

21 24 19 21 22 22 23 23 24 19 20 

29 28 27 26 30 25 28 27 26 25 30 

T. T. 

48 33 34 35 36 31 32 

N. 

34 36 31 32 33 35 48

N. 

T. T. 

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

Road NOx=37.97 μg/m3 

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

PM10=42.02 μg/m3 

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

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

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

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

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Area Source Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Alternative 2 

5000 10000 20000 BLM's Study Area 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-9. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOX Concentrations at the Belle Ayr Mine Ambient Air Boundary 

for the Year 2013. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

0 

3-40
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

occupied dwellings, and school bus stops in the vicinity of the Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract are shown in Figure 3-10. 

3.4.2.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

TBCC estimates that the annual coal production is expected to average 13.4 

million tons, with or without the West Coal Creek LBA Tract. Coal Creek Mine’s 

currently approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD limits annual coal 

production to 25 million tons of coal. If the mine acquires the additional coal in 

the LBA tract, they would continue to produce at an average rate of 13.4 mmtpy 

for a longer period of time (approximately 4 years). 

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1282 for the Coal Creek Mine on 

December 1, 2005. This air quality permit was issued based on an analysis using 

emission factors, estimation methods, and model selection consistent with 

WDEQ/AQD policy. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1343 on March 

30, 2006 to modify operations at the Coal Creek Mine with the addition of 

atomizer/fogger dust control systems, which replaced existing conventional 

baghouses. Material movement utilizes draglines, shovels, and trucks for removal 

of overburden, and shovels and trucks for removal of coal (TBCC 2005). 

Particulate emission inventories for the mining activities at Coal Creek Mine were 

prepared for all years in the currently anticipated life of the mine. Two years were 

then selected for dispersion modeling of PM10 based on mine plan parameters and 

emission inventories. Fugitive emission sources and point sources were modeled 

using the ISCLT3 Model to estimate average annual PM10 concentrations (TBCC 

2006). 

Long-term modeling indicates the currently projected mine activities will be in 

compliance with the annual PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the Coal 

Creek Mine. Based on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, 

the years 2009 and 2016 were selected as the worst-case years. The dispersion 

model showed a maximum concentration on the Coal Creek LNCM boundary of 

15.2 μg/m3 in 2009 and 23.1 μg/m3 in 2016. Coal production in both years was 

projected to be the maximum permitted production level of 25 million tons (TBCC 

2006). The locations of the maximum-modeled PM10 concentrations for 2009 and 

2016 are shown on Figures 3-11 and 3-12, respectively. 

An inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for the MD-1343 air 

quality permit showed a potential to emit 64.5 tpy; therefore, a PSD increment 

consumption analysis was not necessary. Because this value is below the 100 tpy 

major source threshold limit specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the WAQSR, Coal 

Creek Mine will not be subject to the Title V Operating Permit program (FCW 

2006). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-41 
28 

21 

28 

48 

Bishop

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Fairview

Road 

Corners 

Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Creek 

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

State Highway 59

Hilight Road

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

T. 

36 31 32 49 

N. 

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

N. 

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

N. N. 

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

B 

CABALLO MINE OFFICE 

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

B 

19 22 21 22 23 23 24 24 20 19 20 

29 28 27 30 26 25 27 26 25 30 

B 

T. T. 

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

T. T. 

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

Road 

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

BELLE AYR MINE OFFICE 

13 18 16 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17

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

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

33 34 35 32 33 34 35 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 36 31

LEGEND 

B School Bus Stop Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Single Occupied Residence Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Multiple Occupied Residences Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for Exist Within this Area 

(Boundaries are Approximate) 

BLM's Alternative 2 

5000 10000 20000 BLM's Study Area 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-10. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the Belle Ayr North LBA Study Area. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 

32 

17 

0 

3-42
47 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road

Hilight Road

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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

Hilight Road

UP RR B

H

NSF &

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

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

N. N. 

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

N. N. NOx=29.69 μg/m3 

8 

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

18 

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

Hoadley Road 

PM10=15.16 μg/m3 

23 24 19 20 21 19 20 22 23 24 22 

21 

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

T.Wagensen Road

46 33 

N. 

T. 

34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 46 

N. 

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

N. N. Lawver Road 

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

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

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

Breen Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

25 30 25 30

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

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

Area Source West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-11. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOX Concentrations at the Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary for the Year 2009. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

17 

3-43
47 

Mills Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road

Hilight Road

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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

Hilight Road

RR B

H

NSF & UP

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

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

N. N. 

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

N. N. NOx=31.00 μg/m3 

8 

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

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

Hoadley Road 

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

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

T. Wagensen Road

46 33 

T. 32 

34 35 36 31 33 34 35 36 31 32 46

N. N. 

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

N. N. Lawver Road 

PM10=23.11μg/m3 

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

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

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

Breen Road Lawver Road Lawver Road

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

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

Area Source West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-12.	 Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOX Concentrations at the Coal Creek Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary for the Year 2016. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

17 

3-44
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Modeling conducted for the current Coal Creek Mine permit predicted no 

exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS at a 25-mmtpy production rate and there 

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

estimates that the mine would produce at an average annual rate of 13.4 mmtpy if 

it acquires and mines the West Coal Creek LBA Tract. At that average rate of 

production, there would be an extension of over 4 years in the time the mine 

would produce and there would be an increase in overburden thickness, but 

fugitive dust emissions are projected remain within daily and annual AAQS limits. 

Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most 

likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the 

area of the mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be 

affected. There are occupied dwellings and school bus stops located in the vicinity 

of the mine. Roads, highways, currently occupied dwellings, and school bus stops 

in the vicinity of the West Coal Creek LBA Tract are shown in Figure 3-13. 

3.4.2.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

CCC projects that the annual coal production is expected to average 37.8 million 

tons, with or without the Caballo West LBA Tract. Caballo Mine’s currently 

approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD limits annual coal production to 

50 million tons of coal. If the mine acquires the additional coal in the LBA tract, 

they would continue to produce at an average rate of 37.8 mmtpy for a longer 

period of time (approximately 2 years). 

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1125 for the Caballo Mine on February 

18, 2005. This air quality permit was issued based on an analysis using emission 

factors, estimation methods, and model selection consistent with WDEQ/AQD 

policy. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1477 on November 7, 2006 to 

modify operations at the Caballo Mine to increase the permitted production to 50 

mmtyp, add a dragline for overburden removal, revise the coal progression 

sequence, revise the location for the near-pit truck dump/crusher and overland 

conveyor system, and add passive enclosure control systems to the overland 

conveyor system. Material movement currently utilizes shovels and trucks for 

removal of overburden and coal (CCC 2006). 

Particulate emission inventories for the mining activities at Caballo Mine were 

prepared for all years in the currently anticipated life of the mine. Two years were 

then selected for worst-case dispersion modeling of PM10 based on mine plan 

parameters and emission inventories. Fugitive emission sources and point 

sources were modeled using the ISCLT3 Model to estimate average annual PM10 

concentrations. 

Long-term modeling indicates the currently projected mine activities will be in 

compliance with the annual PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the Caballo 

Mine. Based on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, the 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-45 
25

29 

20 

17 

46 

Mills Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

Haight Road 

Hilight Road

Wagensen Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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

Hilight Road

RR B

H

NSF & UP

ey adl R o oad

30 29 28 27 26 25 30 28 27 26 25 

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

N. 

T. 

N. 

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

COAL CREEK N. N. MINE OFFICE 

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

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

BLASTING Hoadley Road 

COMPANY 

OFFICE 

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

B 

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

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

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

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

14 13 18 18 17 16 15 16 15 14 13 

22 23 24 19 21 22 24 19 20 21 23 

Breen Road Lawver Road	 Lawver Road

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

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

B School Bus Stop 0 5000 10000 20000 

Single Occupied Residence 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-13.	 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the West Coal Creek LBA Study Area. 

3-46 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

years 2008 and 2014 were selected as the worst-case years. The dispersion model 

showed a maximum concentration on the Caballo LNCM boundary of 36.77 μg/m3 

in 2008 and 46.98 μg/m3 in 2014. Coal production in both years was projected to 

be the maximum permitted production level of 50 million tons (CCC 2006). The 

locations of the maximum-modeled PM10 concentrations for 2008 and 2014 are 

shown on Figures 3-14 and 3-15, respectively. 

An inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for the MD-1477 air 

quality permit showed a potential to emit of 26.3 tpy; therefore, a PSD increment 

consumption analysis was not necessary. Because this value is below the 100 tpy 

major source threshold limit specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the WAQSR, 

Caballo Mine will not be subject to the Title V Operating Permit program (CCC 

2006). 

Modeling conducted for the current Caballo Mine permit predicted no exceedances 

of the annual PM10 NAAQS at a 50-mmtpy production rate and there have been no 

exceedances of the 24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS. CCC estimates that the 

mine would produce at an average annual rate of 37.8 mmtpy if it acquires and 

mines the Caballo West LBA Tract. At that average rate of production, there 

would be an extension of over 2 years in the time the mine would produce and 

there would be an increase in overburden thickness, but fugitive dust emissions 

are projected remain within daily and annual AAQS limits. 

Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most 

likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the 

area of the mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be 

affected. There are occupied dwellings and school bus stops located in the vicinity 

of the mine, including several along State Highway 59, which is located less than 

1 mile west of the Caballo West LBA Tract. Roads, highways, currently occupied 

dwellings, and school bus stops in the vicinity of the Caballo West LBA Tract are 

shown in Figure 3-16. 

3.4.2.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

CMC estimates the annual coal production is expected to average 46.3 million 

tons, with or without the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. Cordero Rojo Mine’s currently 

approved air quality permit from the WDEQ/AQD limits annual coal production to 

65 million tons of coal. If the mine acquires the additional coal in the LBA tract, 

they would continue to produce at an average rate of 46.3 mmtpy for a longer 

period of time (approximately 10 years). 

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-457 for the Cordero Rojo Mine on May 

2, 2000. This air quality permit was issued based on an analysis using emission 

factors, estimation methods, and model selection consistent with WDEQ/AQD 

policy. WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit MD-1058 on September 17, 2004 to 

modify operations at the Cordero Rojo Mine with the addition of atomizer/fogger 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-47 
26 

14 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 Highway 

BNSF RR 

Road 

Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 

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

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

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

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

N. N. 

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

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

PM10=36.77 μg/m3 21 22 24 20 21 22 23 19 23 19 24 20 

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

36 

NOx=46.73 μg/m3 

T. 

31 32 33 34 48 

N. 

T. 

48 35 

N. 

36 31 32 33 34 35 

T. 

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

N. 

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

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

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Area Source Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-14. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the Caballo Mine Ambient Air Boundary 

for the Year 2008. 

3-48 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
14 

26 

14 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 Highway 

BNSF RR 

Road 

Corners 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 

19 20 21 22 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 

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

NOx=59.80 μg/m3 

T. T. 31 

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

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

N. N. 

9 10 8 7 9 10 11 12 11 12 7 

8 

16 15 

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 13 18 

PM10=46.98 μg/m3 

21 22 

20 21 22 23 24 19 23 24 19 20 

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

36 

T. 

31 32 33 34 48 

N. 

T. 

48 35 

N. 

36 31 32 33 34 35 

T. 

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

N. 

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

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

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Haul Roads Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Area Source Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Receptor Location BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

0 5000 10000 20000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-15. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NOx Concentrations at the Caballo Mine Ambient Air Boundary 

for the Year 2014. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-49
13 18

17 

State 

Fairview 

Union Chappel Road 

Road

 59 

Highway 

BNSF RR 

Corners 

Bishop 

Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

BNSF RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Bishop Road 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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

14 13 18 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15

T. T. 

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

N. N. 

T. T. 

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

N. N. 

Road

8 7 9 10 9 10 11 12 11 12 7 

B 8 

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

CABALLO MINE OFFICE 

B 

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

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

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

25 30 29 26 28 27 26 25 30 28 27 

B 

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

T. 

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

N. 

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

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

LEGEND
 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

B School Bus Stop 

Single Occupied Residence 0 5000 10000 20000 

Multiple Occupied Residences 

Exist Within this Area 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) (Boundaries are Approximate) 

Figure 3-16.	 Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the Caballo West LBA Study Area. 

3-50	 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

29 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

dust control systems, which replaced existing conventional baghouses. Material 

movement utilizes draglines, shovels, and trucks for removal of overburden, and 

shovels and trucks for removal of coal (CMC 1999). 

Particulate emission inventories for the mining activities at Cordero Rojo Mine 

were prepared for all years in the currently anticipated life of the mine. Two years 

were then selected for worst-case dispersion modeling of PM10 based on mine plan 

parameters and emission inventories. Area and line sources were modeled using 

the FDM to estimate average annual PM10 concentrations and the ISCLT3 Model 

was used to model all point sources. 

Long-term modeling indicates the currently projected mine activities will be in 

compliance with the annual PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the Cordero 

Rojo Mine. Based on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, 

the years 2005 and 2007 were selected as the worst-case years. The dispersion 

model showed a maximum concentration on the Cordero Rojo LNCM boundary of 

46.56 μg/m3 in 2005 and 45.66 μg/m3 in 2007. Coal production in both years 

was projected to be the maximum permitted production level of 65 million tons 

(CMC 1999). The locations of the maximum-modeled PM10 concentrations for 

2005 and 2007 are shown on Figures 3-17 and 3-18, respectively. 

An inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for the MD-457A air 

quality permit showed a potential to emit of 241 tpy; as a result, it was considered 

a major source, as defined by Chapter 6, Section 3 of the WAQSR, and required a 

Title V Operating Permit. However, when WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit 

MD-1058 on September 17, 2004 to modify operations at the Cordero Rojo Mine, 

the replacement of the 14 existing conventional baghouses by the atomizer/fogger 

dust control systems reduced point source particulate emission levels such that 

the facility is no longer considered a major source and is no longer required to 

have a Title V Operating Permit (WDEQ/AQD 2004). 

Modeling conducted for the current Cordero Rojo Mine permit predicted no 

exceedances of the annual PM10 NAAQS at a 65-mmtpy production rate and there 

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

estimates that the mine would produce at an average annual rate of 46.3 mmtpy if 

it acquires and mines the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. At that average rate of 

production, there would be an extension of nearly 10 years in the time the mine 

would produce and there would be an increase in overburden thickness, but 

fugitive dust emissions are projected remain within daily and annual AAQS limits. 

Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most 

likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the 

area of the mining operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be 

affected. There are occupied dwellings and school bus stops located in the vicinity 

of the mine, including several along State Highway 59, which is located adjacent 

to the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. Roads, highways, currently occupied dwellings, and 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-51 
24

22 

3 

22 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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

30 

20 21

29 28 28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 29 

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

H

BNSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 

PM10=46.4 μg/m3 T. T. 33 34 35 32 33 36 31 48 48 34 35 31 32 NOx=50.3 μg/m 36 3 N. N. 

6 5 N. N. 

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

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

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

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

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

N. N. 

T. T. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

Hoadley Road 

21 24 19 20 21 23 24 19 20 22 23

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

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Ambient Air Boundary Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal 

Coal Leases 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract 

Haul Roads 

Area Source 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for Receptor Location 

Dust Suppression Loadout BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

5000 10000 20000 North Tract Under Alternative 3 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) South Tract Under Alternative 3

Figure 3-17. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOx Concentrations at the Cordero Rojo Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary for the Year 2005. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

33 

0 

3-52
24

22 

3 

22 

47 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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
 

34 32
 33 35 31 33 48
 

NOx=49.6 μg/m3 36 

N.

RR

H

BNSF & UP

ey adl R o oad 

PM10=45.6 μg/m3 T. T. 

48 34
 35
 36 31
 32

N. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

N. N. 

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

N. N. 

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

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

Hoadley Road 

21
 22
 24 19 20 21 23 24
 19
 20
 23

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

LEGEND 

Ambient Air Boundary 

Haul Roads 

Area Source 

Receptor Location 

Dust Suppression Loadout 

0 5000 10000 20000
 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

29 28 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary
 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal
 Coal Leases
 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract
 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for
 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2)
 

North Tract Under Alternative 3
 

South Tract Under Alternative 3
 

Figure 3-18. Maximum Modeled PM 10 and NOx Concentrations at the Cordero Rojo Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary for the Year 2007. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

33 

3-53
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

school bus stops in the vicinity of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract are shown in Figure 

3-19. 

3.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected 

and the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines would continue to 

operate as currently permitted for about 8, 16, 15, and 11 more years, 

respectively. 

A discussion of the currently permitted mining operations and potential impacts 

related to PM10 emissions is included in Section 3.4.2.2.1, above. Portions of the 

LBA tracts adjacent to the operating mines would be disturbed to recover the coal 

in the existing leases. Impacts related to mining operations at the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines would continue on the existing mine 

areas as permitted, but mining operations would not be extended onto those 

portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and 

reclamation plan. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the LBA lease applications at this 

time would not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.4.2.3 	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring for Particulate 

Emissions 

Control of particulate emissions at all PRB coal mines is accomplished with a 

variety of measures. The WDEQ/AQD permits for all of the surface coal mines in 

the PRB require the following dust control measures, which are considered to be 

BACT measures: 

1.	 No mines are allowed to have out-or-pit open coal stockpiles. All coal 

removed from the mine pits must be stored in totally enclosed coal silos 

or barns. 

2.	 Unless specifically exempted, all coal mine main access roads are paved. 

3.	 As use and condition warrant, the minor access roads at coal mines that 

are unpaved must be watered or treated with dust suppressants. 

4.	 All coal conveyor transfer points are shrouded or otherwise enclose to 

direct coal fines from one belt to the next. 

5.	 The transfer point and crushers within coal processing plants are 

equipped with control devices and measures specified in individual 

permits. These control devices and measures may include, but are not 

limited to, the use of dust collection baghouses, cyclones, scrubbers, fog 

systems, and controlled flow transfer chutes. 

6.	 All out-of-pit conveyors are hooded or contained in a conveyor gallery. 

7.	 All out-of-pit coal dump hoppers are fitted with a dust control stilling 

shed, water sprays, or a baghouse dust collector. 

3-54 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
36 36 31

28 

29 

21 

47 

State 

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR 

 59 Highway 

State 59 Highway 

Hilight Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

Wagensen Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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

30 29 28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 

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

7 8 

10 

9 12 10 11 11 12 7 8 9

13 18 17 16 15 14 

13 18 16 15 14 17

CORDERO ROJO 

MINE OFFICE 

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

POINT
 CEMETARY
 

RR

H

BNSF & UP

ey o

R

adl

oad 

N. N. 

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

N. 

T. 

N. 

T. 

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

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

T. T. 

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

N. N. 

10 11 8 12 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 

BLASTING Hoadley Road 

COMPANY 

OFFICE 

B 21 24 19 20 22 23 24 19 20 22 23

B 

28 27 26 25 29 28 27 26 25 30 30 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 34 35 32 33 34 35 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

B School Bus Stop 

Single Occupied Residence 

Multiple Occupied Residences 

Exist Within this Area 

(Boundaries are Approximate) 0 5000 10000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

20000 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal 

Coal Leases 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3 

South Tract Under Alternative 3 

Figure 3-19. Residences, School Bus Stops, Public Roads, and Other Publicly Accessible Facilities Within 

3 Miles of the Maysdorf II LBA Study Area. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

32 

29 

33 

3-55
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

8.	 Active longer-term coal haul roads are treated with dust control 

chemicals and/or water. 

9.	 Active short-term mine haul roads that are continuously being relocated 

are maintained and watered while in use. 

10. All haul roads are regularly maintained to reduce the amount of dust reentrained by haulage equipment (WDEQ/AQD 2007). 

Additional site-specific requirements related to mine-specific layout and mining 

practices may be included in individual mine permits. 

Fugitive emissions are also controlled with a variety of other measures that the 

WDEQ/AQD considers BACT. Haul truck speed limits are imposed to further help 

to reduce fugitive emissions from roads. Material drop heights for shovels and 

draglines (bucket to truck bed or backfill) are limited to the minimum necessary to 

conduct the mining operations. Timely temporary and permanent revegetation of 

disturbed areas is utilized to minimize wind erosion. All of these control measures 

are employed at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. 

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. A report describing the plan can be accessed on the WDEQ/AQD’s 

website on the Internet (WDEQ/AQD 2007). The Natural Events Action Plan is 

discussed in Appendix K. 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. 

WDEQ/AQD may require implementation of the control steps outlined in the 

Natural Events Action Plan and may require continual evaluation of activity plans 

when exceedances are monitored at surface coal mines. Some of these measures 

have been formally implemented at the Black Thunder, North Rochelle, and 

Jacobs Ranch Mines through the establishment of a formal, site-specific mitigative 

response plan at each of those mines. A mitigative response plan will be 

developed by any mine that records an exceedance or violation of the NAAQS 

downwind of its mining operations. 

Other operational control measures that WDEQ/AQD may require at specific 

mines when exceedances occur include, but are not limited to, site-specific 

watering of inactive areas and problem areas; relocation of overburden truckdumping operations and deferring blasting. The mines are experimenting with 

3-56 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

dust control treatments, including magnesium chloride, surfactants, and 

petroleum-based products. In addition, WDEQ/AQD may require additional 

monitoring, action levels based on continuous monitoring, expedited reporting of 

monitored exceedances, detailed reporting of contributing factors (e.g., 

meteorological conditions), and continual evaluation of activity plans when 

exceedances are monitored at surface coal mines. 

The WDEQ/AQD is continually reviewing the data and considering regulatory 

options, such as increasing the frequency of monitoring. Where elevated 

emissions have occurred, continuous PM10 monitors, or TEOMs, are installed, 

which allows monitoring of emissions on a real-time basis (WDEQ/AQD 2007). 

Other regulatory options may include enforcement actions such as Notices of 

Violation resulting in a consent decree and/or modified permit conditions. 

WDEQ/AQD is also coordinating with EPA to develop additional monitoring 

requirements in CBNG development areas, high PM10 mitigation action plans in 

permits, and additional mitigation measures under the SIP. 

The eastern side of the PRB has one of the most extensive networks of monitoring 

sites for PM10 in the nation. As discussed in Appendix K, the monitors include six 

TSP monitors, five PM2.5 monitors and 36 PM10 monitors, including TEOMs. 

Information about the monitoring network, the data that have been collected and 

PM10 concentration trends since monitoring began are included in Appendix K. 

3.4.3 Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 

3.4.3.1 Affected Environment for NOx Emissions 

Gases that contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts are referred to as 

nitrogen oxides, or NOx. One type of NOx is nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a reddish 

brown gas that is heavier than air and has a pungent odor. NO2 is by far the most 

toxic of several species of NOx. NO2 can combine with atmospheric moisture to 

form nitric acid and nitric oxide. Because several NOx species can be chemically 

converted to NO2 in the atmosphere, NO2 emissions control is focused on all NOx 

species, while the ambient standard is expressed in terms of NO2. 

According to the EPA (EPA 2001a): 

•	 NO2 may cause significant toxicity because of its ability to form nitric 

acid with water in the eye, lung, mucous membranes, and skin. 

•	 Acute exposure to NO2 may cause death by damaging the pulmonary 

system. 

•	 Chronic or repeated exposure to lower concentrations of NO2 may 

exacerbate pre-existing respiratory conditions, or increase the incidence 

of respiratory infections. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-57 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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. 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, orangecolored clouds may be formed and they can drift or be blown off mine permit 

areas. The rate of release is not well known but is believed to be dependent on a 

wide number of factors which likely include, but are not necessarily limited to: 

downhole confinement; downhole moisture; type/blend of ammonium nitrate, fuel 

oil (ANFO), and emulsion; and detonation velocity. 

3.4.3.1.1 Site Specific NOx Emissions 

Sources of fugitive NOx emissions at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines include overburden removal and coal blasting events, tailpipe 

emissions from the mining equipment, and emissions from the trains used to haul 

the coal from the mine. NOx point sources at the mines could include stationary 

engines and natural-gas fired heaters. 

To date, there have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from 

blasting activities at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. 

The WDEQ has not required the mines to implement any specific measures to 

control or limit public exposure to NO2 from blasting. 

3.4.3.1.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2, WDEQ/AQD issued the most recent air quality 

permit (MD-1476) for the Belle Ayr Mine on November 7, 2006, and the mine was 

required to conduct NO2 dispersion modeling in their permit. Emission rates were 

determined for the same worst-case years used in the PM10 modeling. The amount 

of NOx emissions from blasting is related to the amount of ANFO utilized. NOx 

emission rates for 2008 and 2013 are expected to be 1,333 tpy and 1,398 tpy, 

respectively. NOx modeling closely followed many of the same procedures used in 

the PM10 analysis. Emissions were apportioned in a similar manner and the same 

meteorological data set was used. Area source, haul road, and point source 

information for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines and 

information for railroads, roads, power plants, and regional sources provided by 

3-58 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

WDEQ/AQD were included in the model. Long-term modeling indicated the 

currently projected mine activities will be in compliance with the annual NOx 

AAQS for the life of the Belle Ayr Mine. For year 2008, the maximum annual NOx 

concentration along the Belle Ayr LNCM boundary was 38.5 μg/m3 and for year 

2013, the maximum annual NOx concentration along the Belle Ayr LNCM 

boundary was 38.0 μg/m3 (FCW 2006). Coal production in both years was 

assumed to be the maximum permitted production level of 45 million tons. The 

locations of the maximum-modeled NOx concentrations along the Belle Ayr LNCM 

boundary for 2008 and 2013 are shown on Figures 3-8 and 3-9, respectively. 

3.4.3.1.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2, WDEQ/AQD issued the most recent air quality 

permit (MD-1343) for the Coal Creek Mine on March 30, 2006, and the mine was 

required to conduct NO2 dispersion modeling in their permit. Emission rates were 

determined for the same worst-case years used in the PM10 modeling. The amount 

of NOx emissions from blasting is related to the amount of ANFO utilized. NOx 

emission rates for 2009 and 2016 are expected to be 1,032 tpy and 1,493 tpy, 

respectively. NOx modeling closely followed many of the same procedures used in 

the PM10 analysis. Emissions were apportioned in a similar manner and the same 

meteorological data set was used. Area source, haul road, and point source 

information for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines and 

information for railroads, roads, power plants, and regional sources provided by 

WDEQ/AQD were included in the model. Long-term modeling indicated the 

currently projected mine activities will be in compliance with the annual NOx 

AAQS for the life of the Coal Creek Mine. For year 2009, the maximum annual 

NOx concentration along the Coal Creek LNCM boundary was 29.7 μg/m3 and for 

year 2016, the maximum annual NOx concentration along the Coal Creek LNCM 

boundary was 31.0 μg/m3 (TBCC 2007). Coal production in both years was 

assumed to be the maximum permitted production level of 25 million tons. The 

locations of the maximum-modeled NOx concentrations for 2009 and 2016 are 

shown on Figures 3-11 and 3-12, respectively. 

3.4.3.1.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2, WDEQ/AQD issued the most recent air quality 

permit (MD-1477) for the Caballo Mine on November 7, 2006, and the mine was 

required to conduct NO2 dispersion modeling in their permit. Emission rates were 

determined for the same worst-case years used in the PM10 modeling. The amount 

of NOx emissions from blasting is related to the amount of ANFO utilized. NOx 

emission rates for 2008 and 2014 are expected to be 1,597 tpy and 1,830 tpy, 

respectively. NOx modeling closely followed many of the same procedures used in 

the PM10 analysis. Emissions were apportioned in a similar manner and the same 

meteorological data set was used. Area source, haul road, and point source 

information for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines and 

information for railroads, roads, power plants, and regional sources provided by 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-59 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

WDEQ/AQD were included in the model. Long-term modeling indicated the 

currently projected mine activities will be in compliance with the annual NOx 

AAQS for the life of the Caballo Mine. For year 2008, the maximum annual NOx 

concentration along the Caballo LNCM boundary was 46.7 μg/m3 and for year 

2014, the maximum annual NOx concentration along the Caballo LNCM boundary 

was 59.8 μg/m3 (CCC 2006). Coal production in both years was assumed to be 

the maximum permitted production level of 50 million tons. The locations of the 

maximum-modeled NOx concentrations for 2008 and 2014 are shown on Figures 

3-14 and 3-15, respectively. The potential NOx impacts from mining the Caballo 

West LBA Tract have been inferred to be similar to the currently permitted 

impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the Caballo Mine because of the 

similarities in mining rates and mining operations. 

3.4.3.1.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2, WDEQ/AQD issued the most recent air quality 

permit (MD-1058) for the Cordero Rojo Mine on September 17, 2004, and the mine 

was required to conduct NO2 dispersion modeling in their permit. Emission rates 

were determined for the same worst-case years used in the PM10 modeling. The 

amount of NOx emissions from blasting is related to the amount of ANFO utilized. 

NOx emission rates for 2005 and 2007 are expected to be 2,708 tpy and 3,022 tpy, 

respectively. NOx modeling closely followed many of the same procedures used in 

the PM10 analysis. Emissions were apportioned in a similar manner and the same 

meteorological data set was used. Only the Cordero Rojo Mine was modeled, 

regional activity was not considered. No NOx point sources exist at the mine. 

Additional area sources and line sources were added to describe the railroad 

tracks/loops on the Cordero Rojo Mine site. Long-term modeling indicated the 

currently projected mine activities will be in compliance with the annual NOx 

AAQS for the life of the Cordero Rojo Mine. For year 2005, the maximum annual 

NOx concentration along the Cordero Rojo LNCM boundary was 50.3 μg/m3 and 

for year 2007, the maximum annual NOx concentration along the Cordero Rojo 

LNCM boundary was 49.6 μg/m3 (CMC 1999). Coal production in both years was 

assumed to be the maximum permitted production level of 65 million tons. The 

locations of the maximum-modeled NOx concentrations for 2005 and 2007 are 

shown on Figures 3-17 and 3-18, respectively. The potential NOx impacts from 

mining the Maysdorf LBA Tract have been inferred to be similar to the currently 

permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the Cordero Rojo Mine 

because of the similarities in mining rates and mining operations. 

3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences Related to Short-Term NOx Emissions 

There are various compounds and derivatives in the family of nitrogen oxides, 

including NO2, nitric acid, nitrous oxide, nitrates, and nitric oxide, which may 

cause a wide variety of health and environmental impacts. According to EPA, the 

main causes of concern with respect to NOx are: 

3-60 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• 	 it is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground level 

ozone, which can trigger serious respiratory problems; 

• 	 it reacts to form nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which also 

cause respiratory problems; 

• 	 it contributes to the formation of acid rain; 

• 	 it contributes to nutrient overload that deteriorates water quality; 

• 	 it contributes to atmospheric particles that cause visibility impairment, 

most noticeably in national parks; 

• 	 it reacts to form toxic chemicals; 

• 	Nitrous oxide or N2O, is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global 

warming; and 

• 	 it can be transported over long distances (EPA 2007c). 

Potential health risks associated with inhalation of ground level ozone and NOx 

related particles include acute respiratory problems, aggravated asthma, 

decreases in lung capacity in some healthy adults, inflammation of lung tissue, 

respiratory-related hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and increased 

susceptibility to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia (EPA 

2007d). 

Neither the EPA nor the WDEQ have established NAAQS for NO2 for averaging 

times shorter than one year. According to EPA, “...the exact concentrations at 

which NO2 will cause various health effects cannot be predicted with complete 

accuracy because the effects are a function of air concentration and time of 

exposure, and precise measurements have not been made in association with 

human toxicity. The information that is available from human exposures also 

suggests that there is some variation in individual response” (EPA 2001a). 

While extensive expert testimony was provided to the Wyoming EQC during 

hearings in 2002 arguing for the establishment of a de facto “standard” ranging 

from 0.5 to 5.0 ppm for a 10-minute exposure, the EQC determined there was 

insufficient evidence to establish a short-term exposure limit and concluded 

additional study was required. The primary control measure for mitigating 

exposures to offsite residences is to avoid shooting cast blasts when wind direction 

or atmospheric conditions are unfavorable. Such approaches are employed at the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines and will be continued to 

be employed. Studies that have been conducted to evaluate NO2 exposures from 

blast clouds in the PRB are described in Appendix K. 

Although there is no NAAQS that regulates short-term NO2 levels, there is concern 

about the potential health risk associated with short-term exposure to NO2 from 

blasting emissions. NIOSH, OSHA, and EPA have identified the following shortterm exposure criteria for NO2: 

• 	 NIOSH’s recommended Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health level is 

20.0 ppm (37,600 μg/m3); 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-61 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• 	 EPA’s Significant Harm Level, a 1-hour average, is 2.0 ppm (3,760 μg/m3); 

• 	 OSHA’s Short-Term Exposure Limit, a 15-minute time-weighted average, 

which was developed for workers, is 5.0 ppm (9,400 μg/m3), which must not 

be exceeded during any part of the workday, as measured instantaneously); 

• 	 NIOSH’s recommendation for workers is a limit of 1.0 ppm (1,880 μg/m3) 

based on a 15-minute exposure that should not be exceeded at any time 

during the workday; and 

• 	 EPA recommends that concentrations not exceed 0.5 ppm (940 μg/m3) for a 

10-minute exposure to protect sensitive members of the public (EPA 2003a). 

Blast clouds are of a short-term, transient nature. While disagreement still exists 

regarding acceptable exposure levels, a large amount of actual data are now 

available from which informed decisions can be made regarding blasting practices. 

The data show clearly that reduction in blast (agent) size and increases in setback 

distances are effective methods for mitigating the frequency and extent of public 

exposure to blasting clouds. See Appendix K for additional information about 

studies that were conducted to evaluate the levels of public exposure to NOx. 

3.4.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

would be mined as an integral part of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines, respectively. The average annual coal production for each of 

the four mines is anticipated to remain at the projected post-2007, with or without 

the LBA tracts. If the mines acquire the additional coal in the LBA tracts, they 

would continue to produce at the current average rates for a longer period of time. 

Potential NOx emissions related to mining operations at the existing Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines are described below. Because of the 

similarities in mining rates and mining operations, the potential impacts of mining 

the LBA tracts have been inferred from the projected impacts of mining the 

existing coal leases as currently permitted. 

The WDEQ/AQD has determined that an assessment of annual NOx impacts must 

be included as part of an air quality permitting analysis for new surface coal 

mines and existing mine plans revisions. Pursuant to WDEQ/AQD requirements, 

emissions from all stationary engines and natural-gas fired heaters, which are 

considered to be NOx point sources at the mine, were considered in the inventory. 

The regional background NOx annual concentration used was 20 μg/m3. The Coal 

Creek Mine used a regional background concentration of 14 μg/m3. Additional 

mobile sources were added to describe the railroad locomotives and large mining 

equipment on each mine site. 

3-62 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.3.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

There have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting 

activities at the Belle Ayr Mine through August 2007. The mine has, however, 

employed measures to control/limit public exposure to intermittent, short-term 

(blasting) releases as discussed in Section 3.4.3.3. Public exposure to emissions 

caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along publicly 

accessible roads and highways that pass through the area of the mining 

operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. There are 

occupied dwellings located approximately 0.75 miles north of the LBA tract, and 

three school bus stops are located on the Bishop Road, one within the LBA tract 

(Figure 3-10). 

3.4.3.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

There have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting 

activities at the Coal Creek Mine through August 2007. The mine has, however, 

employed measures to control/limit public exposure to intermittent, short-term 

(blasting) releases as discussed in Section 3.4.3.3. Public exposure to emissions 

caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along publicly 

accessible roads and highways that pass through the area of the mining 

operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. There are 

occupied dwellings located approximately 0.2 miles and 1 mile west of the LBA 

tract, and two school bus stops are located on the Hoadley Road, approximately 1 

mile west of the LBA tract (Figure 3-13). 

3.4.3.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

There have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting 

activities at the Caballo Mine through August 2007. The mine has, however, 

employed measures to control/limit public exposure to intermittent, short-term 

(blasting) releases as discussed in Section 3.4.3.3. Public exposure to emissions 

caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along publicly 

accessible roads and highways that pass through the area of the mining 

operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. There are 

occupied dwellings located approximately 0.6 miles west of the LBA tract, and 

three school bus stops are located along the Bishop Road, adjacent to the LBA 

tract (Figure 3-16). 

3.4.3.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

There have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting 

activities at the Cordero Rojo Mine through August 2007. The mine has, however, 

employed measures to control/limit public exposure to intermittent, short-term 

(blasting) releases as discussed in Section 3.4.3.3. Public exposure to emissions 

caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along publicly 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-63 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

accessible roads and highways that pass through the area of the mining 

operations. Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. There are 

occupied dwellings located approximately 0.4 miles south of the northern portion 

of the LBA tract and over 0.5 miles east of the LBA tract, and a school bus stop is 

located along the Hoadley Road, approximately 1.25 miles south of the LBA tract 

(Figure 3-19). 

The average overburden thickness is generally greater in the LBA tracts than 

within the current leases, but the thickness of the coal is about the same as in the 

existing mine areas (Tables 3-1 through 3-4). If the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo Mines acquire the LBA tracts, there are no plans to change 

blasting procedures or blast sizes associated with the mining of the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. However, if 

the average annual rates of production are maintained, there would potentially be 

an increase in the frequency of blasting in order to remove the additional volume 

of overburden overlying the coal. 

One cause of incomplete combustion and formation of NO2 in the blasting clouds 

is downhole moisture. Roughly 30 years of surface mining and CBNG 

development has drawn down the water level in the coal in the general South 

Gillette analysis area; however, there are discontinuous sand bodies in the 

overburden, which are generally saturated. The presence of these saturated sand 

bodies may create conditions that are more favorable to the formation of NO2 

when blasting is conducted; however, as discussed in Section 3.4.3.3, surface coal 

mine operators have developed various techniques to avoid formation of NO2 in the 

blasting clouds. These measures include the use of plastic liners within the shot 

holes, which reduces or eliminates the exposure of the blasting agents to 

moisture. The Belle Ayr and Cordero Rojo Mines have utilized plastic liners in 

shot holes in the past and the mines may need to extend that practice to mining 

operations on the LBA tracts in order to avoid public exposure to blasting clouds 

during mining operations. 

Specific blasting control measures that are used to control NOx are discussed in 

more detail in Section 3.4.3.3. If the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo Mines acquire the LBA tracts, they will have to amend their current permits 

to include the new leases before mining activities can proceed into the new lease 

areas. According to WDEQ, permit conditions designed to control or limit public 

exposure to NO2 and flyrock from blasting operations would be no less stringent 

for mining operations on the LBA tracts than the permit conditions that are in 

place for blasting operations on the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mine leases (Emme 2007). 

If the applicant mines acquire the LBA tracts, current mining techniques for 

removing coal and overburden would be expected to continue for a longer period of 

time than is shown in the currently approved air quality permits. Modeling for the 

current Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek Mine permits projected 

3-64 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

no exceedances of the annual NOx NAAQS at the permitted production rates. 

Therefore, air quality impacts that result from mining the Belle Ayr North, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II LBA Tracts by the applicants at their 

present production rates should also be within annual NAAQS limits. 

3.4.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected 

and the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines would continue to 

operate as currently permitted. A discussion of the currently permitted mining 

operations and potential impacts related to NOx emissions is included in Section 

3.4.3.2.1, above. Impacts related to mining operations at the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines would continue on the existing mine 

areas as permitted, but mining operations would not be extended onto those 

portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and 

reclamation plans. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.4.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring for NOx Emissions 

Several of the surface coal mines in the PRB have undertaken voluntary blasting 

restrictions to avoid NOx impact to the public. Voluntary measures that have been 

instituted, particularly when large blasts are planned include: 

• 	 telephone notification of neighbors (both private parties and other mining 

operations) in the general area of the mine prior to large blasts; 

• 	 monitoring of weather and atmospheric conditions prior to the decision to 

detonate a large blast; 

• 	 minimizing blast size to the extent possible; 

• 	 posting of signs on major public roads that enter the general mine area and 

on all locked gates accessing the active mine area; 

• 	 closing public roads that enter the general mine area, depending on wind 

conditions and blast location with respect to the road; and 

• 	 providing post-blast notification to neighbors of potential exposure to the 

blasting cloud. 

After WDEQ received reports of public exposure to NO2 from blasting operations at 

some of the PRB mines prior to 2001, measures to prevent future such incidences 

were instituted at those mines when large overburden blasts are planned. WDEQ 

has required several mines, including North Antelope Rochelle, Black Thunder, 

Belle Ayr, Eagle Butte, and Wyodak (Figure 1-1), to stop traffic on public roads 

during blasting due to concerns with fly rock and the “startle factor”. Other 

measures that have been instituted as mine permit requirements include: 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-65 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• 	 notification of neighbors and workers in the general area of the mine prior to 

a blast; 

• 	 blast detonation between 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. whenever possible to 

avoid temperature inversions and minimize inconvenience to neighbors; 

• 	 monitoring of weather and atmospheric conditions prior to the decision to 

detonate a blast; 

• 	 posting of signs on major public roads that enter the general mine area and 

on all locked gates accessing the active mine area; 

• 	 closing public roads when appropriate to protect the public; and 

• 	 establishment of safe setback distances for blasting operations from the 

mine boundary. 

The Wyoming EQC has issued orders that address procedures and notification 

protocols related to providing protections from overburden blasting within PRB 

mine area. The conditions stated that the specific procedures would be used 

when overburden blasting occurs within a certain distance residences and 

businesses adjacent to the mines. Orders have also placed limits of the size of the 

blasting that can be conducted within the mine areas and restricted blasting in 

the under certain atmospheric conditions. 

To date, there have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from 

blasting activities at the four mines within the general South Gillette analysis 

area. The WDEQ has not required the mines to implement any specific measures 

to control or limit public exposure to NO2 from blasting, although the mine has 

voluntarily committed to control blasting emissions. Public access to some of the 

roads in the area, including the Haight, Hilight, and T-7 Roads, are currently 

blocked and will continue to be blocked during blasting operations when wind 

directions or proximity to the road warrant such closure. 

Mine operators in the eastern PRB have also been working with blasting agent 

manufacturers to reduce NOx emissions. Efforts to eliminate NOx production have 

included use of different blasting agents, different blends of blasting agents, 

different additives, different initiation systems and sequencing, borehole liners, 

and smaller cast blasts. Operators have tried adding substances like 

microspheres and rice hulls, using different blends of ANFO and slurries and gels, 

using electronic detonation systems that can vary shot timing, different shot hole 

patterns, and using plastic liners within the shot holes. No one single procedure 

or variation has proven consistently successful due to the numerous factors that 

are believed to contribute to the production of NO2. The most successful control 

measure has been reducing the size of the cast blasting shots (Emme 2003, 

Chancellor 2003). Using the techniques described above, several mines within the 

PRB have significantly reduced NOx production (Chancellor 2003). 

NO2 was monitored from 1975 through 1983 in Gillette and from March 1996 

through April 1997 at four locations in the PRB. Table 3-7 summarizes the 

results of that monitoring. 

3-66 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-7. Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data. 

Black 

Thunder Belle Ayr 

Site Gillette, WY Mine Mine Bill, WY 

Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of 

Year Standard1 Standard1 Standard1 Standard1 

1975 6* 

1976 4* 1* 

1977 4* 5* 

1978 11* 

1979 11 

1980 12 

1981 14 

1982 11 

19832 17 

1996-973 16 16 22 22 

1 Based on arithmetic averaging of data. 

2 Monitoring discontinued December 1983, reactivated March 1996 to April 1997. 

3 Arithmetic average – actual sampling ran from March 1996 to April 1997. 

* Inadequate number of samples for a valid annual average. 

Source: (McVehil-Monnett 1997) 

Due to public concerns about emissions of nitrogen dioxides as a result of blasting 

and a general concern of the WDEQ about levels of nitrogen dioxides due to 

development of all types in the eastern PRB, the coal mining industry instituted a 

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. The WDEQ now funds and operates the NO2 monitoring network along the 

east side of the basin. Ownership of the monitoring equipment was transferred to 

WDEQ by the mines and the mines have given ongoing access to the monitoring 

sites and provide electrical power for the instrumentation. The 2002 through 

2007 data from this regional network are summarized in Table 3-8. 

Table 3-8. 2002 Through 2007 Annual Mean NO2 Concentration Data. 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Site Address (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

Thunder Basin National 5.7 5.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Grassland 

Belle Ayr -- 13.2 13.2 15.1 17.0 --

Antelope Mine -- 7.5 7.5 9.4 7.5 --

Campbell County -- 13.2 9.4 7.5 5.7 7.5 

Tracy Ranch -- -- 7.5 -- -- --

* Data for May through December 2001. Monitor was not operational until May 2, 2001. 

Source EPA AIRDATA website 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-67 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

As represented by Table 3-8, NO2 monitoring data are available from five 

monitoring sites in the PRB. Two monitoring sites (Thunder Basin National 

Grassland Site and the Campbell County Site) reported NO2 values in 2007. With 

respect to the general South Gillette analysis area, the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland Site is approximately 41 miles north-northeast and the Campbell 

County Site is approximately 8 miles west. 

These monitoring stations are maintained by WDEQ/AQD and respective mines. 

The WDEQ/AQD is relying on the on-going monitoring data and emission 

inventories in air quality permit applications to demonstrate compliance with the 

annual NO2 ambient air standard (Table 3-6). 

3.4.4 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) 

AQRVs are evaluated by the land management agency responsible for a Class I 

area, according to the agency’s level of acceptable change (LAC). These AQRVs 

include potential air pollutant effects on visibility and the acidification of lakes 

and streams. The AQRVs, and the associated LAC, are applied to PSD Class I and 

sensitive Class II areas and are the land management agency’s policy and are not 

legally enforceable as a standard. 

3.4.4.1 Visibility 

Visibility refers to the clarity with which scenic vistas and landscape features are 

perceived at great distances. Visibility can be defined as the distance one can see 

and the ability to perceive color, contrast, and detail. Fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) is the main cause of visibility impairment. Visual range, one of several 

ways to express visibility, is the furthest distance a person can see a landscape 

feature. Without the effects of human-caused air pollution, a natural visual range 

is estimated to be about 140 miles in the western U.S. and 90 miles in the eastern 

U.S. (EPA 2001b). 

Visibility is also expressed in terms of deciview (dv). The dv index was developed 

as a linear perceived visual change (Pitchford and Malm 1994), and is the unit of 

measure used in the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule to achieve the National Visibility 

Goal. The National Visibility Goal was established as part of the CAA in order to 

prevent any future, and remedy any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Federal Class I areas that result from manmade air pollution. The deciview index 

is a scale related to visual perception that has a value near zero for a pristine 

atmosphere. A change in visibility of 1.0 dv represents a “just noticeable change” 

by an average person under most circumstances. Increasing dv values represent 

proportionately larger perceived visibility impairment. 

3-68 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.4.1.1 Affected Environment for Visibility 

AQRVs, including the potential air pollutant effects on visibility, are applied to 

PSD Class I and Class II areas. The land management agency responsible for the 

Class I area sets an LAC for each AQRV. The AQRVs reflect the land management 

agency’s policy and are not legally enforceable standards. Table 3-9 shows the 

distances from 31 PSD Class I and Class II areas in the vicinity of the PRB to the 

general South Gillette analysis area. 

The Wyoming State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection states: 

“Wyoming’s long term strategy will focus on the prevention of any future visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that can be attributed to a source or small group of 

sources as the Federal Land Managers have not identified any current impairment 

in the State’s Class I areas due to such sources” (WDEQ/AQD 2005b). 

WDEQ/AQD prepared the 2003 Review Report on Wyoming’s Long Term Strategy 

for Visibility Protection in Class I Areas, as required by WAQSR, which calls for 

AQD to review and revise, if appropriate, the Long Term Strategy every 3 years. 

The 2003 Review Report is available on the WDEQ/AQD website at 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/visibility.asp>. 

The Regional Haze Rule calls for improved visibility on the most-impaired days 

and no additional impairment on the least-impaired days. EPA participates in the 

IMPROVE visibility monitoring program as part of its visibility protection program. 

The IMPROVE monitoring sites were established to be representative of all Class I 

areas. On December 20, 2005, the IMPROVE Steering Committee approved a new 

algorithm for calculating current and natural background visibility. Figure 3-20 

shows annual averages, based on the new algorithm, for the 20 percent best, 

average, and worst visibility days at Badlands and Bridger Wilderness Areas from 

1989 through 2005 (IMPROVE 2007). To date, Badlands National Park has shown 

a trend toward improved visibility on the least, average, and most-impaired days. 

Bridger Wilderness has shown a trend toward improved visibility on the average 

and least-impaired days and no change in visibility on the most-impaired days. 

3.4.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences for Visibility 

3.4.4.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

The impacts to visibility from mining the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts have been inferred from the currently 

permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines, respectively. The LBA tracts would be mined as 

an integral part of the applicant mines. The average annual coal production for 

each mine is anticipated to remain at the projected post-2007 rates, with or 

without the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract. Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines coal production 

and currently approved air quality permitted tons are shown in Tables 2-1 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-69 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-9. 	 Approximate Distances and Directions from the General South 

Gillette Analysis Area to PSD Class I and Class II Sensitive Receptor 

Areas. 

Distance Direction to 

Receptor Area (miles) Receptor 

Mandatory Federal PSD Class I Area 

Badlands Wilderness Area1 147 E 

Bridger Wilderness Area 206 WSW 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 208 WSW 

Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area 364 NW 

Grand Teton National Park 256 W 

North Absaroka Wilderness Area 202 WNW 

Red Rocks Lake Wilderness Area 312 W 

Scapegoat Wilderness Area 408 WNW 

Teton Wilderness Area 215 W 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park (North Unit) 266 NNE 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park (South Unit) 218 NNE 

U.L. Bend Wilderness Area 264 NNW 

Washakie Wilderness Area 183 W 

Wind Cave National Park 98 ESE 

Yellowstone National Park 224 WNW 

Tribal Federal PSD Class I 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation 275 N 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 108 NNW 

Federal PSD Class II 

Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area 210 WNW 

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 137 SE 

Badlands National Park 127 ESE 

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 150 WNW 

Black Elk Wilderness Area 91 E 

Cloud Peak Wilderness Area 81 W 

Crow Indian Reservation 103 NW 

Devils Tower National Monument 50 NE 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 302 NNW 

Fort Laramie National Historic Site 134 SSE 

Jewel Cave National Monument 80 ESE 

Mount Rushmore National Memorial 96 E 

Popo Agie Wilderness Area 201 WSW 

Soldier Creek Wilderness Area 126 SE 

The U.S. Congress designated the Wilderness Area portion of Badlands National Park as a 

mandatory Federal PSD Class I area. The remainder of Badlands National Park is a PSD 

Class II area. 

3-70 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

1 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

6 

4 

2 

0 1989 

IMPROVE Station: BADL 

Visibility in Badlands National Park 

8

Visibility (dv) 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

20% Cleanest 

Average 

20% Haziest 

Visibility in Bridger Wilderness 

2000 2001 2002 2003 

Source: IMPROVE (2007) 

2004 2005 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

6 

4 

2 

0 1989 

IMPROVE Station: BRID 

8

Visibility (dv) 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

20% Cleanest 

Average 

20% Haziest 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Figure 3-20. Visibility in the Badlands and Bridger Wilderness Area. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-71
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

through 2-4, respectively. If the mines acquire the additional coal in the LBA 

tracts, they would continue to produce at existing rates for a longer period of time 

(2 to 10 years). Therefore, impacts to visibility under the Proposed Action and 

Action Alternatives for each tract would be similar to the impacts under the No 

Action Alternative, but they would be extended by 2 to 10 years. 

Mining operations using the current Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo mining techniques for blasting, coal removal, and coal hauling, etc. would be 

expected to continue for a longer period of time than is shown in the currently 

approved air quality permits. Material movement would continue to utilize 

draglines and shovels and trucks in overburden and coal. Facilities shown in the 

current air quality permits would not change as a result of proposed mining of the 

LBA tracts. There are no plans to change blasting procedures or blast sizes 

associated with the mining of the LBA tracts; however, the blasting processes and 

required mitigation measures would be reviewed when the mining permits are 

amended to include the new lease areas. At that time, the blasting plans would be 

reviewed and modified to incorporate the BACT protection measures that are in 

effect. 

Surface coal mines are not considered to be major emitting facilities in accordance 

with Chapter 6, Section 4 of WDEQ/AQD Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the 

State of Wyoming does not require mines to evaluate their impacts on Class I 

areas; however, BLM considers such issues during leasing. 

3.4.4.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected 

and the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines would continue to 

operate as currently permitted for about 8, 16, 15, and 11 more years, 

respectively. Coal removal would not occur on the LBA tracts. Impacts to visibility 

related to mining operations at the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines would not be extended onto those portions of the LBA tracts 

that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications at this time would 

not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.4.4.1.3 	Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring for Visibility 

Impacts 

As discussed above, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is the main cause of visibility 

impairment. Mitigation measures being used to limit emissions of particulate 

matter are discussed in Section 3.4.2.3. 

3-72 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Visibility monitoring within the State of Wyoming consists of both the WDEQ/AQD 

sponsored Wyoming Visibility Monitoring Network and the IMPROVE program. 

WDEQ has sited two visibility monitoring stations in the PRB. One of these sites 

(the Thunder Basin National Grasslands site) is 32 miles north of Gillette and 

includes a nephelometer, a transmissometer, an IMPROVE aerosol sampler, 

instruments to measure meteorological parameters (temperature, RH, wind speed, 

wind direction), a digital camera, instruments to measure ozone and instruments 

to measure oxides of nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOx). The second visibility monitoring 

station (the Cloud Peak Wilderness Area site) is located 14 miles west of Buffalo 

and includes a nephelometer, a transmissometer, an IMPROVE aerosol sampler, 

instruments to measure meteorological parameters, and a digital camera. 

These sites are being utilized to characterize the extent, frequency of occurrence, 

and magnitude of visual air quality impacts. The IMPROVE Steering Committee 

approved the incorporation of the Thunder Basin and Cloud Peak sites into the 

IMPROVE network in June 2002. Although these stations are not located in areas 

classified as Class I areas, the collected data will be comparable to monitoring 

data available from the state’s Class I areas. This information can help scientists 

determine the types and concentrations of air pollutants and their direction of 

travel in order to project visibility impacts to Class I areas. The Wyoming Visibility 

Monitoring Network was recently supplemented with the development of a website 

(http://www.wyvisnet.com/all.html) to allow public access to real-time monitored 

visibility and air quality conditions (WDEQ/AQD 2005a). 

3.4.4.2 Acidification of Lakes 

Atmospheric deposition of pollutants (acid rain) causes acidification of lakes and 

streams. According to EPA, sulfur dioxide and NOx, primarily derived from the 

burning of fossil fuels, are the primary causes of acid rain. Most lakes and 

streams have a pH between 6 and 8. Some lakes are more easily affected by, and 

therefore more sensitive to, acid rain than others. The response of lakes to acid 

rain is described in terms of changes to acid-neutralizing capacity, or ANC. The 

lake is the sensitive resource and ANC is the indicator. ANC is a measure of 

buffering capacity, measured in microequivalents per liter (μeq/L), which indicates 

the lake’s capacity to resist acidification from acid rain. Lakes and streams 

become more acidic (i.e., the pH value of the water in the lake goes down) when 

the water itself and its surrounding soil cannot buffer the acid rain enough to 

neutralize it. The more sensitive lakes are generally located in watersheds whose 

soils have a limited ability to neutralize acidic compounds (a lower buffering 

capacity). In areas where buffering capacity is low, acid rain also releases 

aluminum from soils into lakes and streams; aluminum is highly toxic to many 

species of aquatic organisms. 

Several regions in the U.S. were identified in a national surface water survey as 

containing many of the surface waters sensitive to acidification. They include the 

Adirondacks and Catskill Mountains in New York State, the mid-Appalachian 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-73 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

highlands along the east coast, the upper Midwest, and mountainous areas of the 

western U.S. 

Scientists predict that the decrease in SO2 emissions required by the Acid Rain 

Program will significantly reduce acidification due to atmospheric sulfur. Without 

the reductions in SO2 emissions, the proportions of acidic aquatic ecosystems 

would remain high or dramatically worsen (EPA 2005c). The USDA-FS has been 

monitoring air quality in the Wind River Mountain Range in Wyoming since 1984 

and is seeing a general trend of decreasing sulfates. Nitrates, on the other hand, 

have been increasing globally. 

3.4.4.2.1 Affected Environment 

AQRVs, including the potential air pollutant effects on the acidification of lakes 

and streams, are applied to PSD Class I and Class II areas. The land management 

agency responsible for the Class I area sets a LAC for each AQRV. The AQRVs 

reflect the land management agency’s policy and are not legally enforceable 

standards. Lake acidification is expressed as the change in ANC measured in 

microequivalents per liter (μeq/L), the lake’s capacity to resist acidification from 

acid rain. Table 3-10 shows the existing ANC monitored in some mountain lakes 

and their distance from the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Table 3-10. Existing Acid Neutralizing Capacity in Sensitive Lakes. 

Distance from 

General South 

Background ANC Gillette Analysis 

Wilderness Area Lake (μeq/L) Area (miles) 

Bridger 	Black Joe 69.0 240 

 Deep 61.0 230 

 Hobbs 68.0 245 

 Upper Frozen 5.81 250 

Cloud Peak	 Emerald 55.3 105 

 Florence 32.7 95 

Fitzpatrick Ross 61.4 240 

Popo Agie Lower Saddlebag 55.5 230 

1 The background ANC is based on only six samples taken between 1997 and 2001. 

Source: Argonne (2002) 

3.4.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.4.4.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

would be mined as an integral part of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines, respectively; therefore, the impacts to air quality from mining 

the LBA tracts have been inferred from the impacts at the currently permitted 

3-74 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mining operations. The applicant mines anticipate that coal production would 

remain unchanged from projected post-2007 levels if the LBA tracts are acquired. 

Impacts to air quality related to lake acidification under the Proposed Actions and 

other action alternatives for each tract would be similar to the impacts under the 

No Action Alternative, but they would be extended from 2 to 10 years. Therefore, 

current mining techniques (i.e., haulage, blasting, etc.) would be expected to 

continue for longer period of time than is shown in the currently approved air 

quality permit for each applicant mine. Additional information about the air 

quality associated with the LBA tracts is included in the supplemental information 

document, which is available on request. 

3.4.4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected 

and the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines would continue to 

operate as currently permitted for about 8, 16, 15, and 11 more years, 

respectively. Coal removal would not occur on the LBA tracts. Lake acidification 

impacts related to mining operations at the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines would not be extended onto those portions of the 

LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation 

plans. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications at this time would 

not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.4.4.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Mitigation and monitoring for coal mine emissions, including the emissions that 

contribute to the acidification of lakes, are discussed in Sections 3.4.2.3, 3.4.2.4., 

3.4.3.3, and 3.4.3.4. Other air quality monitoring programs that are in place in 

the PRB include WARMS monitoring of sulfur and nitrogen concentrations near 

Buffalo, Sheridan, and Newcastle, and NADP monitoring of precipitation chemistry 

in Newcastle. 

3.4.5 Residual Impacts to Air Quality 

No residual impacts to air quality would occur following mining and reclamation. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-75 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.5 Water Resources 

3.5.1 Groundwater 

3.5.1.1 Affected Environment 

The general South Gillette analysis area contains three water-bearing geologic 

units that have been directly affected by existing mining activities and would be 

directly affected by mining the four LBA tracts. In descending order, these units 

are the recent alluvium, the Wasatch Formation overburden, and the mineable 

coal seam in the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation, which is 

referred to as the Wyodak or Wyodak-Anderson. The underlying, sub-coal Fort 

Union Formation, the Lance Formation, and the Fox Hills Sandstone are utilized 

for water supply at the four coal mines within the general South Gillette analysis 

area, but these units are not physically disturbed by mining activities. Both 

regional and site-specific baseline hydrogeologic environments within and around 

the general South Gillette analysis area are extensively characterized in the 

WDEQ/LQD mining and reclamation permits for the four applicant mines 

included in this analysis (CCC 2003, FCW 2003, CMC 2007a, and TBCC 2006). 

Figure 3-2 presents the hydrostratigraphic units underlying the general South 

Gillette analysis area. 

3.5.1.1.1 Recent Alluvium 

Within the general South Gillette analysis area, alluvial (unconsolidated stream 

laid) deposits are present and primarily occupy the valleys of the larger drainages, 

namely the Belle Fourche River, Coal Creek, Caballo Creek, Duck Nest Creek, and 

Tisdale Creek. Less extensive deposits of alluvium are also found along the lower 

reaches of draws that are tributary to these major streams. Colluvial and playa 

deposits associated with other minor surface drainages within the general South 

Gillette analysis area are generally very thin and not laterally extensive enough to 

be considered aquifers. 

Within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, alluvial deposits are associated with Duck 

Nest Creek, an ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek. The alluvial deposits consist 

of intermixed fine-grained sands, silts, and clays. The surficial deposits adjacent 

to the alluvium consist of fan and sheetwash materials where the terrain is nearly 

flat. The textures of these deposits are similar, making the outer edge of alluvial 

deposits difficult to distinguish. Thickness of alluvial deposits along Duck Nest 

Creek varies from 0 to approximately 20 feet, and is typically around 10 to 15 feet. 

The alluvium’s saturated thickness averages about 10 feet, and alluvial 

groundwater flow is downvalley. Duck Nest Creek alluvium is recharged by 

streamflow, water in the channel impoundments, and groundwater discharged 

from a bedrock source that underlies the alluvial deposits. The overburden 

groundwater discharge rate was estimated by FCW to be less than 0.1 acre-feet 

per year, which is only enough to create a marshy area with some small shallow 

3-76 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

pools of stagnant water. Patches of thick alkali crust is present around the edges 

of the pools and on the soil surface in this marshy area, which is referred to as the 

“saline seeps”. The saline seeps were located near the southern edge of the Belle 

Ayr North LBA Tract, but were disturbed by the currently permitted mining 

operation in 2006 and are no longer present. Groundwater yields measured by 

FCW at some Duck Nest Creek alluvial monitoring wells are very low, ranging from 

0 to 3 gallons per minute (gpm). Aquifer testing indicates that the Duck Nest 

Creek alluvial aquifer has a very low hydraulic conductivity (ranging from about 

0.05 – 0.35 ft/day). 

Duck Nest Creek alluvial groundwater quality is highly variable spatially and poor 

to very poor. In the saline seeps area, the TDS concentration ranges from roughly 

3,800 mg/L to over 51,000 mg/L. The alluvial groundwater type is generally a 

magnesium or sodium sulfate, with the sulfate concentration averaging over 

25,000 mg/L and ranging up to almost 33,000 mg/L. Both TDS and sulfate 

concentrations are well over the maximum allowed in any WDEQ/WQD use 

classification (WDEQ/WQD 2005). Discharge from underlying bedrock (Wasatch 

Formation overburden) units in the saline seeps area contributes to the poor 

alluvial water quality. Alluvial groundwater quality upstream of the saline seeps 

area, within the LBA tract, is somewhat better but still poor and does not meet 

WDEQ/WQD standards for any use classification. The TDS concentration is 

generally around 20,000 mg/L to 25,000 mg/L, the sulfate concentration ranges 

from approximately 12,500 mg/L to over 15,000 mg/L, and the SAR values are 

high, ranging from 17.6 to 19.8. 

Within the West Coal Creek LBA Tract, alluvial deposits are associated with Coal 

Creek, an ephemeral tributary of the Belle Fourche River. These unconsolidated 

stream laid deposits consist of intermixed fine-grained sands, silts, and clays, and 

range from 10 to 25 feet thick. Saturated thicknesses range from 0 to a maximum 

of approximately 15 feet at the confluence of East Fork Coal Creek and Middle 

Fork Coal Creek. Field aquifer tests indicated that the Coal Creek alluvium has a 

very low hydraulic conductivity, ranging from nearly 0 to 2.35 ft/day. Due to its 

limited areal extent, limited saturated thickness, and low hydraulic conductivity, 

Coal Creek alluvium does not consistently produce enough water to be put to 

beneficial use. In addition, Coal Creek alluvial groundwater is generally poor 

quality and does not meet WDEQ/WQD standards for domestic and agricultural 

uses, and is marginal for livestock and wildlife use. 

Within the Caballo West LBA Tract, alluvial deposits are associated with Tisdale 

Creek, an ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek. The Tisdale Creek alluvial 

deposits are typified by both lateral and vertical heterogeneity and are generally 

comprised of gravels, coarse- to fine-grained sands, and local lenses of silty, 

commonly organic-rich clays. Alluvial materials presently being deposited by 

fluvial processes along Tisdale Creek are clayey and heavy-textured. The 

thickness of Tisdale Creek alluvial deposits within the LBA tract average 

approximately 12 feet, and the saturated thickness varies from almost 0 to more 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-77 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

than 10 feet, and is greatest near the stream channel. Tisdale Creek alluvial 

monitor well water levels indicate that alluvial groundwater progresses downvalley under a hydraulic gradient similar to that of the valley profile. Recharge to 

the alluvium is from direct precipitation, streamflow infiltration, and groundwater 

contributions from underlying bedrock (Wasatch Formation overburden). The 

water table geometry near the stream suggests that the stream generally loses 

water to the alluvium, but may gain water depending on the season and extent of 

saturation in the alluvium. Like the adjacent Duck Nest Creek, Tisdale Creek 

alluvial groundwater quality is poor, with a mean TDS concentration ranging from 

approximately 4,900 mg/L to 36,000 mg/L. Due to the high salinity, Tisdale 

Creek alluvial groundwater is considered unsuitable for domestic and irrigation 

uses, and is marginal in some areas for livestock and wildlife use. The low 

hydraulic conductivities and limited areal extent of saturation indicate that the 

alluvium does not exhibit aquifer characteristics adequate for producing 

groundwater in sufficient quantities for agricultural or domestic uses. There is 

currently no known use of alluvial groundwater in or near the Caballo West LBA 

Tract. 

Within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, alluvial deposits are found primarily within the 

Belle Fourche River valley. The alluvium consists of recent stream channel 

deposits and topographically higher terrace deposits that predate the recent 

deposition. The recent deposits and the lower terrace deposits are typified by both 

lateral and vertical heterogeneity and are generally comprised of gravels, coarse- to 

fine-grained sands, and local lenses of silty, commonly organic-rich clays. The 

upper-most terrace is comprised predominately of relatively homogeneous sandy 

silts and clays overlying basal gravel deposits. The alluvial materials presently 

being deposited by the stream are clayey and heavy-textured. The thickness of 

Belle Fourche River alluvial deposits varies from absent where bedrock is exposed 

in the stream channel to more than 40 feet. Saturated alluvium along the Belle 

Fourche varies from absent (dry from land surface to the top of the underlying 

Wasatch Formation) to more than 10 feet thick, and is greatest near the stream 

channel. Field and laboratory aquifer tests indicate that the Belle Fourche River 

alluvium has very low productivity and low hydraulic conductivity. Alluvial 

monitor well water levels recorded by the Cordero Rojo Mine indicate that alluvial 

groundwater flows down-valley, and exhibits a hydraulic gradient similar to that of 

the valley profile. Recharge to the alluvium is from direct precipitation, stream 

flow infiltration, and adjacent upland overburden areas. In general, the 

groundwater quality in the saturated Belle Fourche River alluvium within the LBA 

tract is poor, with a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration averaging around 

4,100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and the water type is characterized as a 

sodium/calcium-sulfate. 

Due to the high salinity, Belle Fourche River alluvial groundwater is considered 

unsuitable for domestic consumption and irrigation, and marginal for livestock 

and wildlife use. The alluvial groundwater quality is similar to that of the 

underlying Wasatch Formation. The low hydraulic conductivities and limited 

3-78 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

areal extent of saturation indicate that the Belle Fourche River alluvium does not 

exhibit aquifer characteristics adequate for agricultural or domestic uses. There is 

currently no known use of alluvial groundwater in or near the Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract. 

3.5.1.1.2 Wasatch Formation 

Within the PRB, the Wasatch Formation (the strata lying above the mineable coal, 

also called the overburden) consists of various non-marine, fluvial and aeolian 

deposits of interbedded sands, silts, and clays with occasional discontinuous 

deposits of coal and carbonaceous material. The Wasatch strata range in 

cohesion from unconsolidated (i.e., loose sands and silts) to lithified (i.e., 

sandstones, siltstones, shales, and coal stringers). Any of the deposits may be 

water bearing, although the sands and sandstones possess a greater, but laterally 

limited, potential for groundwater yield. These sands are generally discontinuous 

and separated laterally and vertically by fine-grained deposits. This basic 

description generally holds true for all of the general South Gillette analysis area. 

The discontinuous nature of the sediments produces considerable variability in 

the occurrence of groundwater in the overburden both laterally and vertically. The 

hydraulic connection between water-bearing units is tenuous due to intervening 

shale aquitards; thus, groundwater movement through the Wasatch Formation 

overburden is limited. Due to the discontinuous nature of the permeable 

overburden sediments, premine overburden groundwater movement generally 

follows the topography. Because the water-bearing units within the Wasatch 

Formation are not continuous, the Wasatch is not considered to be a regional 

aquifer. However, Wasatch sands and sandstones do provide limited amounts of 

groundwater for livestock and domestic uses on a local scale, provided the water 

quality is suitable. Channel-like deposits of unconsolidated sand (paleochannel 

sands) with up to about 60 feet of saturation occasionally occur in the Wasatch 

overburden, and wells developed in these sands may individually yield up to 50 

gpm. Paleochannels are typically less than 500 feet wide and are isolated laterally 

and vertically by silt and clay deposits of very low permeabilities. 

Another geologic unit that may be considered a part of the Wasatch Formation is 

scoria, also called clinker or burn. It consists of sediments that were baked, 

fused, and melted in place when the underlying coal burned spontaneously. 

These burned sediments collapsed into the void left by the burned coal. Scoria 

deposits can be a very permeable aquifer and can extend laterally for miles in the 

eastern PRB. The occurrence of scoria is site specific, typically occurring in areas 

where coal seams crop out at the surface. The hydrologic function of scoria 

includes providing infiltration of precipitation and recharge to laterally contiguous 

overburden and coal beds. The West Coal Creek LBA Tract is the only tract in the 

general South Gillette analysis area that contains scoria deposits; however, they 

are isolated and not extensive or saturated enough to be considered an aquifer or 

a source of recharge. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-79 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Recharge to the Wasatch Formation is from the infiltration of precipitation, 

infiltration of surface water stored in playas and in-channel reservoirs, and lateral 

movement of water from adjacent scoria bodies. Regionally, groundwater is 

discharged from the Wasatch Formation by evaporation and transpiration, by 

pumping wells, by drainage into mine excavations, and by seepage into the 

alluvium along stream courses. Overburden groundwater is not generally 

connected to the underlying Wyodak coal seam due to a low-permeability stratum 

at the base of the overburden, which is fairly widespread in the general South 

Gillette analysis area. However, there is likely some leakage between the aquifers 

that provides vertical recharge to the coal aquifer. 

For the Wasatch Formation as a whole in the PRB, the discontinuous nature of 

the water bearing units results in low overall hydraulic conductivity and low 

groundwater flow rates. Because of the varied nature of the aquifer units within 

the Wasatch, hydraulic properties are variable as well. Martin et al. (1988) 

reported that hydraulic conductivities within the Wasatch ranged from 10-4 ft/day 

to 102 ft/day, and the geometric mean hydraulic conductivity based on 203 tests 

was 0.2 ft/day. The geometric mean hydraulic conductivity from 70 aquifer tests 

using wells completed in sandstone in the Wasatch overburden was 0.35 ft/day, 

while that from 63 aquifer tests using wells completed in siltstone and claystone 

in the Wasatch overburden was 0.007 ft/day (Rehm et al. 1980). Field aquifer 

tests conducted in the general South Gillette analysis area by the four applicant 

mines indicate that the water-bearing Wasatch overburden strata typically have a 

low hydraulic conductivity, ranging from 0.004 ft/day to 78.0 ft/day, and verify 

that the overburden sand bodies are isolated hydraulically from one another. 

The quality of groundwater in the Wasatch Formation is extremely variable and 

generally poor. In the general South Gillette analysis area, TDS concentrations 

range from 525 mg/L to 13,000 mg/L and the water type is typically a calciumsulfate, magnesium-sulfate, or a sodium-sulfate. The median TDS for the 

Wasatch Formation for the group of mines located between Gillette and Wright, as 

calculated by WDEQ/LQD based on 1,109 samples, is 2,996 mg/L (Ogle et al. 

2005). Overburden groundwater is generally considered to be unsuitable for 

domestic consumption and irrigation use, but is suitable for livestock and wildlife 

use. 

3.5.1.1.3 Wyodak/Wyodak-Anderson Coal 

The Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation contains the mineable coal 

zone, which is often divided by partings that separate it into two or more units. 

The mineable coal zones are variously referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, 

Roland and Smith, Wyodak-Anderson, Upper and Lower Wyodak, or Wyodak 

seams. A general discussion of the coal seam aquifer is presented as follows. 

Due to its continuity, the Wyodak coal seam is considered a regional aquifer 

because it is water bearing and is laterally continuous throughout the area. 

3-80 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Historically, the Fort Union coal seams have been a source of groundwater for 

domestic and livestock uses in the eastern PRB. However, due to the 1 to 3 degree 

west-northwest dip of the coal beds, the coal generally becomes too deep to be an 

economical source of water within a couple of miles west of the PRB surface coal 

mines. 

Hydraulic conductivity within the Wyodak coal seam is highly variable and 

reflective of the amount of fracturing the coal has undergone, as unfractured coal 

is virtually impermeable. Field aquifer tests indicate that the coal has a low to 

moderate transmissivity with a range of roughly three orders of magnitude. The 

yield of groundwater to wells and mine pits is smallest where the permeability of 

the coal is derived primarily from localized unloading fractures. These fractures, 

which are the most common, are created by the expansion of the coal as the 

weight of overlying sediments is slowly removed by erosion. Localized zones of 

moderately high transmissivity occur due to increased fracturing, and the highest 

permeability is imparted to the coal by tectonic fractures. These are throughgoing fractures of areal importance created during deformation of the Powder River 

structural basin. The presence of these fractures can be recognized by their linear 

expression at the ground surface, controlling the orientation of stream drainages 

and topographic depressions. Due to their pronounced surface expression, these 

tectonic fractures are often referred to as “lineaments”. Coal permeability along 

lineaments can be increased by orders of magnitude over that in the coal fractured 

by unloading only. Such increased aquifer transmissivity occurs west of the 

Cordero Rojo Mine area, and is attributed to structural development that has 

produced additional fracturing. 

Field aquifer tests conducted in the general South Gillette analysis area by the 

four applicant mines indicate that the coal aquifer is non-homogeneous and 

generally low in transmissivity with some local areas of high transmissivity. 

Hydraulic conductivity values reported by the four applicant mines in the general 

South Gillette analysis area for the Wyodak/Wyodak-Anderson coal seam ranges 

from 0.008 ft/day to 66.7 ft/day, with means ranging from approximately 4.0 

ft/day to 14.0 ft/day. Storage coefficients measured within and around the 

general South Gillette analysis area range from 10–3 to 10–4, indicative of a 

confined aquifer. 

Recharge to the coal occurs principally by infiltration of precipitation in the clinker 

outcrop areas along the flank of the eastern Powder River structural basin. 

Secondary vertical recharge from the overburden also occurs, but is highly 

variable. Prior to mining, the direction of groundwater flow within the areally 

continuous coal aquifer was generally from recharge areas at the coal seam’s 

outcrop westward into the PRB, following the dip of the coal. Groundwater 

conditions varied from unconfined to confined, depending on the coal elevation 

and proximity to the outcrop area. Water levels were generally above the top of 

the coal away from the outcrop. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-81 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Site-specific water-level data collected from coal monitoring wells by mining 

companies and the BLM in the general South Gillette analysis area and presented 

in the GAGMO 25-year report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) indicate that the 

groundwater flow directions in the Wyodak coal have been greatly influenced by 

surface mine dewatering and groundwater discharge associated with CBNG 

development. Groundwater levels observed near active mining areas prior to 1997 

were likely due to mine dewatering alone and the groundwater flow direction 

within the coal aquifer was typically toward the mine pits. By year 2000, 

groundwater level decline rates had dramatically increased because drawdown 

caused by widespread CBNG development west of the mines was overlapping with 

drawdown caused by mining operations. A continuous cone of depression 

currently exists around the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo 

Mines due to their closeness to each other and the cumulative drawdown effects 

from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges. The extent of drawdown west 

of the mines that is specifically attributable to mine dewatering can no longer be 

defined due to much greater and areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG 

development. Roughly 30 years of surface mining and the more recent CBNG 

development has resulted in complete dewatering of the coal aquifer in localized 

areas, particularly near the mines’ pits and where the coal seams are structurally 

highest. 

Coal groundwater is typically only suitable for livestock and wildlife watering 

purposes because certain constituent concentrations commonly exceed many 

suitability criteria for domestic uses, and the water may have a high salinity and 

sodium hazard, which makes it unsuitable for agricultural uses. Within the 

general South Gillette analysis area, Wyodak coal groundwater quality is generally 

poor, but exhibits lower TDS concentrations than alluvial or overburden 

groundwater. The composition of groundwater in the coal is fairly uniform and 

there are no seasonal or long-term trends in composition. The composition of 

groundwater in the coal is generally characterized as a calcium/magnesiumsulfate type near the scoria outcrop recharge areas and transitions to a sodiumbicarbonate type as the groundwater moves downgradient. In the general South 

Gillette analysis area, TDS concentrations range from 442 mg/L to 4,400 mg/L, 

with averages reported by the four applicant mines ranging from approximately 

950 mg/L to 1,700 mg/L. This compares to a median TDS of 920 mg/L calculated 

by the WDEQ/LQD for the Belle Aye Mine and adjacent mines, based on 1,200 

samples collected from the coal aquifer (Ogle et al. 2005). 

3.5.1.1.4 Subcoal Fort Union Formation 

The Fort Union Formation is divided into three members, which are, in descending 

order: the Tongue River Member, the Lebo Member, and the Tullock Member. The 

mineable coal seams occur within the Tongue River Member. The subcoal Fort 

Union Formation consists primarily of lithified sands and shales, and is divided 

into three hydrogeologic units: the upper Tongue River aquifer, the Lebo confining 

3-82 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

layer, and the Tullock aquifer (Law 1976). Of the three units, the Tullock is the 

most prolific in terms of groundwater yield. 

Mining does not directly disturb the hydrogeologic units below the mineable coal, 

but many PRB mines use them for industrial water supply wells. In a few cases 

there have been drawdowns in the subcoal aquifer due to leakage into mine pits, 

dewatering, and CBNG development (BLM 2001). The upper Tongue River aquifer 

consists of lenticular, fine-grained sandstone interbedded with mudstone. The 

Lebo confining layer is typically more fine-grained than the other two members 

and generally retards the movement of water (Lewis and Hotchkiss 1981). The 

Lebo confining layer typically separates the Tongue River and Tullock aquifers 

hydraulically. The Tullock aquifer consists of discontinuous lenses of sandstone 

separated by interbedded shale and siltstone. 

Transmissivity is equal to an aquifer’s hydraulic conductivity, or permeability, 

times the aquifer’s saturated thickness, and is commonly used when discussing 

the hydraulic properties of the subcoal Fort Union Formation where wells are 

completed by exposing many discrete sand lenses to the well bore. 

Transmissivities are generally higher in the deeper Tullock aquifer than in the 

shallower Tongue River aquifer, and many mines in the PRB have water-supply 

wells completed in this interval (Martin et al. 1988). The City of Gillette also 

utilizes the Tullock aquifer to meet part of its municipal water requirements. The 

average transmissivity for the Tullock, as reported by OSM (1984), is 290 ft2/day. 

The four applicant mines located within the general South Gillette analysis area 

use a total of eight wells completed in the subcoal Fort Union Formation for water 

supply, and they range in depth from approximately 850 feet to 2,487 feet. 

The water quality of the subcoal Fort Union Formation is generally good. TDS 

concentrations measured in various subcoal Fort Union Formation water supply 

wells in the eastern PRB range from 230 mg/L to 520 mg/L. Water from the 

subcoal Fort Union Formation is typically of the sodium-bicarbonate type. This 

water is generally suitable for livestock and wildlife watering and may be suitable 

for domestic use. Depending upon site-specific TDS concentrations and SAR 

values, groundwater from Fort Union Formation supply wells may also be suitable 

for irrigation. 

3.5.1.1.5 Lance Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone 

Underlying the Fort Union Formation is the Lance Formation of Cretaceous age. 

The Lance Formation is comprised of an upper confining layer and a lower aquifer. 

Individual sandstone beds of the lower aquifer sequence are up to about 100 feet 

thick, are fine-grained, and contain variable amounts of interbedded clay and silt. 

The Fox Hills Sandstone underlies the Lance Formation and is usually difficult to 

distinguish from the Lance. The Fox Hills is described as a well-developed, fine- to 

medium-grained, marine sandstone that contains thin beds of sandy shale and 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-83 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

probably averages around 250 feet thick beneath the general South Gillette 

analysis area. 

The Caballo and Cordero Rojo mines each have one industrial water supply well 

completed in the Fox Hills Sandstone, while two industrial water supply wells 

within Belle Ayr Mine’s existing permit area are completed in the Lance/Fox Hills 

aquifer. These wells are all around 4,000 feet deep. The City of Gillette also 

utilizes the Lance/Fox Hills aquifer to meet part of its municipal water 

requirements, as do the Wyodak Power Plant and various other eastern PRB 

surface coal mines. The quality of groundwater from the Lance/Fox Hills aquifer 

is generally good enough to meet the standards for domestic use, depending upon 

the concentrations of TDS and various constituents such as fluoride. Sodium and 

bicarbonate are typically the predominant ionic constituents. 

3.5.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.5.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Surface coal mining impacts the quantity of the groundwater resource in two 

ways: 1) the coal aquifer and any aquifers present in the overburden are removed 

from the mined areas during mining and replaced with unconsolidated backfill 

after the coal is removed, and 2) water levels in the coal and overburden aquifers 

adjacent to the mine pits are depressed as a result of seepage into and dewatering 

from the open excavations in the area of coal and overburden removal. 

If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

are leased under the Proposed Actions or Action Alternatives and mined, the 

overall regional extent of coal removal and reclamation would increase, along with 

a potential increase in the extent of mining-related impacts to groundwater 

quantity. As mining expands, additional water-bearing bedrock strata would be 

exposed and groundwater would drain by gravity into the active pits. The 

overburden and coal aquifers within the tracts would be completely dewatered and 

removed, and the area of drawdown caused by overburden and coal removal 

would be extended further to the west of the active mine areas. However, the 

amount and extent of additional drawdown may not be great, as current 

drawdown associated with mining the existing leases combined with drawdown 

associated with CBNG development has nearly dewatered the coal aquifer within 

and immediately west of the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Currently approved mining will continue to remove the Wasatch Formation 

overburden, Fort Union Formation interburden (where present), and coal on the 

existing leases at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines and 

replace these stratified units with backfill material composed of an unlayered 

mixture of the shale, siltstone, and sandstone that makes up the existing Wasatch 

Formation overburden and Fort Union Formation interburden. The existing leases 

currently include approximately 39,346.6 acres. Mining each of the LBA tracts as 

3-84 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

maintenance leases would extend the area of overburden and coal removal by 

about 11,886.9 acres under the Proposed Action up to about 12,464.8 acres 

under the Action Alternatives. 

The 25-year Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization (GAGMO) Report 

(Hydro-Engineering 2007) presents drawdowns that have developed in the last 25 

years as a result of coal mining activity or other stresses to the groundwater 

system. The 25-year drawdown map for the general South Gillette analysis area is 

included within the 25-year GAGMO Report, and it shows a continuous cone of 

depression exists around the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo 

mines due to their proximity to each other and due to the large drawdowns caused 

to the west by CBNG development. Hydro-Engineering (2007) states that the 

extent of drawdown caused by mining alone to the west of the mines can no longer 

be defined due to the much larger drawdown caused by CBNG development. 

Drawdowns to the west of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo 

mines are very large, mainly due to the discharge of groundwater from the Wyodak 

coal aquifer that is associated with the production of CBNG. Greater drawdowns 

exist west of these mines than near their present western boundaries. The 

present drawdown of the Wyodak coal potentiometric surface has made the 

comparison between the 25-year drawdowns and the modeled groundwater 

drawdown predictions using the conservative, worst-case scenario for each mine 

to be unrealistic. Drawdowns in all areas have greatly increased in the last few 

years due to water production from the coal aquifer by CBNG production. 

Potential overlapping impacts of the existing mining activities with other proposed 

activities are addressed further in Chapter 4 of this EIS. 

Due to the inconsistent lithologic makeup of the Wasatch Formation overburden 

(discontinuous sandstone and sand lenses in a matrix of siltstone and shale), 

drawdowns in the overburden are variable and do not extend great distances from 

the active mine pits. Due to the varied nature of the water-bearing units within 

the Wasatch Formation overburden, the extent of water level drawdowns are 

variable as well. Water level drawdowns propagate much farther and in a more 

consistent manner in the coal seam aquifers than in the overburden due to the 

regional continuity and higher transmissivity of the coal seam. Drawdowns in the 

coal seam are primarily a function of distance from the pit, although geologic and 

hydrologic barriers and boundaries such as crop lines, fracture zones, and 

recharge sources can also influence drawdowns. As discussed below, each mine 

evaluated groundwater level drawdowns resulting from their existing operations 

based on site-specific characteristics such as hydraulic conductivity, mining 

sequence, and local geology. Mines usually model groundwater level drawdown 

using the conservative, worst-case scenario. Therefore, it is unlikely that the 

actual drawdown will extend as far from the mine pits as predicted. It is also 

difficult to predict the time for groundwater recovery since each mine uses 

different predictive modeling techniques and assumptions, and reports different 

recovery time periods. In general, drawdown in groundwater levels in both the 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-85 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

coal and overburden will be greatest adjacent to the pit area and decrease with 

distance from the pits (Ogle et al. 2005). 

The subcoal aquifers (i.e., Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance 

Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they 

are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. All four of the applicant mines 

located within the general South Gillette analysis area utilize water supply wells 

completed in aquifers stratigraphically below the Wyodak coal. If these four LBA 

tracts are leased and mined by the applicants, water would be produced from 

these wells for a longer period of time, but none of the mines would require 

additional sub-coal wells for industrial water supply to continue mining and 

reclaiming, including the LBA tracts. 

As noted above, the existing layers of sediment and rock in the area of coal 

removal would be replaced by generally homogeneous, unconsolidated backfill 

material, which would recover as a single hydrostratigraphic unit. The backfill 

unit created in the LBA tract areas would be in hydraulic communication with the 

undisturbed coal, overburden, and the adjacent mine backfill. Premining recharge 

areas, described in Section 3.5.1.1 would not be disturbed by mining. Surface 

infiltration recharge rates for the backfill materials should be equivalent to or 

somewhat greater than infiltration recharge through undisturbed overburden, due 

primarily to the swelling of the mined strata attendant with excavating the strata, 

and due to generally flatter postmining topography resulting in less surface runoff. 

Water levels in the affected aquifers would remain depressed below premining 

levels for a long period of time, since groundwater discharge rates from the 

affected aquifers into the proposed mine pits are expected to be low. Groundwater 

would accumulated in the backfill and eventually discharge to hydrostratigraphic 

units bordering he backfilled pit, at which time, groundwater levels and flow 

patterns are expected to be similar to premining condition. Groundwater flow 

through the backfill and undisturbed bedrock near the pits would be interrupted 

until saturation levels in the backfilled pits have increased, and the rates of 

recharge to and discharge from the backfill have equilibrated. Postmining 

groundwater levels should approach steady state conditions some time after mine 

reclamation and impacts from CBNG development in the cumulative impact areas 

are completed. The rate at which the mine backfill resaturates and the 

postmining potentiometric surface reaches equilibrium is dependent upon the 

hydraulic conductivity of the backfill and on sources of recharge water. 

The hydraulic properties of the backfill aquifer based on the results of aquifer 

testing at mines in the PRB are quite variable, although generally equal to or 

greater than the undisturbed overburden and coal aquifers (Van Voast et al. 1978 

and Rahn 1976). It is early in the process of full reclamation and to date, not all 

of the backfilled materials have reached an adequate saturated thickness to be 

aquifer tested at the four applicant mines in the general South Gillette analysis 

area. The composition of the backfilled overburden materials at these four 

adjacent mines is quite similar; therefore, the hydraulic characteristics of the 

3-86 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

backfill at these four mines are also expected to be similar. To date, the backfill 

has not yet been aquifer tested at the Cordero Rojo and Coal Creek mines. 

Hydraulic conductivity values measured in existing monitoring wells completed in 

the saturated backfill at the Belle Ayr and Caballo mines range from 0.002 ft/day 

to 2.0 ft/day (FCW 2003 and CCC 2003), which is comparable but slightly lower 

than the reported hydraulic conductivity values determined for the Wasatch 

overburden and Wyodak coal seam. These data therefore provide an indication 

that the backfill would readily resaturate as postmining potentiometric elevations 

recover in the surrounding undisturbed aquifers, and that wells completed in the 

backfill (including in these four LBA tracts) would be capable of supplying 

sufficient yields to wells constructed for livestock watering uses. 

Mining and reclamation also impacts groundwater quality; the TDS concentration 

in the water resaturating the backfill is generally higher than the TDS 

concentration in groundwater from the overburden coal seam aquifers prior to 

mining. This is due to the increased porosity and surface area of backfilled 

overburden sediments, causing exposure of fresh mineral surfaces to groundwater 

that moves through the backfill and increased oxidation that occurs from 

exposure of sediments during mining. Scientific tests in the laboratory and in the 

field show the predominant cause for high dissolved-solids contents in mine 

backfill is the availability of highly soluble salts in the overburden sediments. The 

soluble salts that are exposed to groundwater are readily mobilized; therefore, 

groundwater quality in recently backfilled mine pits is highly diverse due to the 

variable distribution of soluble salts and the variable permeability of the backfill. 

As the backfill is resaturated and groundwater flow patterns are reestablished, the 

soluble salts are leached by groundwater inflow. Groundwater quality in the 

backfill then depends on a balance between the introduction of new salts by 

groundwater that recharges the backfill and the flushing of the newly exposed 

soluble salts by groundwater flow. Studies of backfill groundwater quality are not 

yet conclusive due to a relatively short period of monitoring available in the PRB. 

A general observation is that the content of TDS, calcium, magnesium, and 

sodium sulfates, when compared to the undisturbed aquifers, is roughly two to 

three times as high at present. However, these elevated levels should decline as 

flushing and leaching of soluble salts reaches equilibrium. Even at a two to three 

fold increase in TDS concentration, the water in the backfill will, in most cases, be 

suitable for its predominant premining use, stock watering (Straskraba 1986). 

Using data compiled from 10 surface coal mines in the eastern PRB, Martin et al. 

(1988) concluded that backfill groundwater quality improves markedly after the 

backfill is leached with one pore volume of water. Van Voast and Reiten (1988) 

reached the same conclusions after analyzing data from the Decker and Colstrip 

mines located in the northern PRB. Their research indicates that upon initial 

saturation, mine backfill is generally high in TDS concentration and contains 

soluble salts of calcium, magnesium and sodium sulfates. TDS concentrations 

tend to decrease with time, indicating that the long-term groundwater quality in 

mined and adjacent lands would not be compromised. Clark (1995) conducted a 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-87 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

study to determine if the decreases predicted by laboratory studies actually occur 

onsite. In the area of the West Decker Mine near Decker, Montana, Clark’s study 

found that dissolved solids concentrations increased when water from an 

upgradient coal aquifer flowed into a backfill aquifer, and apparently decreased 

along an inferred flow path from a backfill aquifer to a downgradient coal aquifer. 

WDEQ/LQD calculated a median TDS concentration of 3,293 mg/L for the backfill 

aquifer in the east-central area of the PRB, which includes the mines in the 

general South Gillette analysis area, based on 1,384 samples (Ogle et al. 2005). 

Changes to the premining hydraulic characteristics of the alluvial aquifer and the 

quality of alluvial groundwater are expected to be minor after final reclamation, 

because the applicant mines would be required to maintain the essential 

hydrologic functions of the alluvial valley floors (AVFs) declared in the general 

South Gillette analysis area and their alluvial aquifer systems (as is currently 

required for the already-approved mining operations). See additional discussion 

in Sections 3.5.1.3. and 3.6. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, the Proposed Actions and Action Alternatives assume 

that these four LBA tracts would be leased as maintenance tracts to existing 

mines. Direct and indirect impacts to the groundwater system resulting from 

mining the LBA tracts included in this analysis would add to the cumulative 

impacts that will occur due to mining existing leases. As discussed above, there 

have been drawdowns in the coal and overlying aquifers as a result of this existing 

approved mining and the existing coal bed natural gas (CBNG) development in the 

vicinity of the LBA tracts. As of 2005, the level of groundwater in the Wyodak coal 

seam had already been lowered to around 40 feet above the base of the coal in the 

general South Gillette analysis area as a result of dewatering by existing mining 

and CBNG development activities in the area. 

The probable groundwater impacts from the leasing and subsequent mining of 

each of the LBA tracts under the Proposed Actions or Action Alternatives are 

described in the following paragraphs. Some or all of the impacts to the 

groundwater levels in the coal aquifer described below may occur prior to the 

mining of the LBA tracts, if they are leased, as a result of currently approved 

surface coal mining adjacent to the LBA tracts and development of CBNG 

resources on and adjacent to the LBA tracts. 

3.5.1.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

The existing leases at the Belle Aye Mine currently include approximately 6,345.3 

acres. Mining the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as a maintenance lease would extend 

the area of overburden and coal removal by about 1,937 acres under the Proposed 

Action up to about 1,947 acres under Alternative 2. 

Mining has affected alluvial groundwater level elevations only where the alluvial 

aquifer has been mined out. If the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract is leased, mining 

3-88 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

would dewater and physically remove the Duck Nest Creek alluvial materials 

within the tract. Changes to the premining hydraulic characteristics of the 

alluvial aquifer and the quality of the alluvial groundwater are expected to be 

minor after final reclamation, because Belle Ayr Mine would be required to 

maintain the essential hydrologic functions of Duck Nest Creek and its alluvial 

aquifer system. See additional discussions in Sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.6. 

Overburden thickness in the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract ranges from about 120 feet 

to 400 feet and averages around 295 feet. Most of the overburden is composed of 

massive silty and clayey shales of very low permeability, although discontinuous, 

lenticular-shaped sand bodies occur in the Belle Ayr North general analysis area. 

Some of these isolated sand bodies in the overburden are saturated, but 

groundwater yields from them are generally low. Due to the discontinuous nature 

of the permeable overburden sediments, premining overburden groundwater 

movement generally followed the topography, and before mining, overburden 

groundwater flow in the vicinity of the Belle Ayr Mine was generally toward, and 

discharged to the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek valleys. Groundwater 

flow has since been affected by the removal of overburden. Monitor well data 

indicate that overburden groundwater in the Belle Ayr North general analysis area 

now flows toward the Belle Ayr Mine’s and neighboring mines’ open pits. Mining 

has and will continue to depress water levels in the overburden, although the 

historical monitoring data do not indicate a correlation between water level 

drawdown in the overburden to distance and direction from the open pits. In 

general, overburden groundwater levels will begin to show steady decline in areas 

that are within about one-half mile of the mine pits as mining progresses. Future 

drawdown in the overburden is expected to be similar to that measured to date, 

and would be expected to continue to have a limited impact outside of the mined 

area. 

Water level drawdowns have propagated much farther and in a more consistent 

manner in the Wyodak coal seam aquifer than in the overburden. Groundwater 

level monitoring data collected by the Belle Ayr Mine and the other three mines 

located in the general South Gillette analysis area and presented in the GAGMO 

25-year report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) indicate that the groundwater flow 

directions in the Wyodak coal have been greatly influenced by surface mine 

dewatering and groundwater discharge associated with CBNG development. 

Groundwater levels observed near active mining areas prior to 1997 were likely 

due to mine dewatering alone and the groundwater flow direction within the coal 

aquifer was typically toward the mine where it would drain by gravity into the 

open pits. By year 2000, groundwater level decline rates had dramatically 

increased because drawdown caused by widespread CBNG development west of 

the mines was overlapping with drawdown caused by mining operations. A 

continuous cone of depression currently exists around the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines due to their closeness to each other and the 

cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges 

(Hydro-Engineering 2007). The extent of drawdown west of the mines that is 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-89 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

specifically attributable to mine dewatering can no longer be defined due to much 

greater and areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG development. 

Recent coal seam water level data presented in the GAGMO 25-year report (HydroEngineering 2007) illustrate that approximately 150 feet of drawdown has 

occurred near the western edge of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, and 

approximately 50 feet of drawdown has occurred near the tract’s eastern edge. 

The 2005 coal seam water level contours in the area of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines depict the groundwater flow direction to be 

entirely to the west, away from the open pits. Roughly 30 years of surface mining 

and CBNG development has resulted in nearly complete dewatering of the coal 

seams in localized areas, particularly near the mines’ pits and where the coal 

seams are structurally highest. 

In 1997, the numerical groundwater flow model MODFLOW was used to predict 

the extent of water level drawdown in the Wyodak coal aquifer attributable to 

mining the existing leases at the Belle Ayr Mine. The results of the groundwater 

modeling are reported in Appendix 3.5-7 of the Belle Ayr Mine Permit 214-T6 

(FCW 2003). Groundwater level monitoring data prior to CBNG activity 

approximated the modeled drawdown predictions done in 1997. For the purpose 

of this analysis, the extent of coal-mining related drawdown (5-foot contour) in the 

Wyodak seam over the life of the Belle Ayr Mine if the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract is 

mined was extrapolated by extending FCW’s 1997-modeled life-of-mine drawdown 

contour to the north and west by the dimensions of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

(Figure 3-21). The area subject to lower water levels would increase roughly in 

proportion to the increase in area mined. This extrapolation serves as a general 

approximation of the potential impacts, based on experience, but it does not take 

variations in hydrologic properties, the time the pits are open, and the distance 

from previous mining and CBNG development into account. 

The rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal became much greater than 

the modeled drawdown in the late 1990s, effectively rendering the MODFLOW 

prediction obsolete. This has occurred as drawdown caused by extensive CBNG 

development west of the Belle Ayr Mine permit area and the Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract has overlapped with drawdown caused by mining operations. Therefore, 

numerical groundwater flow models are no longer practical to predict drawdown in 

the coal aquifer due to mining alone, especially in this portion of the eastern PRB. 

Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be likely; therefore, 

future drawdown to the Wyodak coal aquifer from mining the approved leases and 

the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract would be expected to be negligible due to the fact 

that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Groundwater elevation data 

collected by the Belle Ayr Mine for more than 30 years have formed the basis for 

quantifying groundwater level drawdowns since mining began and provide a 

reasonable and reliable means to predict trends in groundwater elevations 

associated with dewatering due to future mining. These data will continue to be 

3-90 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

recorded according to the mine’s WDEQ-approved groundwater monitoring 

program and included in the annual progress report that the Belle Ayr Mine 

submits to the WDEQ/LQD, as well as the GAGMO Annual Reports. If FCW 

acquires the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, WDEQ/LQD would require that future 

drawdown impacts due to mining alone be predicted in order to amend the tract 

into the Belle Ayr Mine permit area (Section 3.5.1.3). 

The subcoal aquifers (i.e., Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance 

Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they 

are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. The Belle Ayr Mine has four 

water supply wells completed in aquifers below the Wyodak coal. If the Belle Ayr 

North LBA Tract is leased by the applicant, water would be produced from these 

wells for a longer period of time, but FCW would not require additional sub-coal 

wells to mine the LBA tract. 

To date, 19 wells have been installed in the backfill at the Belle Ayr Mine to 

monitor groundwater levels and groundwater quality (17 of which were actively 

monitored as of 2006). Most of these wells were installed between the early 1980s 

and early 1990s, and the historic groundwater hydrographs recorded by these 

wells indicate that the level of backfill saturation has increased at variable rates at 

nearly every well location. Aquifer tests performed in 1993 on selected backfill 

wells at the Belle Ayr Mine indicate the hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.002 

ft/day to 0.78 ft/day (FCW 2003), which is comparable but slightly lower than the 

reported hydraulic conductivity values determined from most tests of the 

overburden and Wyodak coal seam within the Belle Ayr Mine area. These data 

therefore provide an indication that the backfill will readily resaturate as 

postmining potentiometric elevations recover in the surrounding undisturbed 

aquifers, and that wells completed in the backfill (including in the Belle Ayr North 

LBA Tract) would be capable of supplying sufficient yields to wells constructed for 

livestock watering uses. The exact configurations and hydraulic gradients of the 

postmining potentiometric surfaces may vary from premine conditions, reflecting 

the composite of overburden and coal heads in the backfill aquifer. However, 

postmining equilibrium groundwater movement should exhibit a hydraulic 

gradient toward Caballo Creek, as existed prior to mining (FCW 2003). 

Groundwater quality within the backfill at the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract would be 

expected to be similar to groundwater quality measured in existing wells 

completed in the Belle Ayr Mine backfill. The Belle Ayr Mine has an extensive 

backfill groundwater monitoring network, having 14 wells that are currently 

sampled on a quarterly basis (FCW 2007). Over the period of record, the TDS 

concentration of the groundwater at five of these wells has decreased, while it has 

increased at five wells, and remained essentially constant at four wells. Based on 

the 2006 sampling results, the mean annual TDS concentration ranged from 

about 760 mg/L to 5,580 mg/L. TDS concentrations in only one of the 14 wells 

have consistently or normally exceeded 5,000 mg/L, but they have consistently 

remained below this value in the remaining 13 wells. The TDS concentration in 

3-92 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

three of the 14 wells has consistently been around or under 1,000 mg/L. The 

2006 average TDS concentration in the entire 14-well database was 2,889 mg/L 

(FCW 2007). 

TDS concentrations observed in the Belle Ayr Mine backfill monitoring wells to 

date are similar to those found in the undisturbed Wasatch Formation overburden 

but typically larger than those found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. Postmining 

groundwater quality is expected to improve after one pore volume of water moves 

through the backfill. In general, the mine backfill groundwater TDS can be 

expected to be quite similar to the premining overburden aquifer, and meet 

Wyoming Class III standards for use as stock water. 

3.5.1.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

The existing leases at the Coal Creek Mine currently include approximately 6,854 

acres. Mining the West Coal Creek LBA Tract as a maintenance lease would 

extend the area of overburden and coal removal by about 1,925 acres under the 

Proposed Action up to about 2,210 acres under Alternative 2. 

With the exception of seasonal variations, Coal Creek alluvial groundwater levels 

have generally declined in recent years due to drought conditions. Mining has 

physically removed alluvial deposits associated with one unnamed tributary of 

Coal Creek within the current mine permit area. Coal Creek Mine’s approved 

mine and reclamation plan does not require that Coal Creek’s alluvial deposits be 

selectively removed and replaced (TBCC 2006). If the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

is leased, mining would physically remove additional alluvial deposits associated 

with Coal Creek; however, it is unlikely that WDEQ/LQD would require Coal 

Creek Mine to selectively remove and replace the alluvial deposits within the tract. 

See additional discussions in Sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.6. 

Hydrologic baseline studies conducted by TBCC in the Coal Creek Mine area and 

the West Coal Creek general analysis area concluded that the Wasatch Formation 

overburden is an aquitard that lacks saturated areas (e.g., paleochannel sands) 

capable of yielding enough water to justify well construction (TBCC 2006). 

Therefore, due to the lack of a continuous saturated zone within the overburden, 

there have been no impacts to an overburden aquifer due to mining and no 

impacts are anticipated if the West Coal Creek LBA Tract is leased and mined. 

Groundwater level monitoring data collected by the Coal Creek Mine and the other 

three mines located in the general South Gillette analysis area indicate that the 

groundwater flow directions in the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifer have been 

greatly influenced by surface mine dewatering and groundwater discharge 

associated with CBNG development. Coal Creek Mine development began in 1982 

and groundwater level declines observed at coal monitoring wells located near 

active mining areas prior to 1997 were likely due to mine dewatering alone and the 

groundwater flow direction within the coal aquifer was typically toward the mine 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-93 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

where it would drain by gravity into the open pits. By year 2000, groundwater 

level decline rates had dramatically increased because drawdown caused by 

widespread CBNG development west of the mine was overlapping with drawdown 

caused by mining operations. The extent of drawdown west of the mine that is 

specifically attributable to mine dewatering can no longer be defined due to much 

greater and areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG development. 

Recent coal seam water level data presented in the GAGMO 25-year report (HydroEngineering 2007) and Coal Creek Mine’s 2007 WDEQ/LQD Annual Report (TBCC 

2007) indicate that approximately 50 to 70 feet of drawdown has occurred near 

the western edge of the West Coal Creek LBA Tract. Wyodak-Anderson coal 

monitoring wells located further than 1⁄2 mile west of the West Coal Creek general 

analysis area have shown drawdowns in excess of 400 feet due to CBNG 

development, whereas drawdowns between 25 and 50 feet have occurred to date 

in monitor wells located within 1⁄2 mile of Coal Creek Mine’s open pits. The 2005 

coal seam water level contours in the West Coal Creek general analysis area depict 

the groundwater flow direction to be west-northwest, rather than towards Coal 

Creek Mine’s open pits to the east-northeast (Hydro-Engineering 2007). 

In 2005, the extent of water level drawdown in the coal aquifer attributable to 

mining the existing leases at the Coal Creek Mine was estimated using the 

analytical line slot method. The results of the line sink analysis are reported in 

Addendum 3.5.1 of the Coal Creek Mine Permit 483-T5 (TBCC 2006). For the 

purpose of this analysis, the extent of coal-mining related drawdown (5-foot 

contour) in the Wyodak-Anderson seam over the life of the Coal Creek Mine if the 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract is mined was extrapolated by extending TBCC’s 

predicted life of mine, line sink drawdown contour to the north, west, and south 

by the dimensions of the West Coal Creek LBA Tract (Figure 3-22). The area 

subject to lower water levels would increase roughly in proportion to the increase 

in area mined. This extrapolation serves as a general approximation of the 

potential impacts, based on experience, but it does not take variations in 

hydrologic properties, the time the pits are open, and the distance from previous 

mining and CBNG development into account 

The rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal is currently much greater 

than the predicted life-of-mine drawdown. This has occurred as drawdown 

caused by extensive CBNG development west of the Coal Creek Mine permit area 

and the West Coal Creek LBA Tract has overlapped with drawdown caused by 

mining operations. Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be 

likely; therefore, future drawdown to the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifer from 

mining the approved leases and the West Coal Creek LBA Tract would be expected 

to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered 

in the general South Gillette analysis area. Groundwater elevation data collected 

by the Coal Creek Mine since 1982 have formed the basis for quantifying 

groundwater level drawdowns since mining began and provide a reasonable and 

reliable means to predict trends in groundwater elevations associated with 

3-94 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

dewatering due to future mining. These data will continue to be recorded 

according to the mine’s WDEQ-approved groundwater monitoring program and 

included in the annual progress report that the Caballo Mine submits to the 

WDEQ/LQD, as well as the GAGMO Annual Reports. If ALC acquires the West 

Coal Creek LBA Tract, WDEQ/LQD would require that future drawdown impacts 

due to mining alone be predicted in order to amend the tract into the Coal Creek 

Mine permit area (Section 3.5.1.3). 

The subcoal aquifers (i.e., Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance 

Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they 

are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. Coal Creek Mine has two water 

supply wells completed in aquifers below the Wyodak-Anderson coal; both of 

which are completed in the Fort Union Formation at depths of approximately 850 

feet and 2,500 feet. If the West Coal Creek LBA Tract is leased by the applicant, 

water would be produced from these wells for a longer period of time, but TBCC 

would not require additional sub-coal wells to mine the LBA tract. 

To date, two monitoring wells have been installed in Coal Creek Mine’s backfill. 

The groundwater level hydrographs recorded by these two wells indicate that the 

level of saturation in the backfill has fluctuated very little since they were installed 

in 2001 and 2003. Current water level data indicate that approximately 12 feet 

and 65 feet of the backfill is saturated at their respective locations. Although 

neither of these wells has been aquifer tested to determine the hydraulic 

properties of the backfill, overburden at the four applicant mines within the 

general South Gillette analysis area is lithologically similar; therefore, the 

hydraulic characteristics of the backfill at all four mines should also be similar. 

Hydraulic conductivity values reported from tests conducted at the nearby Caballo 

and Belle Ayr mines range from 0.002 ft/day to 2.0 ft/day, which is an indication 

that the backfill will have comparable but slightly lower than the reported 

hydraulic conductivity values determined from most tests of the overburden and 

Wyodak coal seam. The backfill should readily resaturate as postmining 

potentiometric elevations recover in the surrounding undisturbed aquifers, and 

wells completed in the backfill (including in the West Coal Creek LBA Tract) would 

be capable of supplying sufficient yields to wells constructed for livestock watering 

uses. The exact configuration and hydraulic gradient of the postmining 

potentiometric surface may vary from premine conditions; however, postmining 

equilibrium groundwater movement should exhibit a hydraulic gradient from 

recharge areas along the coal outcrop east of and along the eastern border of the 

Coal Creek Mine, toward the west and eventually discharge to the valleys of the 

Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek, with some regional flow into the PRB, 

similar to premining conditions (TBCC 2006). 

Groundwater quality within the backfill at the West Coal Creek LBA Tract would 

be expected to be similar to groundwater quality measured in Coal Creek Mine’s 

existing backfill monitoring wells. Based on the historical sampling results of the 

mine’s two existing backfill wells, one of which has been sampled since 2002 and 

3-96 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

the other beginning in 2004, the groundwater quality has been relatively constant 

over the period of record and relatively similar at both well locations. TDS 

concentrations have consistently ranged from around 2,700 to 3,000 mg/L 

(Hydro-Engineering 2007), which are similar to those found in the undisturbed 

Wasatch Formation overburden and the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifers. Based 

upon the current information, the mine backfill groundwater TDS can be expected 

to meet Wyoming Class III standards for use as stock water. 

3.5.1.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

The existing leases at the Caballo Mine currently include approximately 11,705 

acres. Mining the Caballo West LBA Tract as a maintenance lease would extend 

the area of overburden and coal removal by about 1,350 acres under the Proposed 

Action up to about 1,390 acres under Alternative 2. 

Mining has physically removed Tisdale Creek alluvial deposits within the current 

mine permit area. With the exception of the alluvial deposits at the confluence of 

Tisdale Creek and Gold Mine Draw (which is a declared AVF), Caballo Mine’s 

approved mine and reclamation plan does not require that Tisdale Creek’s alluvial 

deposits be selectively removed and replaced (CCC 2003). If the Caballo West LBA 

Tract is leased, mining would physically remove additional alluvial deposits 

associated with Tisdale Creek; however, it is unlikely that WDEQ/LQD would 

require Caballo Mine to selectively remove and replace the alluvial deposits within 

the tract. See additional discussions in Sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.6. 

Prior to all mining in the general South Gillette analysis area, the saturated 

thickness of the overburden was more than 200 feet in the western portion of the 

Caballo West LBA Tract. Most of the overburden is composed of massive silty and 

clayey shales of very low permeability, although discontinuous, lenticular-shaped 

sand bodies (paleochannel sands) occur in the Caballo West general analysis area. 

Some of these isolated sand bodies in the overburden are saturated, and 

groundwater yields from them may be great enough to necessitate pre-mine 

dewatering in order to improve highwall stability. Due to the discontinuous 

nature of the permeable overburden sediments, premining overburden 

groundwater movement generally followed the topography, and before mining, 

overburden groundwater flow in the vicinity of the Caballo Mine was generally 

toward, and discharged to the Caballo Creek valley. Groundwater flow has since 

been affected by the dewatering and removal of overburden. Monitor well data 

indicate that overburden groundwater in the Caballo West general analysis area 

now flows toward the Caballo Mine’s and neighboring mines’ open pits; however, 

water levels in overburden monitoring wells located more than 500 feet from the 

pits have shown no significant decline and any changes are generally only in 

response to seasonal fluctuations. Currently, overburden groundwater levels in 

the vicinity of the Caballo West general analysis area vary from approximately 25 

feet to over 180 feet below land surface (Hydro-Engineering 2007). Mining 

operations have and will continue to depress water levels in the overburden, 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-97 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

although the historical monitoring data do not indicate a correlation between 

water level drawdown in the overburden to distance and direction from the open 

pits. In general, overburden groundwater levels will begin to show steady decline 

in areas that are within about one-half mile of the mine pits as mining progresses. 

Future drawdown in the overburden is expected to be similar to that measured to 

date, and would be expected to continue to have a limited impact outside of the 

mined area. 

Water level drawdowns have propagated much farther and in a more consistent 

manner in the Wyodak coal seam aquifer than in the overburden. Groundwater 

level monitoring data collected by the Caballo Mine and the other three mines 

located in the general South Gillette analysis area and presented in the GAGMO 

25-year report (Hydro-Engineering 2007) indicate that the groundwater flow 

directions in the Wyodak coal have been greatly influenced by surface mine 

dewatering and groundwater discharge associated with CBNG development. 

Groundwater levels observed near the active mining areas prior to 1997 were 

likely due to mine dewatering alone and the groundwater flow direction within the 

coal aquifer was typically toward the mines where it would drain by gravity into 

the open pits. By year 2000, groundwater level decline rates had dramatically 

increased because drawdown caused by widespread CBNG development west of 

the mines was overlapping with drawdown caused by mining operations. A 

continuous cone of depression currently exists around the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines due to their closeness to each other and the 

cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges. 

The extent of drawdown west of the mines that is specifically attributable to mine 

dewatering can no longer be defined due to much greater and areally extensive 

drawdown caused by CBNG development. 

Recent coal seam water level data presented in the GAGMO 25-year report (HydroEngineering 2007) and Caballo Mine’s 2007 WDEQ/LQD Annual Report (CCC 

2007) illustrate that approximately 150 feet of drawdown has occurred near the 

western edge of the Caballo West LBA Tract, and approximately 80 feet of 

drawdown has occurred near the LBA tract’s eastern edge, which is nearly a mile 

west of the Caballo Mine pits. Coal monitoring wells located over a mile north of 

the LBA tract had also recorded around 150 feet of drawdown. Due to safety, 

environmental, and economic reasons, many of the Caballo Mine’s coal monitoring 

wells west and north of the mine have been plugged and abandoned to prevent 

methane gas from escaping. The 2005 coal seam water level contours in the 

general South Gillette analysis area depict the groundwater flow direction to be 

predominantly to the west, away from the open pits (Hydro-Engineering 2007). 

Roughly 30 years of surface mining and CBNG development has resulted in nearly 

complete dewatering of the coal seams in localized areas, particularly near the 

mines’ pits and where the coal seams are structurally highest. 

In 1999, the numerical groundwater flow model MODFLOW was used to predict 

the extent of water level drawdown in the Wyodak coal aquifer attributable to 

3-98 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mining the existing leases at the Caballo Mine. The results of the groundwater 

modeling are reported in Addendum MP-C of the Caballo Mine Permit 433-T5 

(CCC 2003). Groundwater level monitoring data through 1990, prior to CBNG 

activity, were selected to compare the observed to the predicted drawdown, and 

the verification provided good correlation to the 1990 conditions of the modeled 

area. For the purpose of this analysis, the extent of coal-mining related drawdown 

(5-foot contour) in the Wyodak seam over the life of the Caballo Mine if the Caballo 

West LBA Tract is mined was extrapolated by extending CCC’s 1999-modeled lifeof-mine drawdown contour to the north and west by the dimensions of the Caballo 

West LBA Tract (Figure 3-23). The area subject to lower water levels would 

increase roughly in proportion to the increase in area mined. This extrapolation 

serves as a general approximation of the potential impacts, based on experience, 

but it does not take variations in hydrologic properties, the time the pits are open, 

and the distance from previous mining and CBNG development into account. 

The rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal became much greater than 

the modeled drawdown in the late 1990s, effectively rendering the MODFLOW 

prediction obsolete. This has occurred as drawdown caused by extensive CBNG 

development west of the Caballo Mine permit area and the Caballo West LBA Tract 

has overlapped with drawdown caused by mining operations. Therefore, 

numerical groundwater flow models are no longer practical to predict drawdown in 

the coal aquifer due to mining alone, especially in this portion of the eastern PRB. 

Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be likely; therefore, 

future drawdown to the Wyodak coal aquifer from mining the approved leases and 

the Caballo West LBA Tract would be expected to be negligible due to the fact that 

the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Groundwater elevation data 

collected by the Caballo Mine for nearly 30 years have formed the basis for 

quantifying groundwater level drawdowns since mining began and provide a 

reasonable and reliable means to predict trends in groundwater elevations 

associated with dewatering due to future mining. These data will continue to be 

recorded according to the mine’s WDEQ-approved groundwater monitoring 

program and included in the annual progress report that the Caballo Mine 

submits to the WDEQ/LQD, as well as the GAGMO Annual Reports. If CCC 

acquires the Caballo West LBA Tract, WDEQ/LQD would require that future 

drawdown impacts due to mining alone be predicted in order to amend the tract 

into the Caballo Mine permit area (Section 3.5.1.3). 

The subcoal aquifers (i.e., Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance 

Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they 

are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. The Caballo Mine has three 

water supply wells completed in aquifers below the Wyodak coal; two in the Fort 

Union Formation and one in the Fox Hills Sandstone. If the Caballo West LBA 

Tract is leased by the applicant, water would be produced from these wells for a 

longer period of time, but CCC would not require additional sub-coal wells to mine 

the LBA tract. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-99 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

To date, 18 wells have been installed to monitor water levels and water quality in 

the backfill at Caballo Mine. Ten of these wells were constructed between 1981 

and 1984, four additional backfill wells were constructed between 1984 and 1989, 

and the remaining four wells were installed between 1989 and 1998. Eight of 

these backfill wells were included in the mine’s current (2007) groundwater 

monitoring program. The groundwater level hydrographs recorded by these wells 

over the period of record indicate that the level of saturation in the backfill has 

fluctuated considerably and is largely dependant upon the well’s location with 

respect to the thickness of backfill, the physical characteristics of the backfill 

materials, and the source of groundwater recharge. At the present time, 

groundwater levels have increased by 5 to 12 feet at six well locations, remained 

stable at one well location, and declined 9 feet at the remaining well location (CCC 

2007). In general, water level recovery has been greatest near recharge areas (e.g., 

the reclaimed Tisdale Creek channel and the coal crop line in the southeastern 

portion of the mine’s permit area). 

Aquifer tests performed to date on selected backfill wells at the Caballo Mine 

indicate the hydraulic conductivity ranges from 0.09 ft/day to 2.0 ft/day (CCC 

2003), which is comparable but slightly lower than the reported hydraulic 

conductivity values determined from most tests of the overburden and Wyodak 

coal seam within Caballo Mine’s permit area. Aquifer tests conducted on wells 

completed in backfill comprised primarily of alluvial deposits from the Tisdale 

Creek drainage show hydraulic conductivity values ranging from 0.5 ft/day to 

28.3 ft/day, which is much higher than that of the overburden and coal seam at 

the mine. These data therefore provide an indication that the backfill will readily 

resaturate as postmining potentiometric elevations recover in the surrounding 

undisturbed aquifers, and that wells completed in the backfill (including in the 

Caballo West LBA Tract) would be capable of supplying sufficient yields to wells 

constructed for livestock watering uses. The exact configuration and hydraulic 

gradient of the postmining potentiometric surface may vary from premine 

conditions; however, postmining equilibrium groundwater movement should 

exhibit a hydraulic gradient from east to west, as existed prior to mining (CCC 

2003). 

Groundwater quality observed in Caballo Mine’s backfill is a function of the 

backfill material at the sampled well’s location as well as the source of recharge 

water (CCC 2003). The ten backfill monitoring wells that were constructed 

between 1981 and 1984 are all located in an area of the mine’s backfill that yields 

groundwater of relatively poor quality. Most of the samples collected initially from 

these wells had high total dissolved solids (TDS), selenium, and nitrate 

concentrations that exceeded Wyoming Class III standards for use as stock water. 

These ten wells were constructed in an area of the backfill that contains large 

amounts of alluvial material (originating from the Tisdale Creek drainage), which 

prior to mining yielded alluvial groundwater of very poor quality. The TDS, 

selenium, and nitrate concentrations at these wells have declined significantly 

over time. The four wells that were constructed between 1984 and 1989 are 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-101 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

located in a different area of the mine’s backfill (originating from upland areas) 

that yields groundwater of much better quality. Groundwater samples collected 

from three of the mine’s remaining four backfill monitoring wells, which were 

installed between 1989 and 1998 in yet another area of the mine’s backfill, are of 

relatively good quality, meeting Wyoming Class III standards (CCC 2003 and 

Murphree 2005). 

TDS concentrations observed in the Caballo Mine backfill monitoring wells to date 

are similar to those found in the undisturbed alluvial and Wasatch Formation 

overburden aquifers, but greater than those found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. 

Postmining groundwater quality is expected to improve after one pore volume of 

water moves through the backfill. In general, the mine’s backfill groundwater 

quality can be expected to be similar to the premining overburden aquifer and 

meet Wyoming Class III standards; however, there could be localized areas in the 

backfill that yield groundwater that does not meet Wyoming Class III standards, 

particularly where the poorer quality alluvial materials happen to be concentrated. 

Groundwater quality within the backfill at the Caballo West LBA Tract would be 

expected to be similar to groundwater quality measured in existing wells 

completed in the Caballo Mine backfill. 

3.5.1.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

The existing leases at the Cordero Rojo Mine currently include approximately 

14,442.4 acres. Mining the Maysdorf II LBA Tract as a maintenance lease would 

extend the area of overburden and coal removal by about 6,675 acres under the 

Proposed Action up to about 6,917 acres under Alternatives 2 and 3. 

With the exception of seasonal variations, alluvial groundwater levels adjacent to 

the Belle Fourche River has generally remained constant. Except for locations 

where the alluvium has been mined out, or where the river has been diverted, 

mining has not affected alluvial groundwater elevations, and is not expected to do 

so in the future, except where mining physically removes the alluvium, diverts the 

Belle Fourche River, or removes a source of recharge to the alluvium (CMC 2007a). 

Changes to the premining hydraulic characteristics of the alluvial aquifer and the 

quality of the alluvial groundwater are expected to be minor after final 

reclamation, because Cordero Rojo Mine is required to maintain the essential 

hydrologic functions of the Belle Fourche River and its alluvial groundwater 

system. See additional discussion in Section 3.5.1.3. 

Mining has directly impacted overburden groundwater within the mined areas by 

the removal of the water-bearing strata in the overburden, resulting in dewatering 

of the aquifer near the mine. Overburden groundwater levels ahead of (generally 

west) and adjacent to the mine have exhibited considerable variation, and mining 

has not necessarily caused water drawdowns in the overburden to be depressed in 

proportion to distance and direction from the open pits or in time since mining 

began. Water levels in overburden monitoring wells located more than about one3-102 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

half mile from the Cordero Rojo Mine pits have shown no significant decline. 

Overburden at the mine-pit face is typically fully dewatered, so the overburden’s 

potentiometric surface steepens considerably near the pits. Future drawdown in 

the overburden is expected to be similar to that measured to date, and would be 

expected to continue to have a limited impact outside of the mined area. 

Water level drawdowns propagate much farther and in a more consistent manner 

in the Wyodak coal seam than in the overburden because of the coal aquifer’s 

regional continuity and higher transmissivity. Coal groundwater has experienced 

the most pronounced drawdowns, and exhibits a spatially broader range of 

drawdown compared to that in the overburden (CMC 2007a). Cumulative 

drawdowns within the coal from 1980 to 1995 were generally in excess of 5 feet 

within 12 miles west and 3 miles south of the active pits at the Cordero Rojo Mine 

(Hydro-Engineering 1996). Water level declines in most of the mine’s coal 

monitoring wells were fairly gradual and mainly due to mine dewatering alone 

until 1994. Preliminary and experimental coal bed natural gas (CBNG) production 

immediately west of the mine began in 1994, and then increased to full-scale 

production by 1998. As a result of CBNG development, larger water level declines 

began to be observed in coal wells located roughly 3 miles or more west of the 

active pits than were observed in coal wells located within 3 miles of the open pits. 

Since 1995, coal monitoring wells located more than 1 mile west of the mine pits 

have recorded an increased rate of drawdown as a result of dewatering associated 

with CBNG production. By year 2000, the extent of drawdown to the west of the 

Cordero Rojo Mine caused by mine dewatering could not be defined due to the 

much larger drawdown caused by CBNG development (Hydro-Engineering 2001). 

In 2000, monitoring wells located within one mile west of the mine pits had 

recorded less than 100 feet of historical drawdown. However, monitoring wells 

located 3 or more miles west of the mine pits had recorded total drawdowns of 150 

feet or more. Near State Highway 59, which was 4 to 5 miles west of the mine pits 

in 2000, approximately 180 feet of drawdown had occurred (Hydro-Engineering 

2001). As of 2003, minimal additional drawdown had occurred immediately west 

of the advancing pits, although an additional 60 to 80 feet of drawdown had 

occurred in the vicinity of Highway 59 (Hydro-Engineering 2004). As of 2007, 

dewatering by existing mining and CBNG development activities had nearly 

completely drained the groundwater from the Wyodak coal aquifer in the area of 

the Cordero Rojo Mine, particularly where the coal seam is structurally highest. 

The Wyodak coal aquifer’s groundwater level is currently around 40 feet above the 

base of the seam within the Maysdorf II general analysis area, and the direction of 

groundwater flow within the Maysdorf II general analysis area is predominantly to 

the west rather than towards Cordero Rojo Mine’s open pits to the east (HydroEngineering 2007 and CMC 2007A). 

The numerical groundwater flow model MODFLOW was used to predict the longterm, cumulative water level drawdown in the Wyodak coal aquifer attributable to 

mining the existing leases at the Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek 

mines. The results of these predictions are included within the Cordero Rojo Mine 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-103 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

permit (CMC 2007a). Overall, actual groundwater level monitoring data prior to 

CBNG activity approximated the modeled drawdown predictions impacts relatively 

well through the mid-1990s. However, both the rate and extent of the actual 

drawdown in the coal became much greater than the modeled drawdown in the 

late 1990s, effectively rendering the MODFLOW prediction obsolete. This has 

occurred as drawdown caused by extensive CBNG development west of the 

Cordero Rojo Mine permit area and within and west of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

has overlapped with drawdown caused by mining operations. Drawdown in the 

coal has substantially exceeded the modeled predictions due to CBNG production 

and will likely continue to do so as long as CBNG production continues (CMC 

2007a). Therefore, numerical groundwater flow models are no longer practical to 

predict cumulative drawdown in the coal aquifer. Historic drawdowns observed at 

the Cordero Rojo Mine are addressed within the mine’s currently approved permit, 

although the extent of the life-of-mine Wyodak coal drawdown attributed to 

mining only CRM’s existing leases is not included in the analysis. If CRM acquires 

the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, WDEQ/LQD would require that future drawdown 

impacts due to mining alone be predicted in order to amend the tract into the 

Cordero Rojo Mine permit area (Section 3.5.1.3). 

As mining progresses, the extent of drawdown in the Wyodak coal’s groundwater 

level elevations will depend on variations in hydrologic properties of the coal seam 

aquifer, the time the pits are open, the distance from mining and dewatering that 

has occurred as a result of previous mining, and to a greater extent, CBNG 

development. Continued drawdown effects from CBNG withdrawals will be likely; 

therefore, future drawdown to the Wyodak coal aquifer from mining the approved 

leases and the Maysdorf II LBA Tract would be expected to be negligible due to the 

fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. Groundwater elevation 

data collected by the Cordero Rojo Mine since 1974 have formed the basis for 

quantifying groundwater level drawdowns since mining began and provide a 

reasonable and reliable means to predict trends in groundwater elevations 

associated with dewatering due to future mining. These data will continue to be 

recorded according to the mine’s WDEQ-approved groundwater monitoring 

program and included in the annual progress report that the Cordero Rojo Mine 

submits to the WDEQ/LQD, as well as the GAGMO Annual Reports. 

A “no-coal” zone that exists in the southwest corner of the LBA tract, in Sections 4 

and 5, T.46N., R.71W., appears to be a paleochannel that is comprised of nonindurated sand overlying fractured siltstone and claystone sequences (Section 

3.3). This no-coal zone will not be significantly disturbed by mining operations; 

therefore, the hydrogeologic functions of this potential aquifer will not be 

disrupted if the Cordero Rojo Mine acquires the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

The subcoal aquifers (i.e., Tullock Member of the Fort Union Formation and Lance 

Formation-Fox Hills Sandstone) are not removed or disturbed by mining, so they 

are not directly impacted by coal mining activity. The Cordero Rojo Mine has five 

water supply wells completed in aquifers below the Wyodak coal. If the Maysdorf 

3-104 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

II LBA Tract is leased by the applicant, water would be produced from these wells 

for a longer period of time, but CRM would not require additional sub-coal wells to 

mine the LBA tract. 

It is early in the process of full reclamation and to date, the backfilled materials 

have not reached an adequate saturated thickness to be aquifer tested at the 

Cordero Rojo Mine. Therefore, no site-specific data are available for the hydraulic 

properties of the applicant mine’s backfill. The composition of backfill material at 

the adjacent Belle Ayr Mine is quite similar to that of the Cordero Rojo Mine, and 

the hydraulic properties of the backfill at both mines, as well as the Maysdorf II 

LBA Tract, are also expected to be quite similar. Permeability values measured in 

existing monitoring wells completed in the saturated backfill at the Belle Ayr Mine 

range from 0.002 to 0.78 ft/day (FCW 2003), which is comparable but slightly 

lower than the reported hydraulic conductivity values determined from most tests 

of the overburden and Wyodak coal seam within the Cordero Rojo Mine area. 

These data therefore provide an indication that the Cordero Rojo Mine backfill will 

readily resaturate as postmining potentiometric elevations recover in the 

surrounding undisturbed aquifers, and that wells completed in the backfill 

(including in the Maysdorf II LBA Tract) would be capable of supplying sufficient 

yields to wells constructed for livestock watering uses. 

Groundwater quality within the backfill at the Maysdorf II LBA Tract would be 

expected to be similar to groundwater quality measured in existing wells 

completed in the backfill at Cordero Rojo Mine. To date, nine wells have been 

installed to monitor water levels and water quality in the backfill at Cordero Rojo 

Mine. Based on the sampling results of six of these wells beginning as early as 

1982 and extending through spring 2004, average TDS concentrations have 

ranged from about 1,600 mg/L to 6,200 mg/L. TDS concentrations in two of the 

six wells have consistently or normally exceeded 5,000 mg/L, but they have 

consistently remained below this value in the remaining four wells. The TDS 

concentration in one of the six wells has consistently remained below 2,000 mg/L. 

The average TDS concentration in the entire six-well database was 3,803 mg/L. 

TDS concentrations observed in the Cordero Rojo Mine backfill monitoring wells to 

date are similar to those found in the undisturbed Wasatch Formation overburden 

but typically larger than those found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. Postmining 

groundwater quality is expected to improve after one pore volume of water moves 

through the backfill. In general, the mine backfill groundwater TDS can be 

expected to range from less than 2,000 mg/L to about 6,000 mg/L, similar to the 

premining Wasatch Formation aquifer, and meet Wyoming Class III standards for 

use as stock water. 

3.5.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative for each of these four LBA tracts, the coal lease 

application for that tract would be rejected, the area included in that tract would 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-105 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

not be offered for lease, and coal removal would not occur on that tract at this 

time. Impacts to groundwater resources related to existing approved mining and 

CBNG development, described above, would continue as permitted on the existing 

applicant mine leases. Mining operations would not be extended onto portions of 

these LBA tracts that will not be affected under the currently approved mining and 

reclamation plans. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these four lease 

applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective 

tract in the future. 

3.5.1.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

In order to obtain a mining and reclamation permit, the Surface Mine Control and 

Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and state law require surface coal mine operators to 

evaluate regional and site-specific baseline hydrogeologic environments within and 

around their mines. Prior to the cumulative drawdown effects of CBNG 

development and mining on the Wyodak coal seam aquifer, WDEQ required each 

mine to use a numeric groundwater flow model to predict the extent of water level 

drawdown that would occur as a result of mining its existing leases. Current mine 

permit requirements require that future drawdown impacts due to mining alone 

be addressed, although less rigorous methods such as historical groundwater level 

trend analyses and simple analytical models can be used rather than complex 

numerical groundwater flow models. Results of these studies are included in the 

WDEQ/LQD mine permits for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo mines (FCW 2003, TBCC 2006, CCC 2003, and CMC 2007a). These 

studies would be revised accordingly and included in the mine permit amendment 

that would be required for each respective LBA tract that is leased. Permit 

revisions must be approved before mining could occur on each tract that is leased, 

regardless of who acquires the tract. 

As discussed in Section 3.5.3.3, SMCRA and Wyoming regulations require mine 

operators to provide the owner of a water right whose water source is interrupted, 

discontinued, or diminished by mining with water of equivalent quantity and 

quality. 

The surface coal mines are also required to monitor water levels and water quality 

in the overburden, coal, interburden, underburden, and backfill. Operational 

groundwater monitoring programs are dynamic and modified through time as 

wells are removed by mining, discontinued from monitoring to eliminate 

redundancy, or added to replace those removed by mining and to facilitate 

monitoring of future mine expansion areas as mining has progressed. Additional 

wells have also been installed in the reclaimed backfill to monitor recovering, 

postmine groundwater conditions. Many groundwater monitoring wells installed 

by Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines within and around 

their current permit areas have been used to evaluate groundwater conditions in 

3-106 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

the general South Gillette analysis area since the early 1970s and continue to be 

monitored to reveal a long-term record of groundwater conditions. Wells for which 

monitoring has been discontinued are still in place and may be reincorporated 

into the monitoring network in the future. 

SMCRA and state regulations require surface coal mines to maintain the essential 

hydrologic functions of drainages declared AVFs not significant to farming and 

their alluvial groundwater systems that are disturbed by mining. In order to meet 

this requirement, the mines are typically required to salvage and stockpile the 

stream laid alluvial materials during mining and replace them upon final 

reclamation. 

3.5.2 Surface Water 

3.5.2.1 Affected Environment 

The Belle Fourche River and its tributaries drain the general South Gillette 

analysis area. For the purpose of this analysis, the general South Gillette analysis 

area encompasses the four applicant mines (often referred to collectively as the 

middle PRB mines), the four LBA tracts that are proposed for leasing, the BLM 

study areas for these four LBA tracts, and the adjacent lands that would disturbed 

by mining the BLM study areas. From north to south, the general South Gillette 

analysis area is drained by Tisdale Creek, Duck Nest Creek, Caballo Creek, Coal 

Creek, and the Belle Fourche River. Tisdale Creek and Duck Nest Creek are 

tributaries of Caballo Creek, and Caballo Creek and Coal Creek are tributaries of 

the Belle Fourche River (Figure 3-24). The general South Gillette analysis area lies 

within the mid-eastern part of the Powder River Structural Basin and within the 

Belle Fourche River drainage basin (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 101202), a 

tributary of the larger Cheyenne River drainage basin. 

The Belle Ayr North general analysis area and the existing Belle Ayr Mine permit 

area are located in the Caballo Creek watershed. The Belle Ayr Mine disturbs 

Caballo Creek and several of its tributaries, and is currently permitted to disturb 

approximately 7 percent of the Caballo Creek watershed. A large portion of the 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract is within the mine’s existing permit area. Duck Nest 

Creek, a southeasterly-flowing ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek, drains the 

southern and western portions of the Belle Ayr North general analysis area. Two 

small, first order tributaries of Caballo Creek and two internally-drained playas 

drain the remainder of the Belle Ayr North general analysis area. 

Coal Creek and its three main branches, East Fork, Middle Fork, and West Fork, 

drain the West Coal Creek general analysis area and the existing Coal Creek Mine 

permit area. Typical of this semi-arid area, Coal Creek and its tributaries are all 

ephemeral streams. No playas or internally-drained topographic depressions have 

been identified within the West Coal Creek general analysis area. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-107 
48 

Coal 

Fork 

Creek 

West 

Fork 

East 

Fork 

Middle 

Hay 

Creek 

Belle Fourche 

River 

Creek 

Dry 

Fourche 

Belle 

River 

Creek Caballo 

Caballo Creek 

Coal 

Creek 

Coal Creek 

Creek Bluegate 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Hoe Creek 

Creek 

Caballo 

Duck Nest Creek 

Creek 

Coal 

48 

Gold Mine 

Draw 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Rattlesnake

Creek 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 74 W. R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

T. T. CABALLO BELLE AYR 49 WEST LBA 49 NORTH LBA 

N. TRACT TRACT N. 

Caballo
 Mine T. T. 

N. N.

Belle Ayr Mine 

T. T. Cordero 

47 Rojo Mine 47

N. N. 

MAYSDORF II 

LBA TRACTS 

T. T. 

46 46

N. Coal N. Creek 

Mine 

WEST COAL 

CREEK LBA
 

TRACT
 

T. T. 

45 45 

N. N.

R. 74 W. R. 73 W. R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

LBA Tracts as Applied for 

Existing Federal Coal Leases 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract 

Perennial Streams 

Ephemeral Streams 

0 12000 24000 48000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Note: Only the main stem of all named streams 

are depicted. Stream channels are depicted 

in undisturbed premining locations. 

Figure 3-24. Surface Drainage in the General South Gillette Analysis Area. 

3-108 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Caballo West general analysis area and the existing Caballo Mine permit area 

are located in the Caballo Creek watershed. The Caballo Mine is currently 

permitted to disturb approximately 12 percent of the Caballo Creek watershed. 

The mine’s existing permit area is located primarily within the Tisdale Creek 

drainage. There are also approximately 2,220 acres of area within the existing 

Caballo Mine permit area that drain internally toward playas formed by natural 

topographic depressions. A large portion of the Caballo West general analysis area 

is within the mine’s existing permit area. Tisdale Creek, a southeasterly-flowing 

ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek, drains the northern and eastern portions of 

the Caballo West general analysis area, and a large playa drains the southern and 

western portions. This same playa also drains the northern portion of the 

adjacent Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. 

The Belle Fourche River and its tributaries drain the existing Cordero Rojo Mine 

permit area and the Maysdorf II general analysis area. The Belle Fourche River 

flows east-northeasterly through the southern portion of the LBA tract. The 

central and southern portions of the Maysdorf II general analysis area are drained 

by several first order tributaries of the Belle Fourche River, while the northern 

portion is drained by a few first order tributaries that flow north to Caballo Creek. 

Two areas on and contiguous to the central portion of the Maysdorf II general 

analysis area do not contribute runoff to any stream and playas have formed in 

the lowest portions of these non-contributing drainage basins. 

As mentioned above, Tisdale Creek, Duck Nest Creek, and Coal Creek are 

ephemeral streams that flow only in response to rainfall or snowmelt runoff. 

Caballo Creek and Belle Fourche River demonstrate characteristics of both an 

ephemeral and intermittent stream. Streamflow monitoring stations have been 

operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the applicant mines on these 

streams in the general South Gillette analysis area since the mid-1970s. Some 

stream segments flow only in response to snowmelt runoff in the spring and 

thunderstorm runoff in the summer months, although there are some stream 

segments that flow throughout the year in response to alluvial groundwater 

discharge. Currently, and for some indefinite time into the future, CBNG 

discharge water is adding flow to Caballo Creek and Belle Fourche River. 

Streamflow is still very much a function of the amount and timing of precipitation 

and snowmelt runoff; however, since 1999, the PRB of northeastern Wyoming has 

experienced extreme drought conditions. Therefore, the mean annual streamflow 

rate and annual discharge volume has not significantly increased in these streams 

as a result of the discharge of CBNG-produced waters into surface drainages west 

of and generally upstream of the applicant mine, although extended periods of no 

flow are less common. 

Water quality in each of these streams is highly dependent on flow. Dissolved 

solids concentrations and specific conductance generally have an inverse 

relationship with streamflow; thus, the highest concentrations occur during low 

flows and lowest concentrations occur during high flows. Total suspended solids 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-109 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

(TSS) show a direct relationship with streamflow; TSS concentrations are typically 

high during high flow and low during low flows. Due to the sparse vegetative 

cover and the infrequent occurrence of surface water runoff in this semi-arid 

environment, high TSS concentrations can be expected, especially from floods 

caused by thunderstorms. 

The Coal Creek drainage basin, in particular, has been identified as a significant 

source of sediment to the Belle Fourche River. The Coal Creek drainage is highly 

dissected and slopes are relatively steep, so combined with the occurrence of 

erodible soils, the sediment yields are greater than those in upland areas of the 

Belle Fourche River drainage basin (Ogle et al. 2004). 

Surface water monitoring programs required by WDEQ/LQD are included in the 

four applicant mines’ permits, which ensures that streamflows are measured and 

water quality samples are collected on a regular basis from Tisdale Creek, Duck 

Nest Creek, Caballo Creek, Coal Creek, and Belle Fourche River at sites located 

upstream and downstream of the respective mine operation. As a result, 

comprehensive flow and water quality records are submitted to the WDEQ/LQD in 

the mines’ existing permits and annual reports that are on file and available for 

public review at WDEQ’s offices in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

A study by the USGS within an area of CBNG development in the PRB was 

conducted from 2000 to 2005 to characterize the water quality of streams and 

assess change through time. That study concluded that annual runoff in all 

major drainage basins was less than average during 2001-2005 due to drought 

conditions, and that water-quality characteristics were highly variable generally 

because of streamflow variability, geologic controls, and potential land-use effects. 

No significant trends in water quality were determined for sites in the Belle 

Fourche River drainage basin; however, drought conditions during the study 

period may not represent long-term water quality conditions for all sites studied 

(Clark and Mason 2007). 

The Belle Fourche River is listed in the WDEQ/WQD Surface Water Classification 

List as a Class 2ABww stream that is protected for drinking water, aquatic life 

(classified as a warm water fishery), recreation, wildlife, agriculture, industry and 

scenic value. However, the numeric human health criteria for iron and 

manganese do not apply to Class 2 waters in the Belle Fourche River drainage and 

the main stem of the river. Tisdale Creek, Duck Nest Creek, Caballo Creek, and 

Coal Creek are listed as Class 3B streams, which are non-fisheries, but are 

protected for other aquatic life, recreation, wildlife, agricultural and other uses 

(WDEQ/WQD 2007). 

Springs are uncommon in the general South Gillette analysis area. No springs 

have been identified within the four LBA tracts’ general analysis areas, although 

seeps created by groundwater discharging from the Wasatch overburden to the 

overlying Duck Nest Creek alluvium exist at the southern boundary of the Belle 

3-110 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Ayr North LBA Tract. The seepage rate is insufficient to sustain a base flow in the 

stream channel and only enough to create a marshy area and a few shallow pools 

of stagnant water. 

A few small in-channel reservoirs used for livestock water are located in the four 

LBA tracts’ general analysis areas. Most of these stock ponds are many decades 

old and have not been permitted with the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO). 

The SEO records have been searched for surface water rights within a three-mile 

radius of the four LBA tracts and listed in Section 3.5.3 and the supplementary 

information document for this EIS. 

3.5.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.5.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Changes in surface runoff characteristics and sediment discharges would occur 

during mining of each of the LBA tracts as a result of the destruction and 

reconstruction of drainage channels as mining progresses and the use of sediment 

control structures to manage discharges of surface water from the mine permit 

areas. Since the LBA tracts would be mined as extensions of the existing mines 

under the Proposed Actions or Action Alternatives, there would not be a large 

increase in the size of the area that is disturbed and not reclaimed at any given 

time as a result of leasing these tracts. Impacts would be similar for both the 

Proposed Actions and Action Alternatives to the expected impacts for the currently 

permitted mining operations. Reclamation would be ongoing and concurrent with 

mining. 

The removal of soil and vegetation exposes overburden, which results in a 

potential for increased sediment production during runoff events. However, both 

state and federal regulations require all surface water runoff from mined lands be 

treated by passing through sediment control structures to meet Wyoming 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) and/or National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge criteria before it is released 

downstream. Generally, the surface runoff sediment is deposited in ponds or 

alternative sediment control measures (ASCMs) inside the mine’s permit area 

before the surface runoff water is allowed to leave the permit area and be 

discharged to receiving streams. While mining is in progress, surface water 

quality would continue to be protected by directing surface runoff from affected 

areas to various sediment control structures, including sediment ponds, traps, 

ditches, sumps, and mine pits. Under normal conditions, exceedances of effluent 

limitations are not expected in the future as mining extends into new drainages 

and additional sediment control facilities are added. The presence of disturbed 

areas creates a potential that sediment produced by large storms (i.e., greater 

than the 10-year, 24-hour storm) could potentially adversely impact areas 

downstream of the mining operations. This potential for adverse downstream 

impacts would be extended if the LBA tracts were leased. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-111 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The temporary diversion and impoundment of runoff water for sediment control 

may reduce stream flow volumes and peak flows downstream of the mined lands. 

Impounded water may be used on the mine site for dust control or lost due to 

infiltration and evaporation. However, in order to maintain adequate available 

storage volume in sedimentation ponds, the impounded water is discharged when 

if meets WPDES criteria. The WDEQ/LQD encourages the use of ASCMs to trap 

sediment and allow runoff to continue downstream (Ogle and Calle 2006). 

Immediately following reclamation, the loss of soil structure would act to increase 

runoff rates on the LBA tracts. However, the general decrease in average slope in 

reclaimed areas, as discussed in Section 3.2.2, and drainage densities common in 

reclamation would tend to outweigh the potential for an increase in runoff due to a 

loss of soil structure. Soil structure would gradually recover over time, and 

vegetation (after successful reclamation) would provide erosion protection from 

raindrop impact, retard surface flows, and control runoff at approximately 

premining levels. All surface drainage from reclaimed areas would be controlled 

using best management practices (BMPs), such as contour furrows, ponds or 

small depressions for sediment traps, and vegetation buffers, until the area is 

sufficiently stable that drainage control is no longer required. Surface water 

monitoring would continue to be conducted to evaluate and identify anomalous 

variations in surface water quantity and quality and ensure that runoff leaving the 

site meets specific water quality criteria. 

Once mining is completed the pits would be backfilled and drainage would be 

reestablished. Surface water drainages would be designed and reconstructed to 

approximate the premining drainage basin and channel characteristics. The 

reclaimed drainageways would be constructed to approximate the premine 

condition and blend with the existing drainage system above and below the area 

disturbed by the mining operation, providing a complete drainage system with 

hydrologic functions similar to premining conditions. After mining and 

reclamation are complete, surface water flow and quality would approximate 

premining conditions. The impacts described above would be similar to the 

expected impacts for currently permitted mining operations. 

Direct and indirect impacts to the surface water system resulting from mining the 

four LBA tracts would add to the cumulative impacts that would occur due to 

mining existing leases. These cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapter 4 of 

this EIS. Following is a description of surface water impacts from the leasing and 

subsequent mining of each of the LBA tracts under the Proposed Action or Action 

Alternatives. 

3.5.2.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Due to its location near the headwater areas of three ephemeral Caballo Creek 

tributaries (Duck Nest Creek and two small drainages, locally named Draw No. 1 

and Draw No. 2), and due to fact that much of the tract drains internally to two 

3-112 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

closed basins, runoff within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract would not be expected 

to be significant. During mining, hydrologic control would most likely consist of 

allowing runoff to accrue to the mine pit, or to a flood control reservoir, where it 

would be treated and discharged according to the standards of WDEQ/WQD. 

3.5.2.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

The West Coal Creek LBA Tract is located at the confluences of the East Fork, 

Middle Fork, and West Fork of Coal Creek, which are all ephemeral streams. 

Hydrologic control during mining would most likely consist of containing these 

ephemeral streams in flood control reservoirs, diverting flows around active pits, 

or allowing runoff to accrue to the mine pit, where it would be treated and 

discharged according to the standards of WDEQ/WQD. 

Coal Creek Mine’s existing hydrologic restoration plan includes the construction of 

12 permanent impoundments intended to provide replacement water storage for 

existing surface water rights in the permit area (TBCC 2006). Additional 

postmining impoundments would most likely be included in the reclamation plan 

for the LBA tract. Significant changes to the area’s overall sediment yield after 

mining would therefore be less likely due to the capture of sediment within the 

reconstructed stock ponds. 

3.5.2.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

The Caballo West LBA Tract is located near the headwaters of Tisdale Creek, an 

ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek. Tisdale Creek drains the northern and 

eastern portions of the Caballo West general analysis area, and a large playa 

drains the southern and western portions of the Caballo West general analysis 

area. Therefore, runoff within the Caballo West LBA Tract would not be expected 

to be significant. During mining, hydrologic control would most likely consist of 

allowing runoff to accrue to the mine pit, or constructing small flood control 

reservoirs upstream of the pit where it would be treated and discharged according 

to the standards of WDEQ/WQD. 

3.5.2.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

The Belle Fourche River has been diverted around active pits and mine facilities 

within the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit area. During mining of the Maysdorf 

II LBA Tract, hydrologic control would likely consist of constructing another 

diversion channel for the river around the open pit area. Due to its location in the 

headwaters area of ephemeral Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek tributaries, 

and due to the fact that much of the LBA tract drains internally to closed basins, 

runoff within the tract would be expected to be insignificant. In addition to 

diverting the Belle Fourche River, hydrologic control during mining would most 

likely consist of allowing runoff to accrue to the mine pit where it would be treated 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-113 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

and discharged according to the standards of the WDEQ/WQD. A need for large 

flood control reservoirs is not anticipated for the LBA tract. 

3.5.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative for each of these four LBA tracts, the coal lease 

application for that tract would be rejected, the area included in that tract would 

not be offered for lease, and coal removal and the associated disturbance to 

Tisdale Creek, Duck Nest Creek, Caballo Creek, Coal Creek, and/or the Belle 

Fourche River would not occur on that tract at this time. The impacts to surface 

water resources related to existing approved mining and CBNG development, 

described above, would continue as permitted on the existing applicant mine 

leases. Mining operations would not be extended onto portions of these LBA 

tracts that will not be affected under the currently approved mining and 

reclamation plans. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these four lease 

applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective 

tract in the future. 

3.5.2.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

In accordance with SMCRA and Wyoming State Statutes, Tisdale Creek, Duck 

Nest Creek, Caballo Creek, Coal Creek, and Belle Fourche River stream channels 

would be restored after surface mining operations are completed on these four 

LBA tracts. Surface water flow, quality, and sediment discharge would 

approximate premining conditions. The drainages that intersect the applicant 

mines’ permit areas would be reclaimed to exhibit channel geometry 

characteristics similar to the premining characteristics. Tisdale Creek, Duck Nest 

Creek, Caballo Creek, Coal Creek, and Belle Fourche River stream channels would 

be restored in approximately the same location as the natural channel, and its 

premining hydrologic functions would be restored. (See additional discussion in 

Section 3.5.1.3.). 

Other WDEQ/LQD permit requirements for the existing Belle Aye, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines include constructing sediment control structures 

to manage discharges of surface water from the mine permit areas; treatment of 

all surface runoff from mined lands as necessary to meet effluent standards; and 

restoration of stock ponds, playas, and in-channel impoundments disturbed 

during mining. These requirements would be extended to include the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts when the 

respective mine permit is amended to include the tract. 

Monitoring requirements for each of the existing applicant mines include a 

program to assure that sediment ponds would always have adequate space 

reserved for sediment accumulation and collection of streamflow and water quality 

3-114 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

data from Tisdale Creek, Duck Nest Creek, Caballo Creek, Coal Creek, and the 

Belle Fourche River. These requirements would be extended to include the Belle 

Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts when the 

respective mine permit is amended to include the tract. 

3.5.3 Water Rights 

3.5.3.1 Affected Environment 

The Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO) administers water rights in Wyoming. 

Water rights are granted for both groundwater and surface water appropriations. 

Prior to development of water resources associated with energy development, 

water appropriations (either groundwater or surface water) in the PRB were 

typically for livestock use. Currently, mining companies and CBNG development 

companies hold the majority of the water rights in the general South Gillette 

analysis area. 

Records of the SEO have been searched for groundwater rights within a 3-mile 

radius of the BLM study area for each LBA tract. This information is required for 

WDEQ permitting. The results of the most recent searches are provided below for 

each tract. A more detailed listing of the non-coal mine related groundwater 

rights within a 3-mile radius of each tract is presented in the supplementary 

information document for this EIS, which is available on request. 

For the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, SEO data indicate that, as of June 28, 2007, 

there were 1,103 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the tract, of which, 717 

are owned by coal mining companies. The other 386 non-coal mine related, 

permitted water wells, which include 315 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG 

development, are permitted for the following uses: 

• 315 CBNG 

• 31 livestock 

• 21 domestic 

• 11 monitoring 

• 5 industrial 

• 2 miscellaneous 

• 1 irrigation 

For the West Coal Creek LBA Tract, SEO data indicate that, as of November 16, 

2007, there were 284 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the tract, of which, 

141 are owned by coal mining companies. The other 143 non-coal mine related, 

permitted water wells, which include 69 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG 

development, are permitted for the following uses: 

• 50 CBNG and livestock 

• 42 livestock 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-115 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• 17 CBNG 

• 11 industrial 

• 11 livestock and domestic 

• 5 miscellaneous 

• 4 domestic 

• 1 CBNG and miscellaneous 

• 1 miscellaneous, dewatering, and CBNG 

• 1 unknown 

For the Caballo West LBA Tract, SEO data indicate that, as of July 25, 2007, there 

were 1,382 permitted water wells within 3 miles of the tract, of which, 677 are 

owned by coal mining companies. The other 705 non-coal mine related, permitted 

water wells, which include 587 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG 

development, are permitted for the following uses: 

• 282 CBNG 

• 260 CBNG and livestock 

• 37 livestock 

• 36 domestic 

• 26 CBNG and miscellaneous 

• 19 CBNG, livestock, and miscellaneous 

• 18 domestic and livestock 

• 8 monitoring 

• 7 industrial 

• 5 miscellaneous 

• 1 domestic, livestock, and miscellaneous 

• 1 irrigation 

• 1 municipal and miscellaneous 

• 1 reservoir supply, industrial, and miscellaneous 

• 1 livestock and industrial 

• 1 livestock and irrigation 

• 1 livestock and miscellaneous 

For the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, SEO data indicate that, as of May 29, 2007 there 

were 987 non-coal mine related, permitted water wells within 3 miles of the tract, 

which include 780 wells permitted for uses related to CBNG development. Those 

987 wells are permitted for the following uses: 

• 429 CBNG 

• 225 livestock and CBNG 

• 66 livestock 

• 57 livestock, miscellaneous, and CBNG 

• 52 miscellaneous and CBNG 

• 33 monitoring 

• 29 domestic and livestock 

• 26 miscellaneous 

3-116 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• 21 industrial 

• 21 domestic 

• 16 miscellaneous, dewatering, and CBNG 

• 2 livestock and miscellaneous 

• 2 unknown 

• 1 CBNG and reservoir 

• 1 dewatering and miscellaneous 

• 1 dewatering, reservoir, and industrial 

• 1 miscellaneous and domestic 

• 1 livestock and industrial 

• 1 livestock and irrigation 

• 1 livestock, irrigation, and domestic 

• 1 temporary, industrial, and drilling 

SEO records have been searched for surface water rights within a 3-mile radius of 

the BLM study area for each LBA Tract (the tract as applied for under the 

Proposed Action and the additional area evaluated by BLM under Alternative 1). 

Like the groundwater rights, this information is also required for WDEQ 

permitting. The results of the most recent searches are provided below for each 

tract. A more detailed listing of the non-coal mine related surface water rights is 

presented in the supplementary information document for this EIS, which is 

available on request. 

For the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, SEO records indicate that as of July 6, 2007, 

there were 186 permitted surface water rights within the search area, of which 95 

are owned by coal mining companies. The other 91 non-coal mine related, 

permitted surface water rights are permitted for the following uses: 

• 16 irrigation 

• 13 livestock 

• 4 irrigation and domestic 

• 1 livestock and domestic 

• 1 reservoir supply 

• 56 not designated 

For the West Coal Creek LBA Tract, SEO records indicate that as of November 16, 

2007, there were 54 permitted surface water rights within the search area, of 

which 30 are owned by coal mining companies. The other 24 non-coal mine 

related, permitted surface water rights are permitted for the following uses: 

• 7 livestock 

• 17 not designated 

For the Caballo West LBA Tract, SEO records indicate that as of July 2, 2007, 

there were 9 non-coal mine related, permitted surface water rights within the 

search area. These surface water rights are permitted for the following uses: 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-117 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• 3 irrigation 

• 2 livestock 

• 1 temporary and industrial 

• 1 reservoir supply 

• 1 reservoir supply and irrigation 

• 1 reservoir supply, irrigation, and domestic 

For the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, SEO records indicate that as of May 29, 2007, 

there were 90 non-coal mine related, permitted surface water rights within the 

search area. These surface water rights are permitted for the following uses: 

• 46 livestock 

• 16 irrigation 

• 10 irrigation and domestic 

• 8 temporary oil production, drilling, and industrial 

• 4 livestock and domestic 

• 3 temporary industrial 

• 1 livestock and irrigation 

• 1 reservoir supply and domestic 

• 1 livestock and fisheries 

3.5.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.5.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

As discussed above, there have already been significant drawdowns in the coal 

and overlying aquifers (where present) as a result of the past and existing mining 

activities and CBNG development in the general South Gillette analysis area. As a 

result, private water supply wells listed in Section 3.5.3.1 have already been 

impacted. Continued effects from groundwater withdrawals associated with 

CBNG development activities will be likely, and future drawdown to the Wyodak 

coal aquifer resulting from mining the approved coal leases by the four applicant 

mines is expected to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has 

essentially been dewatered. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately 

permitted water wells would be indirectly impacted by water level drawdown to a 

greater extent than current conditions; however, private wells may be physically 

removed by activities associated with mining the proposed LBA tracts. 

Only a slight reduction in streamflow downstream of the applicant mines during 

mining is expected due to the containment of runoff from the disturbed areas by 

mine pits and other runoff control structures. Downstream surface water rights 

would be protected by minimizing detention of surface runoff for sediment control 

and maintaining unrestricted flow in Caballo Creek and Belle Fourche River. 

Changes to the overall flow and water quality of these streams during mining are 

expected to be negligible. Any surface water rights listed in Section 3.5.3.1 that 

3-118 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

are located within the proposed mining disturbance areas would be interrupted 

until the disturbance area is reclaimed. 

3.5.3.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

In June 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that a total of 1,103 permitted 

water wells were located within 3 miles of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. As 

discussed above, 717, or approximately 65 percent of these wells are owned by 

coal mining companies and are used for groundwater monitoring and water 

supply. Approximately 82 percent of the remaining 386 non-coal mine related 

wells are permitted for uses related to CBNG development; 8 percent are permitted 

for livestock use; 5 percent are permitted for domestic use; 3 percent are 

permitted for monitoring uses; 1 percent are permitted for industrial uses; and 

about 1 percent are permitted for miscellaneous and irrigation uses. 

As discussed above, some of these privately permitted water wells have been or 

will likely be impacted (either directly by removal of the well or indirectly by water 

level drawdown) by approved mining at the Belle Ayr and adjacent mines and 

CBNG development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected 

to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be 

impacted by water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if 

the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract is leased and mined. 

3.5.3.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

In November 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that a total of 284 permitted 

water wells were located within 3 miles of the West Coal Creek LBA Tract. As 

discussed above, 141, almost half of these wells are owned by coal mining 

companies and are used for groundwater monitoring and water supply. The 

majority of the remaining 143 non-coal mine related wells are permitted for 

multiple uses. Approximately 48 percent are permitted either for CBNG 

development only or for CBNG development and other uses; 72 percent are 

permitted either for livestock use only or for livestock and other uses; 8 percent 

are permitted for industrial uses; 5 percent are permitted for miscellaneous uses 

or for miscellaneous and other uses; and about 10 percent are permitted for 

domestic use or for domestic and other uses. 

As discussed above, some of these privately permitted water wells have been or 

will likely be impacted (either directly by removal of the well or indirectly by water 

level drawdown) by approved mining at the Coal Creek and adjacent mines and 

CBNG development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected 

to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be 

impacted by water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if 

the West Coal Creek LBA Tract is leased and mined. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-119 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.5.3.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

In July 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that a total of 1,382 permitted 

water wells were located within 3 miles of the Caballo West LBA Tract. As 

discussed above, 677, or approximately 49 percent of these wells are owned by 

coal mining companies and are used for groundwater monitoring and water 

supply. The majority of the remaining 705 non-coal mine related wells are 

permitted for multiple uses. Approximately 83 percent are permitted either for 

CBNG development only or for CBNG development and other uses; 48 percent are 

permitted either for livestock use only or for livestock and other uses; 8 percent 

are permitted for domestic use only or for domestic and other uses; 1 percent are 

permitted for monitoring; 1 percent are permitted for industrial use; and about 1 

percent are permitted for miscellaneous and irrigation uses. 

As discussed above, some of these privately permitted water wells have been or 

will likely be impacted (either directly by removal of the well or indirectly by water 

level drawdown) by approved mining at the Caballo and adjacent mines and CBNG 

development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be 

negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be 

impacted by water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if 

the Caballo West LBA Tract is leased and mined. 

3.5.3.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

In May 2007, Wyoming SEO records indicated that there were a total of 987 noncoal mine related, permitted water wells within 3 miles of the Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract. The majority of these wells are permitted for multiple uses. Approximately 

79 percent are permitted either for CBNG development only or for CBNG 

development and other uses; 39 percent are permitted either for livestock use only 

or for livestock and other uses; 16 percent are permitted for miscellaneous use 

only or for miscellaneous and other uses; 5 percent are permitted either for 

domestic uses only or for domestic and other uses; 3 percent are permitted for 

monitoring use only; 2 percent are permitted for industrial uses; and about 1 

percent are permitted for irrigation and other uses. 

As discussed above, some of these privately permitted water wells have been or 

will likely be impacted (either directly by removal of the well or indirectly by water 

level drawdown) by approved mining at the Cordero Rojo and adjacent mines and 

CBNG development. Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected 

to be negligible due to the fact that the coal seam has essentially been dewatered. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would be 

impacted by water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if 

the Maysdorf II LBA Tract is leased and mined. 

3-120 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.5.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative for each of these four LBA tracts, the coal lease 

application for that tract would be rejected, the area included in that tract would 

not be offered for lease, and coal removal would not occur on that tract at this 

time. The impacts to water rights associated with existing approved mining and 

CBNG development, described above, would continue to occur. Mining operations 

would not be extended onto portions of these LBA tracts that will not be affected 

under the currently approved mining and reclamation plans. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these four lease 

applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective 

tract in the future. 

3.5.3.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

SMCRA and Wyoming regulations require mine operators to provide the owner of a 

water right whose water source is interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by 

mining with water of equivalent quantity and quality. This required mitigation is 

considered to be part of the Action Alternatives. The most probable source of 

replacement water would be one of the aquifers underlying the coal. For example, 

the subcoal Fort Union Formation aquifers are not removed or disturbed by coal 

mining, and would therefore be a potential source of replacement water. 

If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and/or Maysdorf II LBA 

Tracts are leased, the mine operator would be required to update the list of 

potentially impacted private water supply wells and predict impacts to those wells 

within the 5-ft drawdown contour as part of the permitting process. The operator 

would be required to commit to replacing those water supplies that are determined 

to be affected by mining with water of equivalent quality and quantity. 

3.5.4 Residual Impacts 

The area of coal and overburden removal and replacement of overburden and 

associated groundwater drawdowns would be increased under the Action 

Alternatives compared with the area of coal and overburden removal and 

overburden replacement and associated groundwater drawdowns for each of the 

four existing applicant mines. The postmining backfill may take in excess of 100 

years to reach equilibrium water levels and water quality. Less time would be 

required near the mining boundaries. Monitoring data from wells completed in 

existing backfilled areas in the PRB suggest that there would be an adequate 

quantity of water in the backfill to replace current use, which is for livestock. 

Water quality in the backfill would generally be expected to meet the Wyoming 

Class III standards for use as stock water. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-121 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.6 Alluvial Valley Floors 

3.6.1 Affected Environment 

Prior to leasing and mining, alluvial valley floors (AVFs) must be identified 

because, under the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA), mining on AVFs is prohibited unless the affected AVF is undeveloped 

rangeland that is not significant to farming or if the affected AVF is of such small 

acreage that it would have a negligible impact on a farm’s agricultural production. 

These restrictions also apply to AVFs that are downstream of the area of 

disturbance but might be affected by disruptions in streamflow. AVFs that are 

determined not to be significant to agriculture can be disturbed during mining but 

must be restored as part of the reclamation process. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)/Land Quality Division 

(LQD) regulations define AVFs as unconsolidated stream laid deposits where water 

availability is sufficient for subirrigation or flood irrigation agricultural activities. 

Guidelines established by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement (OSM) and WDEQ/LQD for the identification of AVFs require detailed 

studies of geomorphology, soils, hydrology, vegetation, and land use. These 

studies are used to identify the following conditions: 1) the presence of 

unconsolidated stream laid deposits, 2) the possibility for artificial flood irrigation, 

3) past and/or present flood irrigation, and 4) apparent subirrigated areas and the 

possibility for natural flood irrigation. Areas that are identified as AVFs following 

these investigations are evaluated for their significance to farming by WDEQ/LQD. 

Investigations have been conducted by FCW, TBCC, CCC, and CRM to determine 

the presence of AVFs within and surrounding the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo mines, respectively. AVF investigations conducted within the 

general South Gillette analysis area have identified an AVF that occurs along 

Duck Nest Creek on the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. AVFs have also been 

identified along Tisdale and Caballo Creeks; however, those lands are located at 

considerable distances downstream of any of the LBA tracts. Refer to Figure 3-24 

for the location of the major streams with respect to the applicant mines and LBA 

tracts in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

3.6.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Duck Nest Creek, a southeast-flowing ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek, 

drains the western portion of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. Two smaller, 

unnamed ephemeral tributaries of Caballo Creek and three playas formed by 

natural topographic depressions drain the balance of the LBA tract. Those 

portions of Caballo Creek and its tributaries that lie within Belle Ayr Mine’s 

existing permit area have been investigated for the presence of AVFs. A large 

portion of the BLM study area for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract is within the 

mine’s existing permit area; therefore, the entire reach of Duck Nest Creek within 

3-122 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

the BLM study area has been investigated for the presence of an AVF. The small 

unnamed ephemeral tributaries of Caballo Creek that also drain the LBA tract are 

almost completely within the mine’s existing permit area, but they were not 

investigated for the presence of an AVF because no streamlaid deposits were found 

to be present along those drainages. 

The Belle Ayr Mine conducted AVF studies along the reach of Duck Nest Creek 

that is located within and adjacent to the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract in 1986 and 

1987. These studies were combined into a comprehensive AVF assessment in 

1991 (WWC 1992), which was part of the WDEQ mine permitting process for the 

purpose of recovering coal in Belle Ayr Mine’s existing federal leases that are 

located in the western portion of the mine’s current permit area. The AVF 

assessment was referred to as the Duck Nest Tracts or Duck Nest Amendment 

Area AVF Study. Drainages within that study area included Caballo Creek, Bone 

Pile Creek, and Duck Nest Creek. Based on the original (1980) AVF study for the 

Belle Ayr Mine, WDEQ made a determination that the portions of Caballo, Bone 

Pile, and Duck Nest Creeks located in the Duck Nest Amendment Area are not 

significant to farming (WDEQ 1988). Following the submittal of the 1991 AVF 

assessment to the WDEQ, a total of approximately 24.3 acres of AVF on Duck Nest 

Creek were formally declared within the Duck Nest Amendment Area AVF study 

area. Approximately 14.9 acres of that total declared acreage on Duck Nest Creek 

are located within the Belle Ayr North general analysis area. 

3.6.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Coal Creek and its associated ephemeral tributaries within the existing Coal Creek 

Mine permit area, including a portion of the BLM study area for the West Coal 

Creek LBA Tract, have been evaluated for the presence of AVFs. Appendix D-11 in 

Coal Creek Mine’s approved mine permit (TBCC 2006) contains the AVF 

assessment for lands included within the current mine permit boundary. 

WDEQ/LQD determined that the AVF characteristics of Coal Creek are negligible 

and it does not meet the regulatory definition of an AVF because the stream laid 

deposits are limited in extent and not capable of supporting subirrigation or flood 

irrigation agricultural activities (WDEQ/LQD 2005). Coal Creek’s narrow valley 

and terrain limitations reduce areas that could support agricultural activities. 

Surface water quantity is insufficient to support natural or artificial flood 

irrigation practices, and historic flood irrigation attempts have not been identified 

along Coal Creek. Due to its limited areal extent, limited saturated thickness, and 

low hydraulic conductivity, Coal Creek alluvium does not consistently produce 

enough water to be put to beneficial use. In addition, Coal Creek alluvial 

groundwater is generally of such poor quality that it does not meet WDEQ/WQD 

standards for agricultural use (WDEQ/LQD 2005). 

If the West Coal Creek LBA Tract is leased and proposed for mining, an AVF 

assessment would be part of the mine permitting process, and formal declarations 

of the presence or absence of an AVF, its significance to agriculture, and the 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-123 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

appropriate perimeter (areal extent) would be made by the WDEQ/LQD as part of 

the permitting process. Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on Coal 

Creek within and adjacent to the existing Coal Creek Mine permit area, which 

includes a portion of the BLM study area for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract, as 

well as some preliminary investigations that have been made by TBCC, it is 

unlikely that the WDEQ/LQD would declare an AVF is present on the LBA tract 

that lies outside of Coal Creek Mine’s existing permit boundary. 

3.6.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Tisdale Creek and its associated ephemeral tributaries within the existing Caballo 

Mine permit area, which includes a portion of the BLM study area for the Caballo 

West LBA Tract, have been investigated for the presence of AVFs by the Caballo 

Mine. Appendix D-11 in Caballo Mine’s approved mine permit (CCC 2003) 

contains the AVF assessment for lands included within the current mine permit 

boundary. The only portion of Tisdale Creek determined to be an AVF is at the 

stream’s confluence with Gold Mine Draw, which is located approximately 4 miles 

downstream and to the southeast of the Caballo West general analysis area. 

Within Section 13, T.48N., R.71W., Gold Mine Draw was declared by WDEQ/LQD 

to be an AVF significant to agriculture. A tributary of Tisdale Creek, known locally 

as North Tisdale Creek, is located east and north of the Caballo West LBA Tract, 

and it too has received a negative AVF declaration from WDEQ/LQD (2004). 

An AVF predetermination document has been submitted to the WDEQ/LQD by 

the Caballo Mine for lands within a proposed permit amendment area, which 

includes that portion of the Caballo West general analysis area that is outside of 

the existing permit boundary. There are no streams that meet the definition of an 

AVF within one-half mile of the proposed permit amendment area, because the 

streams are incised and contain few stream laid deposits. In addition, there are 

no present or historical records of agricultural use, other than undeveloped range 

land, of the stream channels and associated stream laid deposits within the 

proposed permit amendment area. Based on previous non-AVF declarations made 

on Tisdale Creek within and adjacent to the Caballo West LBA Tract, it is unlikely 

that the WDEQ/LQD would declare an AVF is present on the LBA tract that lies 

outside of Caballo Mine’s existing permit boundary where the drainages are 

smaller and AVF characteristics are negligible. 

3.6.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Portions of the Belle Fourche River and its associated ephemeral tributaries within 

and adjacent to the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit boundary, and portions of 

Caballo Creek within and adjacent to the existing Belle Ayr Mine permit boundary 

(north of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract), have been investigated for the presence of 

AVFs (CMC 2007a and FCW 2003). 

3-124 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Three separate areas along Caballo Creek, located within and upstream of the 

existing Belle Ayr Mine permit boundary and north of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, 

were studied by FCW and determined by WDEQ/LQD to be AVFs (FCW 2003). 

One of these areas (located in Sections 35 and 36, T.48N., R.71W.) was 

determined to be an AVF with possible significance to agriculture. The second 

area along Caballo Creek (located in Sections 32 and 33, T.48N., R.71W. and 

Section 5, T.47N., R.71W.) was determined to be an AVF not significant to 

agriculture. The third AVF study was conducted in 1996 by the Belle Ayr Mine to 

determine the presence of AVFs west of that mine’s original AVF study area. As a 

result of that study, WDEQ/LQD determined an area along Caballo Creek (located 

in Section 31, T.48N., R.71W., Section 36, T.48N., R.72W., and Section 1, T.47N., 

R.72W.) to be an AVF that is not significant to farming. The declared AVF located 

in Section 1, T.47N., R.72W. is within the Maysdorf II general analysis area. 

Several AVF studies have been conducted on the Belle Fourche River and its 

associated ephemeral tributaries within and adjacent to the existing Cordero Rojo 

Mine permit boundary. WDEQ/LQD has determined that the Belle Fourche River 

valley in the vicinity of the Cordero Rojo Mine is not an AVF because it is not 

capable of supporting subirrigation or flood irrigation agricultural activities, and 

that all lands within the existing permit area are considered undeveloped 

rangeland (CMC 2007a). The Belle Fourche River is considered an impractical 

water source for artificial flood irrigation practices due to poor water quality and 

infrequent water availability. Historic flood irrigation attempts have not been 

identified along the Belle Fourche River or its ephemeral tributaries within and 

adjacent to the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit area. CRM’s baseline studies 

also determined that there is a small amount of groundwater in storage in the 

unconsolidated deposits of the Belle Fourche River, with subirrigation confined to 

a narrow area immediately adjacent to the channel (CMC 2007a). 

The most recent AVF study along the Belle Fourche River was completed by CRM 

in 2007 as part of a mine permit amendment process. The study area included 

approximately 7.5 miles of the river upstream of the existing permit boundary 

through Sections 9 and 16, T.46N., R.71W., which includes the southern portion 

of the Maysdorf II general analysis area. Formal declaration of the presence or 

absence of an AVF, 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. Based on previous non-AVF 

declarations made on the Belle Fourche River within and adjacent to the Maysdorf 

II LBA Tract, it is unlikely that the WDEQ/LQD would declare that an AVF is 

present. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-125 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.6.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

AVF investigations conducted within the general South Gillette analysis area have 

identified an AVF that occurs along Duck Nest Creek on the Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract. AVFs have also been identified along Tisdale and Caballo Creeks; however, 

those lands are located downstream of the LBA tracts. 

If the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract is mined by the applicant as an extension of the 

existing Belle Ayr Mine operations under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, the 

mining operations would affect approximately 14.9 acres of declared AVF along 

Duck Nest Creek. Mining activity would not be restricted in the AVF areas 

because the WDEQ/LQD has declared them not to be significant to farming 

(WDEQ 1988). The entire reach of Duck Nest Creek downstream of the LBA tract 

has been affected by previous and current mining operations at the Belle Ayr 

Mine. 

AVF investigations conducted within and adjacent to the existing Coal Creek Mine 

permit area have determined that the AVF characteristics of Coal Creek and its 

associated ephemeral tributaries (West, Middle, and East Forks) are negligible and 

do not meet the regulatory definition of an AVF (WDEQ/LQD 2005). As indicated 

above, the entire West Coal Creek general analysis area has not yet been formally 

evaluated for the presence of AVFs, but the general absence of flood and 

subirrigation activity in this area indicates it is unlikely that mining the LBA tract 

under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 by the applicant as an extension of the 

existing Coal Creek Mine would be precluded by the presence of an AVF. 

Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on Tisdale Creek within and 

adjacent to the Caballo West LBA Tract (WDEQ/LQD 2004), it is unlikely that the 

WDEQ/LQD would declare an AVF is present on the LBA tract that lies outside of 

Caballo Mine’s existing permit boundary where the drainages are smaller and AVF 

characteristics are negligible. As stated above, the nearest AVF in the vicinity of 

the Caballo West LBA Tract is approximately 4 miles downstream on Tisdale 

Creek, and it was declared insignificant to farming. The entire reach of Tisdale 

Creek downstream of the LBA tract has been affected by previous and current 

mining operations at the Caballo Mine. It is unlikely that mining the LBA tract 

under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 by the applicant as an extension of the 

existing Caballo Mine would be precluded by the presence of an AVF. 

AVF investigations conducted within and adjacent to the Maysdorf II general 

analysis area have identified three small AVF areas that occur along Caballo 

Creek, downstream of the northern portion of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. No AVFs 

have been identified along the Belle Fourche River and its associated ephemeral 

draws within and adjacent to the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit boundary. As 

indicated above, CRM conducted an AVF assessment in 2007 along the Belle 

3-126 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Fourche River upstream of the mine’s existing permit boundary and within the 

southern portion of the Maysdorf II general analysis area. 

The most recent AVF study along the Belle Fourche River was completed by CRM 

in 2007 as part of a mine permit amendment process. The study area included 

approximately 7.5 miles of the river upstream of the existing permit boundary 

through Sections 9 and 16, T.46N., R.71W., which includes the southern portion 

of the Maysdorf II general analysis area. Formal declaration of the presence or 

absence of an AVF, 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. Based on previous non-AVF 

declarations made on the Belle Fourche River within and adjacent to the Maysdorf 

II LBA Tract and the general absence of flood irrigation activity in this area, it is 

unlikely that mining the LBA tract under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 by 

the applicant as an extension of the existing Cordero Rojo Mine would be 

precluded by the presence of an AVF. 

No direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are anticipated to off-site AVFs through 

mining of the four LBA tracts in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Streamflows in the Belle Fourche River would be diverted around the active 

mining areas in a temporary diversion channel. Consequently, disruptions to 

streamflow that might supply AVFs on the Belle Fourche River downstream of the 

Belle Ayr Mine would not be expected to be substantial. Streamflows in the other 

drainages within the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, or the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts would be diverted around the active mining areas in 

temporary diversion channels, captured in flood control reservoirs above the pit, 

or allowed to flow into the mine pit and routed through settling ponds. If flood 

control impoundments and/or settling ponds are used, it would be necessary to 

evacuate them following major runoff events to provide storage volume for the next 

flood. Consequently, disruptions to streamflows that might supply downstream 

AVFs are expected to be negligible. Groundwater and surface runoff intercepted 

by the mine pits would be routed through settling ponds to meet state and federal 

quality criteria, and the pond discharges would likely increase the frequency and 

amount of flow in these streams, thereby increasing surface water supplies to 

downstream AVFs. 

If the LBA tracts are mined as an extension of existing operations, the mining 

would generally extend upstream on streams already in active mine areas. 

Therefore, no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are anticipated to off-site 

AVFs through mining of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, or 

the Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. 

3.6.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative for each of these four LBA tracts, the coal lease 

application for that tract would be rejected, the area included in that tract would 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-127 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

not be offered for lease, and coal removal would not occur on that tract at this 

time. Impacts to AVFs related to existing approved mining operations would 

continue to occur as currently permitted. Mining operations would not be 

extended onto portions of these LBA tracts that will not be affected under the 

currently approved mining and reclamation plans. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these four lease 

applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective 

tract in the future. 

3.6.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

As discussed above, AVFs must be identified because SMCRA restricts mining 

activities that would affect AVFs that are determined to be significant to 

agriculture. Impacts are generally not permitted to AVFs that are determined to 

be significant to agriculture. AVFs that are determined not to be significant to 

agriculture or that were permitted to be disturbed prior to the effective date of 

SMCRA can be disturbed during mining but must be restored as part of the 

reclamation process. The determination of significance to agriculture is made by 

WDEQ/LQD, and it is based on specific calculations related to the production of 

crops or forage on the AVF and the size of the existing agricultural operations on 

the land of which the AVF is a part. For any designated AVF, regardless of its 

significance to agriculture, it must be demonstrated that the essential hydrologic 

functions of any affected AVF will be protected. Mines are required to restore the 

essential hydrologic functions of any affected AVF and preserve the hydrologic 

functions of AVFs on adjacent lands. Downstream AVFs must also be protected 

during mining. The applicant mines are required to monitor impacts of 

downstream AVFs by measuring discharges from sedimentation ponds for 

quantity and quality. 

These measures are required by regulation and would be included in the mine 

permit amendment that would be revised accordingly and included in the mine 

permit amendment that would be required for each respective LBA tract that is 

leased. Mine permit revisions must be approved before mining could occur on 

each tract that is leased, regardless of who acquires the tract, and are therefore 

considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Action Alternatives for each LBA 

tract. 

3.6.4 Residual Impacts 

No residual impacts to AVFs would occur following mining. 

3-128 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.7 Wetlands 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

Wetlands are aquatic features defined as “those areas that are inundated or 

saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to 

support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR 328.3(b)). 

The prolonged presence of water creates conditions that favor the growth of 

specially adapted plants and promote the development of characteristic wetland 

(hydric) soils (EPA 2007e). Vegetation in wetland environments is highly 

productive and diverse and provides habitat for many wildlife species. These 

systems as a whole play important roles in controlling floodwaters, recharging 

groundwater, and filtering pollutants (Niering 1985). 

Wetlands must contain three components: hydric soils, a dominance of 

hydrophytic plants, and wetland hydrology. When the upper part of the soil is 

saturated with water at growing season temperatures, soil organisms consume the 

oxygen in the soil and cause conditions unsuitable for most plants. Such 

conditions also cause the development of soil characteristics (such as color and 

texture) of so-called “hydric soils”. The plants that can grow in such conditions, 

such as marsh grasses, are called “hydrophytes”. Together, hydric soils and 

hydrophytes give clues that a wetlands area is present. The presence of water by 

ponding, flooding, or soil saturation is not always a good indicator of wetlands. 

Except for wetlands flooded by ocean tides, the amount of water present in 

wetlands fluctuates as a result of rainfall patterns, snow melt, dry seasons and 

longer droughts. 

Waters of the United States is a collective term for those water bodies subject to 

regulation pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), which typically include lakes, 

streams, wetlands, and certain other water bodies. Wetlands subject to the CWA 

jurisdiction are known as “jurisdictional wetlands”, while those wetlands not 

subject to CWA jurisdiction are known as “non-jurisdictional” wetlands. Section 

404 of the CWA requires a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into 

Waters of the U.S. including jurisdictional wetlands. CWA Section 404 is 

administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and any required 

Section 404 permits must be obtained from the COE. Compliance with Section 

404 and its implementing regulations requires a sequence of avoidance, 

minimization and mitigation of wetlands. 

A U.S. Supreme Court decision (Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United 

States, collectively referred to as the “Rapanos” decision) in 2006 attempted to 

address federal jurisdiction over Waters of the U.S. under the CWA (EPA 2007e). 

According to the Court’s decision, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

COE must ensure that jurisdictional determinations, permitting actions, and other 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-129 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

relevant actions are consistent with the Rapanos decision. The decision addressed 

where the Federal government can apply the CWA, specifically by determining 

whether a wetland or tributary is a “Water of the U.S.”, being “relatively 

permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” connected to 

traditional navigable waters, and to “wetlands with a continuous surface 

connection (nexus) to” such relatively permanent waters. 

Briefly, the agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters: 

•	 Traditional navigable waters; 

•	 Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters; 

•	 Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively 

permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have 

continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months); and 

•	 Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. 

The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a factspecific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus (connection) 

with a traditional navigable water: 

•	 Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; 

•	 Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively 

permanent; and 

•	 Wetlands adjacent to, but do not directly abut, a relatively permanent nonnavigable tributary. 

The agencies will generally not assert jurisdiction over the following features: 

•	 Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low 

volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); and 

•	 Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only 

uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. 

Wetlands occur in a variety of forms and are somewhat limited in size within the 

general South Gillette analysis area. Riverine wetlands, defined by their close 

association with perennial and intermittent streams, occur sporadically along 

drainages. Periodic flooding events can also support Riverine wetlands areas. 

Common vegetation species in these settings can include willows (Salix spp.), 

scouring rush (Equisetum spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and rushes (Juncus spp.). 

Palustrine wetlands, defined by their close association with emergent herbaceous 

marshes, swales, and wet meadows, support a variety of lush plant life and occur 

sporadically along major drainages and where topographic depression areas are 

naturally subirrigated and/or sporadically flooded. Common species in these 

settings can include sedges, rushes, cordgrass (Spartina spp.), mint (Mentha spp.), 

and buttercup (Ranunculus spp.). Depressional areas that hold water may 

support lacustrine wetlands. When natural, these wetland areas are called 

3-130	 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

playas; however, manmade structures such as stock ponds also may support 

these systems. The most common species in these settings include cattails (Typha 

spp.) and bulrush (Scirpus spp.), although lady’s thumb (Polygonum spp.), verbena 

(Verbena spp.), and milkweed (Asclepias spp.) may also occur (USDA-FS 1987). 

In addition to wetlands, the general South Gillette analysis area may include 

jurisdictional other Waters of the U.S., as defined by 33 CFR 328.3. These other 

Waters of the U.S. are primarily ephemeral stream channels, open water, and 

other stream channels that carry water but do not meet the criteria for 

classification as wetlands. 

3.7.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

The wetlands analysis area for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract includes the BLM 

study area for the LBA tract plus a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer around the BLM 

study area sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the Belle Ayr Mine 

operation. A formal wetland delineation has been confirmed by the COE for the 

portion of the LBA tract wetlands analysis area that is within the adjacent existing 

Belle Ayr Mine permit area (FCW 2003). A formal wetland survey for the portion of 

the wetlands analysis area that is outside of the current Belle Ayr Mine permit 

area has not yet been completed; however, a portion of the large playa located in 

Sections 18 and 19, T.48N., R.71W. and Section 13, T.48N., R.72W. is the only 

Water of the U.S. within the wetlands analysis area that has not yet had a 

determination made by the COE. 

A total of approximately 193.9 acres of Waters of the U.S., including a total of 14.4 

acres of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., occur within the wetlands analysis area 

for the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. Approximately 11.9 of those acres are 

jurisdictional wetlands that occur along the watercourse of Duck Nest Creek. The 

2.5 acres of jurisdictional other Waters of the U.S. that did not qualify as 

jurisdictional wetlands consist primarily of open water that is held within the inchannel impoundments and intermittent pools along Duck Nest Creek. The nonjurisdictional Waters of the U.S. contained in the wetlands analysis area consists 

of the internally drained playas and total approximately 179.5 acres in area. As a 

result of recent court directives, playas are no longer identified as jurisdictional 

Waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA (refer to Section 3.7.1.3 below). 

These non-jurisdictional wetland features can however have significant biological 

and hydrological importance. 

3.7.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

The wetlands analysis area for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract includes the BLM 

study area for the LBA tract plus a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer around the BLM 

study area sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the Coal Creek 

Mine operation. A formal wetland delineation has been confirmed by the COE for 

the portion of the LBA tract wetlands analysis area that is within the adjacent 

existing Coal Creek Mine permit area (TBCC 2006). Coal Creek Mine conducted a 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-131 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

preliminary wetlands inventory in 2007, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping and vegetation mapping in 

the field (BKS 2007a), for the non-delineated portions of the wetlands analysis 

area. Some wetland areas previously mapped by the USFWS NWI project have 

been recently altered somewhat due to CBNG-related water production within and 

upstream of the West Coal Creek wetlands analysis area. The boundaries of the 

existing potential wetlands may vary to a greater or lesser extent from the 

boundaries shown on the NWI maps, and current field conditions may not be 

representative of the field conditions in the future. A formal wetland delineation of 

the area proposed for mining would be conducted and submitted to the COE for 

verification as part of the mining and reclamation permit process, if the West Coal 

Creek LBA Tract is leased. 

Coal Creek, an ephemeral stream, drains the West Coal Creek wetlands analysis 

area. No emergent vegetation or hydric soils were identified along the stream 

channel and its banks within the wetlands analysis area during the vegetation 

survey conducted in the summer of 2007; however, standing water was present 

within its banks in many places as a result of recent thunderstorm events. A few 

in-channel, diked stock ponds are present and NWI mapping identifies them as 

probable wetlands; however, no palustrine emergent vegetation was found to be 

supported by these ponds and some were in fact dry. The primary plant species 

found along the channel and surrounding the stock ponds were Carex species 

(sedge), Elymus smithii (western wheatgrass), Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass brome). 

Occasionally occurring plant species included Vicia americana (American vetch), 

Eleocharis palustris (bald spikerush), Thlaspi arvense (field pennycress) and 

Spartina pectinata (prairie cordgrass). These stock ponds would be characterized 

as other Waters of the U.S. and they total approximately 3.8 acres in area. 

During the 2007 vegetation field mapping, a tributary to West Fork Coal Creek, 

located in the southwestern portion of Section 30, T.46N., R.70W., was found to 

be receiving CBNG discharge water from upstream of the wetlands analysis area. 

Approximately 4.2 acres of open water presently occurs within the channel, but 

wetland characteristics (e.g., hydrophytic wetland vegetation and hydric soils) 

were not identified. 

Based on the existing USFWS NWI mapping data (which may be somewhat 

outdated), the wetlands confirmed to be present within the adjacent Coal Creek 

Mine’s permit area, and the vegetation mapping that was conducted in 2007, a 

total of approximately 16.92 acres of wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. occur 

within the West Coal Creek wetlands analysis area. The earlier wetland 

delineation confirmed by the COE identified a total of approximately 3.48 acres of 

wetlands, which are associated with the stream channels (both riverine- and 

palustrine marsh-types), within the wetlands analysis area. The 2007 preliminary 

wetlands survey identified approximately 13.44 acres of other Waters of the U.S., 

which were areas of open water held within the stream channels, or in-channel 

impoundments identified by NWI mapping that were found to be dry at the time. 

3-132 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Non-jurisdictional wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. were included in the 

above acreages and were not identified separately because only the COE has the 

authorization to make such determinations. Non-jurisdictional wetlands are 

generally associated with internally drained depressions/playas that are isolated, 

and non-jurisdictional other Waters of the U.S. generally occur where areas of 

open water are ponded in a depression/playa area. No internally drained playas 

have been identified within the West Coal Creek general analysis area. 

3.7.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

The wetlands analysis area for the Caballo West LBA Tract includes the BLM 

study area for the LBA tract plus a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer around the BLM 

study area sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the Caballo Mine 

operation. A formal wetland delineation has been confirmed by the COE for the 

portion of the LBA tract wetlands analysis area that is within the adjacent existing 

Caballo Mine permit area (CCC 2003). Caballo Mine conducted a preliminary 

wetlands inventory in 2007, based on USFWS NWI mapping and vegetation 

mapping in the field, for the non-delineated portions of the wetlands analysis area. 

A formal wetland delineation survey would be conducted and submitted to the 

COE for verification as part of the mining and reclamation permit process, if the 

tract is leased. 

Most of the wetlands within the wetlands analysis area are associated with the 

watercourses of Tisdale Creek and an internally drained playa. Within the portion 

of the wetlands analysis area that is inside the adjacent existing Caballo Mine 

permit area, a total of 5.96 acres of jurisdictional wetlands are located along 

Tisdale Creek. NWI mapping shows small areas (approximately 0.55 acre total) of 

probable wetlands located in stock ponds or pools along a tributary draw in 

Section 17, T.48N., R.71W., which are outside of Caballo Mine’s permit area, and 

therefore have not been previously confirmed by the COE. Within the wetlands 

analysis area is approximately 3,964 feet of ephemeral stream channel that is 

jurisdictional other Waters of the U.S. 

Therefore, based on preliminary wetlands mapping completed in 2007 and earlier 

wetland delineation confirmed by the COE, a total of approximately 15.0 acres of 

Waters of the U.S., including a total of 8.63 acres of jurisdictional Waters of the 

U.S., occur within the entire wetlands analysis area. Approximately 6.51 of those 

acres are jurisdictional wetlands that occur along the water courses of Tisdale 

Creek. The 2.12 acres of jurisdictional other Waters of the U.S. that did not 

qualify as wetlands consist primarily of open water that is held within the inchannel impoundments along Tisdale Creek. 

The playa located near the center of Section 7, T.48N., R.71W., adjacent to the 

LBA tract as applied for and within the wetlands analysis area, was delineated in 

1996 as a jurisdictional wetland, but was later declared non-jurisdictional by the 

COE following a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-133 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Northern Cook County v U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (No. 99-1178, January 9, 

2001). Approximately 6.37 acres of non-jurisdictional wetlands are included in 

this playa. 

3.7.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

The wetlands analysis area for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract includes the BLM study 

area for the LBA tract plus a 1⁄4-mile disturbance buffer around the BLM study 

area sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the Cordero Rojo Mine 

operation. Cordero Rojo Mine conducted a preliminary wetlands inventory in 

2005 and 2006 of the lands within the wetlands analysis area, based on USFWS 

NWI mapping and vegetation mapping in the field (ESCO 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 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. 

Wetlands occur in a variety of forms within the wetlands analysis area and are 

generally associated with the watercourses of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo 

Creek, diked or impounded ponds, and internally drained playas. The wetland 

areas mapped by USFWS in this area are described as palustrine (marshy) 

emergent vegetation. These wetlands support a variety of lush plant life and occur 

along the banks of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek, around a few diked 

or impounded livestock ponds, and within a few closed depressions. The 

palustrine wetlands, which are supported by temporarily or seasonally flooded 

soils, are adequately supplied with surface runoff and/or discharged waters from 

CBNG production. 

The Streamside Bottomland vegetation community, which was mapped in 2005 

and 2006 along the banks of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek, is 

considered wetlands by COE’s wetland delineation standards. The well-wetted 

banks of the Belle Fourche River have, at present, wetland vegetation, soils and 

hydrology; the latter being somewhat dependant upon the volume of water 

discharged into the drainage basin from CBNG dewatering activities. 

The Streamside Bottomland vegetation community also occurs along Caballo 

Creek in the wetlands analysis area. Through this reach, the steep banks of 

Caballo Creek has helped to minimize an increase in the wetted area caused by 

3-134 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

increased streamflow from CBNG development-related inflow. However, some 

areas adjacent to the stream have become more extensively moistened and are 

likely to exceed pre-CBNG development extents. As a result, some portions of 

these areas may now be considered wetlands (ESCO 2007). In addition, increased 

water-borne salt load in Caballo Creek seems to have altered the Streamside 

Bottomland species composition from what it was in the mid-1990s (ESCO 1996). 

Based on the existing USFWS NWI mapping data (which may be somewhat 

outdated) and the vegetation mapping that was conducted in 2005 and 2006, a 

total of approximately 140.15 acres of wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. occur 

within the wetlands analysis area. Of this 140.15 acres identified, approximately 

133.54 acres are vegetated wetlands and the remaining 6.61 acres are other 

Waters of the U.S. The majority of the wetlands are associated with the 

watercourses of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek, diked or impounded 

reservoirs, and internally drained depressions/playas, while the majority of the 

other Waters of the U.S. are associated with ephemeral stream channels and areas 

of open water. 

Non-jurisdictional wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. were included in the 

above acreages and were not identified separately because only the COE has the 

authorization to make such determinations. Non-jurisdictional wetlands are 

generally associated with internally drained depressions/playas that are isolated, 

and non-jurisdictional other Waters of the U.S. generally occur where areas of 

open water are ponded in a depression/playa area. Approximately 49.94 acres of 

playas occur in the area, and those internally drained areas would probably be 

considered non-jurisdictional by the COE. 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Formal delineations have been confirmed by the COE for wetland areas and other 

Waters of the U.S. included in the proposed LBA tracts that lie within the four 

applicant mines’ existing permit areas. Based on those previous wetland surveys, 

NWI mapping by USFWS, and the vegetation mapping in the field that was 

completed from 2005 to 2007, a maximum of approximately 366 acres of wetlands 

and other Waters of the U.S. would be disturbed if each of the four LBA tracts is 

leased and subsequently mined under the largest Action Alternative tract 

configuration. Formal wetland inventories covering the remainder of the wetlands 

analysis areas for the LBA tracts that are leased would be conducted and 

submitted to the COE for verification as part of the process of obtaining a surface 

coal mining permit. In Wyoming, once the delineation has been verified by the 

COE, it would be made a part of the mine permit document. The reclamation plan 

would then be revised to incorporated replacement of at least equal types and 

number of jurisdictional wetlands. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-135 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Disturbed non-jurisdictional wetlands would be restored as required by the 

authorized federal or state agency or private surface land owner as specified in the 

mining and reclamation permit, which would have to be approved by WDEQ/LQD 

before mining operations could be conducted on the LBA tracts that are leased. 

During the period of time after mining and before replacement of wetlands, all 

wetland functions would be lost. The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the 

exact function and landscape features of the premine wetlands, but replacement 

plans would be evaluated by the COE and replacement would be in accordance 

with the requirements of Section 404 of the CWA as determined by the COE. 

3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative for each of these four LBA tracts, the coal lease 

application for that tract would be rejected, the area included in that tract would 

not be offered for lease, and coal removal would not occur on that tract at this 

time. Impacts to wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. related to existing 

approved mining operations would continue to occur as currently permitted. 

Mining operations would not be extended onto portions of these LBA tracts that 

will not be affected under the currently approved mining and reclamation plans. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject one or more of these four lease 

applications at this time would not preclude an application to lease that respective 

tract in the future. 

3.7.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

The presence of jurisdictional wetlands on a mine property does not preclude 

mining. A formal wetland delineation survey must be conducted prior to mining 

according to approved procedures (COE 1987) and submitted to the COE for 

verification as to the amounts and types of jurisdictional wetlands and other 

waters present. Once the delineation has been verified, it is made part of the mine 

and reclamation permit. There are special required permitting procedures to 

assure that after mining there will be no net loss of wetlands. The COE requires 

replacement of all impacted jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with Section 

404 of the CWA, and all wetland replacement plans have to be approved by the 

COE. The reclamation plan must incorporate at least equal types and acres of 

disturbed jurisdictional wetlands. 

As such, a formal jurisdictional wetland delineation survey would be conducted 

and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mining and reclamation 

permit process for each of these four LBA tracts that are leased and proposed for 

mining. Formal wetland delineations have been confirmed by the COE for wetland 

areas included in the proposed LBA tracts that lie within existing adjacent mine 

permit areas. In light of the 2006 Rapanos decision (refer to Section 3.7.1 above), 

3-136 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

previous jurisdictional determinations by the COE in the general South Gillette 

analysis area may in fact need to be revisited. 

In addition, Executive Order (EO) No. 11990 – Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 

1977) directs each federal agency to provide leadership and take action to 

minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the 

agencies’ responsibilities for: (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal 

land and facilities; (2) providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted 

construction and improvement; and (3) conducting federal activities and programs 

affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources 

planning, regulating and licensing activities. EO 11990 is not limited in 

application to only those wetlands subject to CWA jurisdiction, but applies to all 

wetlands within the scope of the EO. 

Mitigation for impacts to non-jurisdictional wetlands located on the four LBA 

tracts will be specified during the permitting process as required by the authorized 

state or federal agency (which may include the WDEQ, OSM, or the federal surface 

managing agency, if any federal surface is included in the tract) or the private 

surface owner. Surface land ownership on the general South Gillette analysis 

area is private and federal (see Section 3.11). The federal surface is administered 

by the BLM. WDEQ/LQD allows and sometimes requires mitigation of nonjurisdictional wetlands affected by mining, depending on the values associated 

with the wetland features. WDEQ/LQD may also require replacement of sites with 

hydrologic significance. If any playas with hydrologic significance are located on 

the tract that is leased, WDEQ/LQD would also require their replacement. 

Finally, the surface mining regulatory authorities (WDEQ/LQD and OSM) typically 

require replacement of non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands as a measure to 

protect and enhance wildlife. 

Reclaimed wetlands are monitored using the same procedures used to identify 

wetlands prior to mining disturbances. 

3.7.4 Residual Impacts 

Replaced wetlands may not duplicate the exact function and landscape features of 

the premining wetland. 

3.8 Soils 

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

Numerous baseline soil surveys associated with surface mining operations and oil 

field development have been conducted in the eastern PRB. Soil surveys of 

Campbell County, Wyoming, including the four LBA soils analysis areas, have also 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-137 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

recently been conducted by the NRCS (Westerman and Prink 2004). Each of the 

LBA soils analysis areas includes the BLM study area (the LBA tract as applied for 

under the Proposed Action and the additional area evaluated under Action 

Alternatives), as well as the additional area that would be disturbed in order to 

recover the coal in the study area (assumed to be a 1⁄4-mile buffer surrounding the 

BLM study area outside of existing permit boundaries). 

Soils vary depending upon where and how they were formed. Major factors 

involved in the formation of soils include whether or not the material was 

transported and how the material was weathered during transportation. Four 

primary soil formation processes causing different soil types were noted in this 

area: 1) soils developing predominantly in thin residuum from sandstone or shale 

on upland ridges, 2) soils developing predominantly in slopewash, colluvium, or 

alluvial fan deposits from mixed sources on gently sloping uplands, 3) soils 

developing predominantly in coarse-textured alluvium or sandy eolian deposits on 

rolling uplands, and 4) drainage soils developing in mixed stream laid alluvium on 

terraces and channels, and in fine-textured playa deposits in depressions and 

closed basins. 

The soil depths and types on the four LBA tracts soils general analysis areas are 

similar to soils currently being salvaged and utilized for reclamation at the 

adjacent Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines and other mines 

in the eastern PRB. Additional detailed information about the soil types on the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West and Maysdorf II LBA tracts is 

included in the supplemental information document, which is available on 

request. The site-specific soil surveys have located hydric soils and/or inclusions 

of hydric soils, which are one component used in identifying wetlands. Areas with 

soils that are not suitable to support plant growth include sites with high 

alkalinity, salinity, or clay content. 

3.8.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

The Belle Ayr North LBA Tract soils general analysis area (1,947.0 total acres) is 

the BLM study area for the tract (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional 

area evaluated under Alternative 2), as well as the additional area that would be 

disturbed in order to recover the coal in the study area (assumed to be a 1⁄4-mile 

buffer surrounding the BLM study area outside of existing permit boundaries). 

Soil surveys were completed in 2007 by James Nyenhuis to an Order 1-2 

resolution. The inventories included field sampling and observations at the 

requisite number of individual sites, and laboratory analysis of representative 

collected samples. Soils within the Belle Ayr North soils general analysis area 

were identified by series, which consist of soils that have similar horizons in their 

profile. 

3-138 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.8.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

The West Coal Creek LBA Tract soils general analysis area (2,210.1 total acres) is 

the BLM study area for the tract (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional 

area evaluated under Alternative 2), as well as the additional area that would be 

disturbed in order to recover the coal in the study area (assumed to be a 1⁄4-mile 

buffer surrounding the BLM study area outside of existing permit boundaries). 

Soil surveys were completed in 2007 by BKS Environmental to an Order 1-2 

resolution. The inventories included field sampling and observations at the 

requisite number of individual sites, and laboratory analysis of representative 

collected samples. Soils within the soils general analysis area were identified by 

series, which consist of soils that have similar horizons in their profile. 

3.8.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

The Caballo West LBA Tract soils general analysis area (1,390.4 total acres) is the 

BLM study area for the tract (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area 

evaluated under Alternative 2), as well as the additional area that would be 

disturbed in order to recover the coal in the study area (assumed to be a 1⁄4-mile 

buffer surrounding the BLM study area outside of existing permit boundaries). 

Soil surveys were completed in 2007 by BKS Environmental to an Order 1-2 

resolution. The inventories included field sampling and observations at the 

requisite number of individual sites, and laboratory analysis of representative 

collected samples. Soils within the soils general analysis area were identified by 

series, which consist of soils that have similar horizons in their profile. 

3.8.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

The Maysdorf II LBA Tract soils general analysis area (6,917 total acres) is the 

BLM study area for the tract (the LBA tract as applied for and the additional area 

evaluated under Alternatives 2 and 3), as well as the additional area that would be 

disturbed in order to recover the coal in the study area (assumed to be a 1⁄4-mile 

buffer surrounding the BLM study area outside of existing permit boundaries). 

Soil surveys were completed in 2007 by James Nyenhuis to an Order 1-2 

resolution. The inventories included field sampling and observations at the 

requisite number of individual sites, and laboratory analysis of representative 

collected samples. Soils within the soils general analysis area were identified by 

series, which consist of soils that have similar horizons in their profile. 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.8.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Removal and replacement of soils during mining and reclamation would cause 

changes in the soil resources. In reclaimed areas, soil chemistry and soil nutrient 

distribution would generally be more uniform and average topsoil quality would be 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-139 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

improved because soil material that is not suitable to support plant growth would 

not be salvaged for use in reclamation. This would result in more uniform 

vegetative productivity on the reclaimed land. 

The baseline soils analyses for the LBA tracts indicate that the amount of suitable 

topsoil that would be available for redistribution on all disturbed acres within the 

soils general analysis areas during reclamation would vary from an average depth 

of 1.9 ft to an average depth of 3.1 ft. The replaced topsoil would support a stable 

and productive vegetation community adequate in quality and quantity to support 

the planned postmining land uses (wildlife habitat and rangeland). 

There would be an increase in the near-surface bulk density of the soil resources 

on the LBA tract after reclamation. As a result, the average soil infiltration rates 

would generally decrease, which would increase the potential for runoff and soil 

erosion. Topographic moderation following reclamation would potentially decrease 

runoff, which would tend to offset the effects of decreased soil infiltration capacity. 

The change in soil infiltration rates would not be permanent because revegetation 

and natural weathering action would form a new soil structure in the reclaimed 

soils, and infiltration rates would gradually return to premining levels. The 

reclaimed landscape would contain stable landforms and drainage systems that 

would support the postmining land uses. Reconstructed stream channels and 

floodplains would be designed and established to be erosionally stable. 

Direct biological impacts to soil resources on each LBA tract would include shortterm to long-term reduction in soil organic matter, microbial populations, seeds, 

bulbs, rhizomes, and live plant parts for soil resources that are stockpiled before 

placement. The following discussion is a description of potential impacts to soil 

resources on each LBA tract following reclamation under the Proposed Action or 

Alternatives 2 or 3. 

3.8.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Potential impacts to soil resources on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract after final 

reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 are quantified as follows. 

Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, approximately 11,621 

acres of soil resources will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the existing 

leases at the Belle Ayr Mine (Table 3-1). The Belle Ayr North LBA Tract soil 

general analysis area is disturbance related to removing coal from the LBA tract 

under the Proposed Action would directly affect approximately 1,937 additional 

acres of soil resources not already permitted for disturbance, or approximately 

1,947 acres under Alternative 2 (Table 3-1). Average topsoil thickness would be 

about 26.8 inches across the entire reclaimed surface. The types of soils and the 

quantities of the soil resource included in the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract under the 

Action Alternatives considered in this EIS are similar to the soils on the existing 

leases at the Belle Ayr Mine. 

3-140 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.8.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Potential impacts to soil resources on the West Coal Creek LBA tract after final 

reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 are quantified as follows. 

Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, approximately 8,355 

acres of soil resources will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the existing 

leases at the Coal Creek Mine (Table 3-2). Preliminary estimates indicate that if 

the West Coal Creek LBA Tract is leased, disturbance related to removing coal 

from the LBA tract under the Proposed Action would directly affect approximately 

1,925 additional acres of soil resources not already permitted for disturbance, or 

approximately 2,210 acres under Alternative 2 (Table 3-2). Average topsoil 

thickness would be about 23 inches across the entire reclaimed surface. The 

types of soils and the quantities of the soil resource included in the West Coal 

Creek LBA Tract under the Action Alternatives considered in this EIS are similar 

to the soils on the existing leases at the Coal Creek Mine. 

3.8.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Potential impacts to soil resources on the Caballo West LBA tract after final 

reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 are quantified as follows. 

Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, approximately 16,898 

acres of soil resources will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the existing 

leases at the Caballo Mine (Table 3-3). Preliminary estimates indicate that if the 

Caballo West LBA Tract is leased, disturbance related to removing coal from the 

LBA tract under the Proposed Action would directly affect approximately 1,350 

additional acres of soil resources not already permitted for disturbance, or 

approximately 1,390 additional acres under Alternative 2 (Table 3-3). Average 

topsoil thickness would be about 23 inches across the entire reclaimed surface. 

The types of soils and the quantities of the soil resource included in the Caballo 

West LBA Tract under the Action Alternatives considered in this EIS are similar to 

the soils on the existing leases at the Caballo Mine. 

3.8.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Potential impacts to soil resources on the Maysdorf II LBA tract after final 

reclamation under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 and 3 are quantified as 

follows. Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plan, 

approximately 14,694 acres of soil resources will be disturbed in order to mine the 

coal in the existing leases at the Cordero Rojo Mine (Table 3-4). Preliminary 

estimates indicate that if the Maysdorf II LBA Tract is leased, disturbance related 

to removing coal from the LBA tract under the Proposed Action would directly 

affect approximately 6,675 additional acres of soil resources, or approximately 

6,917 additional acres under Alternatives 2 and 3 (Table 3-4). Average topsoil 

thickness would be about 23 inches across the entire reclaimed surface. The 

types of soils and the quantities of the soil resource included in the Maysdorf II 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-141 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

LBA Tract under the Action Alternatives considered in this EIS are similar to the 

soils on the existing leases at the Cordero Rojo Mine. 

3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected 

and coal removal and the associated disturbance and impacts to soils would not 

occur on the additional acres included in the four LBA tracts. The additional acres 

disturbed in the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are listed in 

Tables 2-1 through 2-4, respectively. Coal removal and the associated soil 

removal and replacement would occur on the existing mine leases as currently 

permitted (as summarized in Tables 3-1 through 3-4). Impacts to soils related to 

mining operations at the existing mines would not be extended onto portions of 

the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation 

plan. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.8.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Soils suitable to support plant growth would be salvaged for use in reclamation. 

Soil stockpiles would be protected from disturbance and erosional influences. Soil 

material that is not suitable to support plant growth would not be salvaged. Soil 

or overburden materials containing potentially harmful chemical constituents 

(such as selenium) would be specially handled. 

At least 4 ft of suitable overburden would be selectively placed on the graded 

backfill surface below the replaced topsoil to meet guidelines for vegetation root 

zones. After topsoil is replaced on reclaimed surfaces, revegetation would reduce 

wind erosion. The mine would construct sediment control structures as needed to 

trap eroded soil. 

Regraded overburden would be sampled for compliance with root zone criteria. 

Vegetation growth would be monitored on reclaimed areas to determine if soil 

amendments are needed. 

These measures are required by regulation and are therefore considered to be part 

of the Proposed Action and other action alternatives for the Belle Ayr South, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. 

3-142 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.8.4 Residual Impacts 

Existing soils would be mixed and redistributed, and soil-forming processes would 

be disturbed by mining. This would result in long-term alteration of soil 

characteristics. 

3.9 Vegetation 

3.9.1 Affected Environment 

The vegetation general analysis area for each tract includes the BLM study area 

(the LBA tract as applied for under the Proposed Action and the additional area 

evaluated under the other action alternatives plus an additional area (assumed to 

be a 1⁄4-mile buffer that would be disturbed in order to recover the coal in the BLM 

study area outside of existing permit boundaries). Each of the SGAC LBA tracts’ 

vegetation general analysis area contains portions that are partially located within 

and adjacent to current mine permit boundaries. Consequently, portions of the 

vegetation general analysis areas were previously mapped and sampled in 

accordance with the current WDEQ/LQD mine permitting requirements. The 

balance of the vegetation assessments were completed for the Belle Ayr North and 

for the Maysdorf II LBA Tracts by ESCO Associates, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado in 

2006and 2007 and for the West Coal Creek and Caballo West LBA Tracts by BKS 

Environmental Associates, Inc. of Gillette, Wyoming in 2007. The vegetation 

communities in theses areas were appraised and mapped to provide a preliminary 

assessment. 

The vegetation within the vegetation general analysis areas consists of species 

common to eastern Wyoming and consistent with vegetation that occurs within 

the adjacent mine permit areas. Water and disturbed areas were also mapped. 

The following vegetation types were identified in the combined LBA vegetation 

general analysis areas: 

• Crested Wheatgrass Pasture 

• Cropland 

• Hayland 

• Grainland 

• Sagebrush/Grassland 

• Big Sagebrush 

• Silver Sagebrush 

• Saline Grassland 

• Sandy Grassland 

• Loamy Grassland 

• Playa Grassland 

• Upland Grassland 

• Mixed Grass Prairie 

• Rough Breaks 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-143 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• Rock Outcrop/Blowout 

• Streamside Bottomlands 

• Meadow 

• Lowland Grassland 

• Draw Bottomland 

• Water 

• Topsoil Stockpiles 

• Reclaimed Area 

• Disturbed Area 

• Pre-Mining Disturbance 

• Developed 

Table 3-11 presents the acreage and percent of the combined general analysis 

areas encompassed by each vegetation type. Additional more-detailed information 

about the vegetation types within the LBA tract is included in the supplemental 

information document, which is available on request. 

In terms of total acres of occurrence in the combined vegetation general analysis 

areas, the predominant vegetation types are the Sagebrush/Grassland 

(38.07percent) and Sandy Grassland (18.41 percent). Common plant species on 

these types include crested wheatgrass, smooth brome, needle and thread, 

threadleaf sedge, western wheatgrass, blue grama, and cheatgrass brome. 

Dominant shrubs/subshrubs in the Sagebrush/Grassland and Sandy Grassland 

vegetation communities include Wyoming big sagebrush and fringed sage. 

Lichens and manyspine plains pricklypear cactus are frequently large components 

of the vegetation cover. 

The predominant vegetation type on approximately 10 percent of the vegetation 

general analysis area is the crested wheatgrass pasture. This type consists of 

areas that have been converted (at least originally and intentionally) from native 

vegetation of one of the above-described types to a monoculture of crested 

wheatgrass. Through time, those areas that have not been actively managed are 

likely to experience invasion by native plant species from adjacent areas. Blue 

grama, purple threeawn, Junegrass, and needle and thread are among the more 

commonly invading grasses. 

The various categories of disturbance (topsoil stockpiles, reclaimed area, disturbed 

area, pre-mining disturbance, and developed areas) account for approximately 8 

percent of the vegetation general analysis area. Areas mapped as disturbed are 

mostly associated with advancing excavation associated with the backslopes of 

mine pits, disturbance associated with CBNG activity (roads to drill pads, 

wellpads, and pipeline construction), areas recently excavated and contoured as 

part of construction of a flood control, and rights-of-way for public roads. 

3-144 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-11. Vegetation Types Identified and Mapped Within the Combined LBA 

Vegetation General Analysis Areas. 

Vegetation Type Acres Percent of Area 

Sagebrush Grassland 4,744.73 38.07% 

Sandy Grassland 2,294.52 18.41% 

Crested Wheatgrass Pasture 1,238.36 9.93% 

Mixed Grass Prairie 740.57 5.94% 

Disturbed Area 693.24 5.56% 

Saline Grassland 314.64 2.52% 

Big Sagebrush 302.65 2.43% 

Cropland 296.80 2.38% 

Silver Sagebrush 276.85 2.22% 

Rough Breaks 228.01 1.83% 

Streamside Bottomlands 209.94 1.68% 

Playa Grassland 208.35 1.67% 

Pre-Mining Disturbance 177.26 1.42% 

Loamy Grassland 171.77 1.38% 

Hayland 98.55 0.79% 

Topsoil Stockpiles 90.00 0.72% 

Grainland 83.90 0.67% 

Upland Grassland 83.90 0.67% 

Reclaimed Area 73.41 0.59% 

Draw Bottomland 55.16 0.44% 

Pastureland 28.00 0.22% 

Lowland Grassland 21.60 0.17% 

Burn 13.22 0.11% 

Rock Outcrop/Blowout 5.50 0.04% 

Meadow 5.40 0.04% 

Developed 4.60 0.04% 

Water 3.80 0.03% 

Total 12,464.73 100.00% 

Source: BKS 2007a and 2007b, ESCO 2007a and 2007b 

There are few occurrences of noxious weeds in the mine area; however, there are 

native areas adjacent to mine permit areas that are infested with noxious weeds, 

primarily Canada thistle 

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.9.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Under the currently approved mining and reclamation plans, approximately 

51,568 acres of vegetation will be disturbed in order to mine the coal in the 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-145 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

existing leases at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. 

Under the Proposed Action, mining of the four LBA tracts would progressively 

remove the native vegetation on approximately 12,465 additional acres on and 

near the LBA tracts. Vegetation removal on the LBA tracts under the Proposed 

Action and other action alternatives is presented as the additional mine 

disturbance area in Tables 3-1 through 3-4. 

Short-term impacts associated with the removal of vegetation from the LBA tracts 

would include increased soil erosion and habitat loss for wildlife and livestock. 

Potential long-term impacts include loss of habitat or loss of habitat carrying 

capacity for some wildlife species as a result of reduced plant species diversity or 

reduced plant density for some species, particularly big sagebrush, on reclaimed 

lands. However, grassland-dependent wildlife species and livestock would benefit 

from the increased grass cover and production. 

Reclamation, including revegetation of these lands, would occur 

contemporaneously with mining on adjacent lands, i.e., reclamation would begin 

once an area is mined. Estimates of the time elapsed from soil stripping through 

reseeding of any given area range from 2 to 4 years. This would be longer for 

areas occupied by stockpiles, haulroads, sediment-control structures, and other 

mine facilities. Some roads and facilities would not be reclaimed until the end of 

mining. No new life-of-mine facilities would be located on the LBA tracts under 

the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 or 3 because the LBA tracts would be mined 

as an extension of an existing mine using existing facilities. 

Grazing restrictions prior to mining and during reclamation would remove up to 

100 percent of the LBA areas from livestock grazing. This reduction in vegetative 

production would not seriously affect livestock production in the region, and longterm productivity on the reclaimed land would return to premining levels within 

several years following seeding with the approved final seed mixture. There would 

not be a substantial restriction of wildlife use of the area throughout the 

operations. 

In an effort to approximate premining conditions, the applicants would plan to 

reestablish vegetation types that are similar to the premine types during the 

reclamation operation. Reestablished vegetation would be dominated by species 

mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by WDEQ). The 

majority of the approved species are native to the LBA tracts. Initially, the 

reclaimed lands would be primarily a mixture of prairie grasslands with 

graminoid/forb-dominated areas. An overall reduction in species diversity, 

especially for the shrub component, would occur. At least 20 percent of the native 

vegetation area would be reclaimed to native shrubs at a density of one per square 

meter as required by current regulations. Estimates for the time it would take to 

restore shrubs, including sagebrush, to premining density levels range from 20 to 

100 years. As indicated previously, sagebrush is a component of the 

Sagebrush/Grassland vegetation community, which occupies about 39 percent of 

3-146 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

the vegetation general analysis areas. Following completion of reclamation 

(seeding with the final seed mixture) and before release of the reclamation bond (a 

minimum of 10 years), a diverse, productive, and permanent vegetative cover 

would be established on the LBA tracts. The decrease in plant diversity would not 

seriously affect the potential productivity of the reclaimed areas, regardless of the 

alternative selected. The proposed postmining land use (wildlife habitat and 

rangeland) should be achieved even with the changes in vegetation composition 

and diversity. Native vegetation from surrounding areas would gradually invade 

and become established on the reclaimed land. 

Following reclamation bond release, management of the privately owned surface 

areas would revert back to the private surface owners, who would have the right to 

manipulate the reclaimed vegetation. 

A reduction in sagebrush would result in a long term reduction of habitat for some 

species and may delay use of the reclaimed area by shrub-dependent species, 

such as the sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). An indirect impact of this 

vegetative change could be decreased big game habitat carrying capacity. 

On average, roughly 1,600 to 2,000 acres of surface would be disturbed per year 

of mining if all four proposed lease areas are mined concurrently, regardless of 

which alternatives are selected. By the time mining ceases, over 75 percent of 

these disturbed lands would have been reseeded. The remaining 25 percent 

would be reseeded during the following 2 to 3 years as the life-of-mine facilities 

area is reclaimed. 

The reclamation plans for the existing mines include steps to control invasion by 

weedy (invasive nonnative) plant species because WDEQ/LQD rules and 

regulations require surface coal mine operators to control and minimize the 

introduction of noxious weeds until bond release, in accordance with Federal and 

State requirements. As a result, there are few occurrences of noxious weeds in 

the mine area. The reclamation plan for each LBA tract would also include steps 

to control invasion from such species. 

The climatic record of the western U.S. suggests that droughts could occur during 

the life of the mine. Such droughts could reduce germination and could damage 

newly established plants, but droughts could also result in stands of vegetation in 

which less gregarious plants like warm season grasses are better established. 

Severe thunderstorms could also adversely affect newly seeded areas. Once a 

stable vegetative cover is established, however, these events would have similar 

impacts as would occur on native vegetation. 

Changes expected in the surface water network on each LBA tract as a result of 

mining and reclamation would affect the reestablishment of vegetation patterns on 

the reclaimed areas to some extent. The postmining maximum overland slope 

would be 20 percent, in accordance with WDEQ policy. The average reclaimed 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-147 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

overland slope on each LBA tract would not be known until WDEQ’s technical 

review of each permit revision application is complete. No major changes in the 

average overland slope are predicted. 

There would be no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands. They would be restored 

under the jurisdiction of the COE (Section 3.7). Non-jurisdictional and functional 

wetlands would be restored in accordance with the requirements of the surface 

landowner or as required by WDEQ/LQD. 

3.9.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected 

and coal removal and the associated disturbance and impacts to vegetation would 

not occur on the additional acres included in the four LBA tracts. The additional 

acres disturbed in the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for the Belle 

Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are listed 

in Tables 2-1 through 2-4, respectively. Coal removal and the associated removal 

and replacement of vegetation would occur on the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines leases as currently permitted (as summarized in 

Tables 3-1 through 3-4, respectively). Impacts to vegetation related to mining 

operations at the existing mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA 

tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plans. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.9.3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species, and BLM 

Sensitive Species 

Refer to Appendices E through I. 

3.9.4 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Reclaimed areas would be revegetated as specified in the approved mine plan 

using reclamation seed mixtures that would be approved by WDEQ. The majority 

of the species would be native to the LBA tract. At least 20 percent of the native 

vegetation area would be reclaimed to native shrubs at a density of one per square 

meter as required by current regulations. Shrubs would be selectively planted in 

riparian areas. 

WDEQ/LQD Rules and Regulations require that: 

• 	 Permit applications for surface coal mines include a description of any 

weeds or other plants listed by the local Weed and Pest Control District as 

harmful (Chapter 2, Section 2(a)(vi)(C)(2)); and 

3-148	 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• 	Surface coal mine operators control and minimize the introduction of 

noxious weeds in accordance with federal or state requirements (Chapter 4, 

Section 2(d)(xiv)). 

In accordance with these requirements, the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines work with the Campbell County Weed and Pest Department 

and conducts an active noxious weed control program on their existing coal leases 

and would be required to continue those practices if the mines acquire leases for 

the applied for LBA tracts. 

Detailed wetland mitigation plans would be developed and approved by COE 

during the permitting stage to ensure no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands occurs 

within the total disturbance areas (Section 3.7). Non-Jurisdictional and 

functional wetlands would be restored in accordance with the requirements of the 

surface landowner or as required by WDEQ/LQD, as discussed in Section 3.7. 

Revegetation growth and diversity would be monitored until the final reclamation 

bond is released (a minimum of 10 years following seeding with the final seed 

mixture). Erosion would be monitored to determine if there is a need for corrective 

action during establishment of vegetation. Controlled grazing would be used 

during revegetation to determine the suitability of the reclaimed land for postmining land uses. 

3.9.5 Residual Impacts 

Reclaimed vegetative communities may never completely match the surrounding 

native plant community. 

3.10 Wildlife 

3.10.1 General Setting 

This section discusses the affected environment and potential environmental 

consequences to wildlife in general. The subsequent sections address the 

potential impacts to specific groups of wildlife species. 

3.10.1.1 Affected Environment 

Background information on wildlife in the general South Gillette analysis area was 

drawn from several sources, including the Maysdorf Coal Lease Application FEIS 

(BLM 2007b), WGFD and USFWS records, and personal contacts with WGFD and 

USFWS biologists. Site-specific data for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts were obtained from several sources, 

including WDEQ/LQD mine permit applications and annual wildlife monitoring 

reports for the applicant mines. In addition, FCW conducted baseline 

investigations during 2006 and early 2007 specifically for the Belle Ayr North LBA 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-149 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Tract; TBCC conducted baseline investigations during 2006 and early 2007 

expressly for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract; CCC conducted baseline 

investigations during 2006 and early 2007 expressly for the Caballo West LBA 

Tract; and CMC conducted baseline investigations during 2006 specifically for the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract. Baseline and annual wildlife surveys cover a large 

perimeter around the mine permit areas; consequently, a majority of the proposed 

lease areas have been surveyed as part of the required monitoring surveys for the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. Site-specific surveys for 

each lease area and appropriate perimeter would be part of the mine permitting 

process if the tracts are leased. 

The topography within the general South Gillette analysis area is mainly gently 

rolling and of moderate relief, influenced by the Belle Fourche River and it’s 

tributaries. Elevation ranges from approximately 4,515 to 4,885 ft above sea level. 

Rough breaks and streamside bottomland areas occur near the Belle Fourche 

River and Tisdale, Caballo, and Coal Creeks, which flow through the general 

South Gillette analysis area (Figure 3-24). 

In an undisturbed condition, the major vegetation types in the vegetation general 

analysis areas (discussed in Section 3.9) provide high quality habitats for many 

species. Vegetation types tend to occur in a mosaic across the landscape; 

therefore, many wildlife species can be expected to utilize more than one habitat 

type. Wildlife habitat types for the LBA tracts generally coordinated with the 

mapped vegetation communities but the general habitat types for the general 

South Gillette analysis area include shrubland, native grasslands, seeded 

grassland, streamside bottomland, and rough breaks. Various parcels of 

cultivated land also occur throughout the area. As a result of oil and gas 

development, there are networks of road and well-pad disturbance areas 

overlaying much of the areas, as well as tank batteries and miles of pipeline 

disturbance with varying degrees of recovering vegetative cover. No designated 

critical, crucial, or unique habitats are present. 

The predominant habitat is Sagebrush/Grassland and Sandy Grassland is the 

next largest habitat type (Table 3-11). Seeded grassland is dominated by crested 

wheatgrass, but older seedings have a mixture of less dominant native plant 

species and, with the passage of time, these seedings begin to resemble 

Sagebrush/Grassland again. Bottomland grassland or streamside bottomland 

habitat is limited to a narrow band along the edges of the Belle Fourche River in 

the southern portion of the general South Gillette analysis area. Trees are limited 

along the river and its tributaries within the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Rough breaks habitat is distinguished by the irregularity of vegetation, slopes, and 

soils. Vegetation on the rough breaks is typically sparse, although the diversity of 

vascular plant species is greater than in the Sagebrush/Grassland and sandy 

grassland communities. 

3-150 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Under natural conditions portions of Caballo Creek and the Belle Fourche River 

demonstrate characteristics of both an intermittent and ephemeral stream. All 

other streams within and adjacent to the LBA tracts are ephemeral. In response 

to surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG production upstream 

of the LBA tracts, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, streamflow occurrence 

is now more persistent. The Belle Fourche River and the distinctive shallow pools 

that are present along its natural course in the general South Gillette analysis 

area are now seldom completely dry, resulting in an increase in habitat for 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and aquatic species. Twenty-five small stock reservoirs and 

three playa areas exist within the four LBA tract study boundaries. One of the 

playas has been turned into a temporary shallow pond as the result of a CBNG 

well discharging within its drainage area. 

Cordero Rojo Mine’s approved WDEQ/LQD mine permit allows disturbance of the 

Belle Fourche River channel. Approximately 6 miles of the natural channel have 

been diverted to date within the Cordero Rojo Mine’s current permit area. CMC 

would propose another diversion of the Belle Fourche River if they acquire a lease 

for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

3.10.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

were leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 (2 and 3 for the Maysdorf 

II LBA Tract), coal removal and associated mining disturbance would extend onto 

the LBA tracts. Mining would be extended more than 5 years at the Belle Ayr 

Mine, 4 years at the Coal Creek Mine, 2 years at the Caballo Mine, and nearly 10 

years at the Cordero Rojo Mine. Impacts to wildlife that would be caused by 

mining the LBA tracts would be addressed by the WGFD and the WDEQ/LQD 

when the mining and reclamation permits are amended to include the LBA tracts. 

Mining directly and indirectly impacts local wildlife populations. These impacts 

are both short-term (until successful reclamation is achieved) and long-term 

(persisting beyond successful completion of reclamation). The direct impacts of 

surface coal mining on wildlife occur during mining and are therefore short-term. 

They include road kills by mine-related traffic, restrictions on wildlife movement 

created by fences, spoil piles, and pits, and displacement of wildlife from active 

mining areas. Displaced animals may find equally suitable habitat that is not 

occupied by other animals, occupy suitable habitat that is already being used by 

other individuals, or occupy poorer quality habitat than that from which they were 

displaced. In the second and third situations, the animals may suffer from 

increased competition with other animals and are less likely to survive and 

reproduce. If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II 

LBA Tracts were leased and mined, the direct impacts related to mine traffic and 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-151 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mine operations would be extended within the general South Gillette analysis area 

by nearly 10 years. 

The indirect impacts are longer term. After the LBA tracts are leased, mined, and 

reclaimed, alterations in the topography and vegetative cover, particularly the 

reduction in sagebrush density, would cause a decrease in carrying capacity for 

some species and a decrease in vegetative diversity. Sagebrush would gradually 

become reestablished on the reclaimed land, but the topographic changes would 

be permanent. Microhabitats may be reduced on reclaimed land due to flatter 

topography, less diverse vegetative cover, and reduction in sagebrush density. 

3.10.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected 

and coal removal and the associated disturbance and impacts to wildlife would not 

occur on the additional acres included in the four LBA tracts. The additional acres 

disturbed in the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are listed in 

Tables 2-1 through 2-4, respectively. Coal removal and the associated impacts to 

wildlife would occur on the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo Mines leases as currently permitted to recover the coal in the existing leases. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.10.2 Big Game 

3.10.2.1 Affected Environment 

The two big game species that are common in suitable habitat throughout the 

general South Gillette analysis area are pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and 

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and elk 

(Cervus elaphus) are transients east of the general South Gillette analysis area. 

No crucial big game habitat or migration corridors are recognized by the WGFD in 

this area. 

Pronghorn are by far the most common big game species in this area. This 

species is most abundant in the Sagebrush/Grassland or mixed-grass prairie 

habitats. Reclaimed grassland constitutes only a small portion of the available 

habitat around the PRB mines, although pronghorn are observed during all 

seasonal surveys in these areas. Home range for pronghorn can vary between 400 

acres to 5,600 acres, according to several factors including season, habitat 

quality, population characteristics, and local livestock occurrence. Typically, daily 

movement does not exceed 6 miles. Pronghorn may make seasonal migrations 

between summer and winter habitats, but migrations are often triggered by 

3-152 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

availability of succulent plants and not local weather conditions (Fitzgerald et al. 

1994). The WGFD has classified the general South Gillette analysis area as 

primarily winter/yearlong pronghorn range (a population or a portion of a 

population of animals makes general use of this habitat on a year-round basis, 

with a significant influx of additional animals onto this habitat from other 

seasonal ranges in the winter) and yearlong pronghorn range (a population or 

substantial portion of a population of animals makes general use of this habitat 

on a year-round basis, but may leave the area under severe conditions on 

occasion). The entire general South Gillette analysis area is within the WGFD 

Hilight Herd Unit. In post-season 2006, the WGFD estimated the Hilight Herd 

Unit to be 13,725 animals, with an objective of 11,000 (WGFD 2007). 

Mule deer use nearly all habitats, but prefer Sagebrush/Grassland, rough breaks, 

and riparian bottomland. Browse is an important component of the mule deer’s 

diet throughout the year, comprising as much as 60 percent of total intake during 

autumn, while forbs and grasses typically make up the rest of their diet (Fitzgerald 

et al. 1994). Mule deer are frequently observed on mine reclaimed lands. In 

certain areas of the state this species tends to be more migratory than white-tailed 

deer, traveling from higher elevations in the summer to winter ranges that provide 

more food and cover. However, monitoring has indicated that mule deer are not 

very migratory in the vicinity of the general South Gillette analysis area. The 

WGFD has classified a majority of the general South Gillette analysis area as 

being out of normal mule deer use range and a small portion as being yearlong 

mule deer use range, which means that a population or substantial portion of a 

population of animals makes general use of this habitat on a year-round basis, 

but may leave the area under severe conditions on occasion. The entire area is 

located within the WGFD Thunder Basin Mule Deer Herd Unit. No crucial or 

critical mule deer ranges or migration corridors occur on or within several miles of 

the general South Gillette analysis area. Crucial range is defined as any 

particular seasonal range or habitat component that has been documented as the 

determining factor in a population’s ability to maintain and reproduce itself at a 

certain level. The WGFD estimated the 2006 post-season mule deer for the herd 

unit at 22,036, which is above the current objective of 20,000 (WGFD 2007). 

White-tailed deer are generally managed separately by the WGFD in the Central 

Herd Unit. White-tailed deer prefer riparian habitats and are therefore seldom 

observed in the general South Gillette analysis area due to the lack of that 

particular habitat. The WGFD classifies the entire general South Gillette analysis 

area as out of the normal white-tailed deer use range. A narrow corridor along the 

Belle Fourche River east of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract wildlife general analysis 

area is classified as yearlong range. White-tailed deer are occasionally recorded 

along the Belle Fourche River and Pine Hills to the east but have rarely been 

recorded in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

A resident elk herd resides in the Rochelle Hills south of the general South Gillette 

analysis area. Elk do wander from the protection of the Rochelle Hills to forage in 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-153 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

native and reclaimed grasslands in the vicinity of the general South Gillette 

analysis area. None of the general South Gillette analysis area is classified by the 

WGFD as within normal elk use range. As more lands are reclaimed from mining, 

elk are shifting their winter use to these areas. The WGFD has designated an 

approximately 5 square mile area on reclaimed lands within the Jacobs Ranch 

Mine permit area as crucial winter habitat for the Rochelle Hills elk herd 

(Oedekoven 1994). RTEA (owner of the Jacobs Ranch Mine) and the RMEF 

finalized a formal agreement that created the Rochelle Hills Conservation 

Easement. The easement contains nearly 1,000 acres, with 75 percent of that 

total comprised of reclaimed mining lands on RTEA’s Jacobs Ranch Mine. The 

easement acreage was donated to RMEF by RTEA to ensure that the reclaimed 

land continues to be used as grazing land and wildlife habitat for the extended 

future (RMEF 2007). The Jacobs Ranch Mine is located about 9 miles south of the 

general South Gillette analysis area (Figure 1-1). Elk have been observed within 

the general South Gillette analysis area in recent years, but they are typically 

restricted to the pine breaks east of the Cordero Rojo and Coal Creek Mines. 

Limited observations have also been documented in and near the Belle Ayr Mine 

permit area in the last few years. 

3.10.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Under the Proposed Action and Action Alternatives, big game would be displaced 

from portions of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf 

II LBA Tracts to adjacent ranges during mining. Pronghorn would be most 

affected; however, no areas classified as crucial pronghorn habitat occur on or 

within 2 miles of the LBA tracts. Mule deer would not be substantially impacted, 

given their infrequent use of these lands and the availability of suitable habitat in 

adjacent areas. White-tailed deer are not usually found in the area but are 

occasionally observed to the east. None of the land within the general South 

Gillette analysis area is considered by WGFD to be an elk use area and few elk 

have been observed within the vicinity of the general South Gillette analysis area 

in recent years. Those elk that were seen in the area were largely restricted to the 

pine breaks habitats in the eastern-most perimeter. Big game displacement would 

be incremental, occurring over several years and allowing for gradual changes in 

distribution patterns. Big game residing in the adjacent areas could be impacted 

by increased competition with displaced animals. Noise, dust, and associated 

human presence would cause some localized avoidance of foraging areas adjacent 

to mining activities. On the existing coal leases, however, big game have 

continued to occupy areas adjacent to and within active mining operations, 

suggesting that some animals may become habituated to such disturbances. 

Big game animals are highly mobile and can move to undisturbed areas. There 

would be more restrictions on big game movement on or through the proposed 

LBA tracts, however, due to the construction of additional fences, spoil piles, and 

3-154 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

pits related to mining. During winter storms, pronghorn may not be able to 

negotiate these barriers. WDEQ guidelines require fencing to be designed to 

permit pronghorn passage to the extent possible. 

Following reclamation, topographic moderation and changes in vegetation may 

result in a long-term reduction in big game carrying capacity, with effects varying 

by species. Eventual restoration of important shrub habitats would allow for the 

return of some animals to reclaimed mine lands over time. 

3.10.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The impacts to big game under the No Action Alternatives would be similar to the 

impacts described in Section 3.10.1.2.2 and above for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine areas. 

3.10.3 Other Mammals 

3.10.3.1 Affected Environment 

A variety of small and medium-sized mammal species occur in the vicinity of the 

general South Gillette analysis area, although not all have been observed on the 

LBA tracts themselves. These include predators and furbearers, such as the 

coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), bobcat (Lynx rufus), striped skunk 

(Mephitis mephitis), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), badger (Taxidea taxus), 

muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and beaver (Castor 

canadensis). Prey species include various rodents (such as mice, rats, voles, 

gophers, ground squirrels, chipmunks, muskrats, black-tailed prairie dogs 

[Cynomys ludovicianus], and lagomorphs [jackrabbits and cottontails]). These prey 

species are cyclically common and widespread throughout the region. Porcupines 

(Erethizon dorsatum) and bats (such as hoary [Lasiurus cinereus] and big brown 

[Eptesicus fuscus]) also have habitat in the vicinity, primarily east of the Cordero 

Rojo Mine area. The prey species are important for raptors and other predators. 

The black-tailed prairie dog was added to the list of candidate species for federal 

listing on February 4, 2000 (USFWS 2000a). The USFWS has since removed the 

black-tailed prairie dog from the list of candidate species (USFWS 2002a), but 

continues to encourage the protection of prairie dog colonies for their value to the 

prairie ecosystem and the myriad of species that rely on them (USFWS 2004). 

The black-tailed prairie dog is a highly social, diurnally active, burrowing 

mammal. Aggregations of individual burrows, known as colonies, form the basic 

unit of prairie dog populations. Found throughout the Great Plains in short-grass 

and mixed-grass prairie areas (Fitzgerald et al. 1994), the black-tailed prairie dog 

has declined in population numbers and extent of colonies in recent years. The 

three major impacts that have influenced black-tailed prairie dog populations are 

the initial conversion of prairie grasslands to cropland in the eastern portion of its 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-155 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

range from approximately the 1880s-1920s; large-scale control efforts conducted 

from approximately 1918 through 1972, when an Executive Order was issued 

banning the use of compound 1080; and the introduction of sylvatic plague into 

North American ecosystems in 1908 (USFWS 2000b). In Wyoming, this species is 

primarily currently found in isolated populations in the eastern half of the state 

(Clark and Stromberg 1987). USFWS recently estimated that about 125,000 acres 

of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat exists in Wyoming (USFWS 2000b). 

Many other wildlife species, such as the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), swift 

fox (Vulpes velox), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), ferruginous hawk 

(Buteo regalis), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) may be dependent on the 

black-tailed prairie dog for some portion of their life cycle (USFWS 2000b). 

The species is considered a common resident in eastern Wyoming, utilizing shortgrass and mid-grass habitats (Cerovski et al. 2004). According to USDA-FS 

observations on the Thunder Basin National Grassland, the largest concentrations 

of prairie dog colonies in the vicinity of the eastern PRB surface coal mines are 

found east of the coal burnline, which is outside and east of the area of surface 

coal mining (Tim Byer, personal communication 9/11/2003). The large prairie dog 

complexes in this area east of the coal burnline have been drastically impacted by 

outbreaks of plague. The prairie dog colonies west of the burnline, including the 

areas near the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West or Maysdorf II LBA 

Tracts, are generally smaller and less densely concentrated. These colonies have 

not been affected by plague to the same degree, likely due to their reduced size 

and density. 

Qualified wildlife biologists with Intermountain Resources and Jones & Stokes 

have mapped the current acreage of prairie dog colonies in the vicinity of the Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines by walking the perimeters of 

colonies and delineating them using hand-held global positioning system receivers 

and/or by visually mapping them on topographic maps (Figures 3-25 through 3­

28, respectively). No colonies are currently present on or within 2 miles of the 

Belle Ayr North or Caballo West LBA Tracts under the Proposed Actions or Action 

Alternatives. One small colony is present approximately 1.25 miles southeast of 

the West Coal Creek LBA Tract (Figure 3-26). That colony was poisoned in the 

past and was only occupied again beginning in 2000. 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 (Figure 3-28). The colony located east of the CMC mine permit area is 

currently smaller than that depicted. The boundaries shown on Figures 3-26 and 

3-28 are historical town boundaries and, although black-tailed prairie dogs still 

exist in the areas, their numbers and distribution may be much smaller than 

previously recorded. 

3-156 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
hway 

Bishop

Road 

State

 59 

Hig

Creek 

Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Creek Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

10 11 

2 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

6 5

3 2 4 3 1 

SEO1 

FH12h/SH13 

12 BO12 FH12e 8 9 10 11 FH12f 7 FH12a FH12d FH12b FH12c H15 

FH12g SH3a 

H5 RTH9-1 FH11d SH3/GH04 

FH11 SH3b/GHO4a/RTH7 

GHO4b 

FH11a GHO4c RTH9-2 

15 

FH13b 

14 

FH13c 

FH11b 

FH11c 

FH13a FH13 

13 18 BO3 

17 

BO8 

SH10 

16 

H12 

15 14 

LYNDE 

FH4b 

FH4c FH4/GE3 

BO7 

GHO6 

LEK FH4a 22 23 22 19 20 21 FH4d GH02a/ GE4

FH9a
 23 24 

B06 SEO2 SH1a 

FH18 RTH9a1 SH1 

B05 B04 FH9 RTH9a2 H4 FH18b SH4 FH5 SH14 FH18a 28 27 26 SH9a GHO2b SH2f 27 26 30 29 25 SH12 SH12b I2 I3 H1

FH9b/GE2d H4b I1 SH2e/ SH12a H6	 FH6 GHO5/ H4a SH9 

FH15d SH2d SH9b SH2c I5	 H14 FH7 RTH2c H8 B02 H10-1 GE2b 

H10-2 RTH2a H7 H10-3	 GHO1c/ H13 RTH2b FH15b H2 H10-4 SH5c FH15 32 33 34 RTH2/

GHO1 34 35 36 H10-5 T. 31 SH2/ GHO1b 

GE2a
 T. FH3a SEO3 H9 RTH1 GHO1a 35 SH5d/ 48 RTH5a 48 

N. 

FH15a FH3	 SH2b FH3c SH5a/

FH8f
 FH1 GHO2 H3 N. FH20 FH1a SH5/

FH8e
 SH5e BO10 

SH2a FH15c T. SH5f FH8 BO9	 FH3b T.

47 BO11 BO1	 47 SH5b/

RTH5
 N. 6	 4 3 2 3 2 1 5 STOWE 

LEK 

BELLE AYR LEK II 

BELLE 

AYR LEK I 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

LEGEND 

Existing Raptor Nest GE Golden Eagle Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Former Raptor Nest FH Ferruginous Hawk Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Platform Nest RTH Red-tailed Hawk 

Former Platform Nest SH Swainson's Hawk BLM's Alternative 2 

Sage-Grouse Lek GHO Great Horned Owl BLM's Study Area (Three Mile Radius) BO Burrowing Owl Belle Ayr North Wildlife H Harrier General Analysis Area 

0 3000 6000 12000 SEO Short-eared Owl	 Two-Mile Buffer from the 

Belle Ayr North Wildlife I Unknown Buteo General Analysis Area GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

N. 

Figure 3-25. Raptor Nest Sites and Sage-Grouse Leks Within and Adjacent to the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-157
R

o

oF

ast 

Fork 

E

Coal 

Creek 

Creek 

Dry 

Belle 

River 

Fourche 

Creek

Coal 

Creek 

Coal rk West 

11 

15 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 32	 33 34 35 34 35 36 31 

FH11a 

RTH12/FH11b

UP R

H

BNSF &

R

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

o ad ey adl

FH3h FH3k 46	 FH2e FH2g FH2a 46 FH3c FH3b FH2h N. 

SH7a/GE7 FH3g 

N. FH2f

FH3a FH2k 

T. FH3j BO1a T. 	 SH7b FH3i FH2l 45 

BO1b/

45 

N. N. 2 BO2 4 2 1 6 3 5 3 

B2 Lawver Road

12 7 8 10 11 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 9 10 11 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary GE Golden Eagle Existing Raptor Nest 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for FH Ferruginous Hawk Former Raptor Nest 

RTH Red-tailed Hawk Existing Platform Nest BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) SH Swainson's Hawk Former Platform Nest 

West Coal Creek Wildlife GHO Great Horned Owl Sage-Grouse Lek General Analysis Area (Three Mile Radius) B Buteo Species Two-Mile Buffer from the West Coal Potential Sage-Grouse Lek Creek Wildlife General Analysis Area H Northern Harrier Historical Sage-Grouse Lek 0 3000 6000 12000 SEO Short-eared Owl Prairie Dog Colony 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

4 3 2 2 1 6 5 3 Kay FH4i 

FH4b 

FH4c EDWARDS FH4a RTH5b/GHO6/ GE2g/RTH5e FH4d GE2j/GE5g RTH5a FH4e FH5a FH4f 12 FH4h 8 9 10 11 SH3b 7 10 RTH5c/ GE2f/FH5b/ FH4g/RTH19 SH3a RTH5d/SH3c 

SEO2 COAL 

COAL CREEK I RTH17b CREEK II GHO1 SEO1 13 18 SH1a/GHO2a/RTH17a 17 16 15

14 GHO2b/SH1b RTH17c/GHO2d/GE2l

GE2d 

GE2e/

GHO2c
 

RTH17d
 

HOADLEY
 

Hoadley Road 

FH9e H1 SH5a/GHO7c	 COAL DEAVER I 19	 CREEK SH5c FH9h FH9d 20 COAL	 21 III 22 FH9c FH9g 23 24 GE2a CREEK 23 SH5d FH9a GE2c FH16b IVa 22 SH5b/GHO7b FH9f COAL FH9b GE2b RTH11a/ CREEK GHO7a IVb THRUSH FH1b SH5e DEAVER II FH16a GE2i FH1a/GE2h 

RTH11b/ FH6a GE2k RTH2b/ FH9i FH6d GHO3a FH6b FH6c 30 29 SH6b 28 RTH1a/SH2c 27 27 26 FH9j 25 FH6e B3/SH6d SH6c SH2a

RTH2c/ SH2d/RTH1d

SH6a RTH2a/

GHO3b SH2e/GE1c/GHO3c/RTH1c 

SH2b 

FH3d GE1a

ROUGH SH6f CREEK I FH3e FH2c SH6e/FH17

31 FH3f	 33 34 35 FH2j FH2b FH2i T. 34 36 FH2d 32 T.

Figure 3-26. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract. 

3-158 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

35 

26 

14 
State

 59 Highway 

Corners Road 

Bishop Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Caballo 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Hoe 

Creek 

Creek 

Caballo 

Creek Tisdale 

34 

22 

34 

10 

49 

48 

49 

48 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 29 

25 30 Four 28 27 26 25 27 26 

SH12c 

RTH3a/SH12a SH12h 

SH12d SH12b/GHO3b 

SH12i SH12g 33 GHO3a/RTH3c 34 35 36 31 32 T. 35 36 RTH3b/GHO3c/SH12f T.

RTH3d/

GHO3d/ N. B2 SH12e N. 

T. SH8b T. GOLD MINE SH20a SH8a/GHO10a DRAW LEK B1/GHO9/SH20b N. 2 1 5 4 SH5 3 N. 1 6 3 2 SH6c SH6d/RTH6b
 

SH6b/

RTH6a/

GHO10b
 SH6e/GHO13 

FH12c/SH29 SEO1 

SH6a 

BO1 

10 11 FH12b 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 

FH12d 

H10 SH18b RTH12a1 FH12a 

SH18a/ H3 GHO11c GHO11b GHO11a/ RTH12a2 RTH10 

17 16 15 14 15 14 13 18

SH22 H9 

FH10b BO3 

FH10a/ GHO8 LYNDE 

LEK GE4

20 21 22 23 23 19 FH10c 24 GE1a 

SH1b SEO2 

SH1a RTH12b1 

GHO5b/FH4b FH6a

FH4a RTH12b2 

H4a FH6c 

GHO5c SH27 FH6b SH17c 28 27 26 27 26 30 29 SH24b 25 FH4c/GE2c SH24c 

H5 H4b SH24a 

SH17a H4c H12 SH17b/ RTH2d GHO15/ GE2a 

FH16b H6 RTH2b GHO1c/ H11 GE2b RTH2c 31 32 33 34 RTH2a 36 35 36 FH3b T. GHO1b 35 T. 

GHO5a 48 48 GHO1a 

N. 

Creek FH3a FH3d N. FH13 

FH3c T. T. 

47 STOWE 47 LEK N. N. 3 2 3 2 1 5 4 1 6 

BELLE 

AYR LEK II 

12 7 11 R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

Existing Raptor Nest GE 

Former Raptor Nest FH 

Existing Platform Nest RTH 

Former Platform Nest SH 

Sage-Grouse Lek 

(Three Mile Radius) BO 

GHO 

H 

0 3500 7000 14000 SEO 

B 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

BELLE AYR LEK I 9 8 

LEGEND 

Golden Eagle 

Ferruginous Hawk 

Red-tailed Hawk 

Swainson's Hawk 

Great Horned Owl 

Burrowing Owl 

Harrier 

Short-eared Owl 

Buteo Species 

10 11

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

Caballo West Wildlife General Analysis Area 

Two-Mile Buffer from the Caballo West 

Wildlife General Analysis Area 

Figure 3-27. Raptor Nest Sites and Sage-Grouse Leks Within and Adjacent to the Caballo West LBA Tract. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-159

25 

24 

13 

12 
State 

T-7 Road

 59 Highway 

Hilight 

Road

Bishop 

Road 

Haight Road 

BNSF & 

Road 

Creek 

UP RR 

Caballo Creek 

Fourche 

Belle 

River 

Creek 

Caballo 

River 

Belle Fourche 

28 

16 

28 

21 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.	 R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 21 22	 23 20	 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 LYNDE 24 19
 

LEK
 

FH SH

29 28 FH 30 29 28 27 26 25 27 26 25 30 

FH 

GE 

FH H FH 

H H RTH T. T. GHO 

GHO RTH SH FH FH 36 31 32 33 48 34 FH 36 32 FH 33 34 35 48 33 35 RTH GHO SEO	 SH/GE N. N. SH FH BO FH SH FH FH FH FH FH RTH SH SH FH FH 

FH FH FH
 LEK BO GHO SH RTH FH STOWE SH	 T. T. BO BO 6 5 GE 1 4 47 H 1 47 2 BELLE 5 4 3 2 4 3 FH 6 AYR LEK II FH FH N. N. FH BELLE AYR	 H FH FH LEK I GHO

RTH	 GE 

PF 

Hoe GE FH GE FH FH 12 7 8 9 9 10 11 9 10 11 12 7 8 SH/GE GHO/RTH

SH RTH/GE GHO GHO GHO GE 

GE FH 

H FH 16	 13 18 17 15 

BO H FH SH/RT	 FH RTH/GHO H FH/RTH RTH/GHO 24 19 ey H adl R o oad

16 15 14 13 18 FH 17 14 FH BO FH BO BO GHO FH BO RTH FH FH SH 

20 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 RTH/GHO 

GHO 22 FH FH RTH/GHO SH/GHO/FH FH FH GHO FH SH SH RTH RTH 

FH 28 SH 27 26 25 30 29 28 30 29 28 27 26 25	 RTH RTH 

FH GE 

FH/SH BO RTH PF FH 

FH GHO T. T.	 35 RTH 36 31 32 33 47 47 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 FH FH FH FH	 N. N. FH FH

FH T. T. FH 4 GE 2 1 6 5 4 46 46 4 3 2 1 6 5	 3 

RTH/FH/SH N. N.	 GE 

GE/FH GE H RTH/GHO/GE/GE

FH GE RTH FH 9 GE 10 FH FH 11 GE 12 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 7 8 GE FH FH RTH/SH FH RTH/FH FH GE FH SH 

FH FH
 

DOUD
 

16 15 14 13 18 LEK 16 13
 18 17 16 

17 FH 15 14 RTH/GHO/GE FH FH Hoadley Road GE/GHO 

RTH FH	 RTH FH FH SH FH FH

FH 21 RTH 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 

SCALE: 1"=10,000' FH FH THRUSH SH/GHO RTH FH LEK 

FH 27 26 25 30 29 28 27	 26 25 30 29 28

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. FH R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND 

Existing Raptor Nest 

Former Raptor Nest 

Sage-Grouse Lek 

(Three Mile Radius) 

Historical Sage-Grouse Lek 

Prairie Dog Colony 

Maysdorf II Wildlife 

General Analysis Area 

Two-Mile Buffer from the Maysdorf II 

Wildlife General Analysis Area 

GE Golden Eagle 

FH Ferruginous Hawk 

RTH Red-tailed Hawk 

SH Swainson's Hawk 

GHO Great Horned Owl 

BO Burrowing Owl 

H Harrier 

SEO Short-eared Owl 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3 

South Tract Under Alternative 3 

Figure 3-28. Raptor Nest Sites, Sage-Grouse Leks, and Prairie Dog Colonies Within and Adjacent to the 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

3-160 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

21 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Medium-sized mammals (such as lagomorphs, coyotes, and foxes) would be 

temporarily displaced to other habitats by mining, potentially resulting in 

increased competition and mortality. However, these animals would rebound as 

forage is developed or small mammal prey species recolonize the reclaimed areas. 

Direct losses of small mammals would be higher than for other wildlife, since the 

mobility of small mammals is limited and many will retreat into burrows when 

disturbed. Therefore, populations of such prey animals as voles, ground squirrels 

and mice would decline during mining. However, these animals have a high 

reproductive potential and tend to re-occupy and adapt to reclaimed areas 

quickly. A research project on habitat reclamation on mined lands within the PRB 

for small mammals and birds concluded that reclamation objectives to encourage 

recolonization by small mammal communities are being achieved (Clayton et al. 

2006 and Shelley 1992). That study evaluated sites at five separate mines. 

Leasing and mining the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West or 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts would not affect black-tailed prairie dogs because no 

colonies are currently present on the tracts as applied for or the areas added by 

the Action Alternatives. One colony is located approximately 1.3 miles south of 

the West Coal Creek LBA tract. The colony is not within the anticipated 

disturbance area for the LBA tract. Similarly, two colonies are located within 2 

miles of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract, but they are west of Highway 59 and not 

within the anticipated Maysdorf II disturbance area. 

3.10.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The impacts to small mammals under the No Action Alternatives would be similar 

to the impacts described in Section 3.10.1.2.2 and above for the existing Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine areas. 

3.10.4 Raptors 

3.10.4.1 Affected Environment 

The raptor species expected to occur in suitable habitats in the general South 

Gillette analysis area include the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), ferruginous 

hawk, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), 

rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American 

kestrel (Falco sparverius), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), great horned owl (Bubo 

virginianus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and short-eared owl (Asio 

flammeus). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a migrant and winter 

resident. Those species that commonly nest in the general South Gillette analysis 

area are the ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-161 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

northern harrier, and great horned owl. The burrowing owl and short-eared owl 

occasionally nest in the area. Habitat is limited for those species that nest 

exclusively in trees or on cliffs, but several species have adapted to nesting on the 

ground, creek banks, buttes, mine highwalls, or rock outcrops. 

Figures 3-25 through 3-28 show the locations of raptor nests identified since 

monitoring began in the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts, respectively, in the areas included in the respective 

wildlife general analysis areas and 2-mile buffers. Over time, new nests have been 

built, natural forces have destroyed many nests, while others have been relocated 

for mitigation or removed by mining activities. In some cases, nests have been 

created to mitigate other nest sites impacted by mining operations. 

3.10.4.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Through 2006, surveys conducted by Jones & Stokes had documented eight 

raptor species (golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, 

Swainson’s hawk, great horned owl, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl) nesting 

at least once within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract raptor survey area. That raptor 

survey area is defined as a 2-mile radius around the Belle Ayr North wildlife 

general analysis area (Figure 3-25). 

In 2006, 42 intact raptor nests were present within the Belle Ayr North raptor 

survey area, 17 of these nests were active (eggs laid), and one nest was tended 

(new material added, no eggs laid). Only one (a Swainson’s hawk nest) of the 17 

active nests in 2006 is located on the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as applied for 

under the Proposed Action. The only other intact raptor nest present on the LBA 

tract area as applied for or in the area added by Alternative 2 is an alternate nest 

adjacent to the Swainson’s hawk nest active in 2006. Two additional intact nest 

sites are present within the Belle Ayr North wildlife general analysis area: a 

burrowing owl nest site and a platform nest used by ferruginous hawks and 

golden eagles in the past (Figure 3-25). All intact raptor nests except the 

burrowing owl nest site are already encompassed by the existing Belle Ayr Mine 

permit area. 

3.10.4.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Through 2006, surveys conducted by Jones & Stokes had documented eight 

raptor species (golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, 

northern harrier, great horned owl, short-eared owl, and burrowing owl) that had 

nested at least once within the raptor survey area for the West Coal Creek LBA 

Tract. That raptor survey area is defined as a 2-mile radius around the West Coal 

Creek wildlife general analysis area (Figure 3-26). Five of those eight species have 

regularly nested in the raptor survey area since annual monitoring began in 1982. 

Northern harriers and short-eared owls are heavily dependent on cyclic small 

rodent populations, and their presence tends to follow peaks and valleys in those 

3-162 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

prey populations. The recent occurrence of nesting burrowing owls in the raptor 

survey area coincided with the re-colonization of the small prairie dog colony 

southeast of the tract as applied for. 

Forty-eight raptor nests were intact within the raptor survey area during the 2006 

breeding season. Five intact nests were on the West Coal Creek LBA Tract as 

applied for, including one red-tailed hawk nest, one ferruginous hawk nest, one 

Swainson’s hawk nest, and two multi-species nests (Figure 3-26). Four of those 

five nests are also within or immediately adjacent to the existing Coal Creek 

permit area. No intact nests were present in lands added under Alternative 2, and 

only one additional nest (ferruginous hawk) was within the West Coal Creek 

wildlife general analysis area. Only two of the six intact nests encompassed by the 

West Coal Creek wildlife general analysis area were active (eggs laid) during 2006, 

with one nest tended (new material added but no eggs laid). The remaining intact 

nests were alternates to other active or tended nests within their respective 

territories. 

3.10.4.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Through 2006, surveys conducted by Jones & Stokes had documented eight 

raptor species (golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, 

northern harrier, great horned owl, short-eared owl, and burrowing owl) that had 

nested at least once within the wildlife survey area for the Caballo West LBA Tract. 

That raptor survey area is defined as a 2-mile radius around the Caballo West 

wildlife general analysis area (Figure 3-27). Of those eight species, the Swainson’s 

hawk has been the most common nester in the raptor survey area for this tract 

over time. The presence of other nesting raptor species has been associated with 

cyclic lagomorph or small rodent populations and the availability of nest sites 

(e.g., intact nests of other species for great horned owls, and the presence of 

platform nests for ferruginous hawks and golden eagles). 

In 2006, 39 intact raptor nests were present in the Caballo West raptor survey 

area; 18 of those nests were active (eggs laid). No active nests were observed in 

the Caballo West wildlife general analysis area, though one active Swainson’s 

hawk nest was located immediately south of the Caballo West wildlife general 

analysis area. The only intact nests within the Caballo West wildlife general 

analysis area were a Swainson’s hawk nest (on the tract as applied for) and a 

burrowing owl nest site (on lands added under Alternative 2). The Swainson’s 

hawk nest is also within the current permit area for the Caballo mine; that nest 

was last active in 2002. The burrowing owl nest was active only in 1988. 

3.10.4.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Surveys conducted by Intermountain Resources documented eight raptor species 

(golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, northern 

harrier, great horned owl, short-eared owl, and burrowing owl) that had nested at 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-163 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

least once within the wildlife survey area for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. That 

raptor survey area is defined as a 2-mile radius around the Maysdorf II wildlife 

general analysis area (Figure 3-28). During surveys that were completed in 2006­

2007 a total of five raptor species (golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed 

hawk, Swainson’s hawk, and great horned owl) were found to be currently nesting 

within the Maysdorf II survey area. In the past, the prairie falcon, northern 

harrier, short-eared owl, and burrowing owl have also been identified nesting 

within or adjacent to the survey area. 

The 2007 survey identified 49 intact raptor nests in the raptor survey area, 20 of 

these nests were active. There were 12 intact nests within the Maysdorf II wildlife 

general analysis area including 10 ferruginous hawk nests, one red-tailed 

hawk/ferruginous hawk nest and one red-tailed hawk/golden eagle nest. Six of 

the 12 nests were occupied (two red-tailed hawks and four ferruginous hawks) in 

2007. Five of the 12 intact nests were unoccupied, alternate nests for several 

pairs of raptors. 

3.10.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.4.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Mining the LBA tracts would not impact regional raptor populations; however, 

individual birds or pairs may be impacted. Mining activity could cause raptors to 

abandon nests proximate to disturbance. The USFWS recommends a 1-mile 

buffer around all ferruginous hawk nests. 

3.10.4.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

No intact ferruginous hawk nests were present on the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

under the Proposed Action or on lands added by Alternative 2 in 2006, though one 

platform nest does exist at the extreme southern end of that tract’s wildlife general 

analysis area. That platform nest is on reclamation inside the existing Belle Ayr 

mine permit area. 

3.10.4.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

There are two intact ferruginous hawk nests within the West Coal Creek wildlife 

general analysis area; one intact ferruginous hawk nest within the West Coal 

Creek LBA Tract under the Proposed Action. No intact nests were located on 

lands added by Alternative 2 in 2006. Both nests in the West Coal Creek wildlife 

general analysis area have alternate nests and/or nest sites within their respective 

territories that are outside of the wildlife general analysis area for that tract. 

3-164 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.4.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

No intact ferruginous hawk nests were present within the entire Caballo West 

wildlife general analysis area in 2006. 

3.10.4.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

In 2007 there were ten intact ferruginous hawk nests within the Maysdorf II 

wildlife general analysis area; five of these intact ferruginous hawk nests were 

within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract under the Proposed Action. No intact nests were 

located on lands added by Alternatives 2 and 3. 

USFWS and WDEQ/LQD approval would be required before mining would occur 

within buffer zones for active raptor nests. The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo Mines annually monitor territorial occupancy and nest 

productivity on and around their existing leases. Raptor nesting activity has 

previously occurred in active mining and construction areas. Many of those nests 

have succeeded due to a combination of raptors becoming acclimated to the 

gradual encroachment of mine operations, and successfully executed state-of-theart mitigation techniques to maintain viable raptor territories and protect nest 

productivity. 

Mining near raptor territories would impact the availability of native foraging 

habitats for nesting birds. However, equipment yards associated with mining 

provide additional habitat for prey species such as cottontails, and several raptor 

pairs voluntarily nest quite near those areas. Additionally, increased acreage of 

reclamation within the permit areas would offset new habitat loss as mining 

progresses. At surface mines throughout the region, raptor nesting efforts have 

typically been influenced primarily by natural factors such as prey abundance and 

availability of nesting substrates. Due to the paucity of woody vegetation, raptors 

that nest in trees or on cliffs are not as abundant as those that either nest on the 

ground or are adaptable to nesting on mine facilities or other man-made 

structures (platform nests, etc.). During mining, nesting habitat is created by the 

excavation process (highwalls), as well as through enhancement efforts (nest 

platforms, nest boxes, and tree plantings). Nests in highwalls within active mining 

areas, and in other areas of potential conflict, will be moved following proper 

permitting requirements and coordination with all corresponding agencies. 

3.10.4.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The impacts to raptor species for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mine areas under the No Action Alternatives would be similar to the 

impacts described in Section 3.10.1.2.2, above. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-165 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.5 Upland Game Birds 

3.10.5.1 Affected Environment 

Four upland game bird species are known to occur in suitable habitats in the 

general South Gillette analysis area. These species are sage-grouse, mourning 

doves (Zenaida macroura), sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), and 

gray partridge (Perdix perdix). 

Sage-grouse are a large upland game bird considered a “landscape species”, 

annually using widespread areas of sagebrush habitats. This grouse is referred to 

as both sage-grouse and greater sage-grouse, and the terms are interchangeable. 

Sage-grouse are found in sagebrush shrub-land habitat, and sagebrush is 

essential for sage-grouse during all seasons of the year. During winter, sagegrouse feed almost exclusively on sagebrush leaves and buds. Suitable winter 

habitat requires sagebrush above snow. Sage-grouse tend to select wintering sites 

where sagebrush is 10-14 inches above the snow. Population and habitat 

analyses suggest that wintering habitat can be as limiting as mating and breeding 

habitats. Breeding occurs on strutting grounds (leks) during late March and April. 

Leks are generally situated on sites with low vegetation and little or no sagebrush, 

broad ridge tops, grassy openings, and disturbed sites such as burns, abandoned 

well locations, airstrips or roads. However, often there are areas of denser 

sagebrush near the lek that are used for foraging, loafing, and hiding cover (WGFD 

2003). Approximately two-thirds of hens nest within 3 miles of the lek where they 

were bred. The rest of the hens usually nest within 15 miles of the lek. Sagegrouse typically nest under tall sagebrush, but may use other large shrubs. 

Sagebrush stands used for nesting range in height from 8 to 18 inches, with 

individual plants reaching up to 32 inches tall. Both new spring herbaceous 

growth and residual cover are important in the understory for nesting sage-grouse 

(WGFD 2003). Hens move their brood immediately upon hatching from the nest 

site to brood-rearing areas. Sites used during the first 10-14 days after hatching 

are typically within 1.5 miles of the nest. The vast majority of chick mortality (87 

percent of total brood loss in four studies conducted in Wyoming) occurs during 

this period. After the first 10 days, broods may have dispersed 5 or more miles 

from the nest. As summer progresses and food plants mature and dry, sagegrouse move to areas still supporting succulent herbaceous vegetation. They 

continue to rely on adjacent sagebrush for protection from weather and predators, 

and for roosting and loafing. Sage-grouse normally move off late brood-rearing 

habitat onto transitional fall habitat before moving onto winter range (WGFD 

2003). 

On and after July 2, 2002, the USFWS received three petitions requesting that the 

greater sage-grouse be listed as endangered across its entire range. Following a 

12-month status review of the best available scientific and commercial information 

on the species, the USFWS found that listing was not warranted at this time. 

However, the USFWS continues to have concerns regarding sage-grouse 

3-166 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

population status, trends and threats, as well as concerns for other sagebrush 

obligates (USFWS 2005). USFWS indicated there is a need for continued efforts to 

conserve sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat on a long-term basis. USFWS 

encourages continued development and implementation of conservation strategies 

throughout the grouse's range. 

On September 11, 2003, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission announced 

that the 2003 hunting season for sage-grouse in Johnson, Sheridan, and 

Campbell counties would be closed, following the deaths of 11 sage-grouse in 

northeastern Wyoming from West Nile virus in August and early September of that 

year. According to a press release, the commission took this action because the 

incidence of infection is much higher in northeastern Wyoming than the rest of 

the state and the area is on the fringe of sage-grouse range with marginal, 

fragmented habitat (WGFD September 11, 2003 press release). Recent lek, or 

strutting ground, count data indicate that Wyoming’s sage-grouse populations 

increased slightly in 2004 and 2005. According to a 2004 summary report on 

sage-grouse trends related to hunting, all the biological data from Wyoming and 

past research throughout the range of sage-grouse indicate that current levels of 

harvest will not cause population declines nor prevent sage-grouse population 

recovery when habitat conditions improve (Christiansen 2004). Sage-grouse 

hunting seasons were consequently reopened in 2004. 

In May 2002, the USFWS office in Cheyenne, Wyoming released a list entitled Coal 

Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming, which 

replaced the previous Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest List. The greater 

sage-grouse is included on the list and, as a result, the presence of sage-grouse 

and sage-grouse sign are included in the annual migratory bird surveys that are 

conducted by the coal mines in both spring and summer. 

On August 1, 2008, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal released an executive 

order regarding greater sage-grouse core area protection (Office of the Governor 

2008). The sage-grouse focus area protection concept came about as a result of 

work by the Sage-Grouse Implementation Team, which emerged from Governor 

Freudenthal’s 2007 Sage-Grouse Summit. The Implementation Team developed a 

Core Population Strategy for the State of Wyoming “to maintain habitats and 

viable populations of Sage-grouse in areas where they are most abundant” and 

delineated approximately 40 areas around the state with a focus of maintenance 

and enhancement of grouse habitats and populations within the focus areas 

(Sage-Grouse Implementation Team 2008). The areas were delineated by 

evaluating habitats within a 4-mile radius of selected sage-grouse leks in high lekdensity areas. The BLM Wyoming State Office has indicated that the sage-grouse 

management strategy for management of future surface disturbance (including 

actions proposed in this EIS) will likely be based on the sage-grouse focus areas 

(BLM 2008c) and has delineated sage-grouse focus area based on the core area 

concept. The association of the SGAC tracts to these focus area is shown on 

Figure 3-29. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-167 
49 

Mills 

T-7 Road 

T-7 Road 

BNSF RR 

Fairview 

BNSF & UP RR 

BNSF & UP RR 

Road 

State

 59 Highway

Hilight Road

BNSF RR 

Haight Road 

Wagensen Road 

Four Corners Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Hoe

Road

Creek 

 Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

Hilight Road

ey H adl R o oad

T. T. 

49 

N. N. CABALLO
 WEST LBA
 TRACT
 LEGEND 

BLM Sage-Grouse Focus Area 

BELLE AYR
 NORTH LBA
 TRACT
 Caballo West LBA Tract 

as Applied for 

T. T. BLM's Caballo West LBA 

48 48 Study Area (Alternative 2) 

N. N. 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

as Applied for Bishop Road BLM's Belle Ayr North LBA 

(Alternative 2) 

BLM's Belle Ayr North LBA 

Study Area 

T. T. 

47 47 

N. N. Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

as Applied for 

BLM's Maysdorf II LBA 

Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3 

South Tract Under Alternative 3 

Pending North Maysdorf 

LBA Tract 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

as Applied for 

BLM's West Coal Creek LBA 

Study Area (Alternative 2) 

MAYSDORF II
 LBA TRACTS
 

T. T. 

Hoadley Road 46 46 

N. N. 

WEST COAL Lawver Road CREEK LBA 

TRACT 

T. T. 

45 

N. N.

Lawver Road 

SCALE: 1"=3 MILES 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

Figure 3-29. General South Gillette Analysis Area and Associated BLM Sage-Grouse Focus Areas. 

3-168 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

45 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines conduct surveys to 

identify new sage-grouse leks and sage-grouse lek attendance at previously 

identified leks in the spring as part of the annual wildlife surveys that are 

conducted for the mines. Each active lek is generally surveyed three times each 

breeding season. These surveys and baseline inventories, which include the 

mines’ permit areas and a 1-mile perimeter, were initiated when the mines were 

initially permitted. As a result, most of the areas included in the proposed LBA 

Tracts have been included in previous annual survey areas. 

Although sage-grouse may occasionally occur in the general South Gillette 

analysis area, it is unlikely that grouse are yearlong residents of the specific 

wildlife general analysis areas for any of the four proposed LBA tracts for the 

following reasons: 

• 	 As discussed in Section 3.9, the Sagebrush/Grassland vegetation type, 

which is characterized by the moderate to heavy presence of Wyoming big 

sagebrush, occupies about 38 percent of the combined vegetation analysis 

areas. As indicated, that 38 percent does not represent a contiguous stand 

of big sagebrush, but rather is the total of all sage communities within the 

combined evaluation area. 

• 	 Few active leks occur within 3 miles of a given wildlife general analysis area 

surrounding the tracts, and many of those that are present have 

experienced declines in peak male attendance in recent years. 

• 	 The lands within each wildlife general analysis area have been included in 

annual wildlife monitoring surveys for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo Mines for at least the last 15 years (1992-2006), and 

longer at some mines. No confirmed sage-grouse nests were encountered 

during that period. 

• 	 Specific pedestrian surveys for sage-grouse broods were conducted twice 

annually from 1993 through 1999 in appropriate habitat within the existing 

permit areas of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. 

Coincidentally, those survey routes included drainages that passed 

through, or were within one mile of, one or more of the proposed LBA tracts. 

Such surveys were no longer required by WDEQ/LQD after 1999. However, 

biologists watched for and recorded any sage-grouse broods seen incidental 

to other wildlife surveys during all subsequent monitoring years. 

The only observations of sage-grouse broods recorded during those targeted 

surveys occurred more than 2 miles southeast of the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

during surveys along East Fork Coal Creek. Those sightings occurred in 1998 and 

1999. No other sage-grouse broods or their sign (e.g., droppings, feathers) were 

recorded during similar surveys conducted from 1993-1999 within any of the four 

wildlife general analysis areas. Sage-grouse broods were infrequently documented 

in the vicinity of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract during early fall in the late 1990s. 

Those sightings consisted of mixed groups of female and juvenile grouse walking 

or feeding along the Bishop Road in the northern portion of the Belle Ayr North 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 	 3-169 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

wildlife general analysis area; broods were last observed there in 1999. The only 

other sage-grouse brood recorded at any of the four wildlife general analysis areas 

was within the 2-mile survey perimeter of the Belle Ayr North wildlife general 

analysis area. Six young upland game birds (presumed to be grouse) were seen 

along Caballo Creek in early May 2004, near a grouse carcass. No grouse of any 

age have been observed in that area since then. 

As discussed above, 18 sage-grouse leks have been documented within the 

combined evaluation area. Thirteen of the leks have been active during recent 

survey years, and five have not been attended by displaying grouse for at least the 

last 10 consecutive years (historical leks). Sage-grouse populations are generally 

considered to be cyclic, with periodic intervals between peaks in region-wide male 

lek attendance. However, sage-grouse populations and their distribution in 

Wyoming have declined over the last five decades (WGFD long-term data, provided 

by L. Jahnke, Regional Biologist) despite higher counts in some years. 

3.10.5.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

No greater sage-grouse leks occur within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as applied 

for, or within lands added under Alternative 2. Only one sage-grouse lek (Lynde) 

has been documented within 2 miles of the Belle Ayr North wildlife general 

analysis area during previous wildlife surveys conducted for the adjacent Belle Ayr 

and Caballo Mines (Figure 3-25). The Lynde lek was last active in 1999. Three 

additional sage-grouse leks are present approximately 2.5 miles south of the Belle 

Ayr North wildlife general analysis area: Belle Ayr I, Belle Ayr II, and Stowe. Due 

to their proximity to one another, the WGFD considers all three to be within the 

Belle Ayr Complex. All three leks have essentially been inactive since 2004. 

Although the Belle Ayr Complex leks themselves are beyond the 2-mile wildlife 

survey perimeter for the wildlife general analysis area, the 3-mile radius of 

concern for each lek overlaps the southern portion of the Belle Ayr North LBA 

Tract as applied for. That radius represents the area in which two-thirds of the 

hens that were bred at those leks would be expected to nest. 

3.10.5.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

No leks have been discovered within the West Coal Creek LBA Tract as applied for 

or on lands added under Alternative 2 (Figure 3-26). One historical lek site (Coal 

Creek II) was found within the West Coal Creek wildlife general analysis area; that 

lek was last active in 1985. Since annual monitoring began in 1980, eight 

additional known or potential lek sites have been identified within the 2-mile 

wildlife survey area surrounding the West Coal Creek wildlife general analysis area 

(Figure 3-26). Four known lek sites (Kay, Hoadley, Coal Creek I, and Edwards) are 

considered historical, with no active use for at least the last 11 consecutive years 

(1996-2006). The remaining four sites have also experienced lengthy periods of 

little or no activity over the last 10-12 years, but have not yet met the criteria (10 

consecutive years) to be officially designated as historical. The Thrush lek was 

3-170 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

active during only 1 of the last 10 years (1997-2006), with two males seen there in 

2000. One male was seen displaying within the Coal Creek Complex (Coal Creek 

III, IVa, and IVb) during 3 of the last 10 years. Four active leks are located east of, 

and beyond, the 2-mile wildlife survey perimeter, but in the general vicinity of the 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract (Figure 3-26): Deaver I and II, Rough Creek I, and 

Flora (not shown in the figure). The leks themselves are located more than 3 miles 

from the West Coal Creek wildlife general analysis area. Consequently, their 

respective 3-mile radii do not overlap the tract itself (as applied or lands added 

under Alternative 2). However, the 3-mile radii of concern for all four leks do 

overlap the eastern third of the 2-mile wildlife survey area (Figure 3-26). Of those 

four sites, the Rough Creek lek has been the most active over time, with males 

observed every year since monitoring began in 1980. That lek is part of the fivelek Rough Creek Complex, which has been visited by up to 300 grouse (males and 

hens) in a given year. The Deaver lek was discovered in 1989, and has gone 

through varying degrees of activity since then, including a shift in location that 

occurred in 2006. The Flora lek is on private lands northeast of the West Coal 

Creek wildlife general analysis area; lands that have not been consistently 

accessible for monitoring. The lek was known to be active as recently as 2001, 

but accurate records for the last 10 years are not available. 

Annual monitoring efforts conducted at the adjacent Coal Creek Mine since the 

early 1980s, which overlapped the LBA tract and its two-mile perimeter, have 

demonstrated that sage-grouse use has been concentrated approximately 4 to 5 

miles east of the tract. It is unlikely that sage-grouse are regular yearlong 

residents in the West Coal Creek LBA Tract (including Alternative 2 lands) or its 

two-mile perimeter due to area being dominated by a grassland vegetation type 

and not sagebrush. A more detailed discussion regarding sage-grouse use of the 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract is included in the SGAC EIS Supplementary 

Information document, which is available on request. 

3.10.5.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

No sage-grouse leks have ever been documented on or within 2 miles of the 

Caballo West wildlife general analysis area. Four greater sage-grouse leks (Belle 

Ayr I, Belle Ayr II, Lynde, Stowe) were found within 3 miles of the Caballo West 

wildlife general analysis area during previous studies conducted for the adjacent 

Caballo and Belle Ayr Mines. The Gold Mine Draw lek is located just outside of 

this 3-mile radius. These five leks have essentially been inactive since at least 

2004. The 3-mile radius around the Lynde lek overlaps the west-central portion of 

the Caballo West LBA Tract as applied for, as well as lands added under 

Alternative 2 and the Caballo West wildlife general analysis area in that region 

(Figure 3-27). The 3-mile radius for the Stowe lek just overlaps the extreme 

southern extent of the Caballo West wildlife general analysis area, while the radii 

for the Belle Ayr I and Belle Ayr II leks fall just outside of that perimeter. The 3­

mile radius for the Gold Mine Draw lek does not intersect the Caballo West wildlife 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-171 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

general analysis area, but does overlap the 2-mile wildlife survey area for the 

Caballo West LBA Tract. 

3.10.5.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Five recently active sage-grouse leks have been surveyed within 3 miles of the 

Maysdorf II wildlife general analysis area: the Belle Ayr, Stowe, Thrush, Doud 

(Cordero Mine), and Lynde leks. Figure 3-28 shows the location of the five active 

leks and the seven historical lek sites. The Belle Ayr lek consists of at least two 

contiguous areas where sage grouse were observed strutting (Belle Ayr I and Belle 

Ayr II). The Belle Ayr I and Belle Ayr II leks are located within the wildlife general 

analysis area. The peak number of males was 12 in 1991, while no males were 

recorded in surveys conducted in 1992, 1993, 2004, 2006 or 2007. One male was 

recorded on the Belle Ayr lek in 2005. Attendance has been relatively low, 

averaging less than four males over the last 18 years. The Stowe lek is located 

approximately 0.4 miles north of the wildlife general analysis area. The Stowe lek 

had a peak of eight males in 2001, but no birds were recorded on this lek in 2003, 

2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. Due to their proximity to one another, the WGFD 

considers the Belle Ayr I, Belle Ayr II and Stowe to be within the Belle Ayr 

Complex. The Thrush lek is located over 1.5 mile southeast of the Maysdorf II 

wildlife general analysis area. The Thrush lek was not active in 1995 through 

1999 and 2001 through 2007. The peak number of males observed on the Thrush 

lek was 19 (1990 and 1991). The Doud (Cordero Mine) lek is located 

approximately 0.5 mile from the southwest corner of the wildlife general analysis 

area. A maximum of seven males were recorded at the Doud lek in 2003, but no 

birds were in attendance in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. The Lynde lek is located 

approximately 2.9 miles northwest of the wildlife general analysis area and its 3­

mile radius just intersects the northwest corner of the analysis area. The 3-mile 

radii around the Stowe, Belle Ayr I and II, Thrush, and Doud (Cordero Mine) leks 

also extend onto the Maysdorf II wildlife general analysis area (Figure 3-28). 

There is limited potential for use of the four LBA tracts or their respective analysis 

areas by nesting sage-grouse hens due to the relatively small amount of nesting 

habitat (sagebrush) in those areas and the general paucity of sage-grouse residing 

there year-round. As discussed above, no sage-grouse broods were recorded on 

any of the four LBA Tracts as applied for, or on lands added under each respective 

Alternative 2, during specific surveys or incidental to other wildlife surveys 

conducted in those areas annually since at least 1993. 

Although winter surveys for sage-grouse are not required as part of the annual 

wildlife programs for the four mines discussed in this EIS, such surveys have been 

conducted as part of baseline inventories for their respective expansions. 

Additionally, winter surveys for other species (big game, bald eagle roosts, other 

wintering raptors) have occurred at all four locations in recent years. Due to their 

proximity to existing mine permit areas, all four LBA tracts, their Alternative 

added lands, and their analysis areas have been included in a minimum of seven 

3-172 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

consecutive years (big game surveys 1993-1999) of some level of winter surveys. 

No sage-grouse were ever documented in or near the four LBA tracts during those 

surveys. 

Based on annual lek searches since the mid 1980’s, sharp-tailed grouse do not 

appear to be as prevalent as sage-grouse near the surface coal mines in northeast 

Wyoming. The nearest sharp-tailed grouse lek (Timber Creek) to the general 

South Gillette analysis area is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the 

Caballo West wildlife general analysis area. 

Mourning doves are a migrant and relatively common in the area during 

migration, particularly near sites with water sources and trees and in the summer 

for breeding and nesting. This species is a relatively common breeding bird in 

Campbell County and may be found in a variety of habitat types. Mourning doves 

were common on the general South Gillette analysis area in 2006-07. 

Gray (or Hungarian) partridge, an introduced species, have been infrequently 

observed on reclaimed areas, sagebrush shrublands, upland grassland, and 

cultivated lands within the general South Gillette analysis area. In some years 

this species is occasionally encountered while in other years partridge appear to 

be totally absent. Gray partridge were not observed on the general South Gillette 

analysis area in 2006-07. 

3.10.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.5.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Overall, the sage-grouse population has been steadily declining in Wyoming and 

across the rest of the west. A study prepared by the Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies estimated that sage-grouse populations in western North 

America declined at an overall rate of 2.0 percent per year from 1965 to 2003 

(Connelly et al. 2004). The decline rate was greater from 1965 to 1985, with 

populations stabilizing and some increasing from 1986 to 2003. For Wyoming, 

this study estimated that sage-grouse populations declined at an average rate of 

9.66 percent from 1968 to 1986 (0.51 percent per year), and at an average rate of 

0.33 percent per year from 1987 to 2003. Population lows were reached in the 

mid-1990s and there has been some gradual increase in numbers since that time 

(Connelly et al. 2004). 

The Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

are within the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group (NWLSWG) 

Area, which includes portions of the WGFD Sheridan and Casper regions and the 

Thunder Basin National Grassland, which is located south of the general South 

Gillette analysis area. Sage-grouse monitoring has occurred within the NWLSWG 

since 1967. Within this area, sage-grouse population trends have exhibited a 

cyclical pattern, with each successive peak of a cycle being lower than the 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-173 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

preceding peak. This suggests a long term population decline since at least 1967 

(Figure 3-30). 

Population trends within the NWLSWG appear to be mirroring statewide trends in 

Wyoming, although the average number of males per lek in the NWLSWG Area, 

including in the Thunder Basin National Grassland, has typically been lower than 

those observed state wide (Figure 3-31). Since 1996, sage-grouse populations 

within the state and in northeast Wyoming have fluctuated but exhibited an 

overall increase, with a recent peak in male lek attendance occurring in 2000 or 

2001. 

The causes of the range-wide decline in sage-grouse population levels are not 

completely understood, but they may be influenced by local conditions. However, 

habitat loss due to disturbance of leks, nesting and brood-rearing areas as a 

result of increasing development, drought, and the potential for West Nile virus, as 

well as loss of population connectivity are key threats to this species (Naugle et al. 

2004). 

Some potential impacts of mineral development (including coal mining and oil and 

gas development) on sage-grouse include: 1) direct habitat loss and fragmentation 

from mine, well, road, pipeline, transmission and power line construction, 2) 

alteration of plant and animal communities, 3) increased human activity which 

could cause animals to avoid the area, 4) increased noise, which could cause 

animals to avoid an area or reduce their breeding efficiency, 5) increased 

motorized access by the public leading to legal and illegal harvest, 6) direct 

mortality associated with water evaporation ponds and production pits, and 7) 

reduced water tables resulting in the loss of herbaceous vegetation. Some impacts 

may be long-term (30 years or more), and rehabilitation of impacted habitats may 

take many years to complete (WGFD 2003). In the case of sage-grouse lek 

attendance near the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines, the 

decline in attendance preceded physical mining disturbance and thus may not be 

attributable to mine-related activities (Orpet 2007, TJS 2007). 

Areas of suitable habitat for nesting and strutting grounds are needed to sustain 

sage-grouse populations. One recent study suggests that availability of winter 

habitat may also affect sage-grouse populations (Naugle et al. 2006). The SageGrouse Implementation Team has delineated sage-grouse focus areas within 

Wyoming and a portion of the West Coal Creek LBA Tract is adjacent to one of 

these focus areas (Figure 3-29). According to the Implementation Team, 

development could occur within the sage-grouse core areas “when it can be 

demonstrated that the activity will have no negative effects on Sage-grouse, using 

a case-by-case localized approach and appropriate ground-truthing” (Sage-Grouse 

Implementation Team 2008). 

3-174 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

50
 

40

No. Males per Lek 

30

1968

20

1970
1972


10

1974
1976


0

19781980

Year 

1982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006 

Figure 3-30. Average Male Sage-grouse Lek Attendance Within the Northeast 

Wyoming Local Working Group Area (1968-2006). 

Source: TJS (2007) 

Year 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006 

No. Males per Lek 

Statewide NW LSW G TBNG 

Figure 3-31. 	 Average Male Sage-grouse Lek Attendance Statewide and Within 

the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-grouse Working Group Area 

and the Thunder Basin National Grasslands (1995-2006). 

Source: TJS (2007) 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-175 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

During mining, there is a short term loss of potential nesting habitat and potential 

disturbance to breeding activities, especially when mining operations occur in 

proximity to sage-grouse leks. Following reclamation, there may be a long term 

loss of nesting and winter habitat, including sage-grouse focus areas, depending 

on the amount of sagebrush that is restored relative to the amount of sagebrush 

that is present before mining. Sagebrush is a component of both the 

Sagebrush/Grassland and Big Sagebrush vegetation communities, which occupy 

nearly 38 percent of the vegetation analysis areas. WDEQ/LQD reclamation 

standards call for restoration of sagebrush on at least 20 percent of the reclaimed 

area. Estimates for the time it would take to restore shrubs, including sagebrush, 

to premining density levels range from 20 to 100 years. Until sagebrush returns 

to its premining density levels, there would be a reduction in potential sage-grouse 

nesting habitat and winter habitat on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. 

If mining activities disturb a lek, sage-grouse would have to use an alternate lek or 

establish a new lek site for breeding activities. There are no documented sagegrouse leks within any of the four LBA tracts, either as applied for or with added 

lands under each respective Alternative 2. Only one historical (inactive 10 or more 

consecutive years) lek has ever been documented within the specific wildlife 

general analysis areas: West Coal Creek. Fidelity to lek sites has been well 

documented in the region as a whole (WGFD 2003), but monitoring of sage-grouse 

activities has indicated that the birds may change lek sites within a given 

complex. 

As discussed in Section 3.10.5.1, 18 known or potential sage-grouse leks have 

been identified in the combined evaluation area for the four LBA tracts analyzed in 

this EIS (Figures 3-25 through 3-28). Five of those 18 sites are classified by the 

WGFD as historical, and 5 others have been largely inactive over the last 10-12 

years. The eight leks with the most recent activity are all more than 2 miles from 

the specific wildlife general analysis area of each LBA tract. However, the 3-mile 

radii of concern for those eight leks overlap one or more LBA tracts or tract wildlife 

general analysis areas. The 3-mile radius is the area in which two-thirds of the 

hens that were bred at those leks would be expected to nest. If the LBA tracts 

and/or added lands are leased and mined, potential nesting habitat for grouse 

that were bred at those leks would be affected by mining activity in those areas. 

However, as also previously discussed, no sage-grouse nests or broods have been 

recorded on any of the four LBA Tracts as applied for or on lands added under 

each respective Alternative 2, during specific surveys or incidental to other wildlife 

surveys conducted in those areas annually since at least 1994. The noise 

associated with mining operations may also disrupt sage-grouse breeding and 

nesting activities that might occur in those areas. 

There is some evidence that sage-grouse populations do repopulate areas after 

reclamation for the species, but there is no evidence that populations attain their 

previous levels and reestablishment in reclaimed areas may take 20 to 30 years, 

3-176 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

or longer (Braun 1998). Estimates for the time it would take to restore shrubs, 

including sagebrush, to premine density levels range from 20 to 100 years, which 

may delay sage-grouse repopulation in the reclaimed areas. 

Leasing and mining the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts would also affect potential habitat for mourning doves, 

sharp-tailed grouse, and gray partridge; however, the tracts do not provide unique 

habitat for these species. Sightings of sharp-tailed grouse and gray partridge are 

infrequent in this area. 

3.10.6 Other Birds 

3.10.6.1 Affected Environment 

USFWS uses a list entitled Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in 

Wyoming, specifically the Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of 

Management Concern in Wyoming, for reviews related to existing and proposed coal 

mine leased land (USFWS 2002b). This list was taken directly from the Wyoming 

Bird Conservation Plan (Cerovski et al. 2001), and was current through 2006. The 

Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming list replaced the 

Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest list. All four mines have conducted specific 

surveys for migratory birds of concern annually since at least 1993, incorporating 

new lists and survey protocols as they were issued. The surveys, which are 

conducted in the spring and summer, include the existing permit area and a 1⁄2­

mile perimeter (1-mile perimeter for bald eagles). Due to the proximity of the 

proposed LBA tracts (including added lands and respective wildlife general 

analysis areas) to existing mine permit areas, a significant portion of all four LBA 

tracts has been included in annual surveys for avian species of concern since 

1993. 

The Wildlife Section of the supplemental information document to this EIS, which 

is available on request, includes a tabulation of the regional status and expected 

occurrence, historical observations, and breeding records for each of the species 

on the Coal Mine list of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in 

Wyoming, based on a compilation of the results of the annual surveys conducted 

on and near the respective LBA tracts (as applied for and added lands). Twentythree of the 40 listed species have historically been observed within the combined 

evaluation area for the four proposed LBA tracts. Species that historically have 

been recorded, or are suspected of, nesting in the area include the burrowing owl, 

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), Swainson’s hawk, short-eared owl, 

ferruginous hawk, lark bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys), grasshopper sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum), upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), loggerhead 

shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), sage thrasher 

(Oreoscoptes montanus), chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus), McCown’s 

longspur (Calcarius mccownii), greater sage-grouse, and the vesper sparrow 

(Pooecetes gramineus). Other species documented less often in the area include 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-177 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

the peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus), bald eagle, bobolink (Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus), common loon (Gavia immer), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), 

red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erthrocephalus), sage sparrow (Amphispiza 

belli), and merlin (Falco coumbarius). The bald eagle is only observed in the winter 

or as a migrant. The other non-nesting species have been observed infrequently 

as migrants. 

The mountain plover is included on the list of Coal Mine list of 40 Migratory Bird 

Species of Management Concern in Wyoming. The USFWS proposed listing the 

mountain plover as a threatened species in February 1999 but in September 2003 

the agency withdrew the proposed rule to list the mountain plover as threatened 

(USFWS 2008). The USFWS continues to encourage provisions that would provide 

protection for this species, as it continues to be protected under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and as a sensitive species under BLM policy (Bureau Manual 

6840.06 E. Sensitive Species). 

Wildlife surveys conducted at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo Mines 

have failed to detect the presence of this species in their respective survey areas. 

The survey areas, which include the mines’ permit areas and a half-mile 

perimeter, are inventoried for suitable mountain plover habitat annually. Only a 

single observation of mountain plovers has been reported in the vicinity of the 

Caballo West LBA Tract. In August 1992, a migrant flock of 12 individuals was 

seen in saline grassland habitat within the LBA tract as applied for. No plovers 

have been documented in that area or elsewhere in the general South Gillette 

analysis area during the subsequent 14 years (through 2006) of annual 

monitoring. 

The bald eagle is seasonally common and most frequently observed during the 

winter months. Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants 

in northeastern Wyoming’s PRB. No bald eagle roosting habitat is present on the 

Belle Ayr North, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II LBA Tracts or areas added by the 

other alternatives. No bald eagle winter roosts have ever been documented in or 

within one mile of either the Belle Ayr North or Caballo West wildlife general 

analysis areas. Potential winter roosting habitat for this species is present, but 

limited, in the vicinity of the West Coal Creek and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts and 

adjacent lands. The West Coal Creek habitat consists of a relatively sparse 

cottonwood corridor along East Fork Coal Creek in the east-central portion of the 

LBA tract as applied for, and other isolated trees in that general area. Potential 

winter roosting habitat is located approximately 3⁄4-mile east of the Maysdorf II 

tract. No known nest sites, or consistent yearly concentrated prey or carrion 

sources for bald eagles are present in the vicinity of the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, or 

Caballo Mines, including the LBA tracts and their adjacent lands. However, a 

sheep ranching operation is located just west of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract as 

applied for, on the north side of Haight Road. Eagles may feed or scavenge upon 

adult sheep carcasses in this area in the winter, although that source of food 

3-178 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

would not be consistent or abundant, and wintering migrant eagles have typically 

left the area prior to spring lambing season. 

In the winters of 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007, the bald eagle has been 

far more common and abundant in the area than in previous years. This may 

have been a result of mild winters and the abundance of lagomorphs (rabbits) to 

prey upon. Bald eagles also scavenged road-killed rabbits off of adjacent roads. 

Lagomorph numbers appeared to be at or near a peak in their cycle during those 

years. During those three winters, bald eagles frequently used a large windbreak 

within the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit area approximately 3⁄4- mile east of 

the Maysdorf II tract. Bald eagles had never been observed concentrating in this 

windbreak during the previous 25+ years of wildlife surveys. A maximum of 29 

bald eagles were observed at this roost site on February 16 of 2005 with 

maximums of 20 and 15 recorded in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, respectively. 

Very few birds had been observed at the roost site through late 2007. This roost 

site is within 1⁄4-mile of active mining operations and bald eagles were commonly 

observed around mining activities. The only winter roost site documented in the 

vicinity of the West Coal Creek LBA Tract since 1980 was recorded during 

February 2007, when two to three adult bald eagles were observed perched in the 

same mature cottonwood on three different occasions. That tree is located within 

the LBA tract as applied for and immediately south of the current Coal Creek Mine 

permit area. 

The burrowing owl is uncommon and is observed as an occasional breeder in the 

combined evaluation area. Sage-grouse, recently added to the Level I list of avian 

species of concern at coal mines, are becoming less common in the general South 

Gillette analysis area but are still classified as a common breeder on and within 4 

miles of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II LBA 

Tracts (see Section 3.10.5 above). The USFWS considers Level I species as in need 

of conservation action, which includes having a monitoring and mitigation plan for 

those birds. 

Suitable nesting habitat is scarce if not absent in the general South Gillette 

analysis area for the remainder of the 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management 

Concern in Wyoming; therefore, the other species have rarely or never been 

recorded. 

Under natural conditions, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, or 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts and adjacent lands provide limited waterfowl and 

shorebird habitat. The natural aquatic habitat, prior to CBNG development within 

the Belle Fourche River drainage basin, was mainly available during spring 

migration as ponds (primarily stock reservoirs and playa areas) and intermittent 

and ephemeral streams. Many of these water features generally got quite low or 

dried up during the summer. However, the relatively recent development of CBNG 

resources upstream and within the wildlife general analysis area has supplied the 

river, its tributaries, ponds, and playas with water nearly continuously, resulting 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-179 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

in an increase in habitat for waterfowl and shorebird species. Broods of Canada 

geese (Branta Canadensis) American wigeon (Anas Americana), blue-winged teal 

(Anas discors), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), northern pintail (Anas acuta), 

northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), gadwall (Anas strepera), and green-winged teal 

(Anas crecca) were observed during 2005 and/or 2006 throughout the area. 

3.10.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.6.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Of the twenty-three Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern for Wyoming 

coal mines that have historically been observed in the wildlife general analysis 

area, the Level I species (those identified as needing conservation action) that have 

historically been recorded nesting in the area include the ferruginous hawk, 

burrowing owl, greater sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, Swainson’s hawk, and 

McCown’s longspur. Level I species that do not have abundant nesting habitat 

available in the wildlife general analysis areas, but have been documented or 

presumed to nest, include the short-eared owl and upland sand piper. Other Level 

I species observed in the area include the peregrine falcon, long-billed curlew, sage 

sparrow, and bald eagle, with varying degrees of frequency. 

The existing habitat for these species on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, or Maysdorf II LBA Tracts and their respective wildlife general 

analysis areas (tracts as applied for, added lands, and a one-quarter-mile 

perimeter around that combined area) would be destroyed during mining. The 

habitat loss would be short-term for grassland species, but would last longer for 

shrub-dependent species. There are currently no trees on three of the four LBA 

tracts (as applied for and with added lands). The West Coal Creek LBA Tract and 

its wildlife general analysis area do support scattered trees along the primary 

drainages in that location. Current reclamation practices at the applicant mines 

are designed to provide a mosaic of upland grass and sagebrush habitats that 

would potentially host most of these species. Periodic breeding bird surveys at 

other surface mines with similar habitats in the region since the mid-1980s have 

demonstrated that species richness and abundance in reclaimed habitats are 

equal to or greater than in their native counterparts, though species composition 

may not be the same due to differences between pre- and post-mining vegetation. 

Additionally, surface coal mines in the PRB of northeastern Wyoming are required 

to replace each tree lost to mining, though it will take many years for newly 

planted trees to reach maturity. Research projects on habitat reclamation on 

mined lands within the PRB for small mammals and birds concluded that the 

diversity of song birds on reclaimed areas was less than on adjacent undisturbed 

areas, although their overall numbers were greater (Clayton et al. 2006 and 

Shelley 1992). 

No impacts to mountain plovers are anticipated because they have only been 

observed one time in the last 14 years at or near any of the four LBA tracts, 

3-180 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

despite annual monitoring in those areas every year since the lone observation 

was recorded (1992). Additionally, the typical suitable habitat for this species is 

not currently present on the tracts. 

Potential impacts to the bald eagle, sage-grouse and other raptors in general, as 

well as measures in place to prevent impacts to these species from existing mining 

operations are included in the preceding discussions, in Appendices E through H, 

or the Supplementary Information document (available on request). 

Mining the LBA tracts would have a negligible effect on migrating and breeding 

waterfowl and shorebirds. Sedimentation ponds created during mining would 

provide interim habitat for these fauna. Cordero Rojo Mine’s current reclamation 

plan requires that the portion of the Belle Fourche River channel affected by 

currently permitted mining be reclaimed to restore its premining functions and 

aquatic habitats. Similar requirements would be put into place whenever primary 

channels are diverted for mine operations at other properties. The Belle Fourche 

River diversion channel and other future diversions would not provide the same 

habitat as the natural channels, although natural stream flow and the presence of 

CBNG discharge water would not be affected. If the Maysdorf II LBA tract is 

leased and mined, current reclamation efforts would be extended onto the portion 

of the river affected by mining the tract. Replacement of all impacted jurisdictional 

wetlands would be required in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(Section 3.7) for all four tracts, as applicable. If the replaced wetlands on the LBA 

Tracts do not duplicate the exact function and/or landscape features of the premine wetlands, waterfowl and shorebirds could be beneficially or adversely 

affected as a result. 

3.10.6.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Impacts to migratory bird species, waterfowl, and shorebirds under the No Action 

Alternatives would be similar to the impacts described in Section 3.10.1.2.2 and 

above for the existing Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine 

areas. 

3.10.7 Amphibians, Reptiles, and Aquatic Species 

3.10.7.1 Affected Environment 

Wildlife surveys completed specifically for the applicants and adjacent mines, as 

well as biological research projects in the eastern PRB, have documented 

numerous other wildlife species that inhabit the region, including various 

amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic species. All these species are generally common 

inhabitants of the general South Gillette analysis area. 

Numerous reptile and amphibian species have been recorded during the various 

surveys on the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine areas and 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-181 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

adjacent lands, including the specific wildlife general analysis areas. These 

species include the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), plains spadefoot 

(Scaohiopus bombifrons), great plains toad (Bufo cognatus), Woodhouse’s toad 

(Bufo woodhousei), boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata maculata), northern 

leopard frog (Rana pipiens), common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina 

serpentina), western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta belli), eastern short-horned 

lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi brevirostre), northern sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus 

graciosus graciosus), prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis viridis), plains hognose 

snake (Heterondon nasicus nasicus), bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucas sayi), 

western plains garter snake (Thamnophis radix haydeni), red-sided garter snake 

(Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis), and eastern yellowbelly racer (Coluber constrictor 

flaviventris). The abundance of these reptiles and amphibians is difficult to 

determine but these species appear to be common to the area. 

Under natural conditions, aquatic habitat is limited by the temporary nature of 

most surface waters in the combined evaluation area. The lack of deep-water 

habitat and extensive and persistent water sources within that region limits the 

presence and diversity of fish and other aquatic species. 

3.10.7.1.1 Belle North LBA Tract 

The scarcity of mesic habitats throughout the majority of the Belle Ayr North 

wildlife general analysis area reduces the potential of the area to attract aquatic 

species. The adjacent Belle Ayr Mine has conducted a voluntary program of 

aquatic monitoring on Caballo Creek (south of the LBA tract) twice annually from 

fall 1986 through fall 1999, and in alternate years from 2001-2006. Those 

surveys were expanded in 2006 to include a new diversion on the creek. Caballo 

Creek has demonstrated characteristics of both an ephemeral and intermittent 

stream. Some stream segments flow only in response to snowmelt runoff in the 

spring and thunderstorm runoff in the summer months, although there are some 

stream segments that flow throughout the year in response to alluvial 

groundwater discharge. Recent influxes of CBNG discharge water into the creek 

have provided extended periods of surface water in some, but not all, of the last 

few years. During 2006, several fish were documented in stretches of Caballo 

Creek, including the sand shiner (Notropis stramineus), fathead minnow 

(Pimephales promelas), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and bluegill (Lepomis 

macrochirus). Despite the presence of these species, Caballo Creek is not 

considered a viable fishery. 

3.10.7.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Coal Creek and its various tributaries associated with the West Coal Creek wildlife 

general analysis area have not historically exhibited flow persistent enough to 

warrant aquatic sampling. Nevertheless, limited fisheries sampling was conducted 

during the baseline studies for the Coal Creek Mine in three stock ponds within 

the existing permit area in 1975. The nearest survey site during those efforts was 

3-182 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

a pond located approximately one mile east of the LBA tract as applied for. The 

common fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) was the only species captured at 

the pond. No specific sampling was required or conducted for herptiles or aquatic 

species during the West Coal Creek LBA Tract baseline studies. Nevertheless, 

biologists watched for and recorded all incidental sightings of those animals 

during each site visit. 

3.10.7.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Monitoring of aquatic species is not regularly conducted at the Caballo Mine, and 

fish surveys were not required or conducted specifically for the Caballo West LBA 

Tract. The nearest regular monitoring of aquatic species occurs as part of regular 

surveys in Caballo Creek, south of the Caballo West LBA Tract, for the 

neighboring Belle Ayr Mine. All baseline and annual report documents for the 

Caballo and Belle Ayr Mines are on file with WDEQ/LQD in Sheridan, Wyoming. 

3.10.7.1.4 Maysdorf LBA II Tract 

Fish surveys were conducted in the Belle Fourche River during baseline studies 

for the Cordero Rojo Mine in 1975 and on the Maysdorf LBA II Tract in 2005. 

These surveys were completed in the southern and southeastern portion of the 

existing Cordero Rojo Mine area in 1975 and throughout the Maysdorf LBA II 

Tract in 2005. Fish species observed during those surveys include the common 

carp (Cyprinus carpio), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), flathead chub 

(Platygobio gracilis), sand shiner, brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni), 

fathead minnow, white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), black bullhead (Ameiurus 

melas), green sunfish, and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). The most abundant 

fish were the white sucker and various minnow species. 

In 1997, the Belle Fourche River was sampled at a location several miles upstream 

from the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. The black bullhead, creek chub, carp, fathead 

minnow, green sunfish, sand shiner, and white sucker were found during those 

surveys (Patton 1997). WGFD has categorized the black bullhead as a Status 3 

species. Status 3 species are widely distributed throughout their native range 

with stable populations; however, habitat is declining or vulnerable. 

Excluding the black bullhead, none of the other aquatic species found during the 

1975, 1997, or 2005 surveys are of specific concern to state or federal agencies 

and the Belle Fourche River channel through the Maysdorf II LBA Tract is not 

considered a viable fishery. The site rating for this stream reach was poor to very 

poor, based on the 2005 macroinvertebrate samplings and the WDEQ Indices. 

As discussed above, water discharged from CBNG wells has recently supplied the 

Belle Fourche River and some tributaries, ponds, and playas with water nearly 

continuously, resulting in an increase in habitat for aquatic species. However, in 

July of 2005 only 40 percent of the river’s channel length through the Maysdorf II 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-183 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

LBA Tract contained water, while the remaining 60 percent of the channel length 

was dry. These observations document that this reach of the Belle Fourche River 

has not become perennial, even with the addition of CBNG discharge water. 

3.10.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.10.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Mining the tracts would remove habitat for aquatic species, amphibians and 

reptiles in a portion of the Belle Fourche River and sections of the ephemeral 

tributaries to the Belle Fourche. Although the channel and surface water flow 

would be restored during reclamation, the river would be diverted and habitat for 

these species would be lost during mining operations. Under natural conditions, 

habitat for aquatic species is limited on each of the four LBA tracts (as applied for 

and with added lands), however, as discussed above, a variety of aquatic species 

and reptiles and amphibians have been observed on and in the vicinity of the 

tracts. 

Under jurisdiction of Cordero Rojo Mine’s current WDEQ/LQD mine permit, two 

sections of the Belle Fourche River have been diverted in order to recover coal 

from the existing coal leases (Section 3.5.2.1). A portion of one of these existing 

diversion channels that was approved by WDEQ in 1996 (WDEQ/LQD 1996) is 

just north of the Maysdorf LBA II Tract as applied for. 

Reclamation of the various drainage channels and restoration of surface water 

flow quantity and quality after mining to approximate pre-mining conditions 

would restore fish habitat and aquatic resources of the Belle Fourche River and 

other smaller drainages within the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. 

3.10.7.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Impacts to reptiles, amphibian, and aquatic species under the No Action 

Alternatives would be similar to the impacts described in Section 3.10.1.2.2 above. 

3.10.8 	 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Animal Species, and 

BLM Sensitive Species 

Refer to Appendices E through I. 

3.10.9 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Regulatory guidelines and requirements designed to prevent or reduce surface coal 

mining impacts to wildlife include: 

• fencing designed to permit pronghorn passage to the extent possible; 

3-184	 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• 	 creation of raptor nests to mitigate other nest sites impacted by mining 

operations at this mine; 

• 	 relocation of raptor nests that would be impacted by mining in accordance 

with the approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plan; 

• 	 obtaining a permit for removal and mitigation of golden eagle nests; 

• 	 buffer zones for protection of raptor nests; 

• 	 restriction of mine-related disturbances from encroaching in the near 

vicinity of any active raptor nest from March until fledglings have left the 

nest; 

• 	 restriction of disturbances near raptor nests containing nestlings to prevent 

danger to, or abandonment of, the young; 

• 	 creation of nesting habitat through enhancement efforts (nest platforms, 

nest boxes, and tree plantings); 

• 	 reestablishment of the ground cover necessary for the return of a suitable 

raptor prey base after mining; 

• 	 restoration of sage-grouse habitat after mining including reestablishment of 

sagebrush and other shrubs on reclaimed lands and grading of reclaimed 

lands to create swales and depressions consistent with the pre-mining 

topography; 

• 	 development of a Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern for Coal 

Mines in Wyoming Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, which must be approved 

by USFWS; 

• 	 required use of raptor-safe power lines (APLIC 2006); 

• 	restoration of diverse landforms, direct topsoil replacement, and the 

construction of brush piles, snags, and rock piles to enhance habitat for 

wildlife; 

• 	 restoration of habitat provided by jurisdictional wetlands; and 

• 	 reclamation of the stream channels and restoration of surface water flow 

quantity and quality after mining to approximate pre-mining conditions. 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines’ current mine permits 

require reconstruction of bed form features in major stream channels, such as 

pools and runs, that should help restore the channels’ natural function, as well as 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 	 3-185 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

provide habitat. Restoration will be or may be achieved by salvaging sufficient 

material from channel terrace alluvium or material having the same physical 

characteristics to reconstruct pool features. Current reclamation, as well as 

future reclamation of the Belle Fourche River by the Cordero Rojo Mine would 

incorporate alluvium salvaged from the original channel. 

These measures are included in the existing mining and reclamation permit and 

would be included in the amended mining and reclamation plans, if the LBA tract 

were leased and proposed for mining. 

Baseline wildlife surveys were conducted for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, 

and Cordero Rojo Mines before mining operations began at the mines. Annual 

wildlife monitoring surveys have been conducted since the mid-1980s. These 

surveys are required by state and federal regulations. All four mines also 

voluntarily conduct annual and/or periodic surveys for additional species that are 

not included in the monitoring required by state or federal regulations. The 

wildlife monitoring surveys cover the areas included in the mine permit areas and 

a perimeter beyond the permit areas that varies in size according to the species 

being surveyed. As a result, a majority of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts (as applied for, plus added alternative 

lands and a surrounding one-quarter-mile perimeter) have been surveyed as part 

of the required monitoring surveys for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines, respectively. 

The annual monitoring programs include: 

• 	 spring surveys for new and/or occupied raptor nests, upland game bird lek 

locations, T&E species, and migratory birds; 

• 	late spring surveys of raptor production for occupied nests, opportunistic 

observations of all wildlife species, T&E species, and migratory birds; 

• 	 raptor territorial occupancy and nest productivity is surveyed annually on 

and within a 1- or 2-mile perimeter surrounding the existing permit areas, 

depending on the mine; 

• 	summer surveys for raptors, migratory birds, and lagomorph density; 

• winter surveys for bald eagle winter roosts on and within 1 mile of the 

permit area (conducted as needed based on proximity of disturbance to 

potential roosting habitat); 

• voluntary winter surveys for big game on and surrounding the permit area 

(currently conducted during alternate years) (Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, and 

Caballo Mines only); 

3-186 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• voluntary aquatic surveys for fish and macro-invertebrates within the 

existing permit area (previous annual schedule, currently conducted during 

alternate years) (Belle Ayr Mine only); 

• voluntary annual surveys for migrating and nesting waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and other water obligate avian species (historically Belle Ayr and Coal Creek 

Mines, currently only Belle Ayr Mine); and 

• 	breeding bird surveys (previously voluntary and periodic at Belle Ayr Mine, 

now required annually at all mines). 

Monitoring data were collected by all of the surface coal mines in the PRB for big 

game species from at least 1995 until 1999, with most mines conducting annual 

surveys since the mid- to late 1980s. At that time, the WGFD reviewed monitoring 

data and requirements for big game species on those mine sites. They concluded 

that the monitoring had demonstrated a lack of impacts to big game on existing 

mine sites. No severe mine-caused mortalities had occurred and no long-lasting 

impacts on big game had been noted on existing mine sites. The WGFD therefore 

recommended at that time that big game monitoring be discontinued on all 

existing mine sites. New mines will be required to conduct big game monitoring if 

located in crucial winter range or in significant migration corridors, neither of 

which are present within the wildlife general analysis area. Although big game 

surveys are no longer required as part of the annual wildlife monitoring program 

at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines, FCW, TBCC, and 

PRCC have voluntarily continued these surveys on a reduced but regular 

schedule. 

There are approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plans for the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. These monitoring and mitigation plans 

would be amended to include the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, 

and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts (as applied for and added lands) if they are leased and 

proposed for mining. The amended raptor mitigation plans would be subject to 

review and approval by USFWS before the amended mining plans are approved. 

Monitoring and mitigation plans for Migratory Bird Species of Management 

Concern have also been developed in cooperation with USFWS for the existing 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mining operations, and those 

plans would be amended to include the LBA tracts and any added lands. If 

additional species are documented nesting or using the area regularly, a 

mitigation plan would be developed to protect those birds and their habitat. 

3.10.10 Residual Impacts 

Although the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA 

Tracts would be reclaimed in accordance with the requirements of SMCRA and 

Wyoming statutes, there would be some residual wildlife impacts. The 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 	 3-187 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

topographic moderation would result in a permanent loss of habitat diversity and 

a potential decrease in slope-dependent shrub communities. This would reduce 

the carrying capacity of the land for shrub-dependent species. Reclamation 

standards may limit replacement of habitat for some species. Some species, such 

as sage-grouse, may repopulate reclaimed areas but populations may not attain 

pre-mining levels. 

3.11 Land Use and Recreation 

3.11.1 Affected Environment 

Surface ownership within the general South Gillette analysis area consists 

primarily of private lands with some intermingled federal lands. The federally 

owned lands included in the tract are administered by the BLM. Surface 

ownership for each LBA tract study area is shown in Table 3-12 and in Figures 3­

32 through 3-35. 

Table 3-12. Distribution of Surface Ownership Within the Each LBA Tract 

Study Area. 

Federal Ownership Private Ownership 

LBA Tract Configuration (Acres) (Percent)1 (Acres) (Percent)1 

Belle Ayr North 0.00 0.0 1,752.03 100.0 

West Coal Creek 0.00 0.0 1,313.26 100.0 

Caballo West 0.00 0.0 1,024.00 100.0 

Maysdorf II 284.96 5.8 4,610.67 94.2 

Total 284.96 3.2 8,699.96 96.8 

1 Based on total acres (Proposed Action plus Action Alternatives). 

2 Includes BLM’s tract delineation under Action Alternatives. 

Livestock grazing on native rangeland is the primary land use, while oil and gas 

production, wildlife habitat, communication and power lines, transportation, and 

recreation are secondary land uses for both public and private lands. 

Areas of disturbance within and near the proposed lease are generally associated 

with roads, oil and gas wells and production facilities, surface mine-related 

facilities, and ranching operations. State Highway 59 is adjacent to one LBA tract 

and up to several miles west of the other LBA tracts. Several county and 

unnamed two-track roads traverse and provide public and private access within 

and near the proposed lease areas. The county roads include the Haight Road, T7 Road, Hoadley Road, Bishop Road, and the Hilight Road. The BNSF & UP 

railroad right-of-way also crosses a small portion of the Maysdorf II Tact. 

The oil and gas estate within the general South Gillette analysis area is federally, 

privately, and state owned, with the majority (approximately 90 percent) being 

3-188 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Bishop 

Road 

State

 59 Highway 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Creek 

Caballo 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 

35 

2 1 

36 31

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

6 

32 

5 

33 

4 

34 

3 

35 

2 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 

10 8 9 10 11 11 12 7 

15 16 15 14 18 17 14 13 

21 22 23 22 23 24 19 20 

27 

30 29 27 26 25 28 BishopRoad 

31 32 33 34 35 34 35 36 T. T.

48 

N. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

T. 

47 

N. 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 N. 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

0 3000 6000 12000 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Foundation Coal West, Inc. 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

LEGEND 

BLM's Study Area 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-32. Surface Ownership Within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-189

26 
Hilight Road

Road 

11 

2 

Fork East 

Coal Creek 

Creek 

Dry 

Belle 

River 

Fourche 

Creek 

Coal 

Creek Coal Fork 

West 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

UP RR B

H

NSF &

eyR o oad adl

28
 

34
 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

4 3 1 6 5 3 2
 

9 10 12 7 8 10 11
 

16
 15 14 18 17 13 15 14
 

Hoadley Road 

20 21 22
 23 22 24 19 23
 

27 30 29 27 26 25
 

32 33 34 35 35
 36
 31 T. T.

46
 46

N. N. Lawver 

T. T.

45
 45 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3
 N. N.

2
 

11 12 7 8 9 10 10 11
 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

0 3000 6000 12000
 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC 

Dennis L. Edwards 

Figure 3-33. Surface Ownership Within the West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives. 

3-190
 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

26 
State

 59 Highway 

Bishop 

Road 

48 48 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

Pile 

Creek 

Bone 

Creek 

Tisdale 

Creek 

Caballo 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

T. 

49 

N. 

35 36 31 32 33 

Four Corners Road

34 35 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. T. 

N. N. 5 4 3 1 6 2 2 

8 9 10 12 7 11 11 

13 17 16 15 18 14 14 

20 21 22 24 19 23 23 

29 28 27 26 25 30 26

31 34 36 32 33 35 T. T. 35 

48 

N. 

48 

N. 

T. T. 

47 47 5 4 3 2 N. 2 1 6 N. 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

LEGEND 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area 

Foundation Coal West, Inc. 

James F. Rourke etal 

0 3000 6000 12000 Paul D. Rourke Living Trust 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-34. Surface Ownership Within the Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-191
State

T-7 Road 

BNSF & UP RR

 59 Highway

Haight Road 

Road 

Creek 

47 47 

Creek 

Caballo 

River Fourche Belle 

35 

23 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. T. T. 

48 36 33 34 35 48 31 32
 

Road Hilight

36 N. N. 

T. T. 

N. N. 1
 1 3 2 2
 5 4 6
 

Hoe 

11 12 9 10 11
 12 7
 8

13 16 15 14
 17 14
 13 18
 

19
 21 20
 22
 23
 24
 

CAMPBELL COUNTY
 CEMETERY DISTRICT
 (0.12 ACRES) 25
 

29 28 27 26
 

26 25 30
 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

LEGEND 36 32 33 34 35
 

T. T.

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary 47
 

N. 

T. 

46
 

47
 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for N. 

BLM's Study Area T. 

46 Foundation Coal West, Inc. N. N. 3 2 5
 4
 

Cordero Mining Company 

Caballo Rojo, Inc. 

Dept of Interior/BLM 

Earl D. Thrush, etal 10 11
 

Keidel Family LP 8 9 12
 

Norma L. DuVall Trust
 

Tony S. Hayden
 

Western RR Properties Inc. & BNR
 

14 13 16 15
 17
 

0 3000 6000 12000
 Hoadley Road 

20 21 22 23 24 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-35. Surface Ownership Within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives. 

3-192
 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

24 

1 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

privately owned. Most of the federally owned oil and gas estate is leased. The 

ownership of the oil and gas estate for the LBA tracts is shown on Figures 3-36 

through 3-39. Lists of the current federal oil and gas lessees within the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are listed in 

Tables 3-13 through 3-16, respectively. 

According to the WOGCC records as of December 13, 2007, there were 60 

permitted conventional oil and gas wells within the LBA tracts as proposed and 

the lands added under Action Alternatives (Figures 3-36 through 3-39). Of these 

60 wells, 34 were permanently abandoned, 16 wells were still producing, seven 

well were active injectors, one well was shut in, one was a permanently abandoned 

injector hole, and one was temporarily abandoned. Of the 18 wells capable of 

producing, 13 have economically recoverable reserves. Eight of the 13 wells with 

recoverable reserves are on private leases. While the seven injector wells are not 

capable of producing, they are important to continued field production. 

Approximately 97 percent of the conventional oil and gas wells within the LBA 

tract configurations were drilled between 1966 and 1999. Only two convention oil 

or gas wells were drilled between 2000 and 2007. Conventional oil and gas wells 

capable of production on or in the individual oil and gas general analysis areas are 

listed in Appendix J. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the CBNG belongs to the owner of the oil and 

gas estate (98-830). Therefore, the oil and gas lessees have the right to develop 

CBNG as well as conventional oil and gas on the LBA tracts. 

According to the WOGCC records as of December 13, 2007, there were 153 

permitted CBNG wells on lands included in the LBA tracts as proposed and the 

lands added under Action Alternatives (Figures 3-36 through 3-39). Of these, 37 

CBNG wells that were producing, 75 were shut-in, 20 permanently abandoned, 

one was temporarily abandoned, one was spudded, one had a notice of intent to 

abandon, and 18 were permanently abandoned strat test holes. Extensive CBNG 

development has occurred west of the tracts. CBNG wells capable of production 

on or in sections adjacent to the LBA tracts are listed in Appendix J. 

Additional information on the conventional oil and gas and CBNG development in 

the general South Gillette analysis area and surrounding area is included in 

Section 3.3.2. Certain ancillary facilities are needed to support oil and gas 

production. These support facilities may include well access roads, well pads, 

production equipment at the wellhead (which may be located on the surface 

and/or underground), well production casing (which extends from the surface to 

the zone of production), underground pipelines (which gather the oil, gas, and/or 

water produced by the individual wells and carry it to a larger transmission 

pipeline or collection facility), facilities for treating, discharging, disposing of, 

containing, or injecting produced water, central metering facilities, electrical power 

utilities, gas compressor stations, and high-pressure transmission pipelines for 

delivering the gas to market. Currently, there are some oil and gas production 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-193 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

35	 T. 

49 

T. 31 32 33 34 35 36

49 

N. N. 

T. T. 

48 48 

N. N. 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 

15 14 13 

PRIVATE 18 17 16 15 14 

22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

27 26 25 30 

WYW138121 29 28 27 26 

34 

3 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

35 

2 

36 

1 

31 

6 

32 

5 

33 

4 

34 

3 

35 

2 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

0 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

3000 6000 12000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Oil - Plugged & Abandoned 

OIL & GAS WELL TYPES 

Note: Well locations and status were derived 

from a download from the WOGCC website 

on 12/13/07. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity) 

CBNG - Notice of Intent to Plug and Abandon 

CBNG - Plugged and Abandoned 

CBNG - Shut-In 

CBNG - Producing 

CBNG - Temporarily Abandoned 

LEGEND 

Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries 

Federal Oil & Gas Lease Number 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

BLM's Study Area 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Alternative 2 

WYW138121 

Figure 3-36. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Alternatives. 

3-194 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

3 2 5 4 3 2 1 6

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 

PRIVATE 

NOT POSTED 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 

22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

WYW143935 

PRIVATE 

WYW0154562 

27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 

T. 34 35 36 

WYW0154562 31 32 33 34 35 

T. 

46 46 

N. N. 

T. T. 

45 45 

N. N. 

3 2 1 6 5 4 3 

2 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

OIL & GAS WELL TYPES Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Oil - Plugged & Abandoned 

Oil - Producing West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

Note: Well locations and status were derived 

from a download from the WOGCC website BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

on 12/13/07. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity) Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries 

0 3000 6000 12000 WYW143935 Federal Oil & Gas Lease Numbers 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-37. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Alternatives. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-195
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 2 

35 36 

1 

31 

6 

32 

5 

33 

4 3 

34 35 

2 

T. 

49 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 

WYW138121 

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 

PRIVATE 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

PRIVATE 

26 25 30 29 28 27 26 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

35 

2 

36 31 

1 6 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

32 

5 

33 

4 

34 

3 

35 

2 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

0 3000 6000 12000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Oil - Plugged & Abandoned 

OIL & GAS WELL TYPES 

Note: Well locations and status were derived 

from a download from the WOGCC website 

on 12/13/07. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity) 

Oil - Dry Hole 

CBNG - Shut-In 

CBNG - Producing 

Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries 

WYW138121 Federal Oil & Gas Lease Number 

LEGEND 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

Figure 3-38. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives. 

3-196 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. T. T.
 

48 35 36 31 32
 33 34 35 36 48 

N. N. 

T. T. 

47 47 

N. N. 1 4 3 2 1 2 6 5 

12
 11
 11 9 10 12 7 8

PRIVATE 

13
 14
 16 15 17 14 13 18 WYW89313 

WYW31763 

21 22 23 24 20 23 24 19 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

25 

29 LEGEND 28 27 26 

Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary PRIVATE 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine
 Federal Coal Leases
 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

36 34 35 32 BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 33 T. 

47 

T. 

47 North Tract Under Alternative 3 

N. N.

South Tract Under Alternative 3 

T. Oil & Gas Ownership Boundaries T. 

46 WYW31763 Federal Oil & Gas Lease Numbers 46

N. N. 3 2 1 5 4 OIL & GAS WELL TYPES 

CBNG - Spudded
 

CBNG - Producing
 

CBNG - Shut-In
 

CBNG - Plugged and Abandoned
 

Oil - Producing
 WYW65173
 Oil - Temporarily Abandoned WYW132215 10 12 11 

8 9

Oil - Shut-In WYW66397 

Oil - Plugged & Abandoned
 

Conventional - Injector, Active
 

Conventional - Injector, Permanently Abandoned
 

Conventional - Plugged and Abandoned
 

Strat Test - Plugged and Abandoned
 PRIVATE Note: Well locations and status were derived 14 13 16 15 from a download from the WOGCC website 17 WYW43056 PRIVATE on 12/13/07. (Located by 1/4 1/4 for clarity) 

0 3000 6000 12000 

20 21 22 23 24 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-39. Oil and Gas Wells and Oil and Gas Ownership Within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-197
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-13. Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record. 

Location 	 Lease Number Lessees of Record 

T.48N., R.71W.
 

Section 20 WYW 138121 Cavalier Petro Corp. 

Lot14 Michael Diefenderfer 

Pendragon Res. LP 

Note:	 From BLM OG Plat (11/20/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and coal rights 

for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of the LBA 

tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are state or privately owned, and the coal 

rights are federally owned. 

Table 3-14. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record. 

Location Lease Number Lessees of Record 

T.46N., R.70W. 

Section 18 Not Posted 

Lots 14, 15 

Section 19 

Lot 17 

WYW 143935 Maurice W. Brown 

Section 30 WYW 0154562 Primary Natural Resources 

Lots 8, 9, 14, 16, 19 

Note:	 From BLM OG Plat (10/29/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and coal rights 

for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of the LBA 

tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are state or privately owned, and the coal 

rights are federally owned. 

Table 3-15. Caballo West LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record. 

Location 	 Lease Number Lessees of Record 

T.48N., R.71W.
 

Section 17 WYW 138121 Cavalier Petro Corp. 

Lots 1, 8 Michael Diefenderfer 

Pendragon Res. LP 

Note:	 From BLM OG Plat (11/20/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and coal rights 

for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of the LBA 

tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are state or privately owned, and the coal 

rights are federally owned. 

facilities, primarily oil and gas pipelines, on the LBA tracts, as discussed in 

Section 3.15 of this EIS. It is unlikely that additional support facilities will be 

constructed on the LBA tracts because approximately 70 percent of the 

conventional oil and gas and CBNG wells that exist on the tracts have been either 

shut in or plugged and abandoned due to exhausted reserves and diminished 

production. 

Coal mining is a dominant land use in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines form a group of 

contiguous or nearly contiguous surface coal mines located in Campbell County 

(Figure 1-1). Coal production from these mines increased by 65 percent between 

1994 and 2007 (from approximately 66 million tons in 1994 to 109 million tons in 

3-198	 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-16. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Federal Oil and Gas Lessees of Record. 

Location 	 Lease Number Lessees of Record 

T.47N., R.71W.
 

Section 7 WYW 144480 	 ABO Petro Corp. 

Lot 8	 MYCO Industries Inc. 

Yates Drilling Co. 

Yates Petroleum Corp 

Section 20 WYW 31763 Bowden Energy Co. Inc. 

Lot 1 

Section 21 WYW 89313 Club O&G LTD 

Lots 4, 5 Dunway Investment Co. 

Electra Investment 

JWD III Inc. 

Raymond T Duncan Oil Prop. LTD 

Walter Duncan Oil 

T.46N., R.71W. 

Section 9 

Lots 6, 7 

WYW 132215 Maurice W. Brown 

Section 10 WYW 43056 AG Andrikopoulos Res. 

Lots 8, 9, 10 Chaco Energy Co. 

Key Production Co. 

Nance Petroleum Corp. 

Section 11 WYW 66397 Key Production Co. 

Lot 13 Nance Petroleum Corp. 

P&M Petro Mgmt. CCC 

Section 11 WYW 65173 Mary Hudson Ard 

Lots 14, 15 Bill Barrett Corporation 

Delnar Hudson Lewis Living Trust 

Edward R Hudson Jr. 

William A Hudson III 

Lindy’s Living Trust 

Section 14 WYW 43056 AG Andrikopoulos Res. 

Lots 2, 3, 4 Chaco Energy Co. 

Key Production Co. 

Nance Petroleum Corp. 

Section 15 WYW 43056 AG Andrikopoulos Res. 

Lots 1, 2 Chaco Energy Co. 

Key Production Co. 

Nance Petroleum Corp. 

Note:	 From BLM OG Plats (1/12/07 & 10/4/07). The oil and gas rights (including CBNG) and 

coal rights for the above locations are owned by the federal government. For the rest of 

the LBA tract, the oil and gas rights (including CBNG) are state or privately owned, and 

the coal rights are federally owned. 

2007). Two leases, the West Rocky Butte lease and the South Maysdorf lease, 

have been issued within this group of four mines since decertification of the 

federal coal region. The currently pending Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications evaluated in this EIS are in this 

group of mines (Tables 1-1 and 1-2). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-199 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Campbell County does not have a county-wide land use plan, but has been 

working on a comprehensive land use plan jointly with the City of Gillette (City of 

Gillette 1978 and Campbell County 2005). The Gillette area land use plan is an 

integral part of the overall plan for Campbell County and recommends general 

types of uses for the area immediately surrounding the City of Gillette (City of 

Gillette 1978). The proposed lease area does not have a designated zoning 

classification. The City of Gillette/Campbell County Comprehensive Planning 

Program (City of Gillette 1978) provides general land use goals and policies for 

state and federal coal leases in the county. 

Big game hunting is the principal recreational land use within the general South 

Gillette analysis area, and pronghorn, mule deer, and white-tailed deer are 

present within the area (Section 3.10.2). On private lands, hunting is allowed only 

with landowner permission. Land ownership within the PRB is largely private 

(approximately 80 percent), with some private landowners permitting sportsmen to 

cross and/or hunt on their land. There has been a trend over the past 2 to 3 

decades towards a substantial reduction in private lands that are open and 

reasonably available for hunting. Access fees continue to rise and many resident 

hunters feel these access fees are unreasonable. This trend has created problems 

for the WGFD in their attempt to distribute and control harvest at optimal levels, 

as well as for sportsmen who desire access to these animals (WGFD 2004). 

In general, publicly owned lands (i.e., Forest Service or BLM-administered federal 

lands and state school sections) are open to hunting if legal access is available. 

Due to safety concerns, however, public surface lands contained within an active 

mining area are generally closed to the public, further limiting recreational use. 

There are approximately 285 acres of public surface lands within the Maysdorf II 

LBA Tract (Figure 3-35). There are no public surface lands within the Belle Ayr 

North, West Coal Creek, and Caballo West LBA Tracts (Figures 3-32 through 3­

34). A maximum of approximately 82 acres of the public surface are currently 

accessible to the public under any of the alternatives. 

Specific details regarding big game herd management objectives within and near 

the general South Gillette analysis area are contained in the Casper and Sheridan 

Region Annual Big Game Herd Unit Job Completion Reports (WGFD 2007). The 

WGFD classifies the entire general South Gillette analysis area as yearlong and 

winter/yearlong habitat for antelope. No crucial or critical pronghorn habitat is 

recognized by the WGFD in this area (Note: WGFD definitions of big game ranges 

are included in Section 3.10.2.1). The proposed lease area is within pronghorn 

antelope Hunt Area 24, which is contained in the Hilight Herd Unit. In postseason 2006, the population of the Hilight Herd Unit was estimated to be 

approximately 13,725 animals, which is above the WGFD objective of 11,000 

(WFGD 2007). 

Historical problems associated with the management of the Hilight Herd Unit 

include hunter access, over harvest on limited public lands, and quantifying 

3-200 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

landowner preferences and desires. Prior to 1997, the herd population was fairly 

stable and near the objective of 11,000 antelope. Losses from severe winters, poor 

production rates, and disease subsequently decreased the population, but it has 

recently recovered and is currently above the objective level. Hunt Area 24 

contains mostly privately owned surface lands with poor hunter access to limited 

publicly owned lands; therefore, the number of antelope is expected to steadily 

increase. If the population exceeds objective levels, more licenses will be needed 

and these may be difficult to sell in this mostly private land area. Nearly all 

landowners charge access fees for hunting and private land access is based on the 

desires and perceptions of the landowners. Increased harvest may be difficult to 

achieve because of the increased CBNG development, which is limiting rifle 

hunting on associated lands. Given the predicted harvest and average winter 

conditions, the 2007 post-season population was expected to be 13,900 antelope. 

The WGFD has classified the majority of the general South Gillette analysis area 

as yearlong mule deer use range. Crucial or critical mule deer habitat does not 

occur on or within several miles of the general South Gillette analysis area. The 

proposed lease area is located within mule deer Hunt Area 21, part of the Thunder 

Basin Mule Deer Herd Unit, which also includes Hunt Areas 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. 

The Thunder Basin Herd Unit encompasses 3,642 square miles, of this, 71 

percent is privately owned. Access fees are common, resulting in heavy hunting 

pressure on accessible public lands, particularly in recent years. Between 1983 

and 2001, the post-season objective for this mule deer herd was 13,000, but the 

population was consistently above that objective. The 2003 post-season 

population was estimated at 19,299, which was 67 percent above the objective. 

WGFD increased the objective to 20,000 head in December 2001. Due to changes 

in the modeling program used to estimate mule deer populations, WGFD revised 

the herd unit population estimates following 2003, reducing the herd estimate. 

The revised 2003 population estimate was 17,616. The 2006 postseason mule 

deer population was estimated at 22,036, which is 10% above the herd objective. 

It is likely that insufficient harvest from private land within Hunt Area 21 will 

result in a population increase in the future. 

A majority of the South Gillette Analysis Area is within HA 129 ( a non-herd unit). 

The southern portion of the general South Gillette analysis area is within Elk Hunt 

Area 123 of the Rochelle Hills Herd Unit. The Rochelle Hills Elk Herd resides in 

the Rochelle Hills located east and south of the general South Gillette analysis 

area. The herd favors the ponderosa pine/juniper woodlands, savanna, and 

steeper terrain habitat offered by the Rochelle Hills. As more lands are reclaimed 

from mining, elk are shifting their winter use to these areas. The WGFD has 

designated an approximately five square mile area on reclaimed lands within the 

Jacobs Ranch Mine permit area as crucial winter habitat for the Rochelle Hills elk 

herd (Odekoven 1994). RTEA (owner of the Jacobs Ranch Mine) and the RMEF 

finalized a formal agreement that created the Rochelle Hills Conservation 

Easement. The easement contains nearly 1,000 acres, with 75 percent of that 

total comprised of reclaimed mining lands on RTEA’s Jacobs Ranch Mine. The 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-201 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

easement acreage was donated to RMEF by RTEA to ensure that the reclaimed 

land continues to be used as grazing land and wildlife habitat for the extended 

future (RMEF 2007). The Jacobs Ranch Mine is located about 9 miles south of the 

general South Gillette analysis area. No elk have been observed recently within 

any of the tracts but they are occasionally recorded in the Pine Hills to the east. 

This dispersion is likely due to increasing population density and habitat 

limitations within the normal herd boundary. Elk may potentially expand into the 

general South Gillette analysis area in the future. 

White-tailed deer are not managed separately by WGFD, but are included with 

mule deer as part of the Thunder Basin Herd Unit. White-tailed deer are seldom 

observed within the general South Gillette analysis area due to their preference for 

riparian woodlands and irrigated agricultural lands. WGFD classifies the entire 

general South Gillette analysis area, with the exception of a narrow corridor along 

the Belle Fourche River, as out of normal white-tailed deer use range. The narrow 

corridor along the Belle Fourche is classified as yearlong range. 

Under natural conditions, aquatic habitat is very limited by the ephemeral nature 

of surface waters in the general South Gillette analysis area; therefore, public 

fishing opportunities are very limited. The lack of deep-water habitat and 

extensive and persistent water sources limits the presence and diversity of fish 

and other aquatic species. However, water discharged from CBNG wells upstream 

of the general South Gillette analysis area has supplied the Belle Fourche River 

with water nearly continuously, resulting in an increase in habitat for aquatic 

species. The Belle Fourche River currently supports a variety of nongame fish in 

the general South Gillette analysis area (Section 3.10.6). 

Sage-grouse, mourning dove, waterfowl, rabbit, and coyote are hunted in the 

general vicinity, and some coyote and red fox trapping may occur. 

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.11.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

The major adverse environmental consequences of leasing and mining the LBA 

tracts on land use would be the reduction of livestock grazing (cattle and sheep), 

loss of wildlife habitat (particularly big game), and curtailment of oil and gas 

development while the coal is being mined and during reclamation. This would 

include removal of all existing oil and gas surface and downhole production and 

transportation equipment and facilities. Wildlife and livestock use would be 

displaced while the tract is being mined and reclaimed. Grazing leases would be 

suspended on approximately 285 acres of federal lands if the LBA tracts were 

leased under the Proposed Actions and other action alternatives. This federal land 

is within Grazing Allotment #22027, currently held by Dave Edwards (valid 

through July 2014) and Grazing Allotment #02349, currently held by Donald 

Wagensen, Opal Marquis, and Doris Marquis (valid through January 2014). 

3-202 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Access for recreational and other activities (i.e., ranching, oil and gas 

development) would be restricted during mining operations. Estimated 

disturbance areas for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts and the tract configurations for the Action Alternatives are 

presented in Tables 3-1 through 3-4, respectively. 

Sections 3.3.2 and 3.11.1 and Appendix J of this document address producing, 

abandoned, and shut in oil and gas (conventional and CBNG) wells in the BLM 

study areas. Well location information, federal oil and gas ownership, and federal 

oil and gas lessee information for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are presented in Figures 3-36 through 3-39, 

respectively and Tables 3-13 through 3-16, respectively. BLM manages federal 

lands on a multiple use basis, in accordance with the regulations. In response to 

conflicts between oil and gas and coal lease holders, BLM policy advocates 

optimizing the recovery of both coal and CBNG resources to ensure that the public 

receives a reasonable return for these publicly owned resources. Optimal recovery 

of both coal and oil and gas resources requires negotiation and cooperation 

between the oil and gas lessees and the coal lessees. In the past, negotiations 

between some of the applicant mines and some of the existing oil and gas lessees 

have resulted in agreements that allow development of both resources in this area. 

Producing conventional oil and gas and CBNG wells are present on the LBA tracts. 

In the PRB, royalties have been and would be lost to both the state and federal 

governments if conventional oil and gas wells are abandoned prematurely, if the 

federal CBNG is not recovered prior to mining, or if federal coal is not recovered 

due to conflicts. State and federal governments can also lose bonus money when 

the costs of the agreements between the lessees are factored into the fair market 

value determinations. 

Up to 285 acres of BLM-administered federal surface would be affected during 

mining operations if the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are leased under the Proposed Action or Action 

Alternatives, but only about 82 of those acres are currently accessible by the 

public. The loss of access to federal lands is long term (during mining and 

reclamation), but is not permanent. Public access to federal lands would be 

restored after mining and reclamation are complete. 

Hunting on the LBA tracts, including the federal surface discussed above would be 

eliminated during mining and reclamation. Pronghorn and mule deer have been 

observed on and adjacent to the LBA tracts, as have sage-grouse, mourning doves, 

waterfowl, rabbits, and coyote. The federal lands actually represent a relatively 

small portion of the currently accessible public surface lands for recreational 

opportunity within the respective animal hunt areas. 

Following reclamation, the land would be suitable for grazing and wildlife uses, 

which are the historic land uses. The reclamation standards required by SMCRA 

and Wyoming State Law meet the standards and guidelines for healthy rangelands 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-203 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

for public lands administered by the BLM in Wyoming. Following reclamation 

bond release, management of the privately owned surface would revert to the 

private surface owner and management of the federally owned surface would 

revert to the federal surface managing agency (BLM). 

3.11.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

and associated disturbance and impacts would not occur on the additional acres 

that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for 

each tract. Currently approved mining operations would continue on the existing 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine leases. Impacts to land use 

related to mining operations at these mines would not be extended onto portions 

of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and 

reclamation plan. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA lease applications at this time would 

not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.11.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Mined areas would be reclaimed as specified in the approved mine plan to support 

the anticipated post-mining land uses of wildlife habitat and rangeland. The 

reclamation procedures would include stockpiling and replacing topsoil, using 

reclamation seed mixtures, which would be approved by WDEQ, and replacing 

stock reservoirs. 

Steps to control invasion by weedy (invasive nonnative) plant species using 

chemical and mechanical methods would be included in the amended mine plan. 

(See discussion in Section 3.9.) 

Revegetation growth and diversity would be monitored until the final reclamation 

bond is released (a minimum of 10 years following seeding with the final seed 

mixture). Erosion would be monitored to determine if there is a need for corrective 

action during establishment of vegetation. Controlled grazing would be used 

during revegetation to determine the suitability of the reclaimed land for 

anticipated post-mining land uses. 

See Section 3.3.2.3 for discussion of regulatory requirements, mitigation and 

monitoring related to oil and gas development. 

3.11.4 Residual Impacts 

No residual impacts to land use and recreation are expected. 

3-204 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.12 Cultural Resources 

3.12.1 Affected Environment 

Cultural resources, which are protected under the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, are nonrenewable remains of past human activity. The PRB, 

including the general South Gillette analysis area, appears to have been inhabited 

by aboriginal hunting and gathering people for more than 13,000 years. 

Throughout the prehistoric past, the area was used by highly mobile hunters and 

gatherers who exploited a wide variety of resources. Several thousand cultural 

sites have been recorded within the PRB. 

Frison’s (1978, 1991) chronology for the Northwestern Plains divides occupations 

from early to late into the Paleoindian, Early Plains Archaic, Middle Plains 

Archaic, Late Plains Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and Protohistoric periods. Frison’s 

chronology is listed below. The Plains designation within the Early, Middle, and 

Late Archaic periods has been omitted from the list. 

• Paleoindian period (13,000 to 7,000 years B.P.) 

• Early Archaic period (7,000 to 5,000-4,500 years B.P.) 

• Middle Archaic period (5,000-4,500 to 3,000 years B.P.) 

• Late Archaic period (3,000 to 1,850 years B.P.) 

• Late Prehistoric period (1,850 to 400 years B.P.) 

• Protohistoric period (400 to 250 years B.P.) 

• Historic period (250 to 120 years B.P.) 

The Paleoindian period dates from about 13,000 to 7,000 years ago and includes 

various complexes (Frison 1978). Each of these complexes is correlated with a 

distinctive projectile point style derived from a general large lanceolate and/or 

stemmed point morphology. The Paleoindian period is traditionally thought to be 

synonymous with “big game hunters” who exploited megafauna such as bison and 

mammoth (plains Paleoindian groups), although evidence of the use of vegetal 

resources is noted at a few Paleoindian sites (foothill-mountain groups). 

The Early Archaic period dates from about 7,000 to 5,000-4,500 years ago. 

Projectile point styles reflect the change from large lanceolate types that 

characterize the earlier Paleoindian complexes to large side- or corner-notched 

types. Subsistence patterns reflect exploitation of a broad spectrum of resources, 

with a much-diminished utilization of large mammals. 

The onset of the Middle Archaic period (4,500 to 3,000 years B.P.) has been 

defined on the basis of the appearance of the McKean Complex as the 

predominant complex on the Northwestern Plains around 4,900 years B.P. (Frison 

1978, 1991, 2001). McKean Complex projectile points are stemmed variants of the 

lanceolate point. These projectile point types continued until 3,100 years B.P. 

when they were replaced by a variety of large corner-notched points (i.e., Pelican 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-205 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Lake points) (Martin 1999). Sites dating to this period exhibit a new emphasis on 

plant procurement and processing. 

The Late Archaic period (3,000 to 1,850 years B.P.) is generally defined by the 

appearance of corner-notched dart points. These projectile points dominate most 

assemblages until the introduction of the bow and arrow around 1,500 years B.P. 

(Frison 1991). The period witnessed a continual expansion of occupations into the 

interior grasslands and basins, as well as the foothills and mountains. 

The Late Prehistoric period (1,850 to 400 years B.P.) is marked by a transition in 

projectile point technology around 1,500 years B.P. The large corner-notched dart 

points characteristic of the Late Archaic period are replaced by smaller cornerand side-notched points for use with the bow and arrow. Around approximately 

1,000 years B.P., the entire Northwestern Plains appears to have suffered an 

abrupt collapse or shift in population (Frison 1991). This population shift appears 

to reflect a narrower subsistence base focused mainly on communal procurement 

of pronghorn and bison. 

The Protohistoric period (400 to 250 years B.P.) witnesses the beginning of 

European influence on prehistoric cultures of the Northwestern Plains. Additions 

to the material culture include most notably the horse and European trade goods, 

including glass beads, metal, and firearms. Projectile points of this period include 

side-notched, tri-notched, and unnotched points, with the addition of metal 

points. The occupants appear to have practiced a highly mobile and unstable 

residential mobility strategy. 

The historic period (250 to 120 years B.P.) is summarized from Schneider et al. 

(2000). The use of the Oregon Trail by emigrants migrating to the fertile lands of 

Oregon, California, and the Salt Lake Valley brought numerous pioneers through 

the state of Wyoming, but few stayed. It was not until the fertile land in the West 

became highly populated, along with the development of the cattle industry in the 

late 1860s, that the region currently comprising the state of Wyoming became 

attractive for settlement. The region offered cattlemen vast grazing land for the 

fattening of livestock, which could then be shipped across the country via the 

recently completed (1867-1868) transcontinental railroad in southern Wyoming. 

The settling of the region surrounding Gillette, Wyoming began in the late 1800s, 

after a government treaty in 1876 placed the Sioux Indians on reservations 

outside the territory. Cattlemen were the first settlers to establish themselves in 

the area, with dryland farmers entering the area after 1900. The town of Gillette 

was established by the railroad in 1891 in an effort to promote the settling of 

undeveloped areas along their rail lines. The presence of the railroad allowed for 

the greater development of the cattle industry because it facilitated shipping cattle 

from the area. Several early ranches established in the region include the 4J 

Ranch (1875), Half Circle L Ranch (1880s), I Bar U Ranch (1888), and the T7 

Ranch (1881). Early ranches established in the region surrounding the project 

3-206 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

area as of 1883 include the Ritchie Ranch, the McCray Ranch, and the 6 Ranch. 

Later arrivals to the area (as of 1908) include the Grant Ranch on Hay Creek, the 

Rooney Ranch on Rawhide Creek, and the Gardner and Wilson Ranches on the 

Little Powder River. George Oedekoven homesteaded in the area in 1917, and his 

family still maintains the property today. Site 48CA1918 was homesteaded by 

Bert Herrod in 1919. This homestead has been abandoned since at least 1983. 

A Class III cultural resources survey is an intensive and comprehensive inventory 

of a proposed project area conducted by professional archaeologists and 

consultants. The survey is designed to locate and identify all prehistoric and 

historic cultural properties 50 years and older that have exposed surface 

manifestations. The goal of the survey is to locate and evaluate for the NRHP all 

cultural resources within the project area. Cultural properties are recorded at a 

sufficient level to allow for evaluation for possible inclusion to the NRHP. 

Determinations of eligibility are made by the managing federal agency in 

consultation with the SHPO. Consultation with the SHPO must be completed prior 

to the approval of the mining plan. 

After completion of a Class III cultural resources survey, additional investigations 

may be undertaken to complete an individual site record. If necessary, sitespecific testing or limited excavation may be utilized to collect additional data 

which will: 1) determine the final evaluation status of a site; and/or 2) form the 

basis of additional work to be conducted during implementation of a treatment 

plan if the site is determined eligible for the NRHP. A treatment plan is then 

developed for those sites that are eligible for the NRHP and are within the area of 

potential effect. Treatment plans are implemented prior to mining and can 

include such mitigation measures as avoidance (if possible), large scale 

excavation, complete recording, Historical American Building Survey/Historic 

American Engineering Record documentation, archival research, and other 

acceptable scientific practices. 

Data recovery plans are required for sites that are recommended as eligible for the 

NRHP and cannot be avoided by project development, following testing and 

consultation with the SHPO. Until consultation has occurred and agreement 

regarding NRHP eligibility has been reached, all sites recommended as eligible or 

undetermined eligibility must be protected from disturbance. Full consultation 

with the SHPO will be completed prior to approval of the mining plans. Those 

sites determined to be unevaluated or eligible for the NRHP through consultation 

would receive further protection or treatment. 

Numerous Class I (survey records review) and Class III cultural resource surveys 

associated with oil and gas field development and surface mining operations have 

been conducted in the general area. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-207 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.12.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

FCW contracted with TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. of Laramie, Wyoming to perform 

Class I and Class III surveys of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract and surrounding 

area in 2006. The 2006 Class I survey covered the BLM study area (the LBA tract 

as applied for under the Proposed Action and the additional area evaluated under 

Alternative 2). The Class III survey area included previously unsurveyed areas 

within the original BLM study area. 

The Belle Ayr North LBA Tract cultural resource analysis area has been entirely 

surveyed for cultural resources at a Class I level. The Class I review of previous 

survey records identified 12 archeological sites, of which seven are prehistoric, 

three are historic, and two are multi-component. Prehistoric sites consist 

primarily of open camps and lithic scatters. All prehistoric sites are considered 

not eligible. Historic sites consist primarily of homesteads and historic trails. Of 

the three historic sites, two sites are not considered eligible to the NRHP. Historic 

site 48CA1570 (Sawyer’s1865 Wagon Road) is unevaluated as to its NRHP 

eligibility status. The two multi-component sites consist mostly of lithic and 

historic debris and are considered not eligible. No isolated occurrences were 

identified during the Class I records search. 

A majority of the remainder of the Belle Ayr North cultural resources general 

analysis area was surveyed at a Class III level in 2006. One archaeological site 

and five isolated occurrences were identified and recorded during this recent Class 

III inventory. The five isolates consist of prehistoric flakes and projectile points. 

The one newly recorded cultural site consists of a prehistoric open campsite and is 

considered not eligible for the NRHP. Two previously recorded sites (48CA1918 

and 48CA3222) located within the analysis area were to be reassessed during the 

2006 inventory. Site 48CA1918 consisted of a historic homestead and ranch was 

recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. The 2006 reassessment found the site 

to be in similar condition to that described in 1999. Site 48CA3222 consisted of 

prehistoric lithic scatter and was originally considered not eligible for the NRHP. 

The site could not be relocated in 2006 due to the dense ground cover in the area. 

To summarize the identified cultural properties, a total of 13 archaeological sites 

are located in the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract cultural survey area. Of these 13 

sites, eight are prehistoric, 3 are historic, and two are multi-component. None of 

the 13 sites are considered eligible to the NRHP by the cultural site recorder. One 

site, the Sawyer’s Expedition Trail (48CA1570), is unevaluated for the NRHP. Five 

prehistoric isolated occurrences were also recorded. Approximately 54 acres of 

the 1,947 acre Belle Ayr North cultural resources general analysis area have not 

been surveyed at a Class III level. Some areas previously surveyed at a Class III 

level were surveyed prior to 1980 and may be considered substandard in terms of 

current methodology. 

3-208 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.12.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

TBCC contracted with ACR Consultants, Inc. of Sheridan, Wyoming to perform 

Class I and Class III surveys of the West Coal Creek LBA Tract and surrounding 

area in 2007. The 2007 Class I survey was larger than and included the West 

Coal Creek cultural resources general analysis area. The 2007 Class III survey 

included the entire BLM study area. 

The Class I review of previous survey records identified six archeological sites, of 

which five are prehistoric and one is multi-component within the West Coal Creek 

cultural resources general analysis area. The prehistoric sites include three lithic 

scatters, one lithic scatter with hearth, and one hearth. The multi-component site 

consists of lithic scatter with historic debris. None of the sites are considered 

eligible for the NRHP, although fives sites were unevaluated for NRHP eligibility. A 

total of five isolated occurrences (all prehistoric) were identified during the Class I 

records search. 

ACR recorded nine new sites were recorded during the Class III surveys, which 

covered the BLM study area. Five sites are prehistoric and four are multicomponent. The prehistoric sites include two lithic scatters, two lithic scatters 

with hearths, and one habitation locale with stone circles. The multi-component 

sites consist two lithic scatter with historic debris and two prehistoric habitation 

locales with historic debris. All sites are considered not eligible. A total of 21 new 

isolated finds (17 prehistoric and four historic) during the Class III survey. ACR 

also revisited the four previously recorded sites within the BLM study area. Two of 

the sites were subsequently combined into one site, and one site was not found 

and was removed from the list of existing sites. 

Based on the Class I and Class III surveys, 15 archaeological sites have been 

verified within the West Coal Creek LBA cultural resource analysis area. Only 13 

sites could be verified (one site could not be relocated and one site was combined 

with another site). Of these sites, eight are prehistoric and five are multicomponent. None of the 13 verified sites are considered eligible for the NRHP, but 

one site within the 1⁄4-mile buffer is unevaluated for NRHP eligibility. A total of 26 

isolated occurrences were recorded within the analysis area. The entire BLM 

study area has been surveyed to current standards, but only 1,323 acres of the 

2,210 acre West Coal Creek cultural resources general analysis area have been 

surveyed to current standards. 

3.12.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

In 2006, Powder River Coal, LLC, Gillette, Wyoming contracted GCM Services to 

conduct a Class I cultural resource inventory (records search) for the Caballo 

Mine, consisting of a contiguous block encompassing approximately 27,520 acres. 

The Caballo West cultural resources general analysis area, comprising roughly 

1,390 acres, is wholly contained within the 2006 Class I inventory area. The 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-209 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Class I review of previous survey records identified seven archeological sites, of 

which five are prehistoric, one is historic, and one is multi-component, within the 

Caballo West cultural resources general analysis area. Prehistoric sites consist 

primarily of lithic scatters and open camps. All prehistoric sites are considered 

not eligible. Historic sites consist primarily of homesteads and trash dumps. The 

historic site is considered not eligible. The one multi-component site consists of 

an open camp and homestead and is considered not eligible. A total of seven 

isolated occurrences were identified during the Class I records search. The four 

prehistoric isolates consist of two projectile point/tools and two historic debris 

items. The three historic isolates consist of trash scatters. 

A majority of the Caballo West LBA Tract cultural survey area has been surveyed 

for cultural resources at a Class III level. Approximately 220 acres of the 1,390 

acre Caballo West Cultural resources general analysis area have not been 

surveyed at a Class III level and approximately 360 acres were surveyed at a Class 

III level in 1975 and are considered substandard in terms of current methodology. 

3.12.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

CMC contracted with TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. of Laramie, Wyoming to perform 

Class I and Class III surveys of the Maysdorf II LBA Tract and surrounding area in 

2007. The 2007 Class I survey was larger than and included the Maysdorf II 

cultural resources general analysis area. Areas identified as not having been 

surveyed at a Class III level were surveyed at that level later in 2007. 

The Class I review of previous survey records identified 33 archeological sites, of 

which 20 are prehistoric, 12 are historic, and one is multi-component. Prehistoric 

sites consist primarily of open camps and lithic scatters. Fifteen of the prehistoric 

sites are considered not eligible to the NRHP, two remain unevaluated, and three 

are considered eligible to the NRHP. Historic sites consist primarily of 

homesteads, trash dumps, and historic trails. Four historic trails (Hay CreekPorcupine Road, Hathaway’s-Black Hills Trail, Sawyer’s Expedition Trail, and 

Crook’s Military Trail) and one homestead are considered eligible to the NRHP. 

Seven historic sites are considered not eligible. The one multi-component site is a 

lithic and trash scatter and is unevaluated. A total of 13 isolated occurrences 

were identified during the Class I records search. The isolates consist of 

prehistoric flakes and tools. 

The remainder of the Maysdorf II cultural resources general analysis area was 

surveyed at a Class III level in 2007. A total of eight archaeological sites and 16 

isolated occurrences were identified and recorded during this recent Class III 

inventory. The eight newly recorded cultural sites consist of five historic sites (two 

homesteads, a windmill, a trash scatter, and a cemetery) and three prehistoric 

sites, including a cairn with artifacts, a stone circle site, and a lithic scatter. Two 

of the three prehistoric sites will remain unevaluated pending Native American 

consultation, while the remaining six archaeological sites will be recommended as 

3-210 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

not eligible. The 16 isolates consist of nine localities of prehistoric flakes and tools 

and seven localities of historic debris items. 

To summarize the identified cultural properties, a total of 41 archaeological sites 

are located in the Maysdorf II cultural resources general analysis area. Of these 

41 sites, 23 are prehistoric, 17 are historic, and one is multi-component. A total 

of eight sites are considered eligible to the NRHP. These sites include the four 

historic trails (Hay Creek-Porcupine Road, Hathaway’s-Black Hills Trail, Sawyer’s 

Expedition Trail, and Crook’s Military Trail), one homestead, and three prehistoric 

open campsites. Only the Sawyer’s Expedition Trail (48CA1570 and associated 

reports) has not yet been concurred by SHPO. A total of 11 sites remain 

unevaluated to the NRHP. The remaining 22 sites have either been determined or 

are recommended as not eligible to the NRHP. Twenty-two prehistoric isolated 

finds and seven historic isolated finds were also recorded. The entire Maysdorf II 

cultural resources general analysis area has been surveyed for cultural resources 

at a Class III level. 

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.12.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Data recovery plans are required for sites that are recommended eligible to the 

National Register and cannot be avoided, following testing and consultation with 

the SHPO. In the case of a maintenance lease for an existing mine, full 

consultation with SHPO must be completed prior to approval of the MLA mining 

plan amendment for the mine. At that time, those sites determined to be 

unevaluated or eligible for the NRHP through consultation receive further 

protection or treatment. Impacts to eligible or unevaluated cultural resources 

cannot be permitted. Eligible sites that cannot be avoided or that have not 

already been subjected to data recovery action are carried forward in the mining 

plan as requiring protective stipulations until a testing, mitigation, or data 

recovery plan is developed to address the impacts to the sites. Unevaluated sites 

that cannot be avoided must be evaluated prior to disturbance. Ineligible 

properties may be destroyed without further work. 

Any eligible sites on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts that cannot be avoided or that have not already been 

subjected to data recovery action would be carried forward in the mining and 

reclamation plans as requiring protective stipulations until a testing, mitigation, 

or data recovery plan is developed to address the impacts to the sites. The lead 

federal and state agencies would consult with Wyoming SHPO on the development 

of such plans and the manner in which they are carried out. 

Cultural resources adjacent to the mine areas may be impacted as a result of 

increased access to the areas. There may be increased vandalism and 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-211 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

unauthorized collecting associated with recreational activity and other pursuits 

outside of but adjacent to mine permit areas. 

3.12.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

and associated disturbance and impacts would not occur on the additional acres 

that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for 

each tract. Currently approved mining operations would continue on the existing 

Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek Mine leases. Impacts to cultural 

resources related to mining operations at these mines would not be extended onto 

portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and 

reclamation plan. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA lease applications at this time would 

not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.12.3 Native American Consultation 

Native American heritage sites can be classified as prehistoric or historic. Some 

may be presently in use as offering, fasting, or vision quest sites. Other sites of 

cultural interest and importance may include rock art, stone circles, various rock 

features, fortifications or battle sites, burials, and locations that are sacred or part 

of the oral history and heritage but have no man-made features. 

No Native American heritage, special interest, or sacred sites have been formally 

identified and recorded to date within the general South Gillette analysis area. 

However, the geographic position of the general South Gillette analysis area 

between mountains considered sacred by various Native American cultures (the 

Big Horn Mountains to the west, the Black Hills to the east, and Devils Tower to 

the north) creates the possibility that existing locations may have special religious 

or sacred significance to Native American groups. If such sites or localities are 

identified at a later date, appropriate action must be taken to address concerns 

related to those sites. 

Tribes that have been identified as potentially having concerns about actions in 

the PRB include the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Shoshone, Arapaho, Oglala Sioux, 

Rosebud Sioux, Crow Creek Sioux, Lower Brule Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, 

Cheyenne River Sioux, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma, 

and Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma. These tribal governments and representatives have 

been sent copies of the EIS. They have also been provided with more specific 

information about the known cultural sites on the tract in this analysis. Their 

help has been requested in identifying potentially significant religious or cultural 

sites in the general South Gillette analysis area. 

3-212 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Native American tribes were consulted at a general level in 1995-1996 as part of 

an update to the BLM Buffalo Resource Area RMP. Some of the Sioux tribes were 

consulted by BLM on coal leasing and mining activity in the PRB at briefings held 

in Rapid City, South Dakota in March 2002. 

3.12.4 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Class I and III surveys are conducted to identify cultural properties on all lands 

affected by federal undertakings. Prior to any mining disturbance, SHPO is 

consulted to evaluate the eligibility of the cultural properties for inclusion in the 

NRHP. Cultural properties that are determined to be eligible for the NRHP are 

avoided or, if avoidance is not possible, a recovery plan is implemented prior to 

disturbance. 

Mining activities are monitored during topsoil stripping operations. If a lease is 

issued for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, or Maysdorf II LBA 

Tracts, BLM would attach a stipulation to each lease requiring the lessee to notify 

appropriate federal personnel if cultural materials are uncovered during mining 

operations (Appendix D). 

3.12.5 Residual Impacts 

Cultural sites that are determined to be eligible for the NRHP would be avoided if 

possible. Eligible sites that cannot be avoided would be destroyed by surface coal 

mining after data from those sites is recovered. Sites that are not eligible for the 

NRHP would be lost. 

3.13 Visual Resources 

3.13.1 Affected Environment 

Visual sensitivity levels are determined by people’s concern for what they see and 

the frequency of travel through an area. Landscapes within the general South 

Gillette analysis area include rolling sagebrush and short-grass prairie, which are 

common throughout the PRB. There are also areas of altered landscape, such as 

oil fields and surface coal mines. The existing active surface mines that are 

located on the eastern side of the PRB form three geographic groups that are 

separated by areas with no mining operations (Figure 1-1). Two of the groups of 

surface mines are located east of Highway 59 from south of Gillette to south of 

Wright; the third mine group is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 14-16 

from Gillette north for about 13 miles. Other man-made intrusions include 

ranching activities (fences, homesteads, and livestock), oil and gas development 

(pumpjacks, pipeline rights-of-way, CBNG well shelters, and CBNG compressor 

stations), transportation facilities (roads and railroads), environmental monitoring 

installations, road signage, and electrical power transmission lines. The natural 

scenic quality in and near the immediate lease area is fairly low because of the 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-213 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

industrial nature of the adjacent existing mining operations and oil and gas 

development. 

VRM guidelines for BLM lands are to manage public lands for current VRM 

classifications and guidelines. The VRM system is the basic tool used by BLM to 

inventory and manage visual resources on public lands. The VRM classes 

constitute a spectrum ranging from Class I through Class V that provides for 

increasing levels of change within the characteristic landscape. 

The inventoried lands were classified into VRM classes as follows: 

1	 Class I – Natural ecologic changes and very limited management activity is 

allowed. Any contrast (activity) within this class must not attract attention. 

2	 Class II – Changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) 

caused by an activity should not be evident in the landscape. 

3	 Class III – Contrasts to the basic elements caused by an activity are evident 

but should remain subordinate to the existing landscape. 

4	 Class IV – Activity attracts attention and is a dominant feature of the landscape 

in terms of scale. 

5	 Class V – This classification is applied to areas where the natural character of 

the landscape has been disturbed up to a point where rehabilitation is needed 

to bring it up to the level of one of the other four classifications. 

For management purposes, BLM evaluated the visual resources on lands under its 

jurisdiction in the 2001 BLM Buffalo RMP update (BLM 2001a). In the general 

South Gillette analysis area, the predominant VRM classifications are Class IV for 

lands not yet disturbed by mining and Class V for lands that have already been 

disturbed by mining. For lands classified as VRM Class IV, activities, such as 

mining, attract attention and are dominant features of the landscape in terms of 

scale. Class V applies to areas where the natural character of the landscape has 

been disturbed up to a point where rehabilitation is needed to bring it up to the 

level of one of the other four classifications. 

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.13.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Portions of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II 

LBA Tracts are visible from State Highway 59, which is adjacent to the Maysdorf II 

Tract and from 2 to 3 miles west of the other three tracts. Therefore, some mining 

activities on the LBA tracts would be visible from this major travel route. Portions 

3-214 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

of each LBA tract would also be visible from Hilight Road, T-7 Road, Hoadley 

Road, Bishop Road, or Haight Road. 

If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

are leased and mined, the portions of the general South Gillette analysis area that 

would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for each 

tract would be considered as VRM Class V prior to reclamation. After reclamation 

of the LBA tracts and adjoining mines, the areas classified as Class V would 

improve to resemble the surrounding undisturbed terrain. No visual resources 

that are unique to this area have been identified on or near the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. 

Reclaimed terrain would be almost indistinguishable from the surrounding 

undisturbed terrain. Slopes might appear smoother (less intricately dissected) 

and gentler (less steep) than undisturbed terrain and sagebrush would not be as 

abundant for several years; however, within a few years after reclamation, the 

mined land would not be distinguishable from the surrounding undisturbed 

terrain except by someone very familiar with landforms and vegetation. 

3.13.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and coal removal 

and associated disturbance and impacts would not occur on the additional acres 

that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives for 

each tract and the current VRM Class IV and V designations would not change for 

those lands. Currently approved mining operations would continue on the 

existing Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek Mine leases. Impacts to 

visual resources related to mining operations at these mines would not be 

extended onto portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the 

current mining and reclamation plan. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA lease applications at this time would 

not preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.13.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Landscape character would be restored during reclamation to approximate 

original contour and would be reseeded with an approved seed mixture, including 

native species. 

See Section 3.2 and Section 3.9 for additional discussion of the regulatory 

requirements, mitigation, and monitoring for topography and vegetation. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-215 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.13.4 Residual Impacts 

No residual impacts to visual resources are expected. 

3.14 Noise 

3.14.1 Affected Environment 

Existing noise sources in the general South Gillette analysis area include coal 

mining activities, traffic on the nearby highways and county roads, rail traffic, 

aircraft traffic to and from the nearby airport, wind, and CBNG compressor 

stations. Noise originating from CBNG development equipment (e.g., drilling rigs 

and construction vehicles) is apparent locally over the short term (i.e., 30 to 60 

days) where well drilling and associated construction activities are occurring. The 

amount of noise overlap between well sites is variable and depends on the timing 

of drilling activities on adjacent sites and the distance between the site locations. 

Studies of background noise levels indicate that ambient sound levels generally 

are low at many of the PRB mines, owing to the isolated nature of the area. The 

unit of measure used to represent sound pressure levels (decibels) using the Aweighted scale is a dBA. It is a measure designed to simulate human hearing by 

placing less emphasis on lower frequency noise because the human ear does not 

perceive sounds at low frequency in the same manner as sounds at higher 

frequencies. Figure 3-40 presents noise levels associated with some commonly 

heard sounds. 

No site-specific noise level data are available for the proposed lease areas. 

Because the four LBA tracts are adjacent to operating mines, the current median 

noise level is estimated to be 40-60 dBA for day and night, with the noise level 

increasing with proximity to active mining operations at the adjacent mine. 

Mining activities are characterized by noise levels of 85-95 dBA at 50 ft from 

actual mining operations and activities (BLM 1992). 

OSM prepared a noise impact report for the Caballo Rojo Mine (OSM 1980) that 

determined that the noise level from crushers and a conveyor would not exceed 45 

dBA at a distance of 1,500 ft. The air overpressure created by blasting is 

estimated to be 123 dBA at the location of the blast. At a distance of 

approximately 2,500 ft (0.47 mile), the intensity of this blast would be reduced to 

55 dBA (no adverse impact level). 

In 2004, Kennecott Energy (now RTEA) contracted with MMC to conduct an 

assessment of environmental noise and vibration conditions at the Cordero Rojo 

complex. Specifically, the assessment was designed to identify which components 

of the mine and which mine-related activities were the key contributors to external 

noise and vibration levels and understand the generation, propagation, and 

3-216 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

HOW IT FEELS EQUIVALENT 

SOUNDS 

50 hp siren 

Near permanent damage (100 ft) 

level from short 

exposures Jet engine 

(75 ft) 

Pain to ears Turbo-fan jet at 

takeoff power 

(100ft) 

Uncomfortably 

loud Scraper-loader 

Jet fly over 

(1000 ft) 

Discomfort 

threshold Noisy newspaper 

press 

Very loud Air compressor 

Conversation (20 ft) 

stops Power lawnmower 

Steady flow of 

freeway trafic 

Intolerable for 10-HP outboard motor 

phone use Automatic 

dishwasher 

Extra auditory Vacuum cleaner physiological 

effects Window air 

conditioner outside 

at 2 ft. 

Window air 

conditioner Quiet in room 

Occasional private 

Sleep interference auto at 100 ft. 

Quiet home during 

evening 

Bird calls 

Library 

Soft whisper 5 ft. 

Leaves rustling 

DECIBELS 

130 

120 

110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

EQUIVALENT
 

SOUNDS
 

Jackhammer
 

Chainsaw
 

Fire cracker
 

(15 ft.)
 

Rock and roll
 

band
 

Unmuffled motor bike
 

(2-3 ft.)
 

Car horn
 

Unmuffled cycle
 

(25 ft.)
 

Garbage trucks
 

and city buses
 

Diesel truck
 

(25 ft.)
 

Garbage disposal
 

Food blender
 

Muffled jet ski
 

(50 ft.)
 

Passenger car
 

65 mph (25 ft)
 

Busy downtown area
 

Normal conversation
 

In a quiet house 

at midnight 

HOW IT SOUNDS 

135 dB(A)
 

Approx. 64 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

125 dB(A)
 

Approx. 32 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

115 dB(A)
 

Approx. 16 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

105 dB(A)
 

Approx. 8 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

95 dB(A)
 

Approx. 4 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

85 dB(A)
 

Approx. 2 times
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

75dB(A)
 

55 dB(A)
 

Approx. 1/4
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

45 dB(A)
 

Approx. 1/8
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

35 dB(A)
 

Approx. 1/16
 

as loud as 75dB(A)
 

Very quiet Danger to hearing

Adapted From ABC's of Our Noise Codes published by 

Citizens Against Noise, Honolulu, Hawaii 

Figure 3-40. Relationship Between A-Scale Decibel Readings and Sounds of Daily Life. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-217
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

potential environmental impacts under a range of meteorological and operating 

conditions. All SPL data measured in 2004 at the residence nearest to mining 

activity met EPA standards for suitable living. All blasting events were found to be 

in compliance with OSMRE and USBM safe blasting levels. 

The nearest occupied dwellings to the four LBA tracts include in this analysis are 

presented in Table 3-17. 

Table 3-17. Noise Related Impacts for the SGAC LBA Tracts. 

# of Dwellings Within Distance to Max Noise 

3 Miles Closest Level to Potential LBA Tract 

Single Multiple Dwelling Closest Impacts 

Family Family (ft) (dBA) 

Belle Ayr North 25 2 4,080 51 NAI* 

West Coal Creek 12 0 960 63 PI* 

Caballo West 41 2 3,160 53 NAI 

Maysdorf II 35 1 2,275 56 PI 

* NAI: No adverse impact (24-hour equivalent level of less than 55 dBA)


 PI: Potential Impacts - no hearing loss (24-hour equivalent level of less than 70 dBA)
 

Figures 3-10, 3-13, 3-16, and 3-19 depict the locations of occupied residences 

with respect to the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf 

II LBA Tracts, respectively. 

3.14.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.14.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Noise levels on the LBA tracts would be increased considerably by mining 

activities such as blasting, loading, hauling, and possibly in-pit crushing. Since 

the LBA tracts would be mined as an extension of existing operations under the 

Proposed Action or other action alternatives for each tract, no rail car loading 

would take place on the LBA tracts. Under the authority of the Noise Control Act 

of 1972, EPA designates that a 24-hour equivalent level of less than 70 dBA 

prevents hearing loss and that a level below 55 dBA, in general, does not 

constitute an adverse impact (EPA 1974). 

Potential blasting related noises impacts for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are presented in Table 3-17. Because of 

the remoteness of the LBA tracts and because mining is already on going in the 

area, noise would have few off-site impacts. 

3-218 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Wildlife in the immediate vicinity of mining may be adversely affected by the noise 

of the mining operations. Anecdotal observations at surface coal mines in the area 

suggest that some wildlife may adapt to increased noise associated with coal 

mining activity. After mining and reclamation are completed, noise would return 

to premining levels. 

3.14.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, coal removal and the associated noise impacts 

would not occur on the additional acres that would be disturbed under the 

Proposed Action or other action alternatives for each tract. Currently approved 

mining operations and associated noise impacts would continue on the Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine leases. Noise impacts related to 

mining operations at these mines would not extend onto portions of the LBA tracts 

that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plan. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.14.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Mine operators are required to comply with MSHA regulations concerning noise, 

which include protecting employees from hearing loss associated with noise levels 

at the mines. MSHA periodically conducts mine inspections to ensure compliance 

with the requirements of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. 

3.14.4 Residual Impacts 

No residual impacts to noise are expected. 

3.15 Transportation 

3.15.1 Affected Environment 

Transportation resources near the general South Gillette analysis area include 

State Highway 59, five improved two-lane county roads (Haight Road, T-7 Road, 

Hilight Road, Hoadley Road, and Bishop Road), several unimproved local roads 

and accesses (unnamed two-track trails), the Gillette-Douglas rail line used jointly 

by BNSF & UP Railroads, oil and gas pipelines, utility/power lines, telephone 

lines, and associated rights-of-way. Figures 3-41 through 3-44 depict the current 

transportation facilities, excluding the oil and gas pipelines, within and near the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts, 

respectively. Figures 3-45 through 3-48 depict the oil and gas pipelines within 

and near the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA 

Tracts, respectively. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-219 
tation

Bishop Road 

State

 59 

Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

5 4 3 2 1 6 

8 9 10 11 12 7

17 16 15 14 13 18

21 22 23 24 20 19 

25 

29 28 27

26 30

Subs

Subs tation

T. 

48 

N. 

35 36 31 32 33 34 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

2 1 6 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 5 4 3 

T. 

47 

N. 

LEGEND 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Alternative 2 

0 2500 5000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

10000 

BLM's Study Area 

Electric Corridor 

Telephone Corridor 

Figure 3-41. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. 

3-220 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
2 Lawver 

Road 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

4 3
 2 1 6 5 2
 

UP RR

H

BNSF &

ey R o oad adl

16
 15 18 17
 14
 13
 14
 

20
 21 22
 24 23 23
 19
 

29
 28 27 25
 30
 26

26
 

35 32
 33
 34 35 36 31
 

T. T.

46
 46

N. N.

T. T.

45
 45

N. N.

8
 9 10
 12 7 11 11
 

5
 4 1 6
 3 2

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

Electric Corridor 

Telephone Corridor 5000 10000 20000
 

BNSF & UP Rail Line 

DM & E Proposed Rail Line GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-42. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the West Coal Creek LBA Tract. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-221
 

0 
State

 59 Highway 

Bishop Road 

Bishop 

Road 

36 

49 49 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

31 34 35 32 33 T. T. 

N. N. Four Corners Road 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

48 

N. 

1 6 5 4 3 2 

12 7 8 9 10 11 

17 16 15 14 13 18

20 21 22 23 24 19

25 29 30 28 26 27 

Subs tation

Subs tation

32 33 34 35 36 31 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

LEGEND 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

Electric Corridor 

Telephone Corridor 0 2500 5000 10000 

BNSF & UP Rail Line 

DM & E Proposed Rail Line GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-43. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the Caballo West LBA Tract. 

3-222 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
T-7 Road

Haight Road 

Hoe 

Road 

Creek 

Hilight 

Road

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

32 33 34 35 36 36 31
 35
 

State Highway 59

1
 6 1 5 4 3 2 2
 ey R

Hoadl

oad

B UP RR NSF & 

9 10 11 12 11 7 8 12
 

13 17
 15 14 16 14
 13 18
 

21 23 19 20
 22 23 24
 

30 26 25
 

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

Permit Boundary 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine 

Federal Coal Leases 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

North Tract Under Alternative 3
 

South Tract Under Alternative 3
 

Electric Corridor 

Telephone Corridor 

BNSF & UP Rail Line 

DM & E Proposed Rail Line 

T.
 

47
 

N.
 

T.
 

46
 

N.
 

25
 

28 27 29 26
 

34 35 32 33 36
 

3 2 1 5 4
 

10
 11 12 8 9
 

14
 13 17 16 15
 

T.
 

47
 

N.
 

T.
 

46
 

N.
 

Hoadley Road 0 3000 6000 12000
 

20 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 21
 22 23
 

R. 71 W. 

Figure 3-44. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-223
 

24 

24 
Bishop 

Road 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

4 3 2 5 1 6 

8 9 10 11 12 7

14 13 18 16 15 17 

19 20 21 22 23 24 

26 

29 28 27 

25 30 

T. 

48 

N. 

35 36 31 32 33 34 

T. 

48 

N. 

T. 

47 

N. 

2 1 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

6 5 4 3 

T. 

47 

N. 

LEGEND 

Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary 

Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Alternative 2 

0 5000 10000 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

20000 

BLM's Study Area 

Oil or Gas Pipeline 

Figure 3-45. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract. 

3-224 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Lawver 

Road 

2 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

4 3 2 2 1 6 5

UP RR B

H

NSF &

ey R o oad adl

17
 16
 15 13 18 14 14
 

21 24 19 20 22
 23 23
 

29
 28 27 30
 26 26 25
 

35 32 33 34
 35 36 31
 

T. T.

46
 46

N. N.

T. T.

45
 45

N. N.

8
 9 10
 12 7 11 11
 

5 4
 1 6
 3 2

R. 71 W. R. 70 W. 

LEGEND 

Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease 

West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

Oil or Gas Pipeline 

5000 10000 20000
 Abandoned Oil or Gas Pipeline 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-46. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the West Coal Creek LBA Tract. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-225
 

0 
Bishop 

Road 

State

 59 Highway 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

35 32 33 34 36 31
 T. T. 

49 49
 N. N. 

Four Corners Road T. T. 

48 48
 N. N. 

5 2 1 6 4
 3
 

12
 8
 9 10 11 7
 

16 15 14 13
 18 17

21 19 20 22 23 24
 

26 25 30 29 28
 27
 

32 33 34 35 36 31
 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

LEGEND 

Caballo Mine Permit Boundary 

Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases 

Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) 

5000 10000 20000
 Oil or Gas Pipeline 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 

Figure 3-47. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Caballo West LBA Tract. 

3-226
 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 

0 
T-7 Road

Haight Road 

HoeRoadCreek 

Hilight

Road

State Highway 59

25 

29 

26 28 27 

26 25 30 

LEGEND 

Cordero Rojo Mine
 Permit Boundary
 

Existing Cordero Rojo Mine T. 32 33 34 35 36 T. 

Federal Coal Leases 47 

Pending North Maysdorf LBA Tract N. N. 

47 

Maysdorf II LBA Tract T. ey Hoadl R

as Applied for T. 

oad

46 

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) N. 

46 

UP RR BNSF &

N. 4 3 2 1 5 

North Tract Under Alternative 3 

South Tract Under Alternative 3 

Oil or Gas Pipeline 

Oil or Gas Gathering Pipeline 

11 

8 9 10 12 

13 17 16 15 14 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

R. 72 W. R. 71 W. 

32 33 34 35 36 35 36 31

1 1 2 4 3 2 6 5 

9 10 11 12 11 12 7 8 

14 13 16 15 17 14 13 18 

21 23 24 23 24 19 20 22

Hoadley Road 5000 10000 20000 

21 20 22 23 

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) R. 71 W. 

Figure 3-48. Oil and Gas Pipelines Within and Adjacent to the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-227

0 

24 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

State Highway 59 is the major north-south public transportation corridor in this 

area. Principal east-west public transportation corridors are the Haight and T-7 

Roads, which cross the Cordero Rojo Mine’s permit area, and the 

Wagensen/Hoadley Road, which accesses the Coal Creek Mines from the west. 

North-south access to the general South Gillette analysis area is on the Bishop 

Road, which crosses between the Caballo and Belle Ayr Mines and the Hilight 

Road accesses the Cordero Rojo Mine from the south. The highway and some 

improved roads provide public and private access within the general South Gillette 

analysis area. The unimproved local roads and accesses in the area are for both 

public and private use. 

Coal extracted from the existing surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB, 

including the four applicant mines in the general South Gillette analysis area, is 

transported in rail cars along the BNSF and UP rail lines. The coal mines north of 

Gillette ship most of their coal via the east-west BNSF rail line that runs through 

Gillette for destinations in the Midwest. The coal mines in the south Gillette and 

Wright areas ship most of their coal via the Gillette to Douglas BNSF and UP joint 

trackage that runs south through Campbell and Converse Counties and then east 

over separate BNSF and UP mainlines for destinations in the Midwest. Individual 

spur lines connect each PRB mine to the BNSF track or the joint BNSF and UP 

track. If built, the proposed Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad 

PRB Expansion Project would provide additional rail capacity for those mines 

located in the south Gillette and Wright areas. 

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) gave final approval to the DM&E PRB 

Expansion Project in 2002. However, in response to a successful appeal, the 8th 

Circuit Court of Appeals directed the STB to give further consideration to four 

environmental issues that were raised. The STB issued a Final SEIS on the 

expansion project December 30, 2005, which addressed the four issues that were 

remanded back to the STB with input from various Federal agencies, Tribes, 

organizations, environmental groups, businesses, and members of the general 

public (STB 2006). The issue-driven alignment has been determined and the 

DM&E rail line would potentially be in a position to haul coal produced by the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. If constructed, the 

DM&E project would be the largest railroad construction project in the United 

States in the last 100 years (Sheridan Press 2006). The STB granted final 

approval to construct the rail line on February 15, 2006. The SEIS was also 

appealed, but was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 

December 2006. In early October, 2007, Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd announced 

acquisition of the DM&E and its subsidiaries (Canadian Pacific 2007). The 

transaction is subject to the review and approval of the STB. 

3-228 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.15.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Essentially all of the coal mined on the LBA tracts would be transported by rail 

system. Since the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf 

II LBA Tracts would be an extension of the operating mines, the existing rail 

facilities and infrastructure would be used during mining of the proposed lease 

areas. BNSF & UP have upgraded and are continuing to upgrade their rail 

capacities to handle the increasing coal volume projected from the PRB, with or 

without the leasing of the proposed Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. The proposed DM&E Railroad expansion into 

this area is not dependent on leasing the four LBA tracts. 

Coal dust and fines blowing or sifting from moving, loaded rail cars has been 

linked to railroad track stability problems resulting in train derailments and to 

rangeland fires caused by spontaneous combustion of accumulated coal dust. 

The leasing and mining of the four LBA tracts would not increase the rate of 

buildup of coal dust and fines but would prolong the issue. A collaborative effort 

between the National Coal Transportation Association, the mines, and the BNSF 

and UP Railroads resulted in an improved design for a coal loading chute that 

distributes coal more evenly and produces a lower profile load (UPRR 2006). 

Preliminary results have demonstrated that the new design has resulted in a 30 to 

60 percent reduction in coal dust blowing off the top of cars during the early 

portion of the route. The collaborative team is also analyzing the value of crushing 

the coal to a 3-inch diameter rather than 2-inch diameter to reduce dust and fines 

filtering through the bottom gates of rail cars, and using a surfactant applied to 

the top of the load to reduce coal dust emissions (UPRR 2006). 

Active pipelines and utility/power transmission lines currently cross the LBA 

tracts. Any relocation of these pipelines and utility lines would be handled 

according to specific agreements between the coal lessee and the pipeline and 

utility owners, if the need arises. There would be additional surface disturbance 

associated with construction when pipeline is relocated. 

As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, not all of the coal included in the LBA tracts is 

mineable. Coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract and the Maysdorf II LBA 

Tract under both the Proposed Action and other action alternatives and coal 

included in the Caballo West LBA Tract under Alternative 2 is overlain by portions 

of existing county roads. In addition, some of the coal included in the tract under 

the Maysdorf II Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 is overlain by State 

Highway 59. SMCRA prohibits mining within 100 ft of the outside right-of-way 

line of any public road unless the appropriate public road authority allows the 

road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public 

hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will 

be protected [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. As a result, the coal underlying the highway and 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-229 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

county road rights-of-way and adjacent buffer zones has been determined to be 

unsuitable for mining according to coal leasing Unsuitability Criterion Number 3 

[43 CFR 3461(c)]. 

The coal underlying the Bishop, Haight, and Hilight Roads and Highway 59 is 

included in the Belle Ayr, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts being 

considered for leasing because the coal under the roads could be mined if the 

authorized public road authorities determine that the roads could be moved [see 

43 CFR 3461.5(c)(2)(iii) and discussion in Section 2.1]. If the roads are not moved, 

including the underlying coal in the leases would allow maximum recovery of all 

the mineable coal adjacent to the road rights-of-way and buffer zones (100 ft on 

either side of a road right-of-way). FCW and CCC are evaluating the feasibility of 

relocating the Bishop Road at this time. CMC does not currently have plans to 

relocate Highway 59 but is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the Haight and 

Hilight roads. 

All mining related road relocation option plans would be reviewed and approved by 

the Campbell County Commissioners and/or the WYDOT prior to road relocation, 

with or without leasing of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and 

Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. Vehicular traffic to and from the mines would continue at 

existing levels for over 10 additional years, depending on the LBA tracts involved 

and which alternatives are selected. 

3.15.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, coal removal would not occur on the additional 

acres that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action 

alternatives for each tract and the transportation resources located in those areas 

would not be affected by mining. Currently approved mining operations and any 

associated impacts to transportation resources would continue on the Belle Ayr, 

Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine leases. Impacts related to mining 

operations at these mines would not be extended onto portions of the LBA tracts 

that will not be affected under the current mining and reclamation plan. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.15.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

The regulatory requirements regarding transportation facilities require that no 

public road be relocated unless the appropriate public road authority allows the 

road to be relocated or closed and that existing pipelines and utility lines be 

relocated, if necessary, in accordance with specific agreements between the coal 

lessee and the pipeline and utility owners. 

3-230 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.15.4 Residual Impacts 

3.15.4.1 Coal Loss During Transport 

With the opening of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming in the late 1970s, U.S. 

coal shipments have grown dramatically from 4.8 million carloads to 8.4 million 

carloads in 2006, as the railroads deliver low sulfur coal to help electric utilities 

achieve Clean Air Standards (FRA 2008). The largest rail coal movements are from 

the Powder River Basin to generating power plants in Illinois, Missouri, and Texas 

(FRA 2008). 

Sifting and blowing coal dust and coal chunks coming off freshly loaded moving 

railroad cars can accumulate along railroad tracks, railroad rights-of-way, and on 

adjacent lands. Coal dust can wash into drainages where large deposits of lost 

coal can accumulate. Accumulated coal dust has been linked to train derailments 

and can also spontaneously combust and cause wildfires. 

Coal can be lost from rail cars through leakage from the rail car discharge doors, 

spillage over the rail car sides, and can be blown from rail car tops during transit. 

In testing conducted by Union Pacific Railroad, Burlington Northern Sante Fe 

Railroad, and the National Coal Transportation Association, the average loss of 

coal from an individual rail car’s rapid discharge doors was about 19 pounds per 

216 miles, or 0.09 pounds per mile (NCTA 2007). The same testing indicated that 

an average of 225 pounds of coal was lost from the top of a coal car through either 

top spillage or being blown off during a 567 mile test trip, which equated to about 

0.40 pounds per mile (NCTA 2007). 

The derailment of two trains in the PRB in 2005 suspected to have resulted from 

track instability problems caused by a buildup of coal dust and other particles on 

the rail bed in combination with high concentrations of moisture (UPR 2005). 

BNSF railway officials toured the PRB rail infrastructure in June, 2007. 

According to a BNSF official, when coal dust is blown off rail cars, it gets lodged in 

the rail bed, allowing moisture to intrude. The moisture then degrades the 

structural stability of the rail bed and leaves the rail more vulnerable to buckling 

under stress (Gillette News-Record 2007). NCTA (2007) testing results suggested 

that rail car bottom spillage may have more of a negative impact on rail ballast 

stability than loss from the top of rail cars since the leakage is directly above and 

near the ballast. NCTA (2007) testing also showed that after the rapid discharge 

doors were adjusted, there was a 32 percent decrease in bottom spillage of coal. 

Accumulating coal dust and deposition has become a concern in Converse 

County. The majority of coal mined in the PRB travels through Converse County 

on railroads. Coal dust blows off the freshly loaded coal cars on their way from 

the PRB mine load-outs to Bill and through Converse County (Casper Star Tribune 

2007). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-231 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Spontaneous combustion of accumulated coal dust can cause rangeland fires. 

Smoldering coal dust within a railroad right-of-way can ignite a wildfire and 

quickly spread to surrounding private lands if the fire is not immediately 

controlled. The Douglas Volunteer Fire Department Chief, Rick Andrews, 

estimates that coal fires account for at least 50 percent of the department’s 

average summer call volume (Casper Star Tribune 2007). Coal fires along the 

railroad tracks are an ongoing problem for the Douglas Volunteer Fire Department 

(Casper Star Tribune 2007). Often water only temporarily puts down the flames; 

some fires repeatedly ignite over the course of several hours or days (Casper Star 

Tribune 2007). While the county’s rural fire district is compensated for some of 

the costs involved in putting out fires caused by transported coal, the 

compensation doesn’t come close to the actual costs, according to the Douglas 

Volunteer Fire Department Chief (Casper Star Tribune 2007). 

BLM was invited by a Converse county private land owner to examine and survey 

the coal deposition that has occurred from coal trains traveling through his land. 

On July 7, 2008, BLM personnel met with the private landowner and toured his 

rangeland that was adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, about 26 miles north of 

Douglas, Wyoming. BLM surveyed various coal accumulations in Box Creek; one 

area was found to have a coal accumulation of 1.8 feet thick (BLM 2008a). Water 

runoff washed coal lost from the trains into drainages, with the amount of coal 

deposition varying along the tracks (BLM 2008a). 

BNSF is working with the utility companies and the mines in trying to encourage a 

larger diameter of crushed coal to be delivered (3-inch versus 2-inch) in an effort 

to reduce the amount of small particles that are created in the crushing process 

(Gillette News-Record 2007). Another possibility that may help lessen blowing 

coal dust from trains is the use of surfactants applied to the tops of loaded coal 

cars (Gillette News-Record 2007). When applied to coal, surfactants can adhere 

coal dust to larger coal chunks. Some tests have shown that coal dust on railroad 

tracks can be reduced by up to 95 percent with surfactant use (Gillette NewsRecord 2007). Surfactant application requires large amounts of water and they 

would need to meet utility companies’ burning specifications in order to be used 

(Burget 2008 and Gillette News-Record 2007). 

A collaborative effort between the NCTA, PRB mines, and the BNSF and UP 

railroads has resulted in an improved design for a coal loading chute that 

distributes coal more evenly and produces a lower profile load (UPR 2006). 

Preliminary results have demonstrated that this new design may result in a 30 to 

60 percent reduction in coal dust blowing off the top of cars during the early 

portion of the route (UPR 2006). 

Converse County Commissioners have formally expressed concerns to BLM in 

regard to fire, health, and safety issues associated with blowing coal dust from 

trains. The Commissioners have stated that the health and well-being of Converse 

County citizens downwind of the railroad tracks continue to be jeopardized due to 

3-232 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

lack of coal dust mitigation in the coal mining permit process (BLM 2008b). The 

Converse County Commissioners have urged that coal dust mitigation be applied 

as a standard condition of approval upfront in the mining permit (BLM 2008b). 

BLM does not authorize mining permits nor regulate mining operations with the 

issuance of a BLM coal lease. In Wyoming, WDEQ has entered into a cooperative 

agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to enforce mining regulations and 

regulate surface coal mining operations. Any action related to the mining of 

leased coal must be approved by WDEQ before mining operations can occur on 

the leased federal coal lands. Mitigation and other requirements are developed as 

part of the mining and reclamation permit. 

Other agencies that may be stakeholders in this issue include the Federal Railroad 

Administration, which implements U.S. Department of Transportation 

environmental policies related to U.S. railroads, and the National Coal 

Transportation Association whose mission includes facilitating the resolution of 

coal transportation issues in order to serve the needs of the general public and 

industry (NCTA 2008). 

3.16 Hazardous and Solid Waste 

3.16.1 Affected Environment 

Potential sources of hazardous or solid waste on the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts would include spilled, leaked or 

dumped hazardous substances, petroleum products, and/or solid waste 

associated with coal and oil and gas exploration, oil and gas development, the 

BNSF & UP railroad, utility line installation and maintenance, or agricultural 

activities. No such hazardous or solid wastes are known to be present on any of 

the four LBA tracts. Wastes produced by current mining activities at the Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines are handled according to the 

procedures described in Chapter 2, Section 2.8. 

3.16.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.16.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

If the applicant mines acquire the four LBA tracts, the wastes that would be 

generated in the course of mining the tract would be similar to those currently 

being generated by the existing mining operation. The procedures that are used 

for handling hazardous and solid wastes at the existing mines are described in 

Chapter 2, Section 2.8. Wastes generated by mining the LBA tracts would be 

handled in accordance with the existing regulations using the procedures 

currently in use and in accordance with WDEQ-approved waste disposal plans at 

the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-233 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.16.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, coal removal would not occur on the additional 

acres that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action or other action 

alternatives for each tract and no waste materials would be generated as a result 

of coal removal on the tracts. Currently approved mining operations would 

continue on the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mine leases. 

Impacts related to mining operations at this mine would not be extended onto 

portions of the LBA tracts that will not be affected under the current mining and 

reclamation plan. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease the tracts in the future. 

3.16.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

The regulatory requirements regarding production, use, and/or disposal of 

hazardous or extremely hazardous materials are discussed in Chapter 2. All 

mining activities involving the hazardous materials are and would continue to be 

conducted so as to minimize potential environmental impacts. 

3.16.4 Residual Impacts 

No residual hazardous and solid waste impacts are expected. 

3.17 Socioeconomics 

The social and economic study area for the proposed project includes Campbell 

County and the City of Gillette. The community of Gillette would most likely 

attract the majority of any new residents due to its current population levels and 

the availability of services and shopping amenities. 

3.17.1 Local Economy 

3.17.1.1 Affected Environment 

Wyoming’s coal mines produced 452.1 million tons in 2007, according to the 

Wyoming State Inspector of Mines. This was an increase of almost 2 percent over 

the 444.9 million tons produced in 2006. PRB coal production (Campbell and 

Converse counties, 14 active mines) was over 436.6 million tons in 2007, which 

represented almost 97 percent of the state coal production (Wyoming Department 

of Employment 2005a and 2006a). 

Approximately 27 percent of the November of 2007 total employment in Campbell 

County and 40 percent of the second quarter 2007 total payroll was attributed to 

3-234 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

the natural resources and mining sector (Wyoming Department of Employment 

2007 and Wyoming Department of Employment 2008). In 2007, Campbell County 

employment grew at a similar rate compared to the statewide average (3.7 percent 

versus 3.6 percent change, respectively). Job growth occurred in construction, 

trade, manufacturing, transportation and utilities, and local government, but the 

most dramatic increase was in the manufacturing sector (Wyoming Department of 

Employment 2008). 

Lease bonus bids are paid to the federal government for the right to enter into 

lease agreements for federal coal. Bonus bids are paid in five annual installments; 

the state receives half of each installment. In 2004 and 2005, BLM held 

competitive sealed-bid lease sales for six coal tracts (NARO South, West Antelope, 

West Hay Creek, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and NARO North). No coal lease 

sales were held for federal coal tracts in the PRB in 2006 or 2007. Two lease sales 

(Eagle Butte West and South Maysdorf) have been held thus far in 2008. 

The successful bonus bids for the six lease sales held in 2004 and 2005 ranged 

from 30 cents per ton to 97 cents per ton and totaled $1.69 billion (BLM 2006c). 

Annual bonus bid payments from the six lease sales total $338.2 million. 

Combined with remaining bonus bid payments from lease sales held in previous 

years of $90.1 million, the annual bonus bid payment total for 2004 was $428.3 

million, derived directly from federal coal in Campbell and Converse counties. The 

Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group is projecting that coal lease 

bonus revenues to the state will be $169.8 million for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 

2009. The bonus money received by the state is allocated to fund capital 

construction for cities and towns, the state’s highway fund, community colleges, 

and school capital construction (Wyoming CREG 2007). 

Wyoming, Campbell County, and the cities and towns in the county receive 

revenue from a variety of taxes and royalties on the production of federal coal in 

addition to the bonus bids. These include ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, 

royalty payments, sales and use taxes, and required contributions to the AML 

program and the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. 

Federal royalties are collected at the time the coal is sold and equal 12.5 percent 

of the sale price. In the past, federal royalties and bonus bids had been divided 

equally with the State of Wyoming. Legislation was passed in 2007 that modified 

the percentage of distribution to 52 percent federal/48 percent state for fiscal year 

2008. The percentage of mineral royalty distribution will revert back to 50 

percent/50 percent at the end of the 2008 fiscal year unless legislation is passed 

in the future to maintain or further modify the current percentage of distribution 

of royalties. Coal mines pay 31.5 cents per ton of surface coal mined to fund AML 

reclamation programs. Annual appropriations returned to the states vary 

depending on Congressional authorizations and AML program priorities. 

Additional sources of revenue include federal income tax and annual rentals that 

are paid to the government. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-235 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sales and use taxes are distributed to cities and towns within the county and to 

the county’s general fund. According to the Excise Tax Division of the Wyoming 

Department of Revenue (2004), the sales and use taxes collected from coal mines 

and coal mining-related services in Campbell County in FY 2004 was $8.2 million. 

In 1994, the University of Wyoming estimated that the total fiscal benefit to the 

State of Wyoming for coal produced in the PRB was $1.10 per ton (Borden et al. 

1994). This study did not include AML fees or bonus bid payments in the 

calculation for fiscal benefits to the State of Wyoming. Calculating the estimated 

total fiscal benefit to the State of Wyoming in 2005 by including half of the bonus 

bid payments, half of the federal mineral royalties based on current prices, half of 

the AML fees, and all of the ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, and sales and use 

taxes for coal produced in Campbell County in 2005 results in an estimated $661 

million, or $1.62 per ton. Figure 3-49 depicts the estimated total revenues to 

state and federal governments from 2006 coal production in Campbell County. 

Recent GSP calculations for Wyoming (2004) indicate that the minerals industry 

accounted for about 21 percent of the state’s total GSP of $24.1 billion, which 

made it the largest sector of the Wyoming economy. Mining alone accounted for 

8.3 percent of the Wyoming GSP (Wyoming Department of Administration and 

Information 2007). 

3.17.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

The federal and state revenues that would be generated by the leasing and mining 

of the LBA tracts would depend on which alternative is selected and the sale price 

of the coal. Coal prices increased in 2005, generally as a result of concerns over 

coal transportation and stockpile issues, but declined in 2006. According to the 

WSGS, the average spot price of 8,400 Btu coal in the PRB in the second half of 

2005 was $11.06 per ton, compared with an average spot price during the first 

half of 2005 of $7.29 per ton and an average spot price of $4.93 per ton the year 

before (WSGS 2006). However, PRB spot prices declined throughout 2006. The 

average spot price for 8,400 Btu coal was $9.86 per ton in 2006 (WSGS 2008). 

The Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group is forecasting that the 

average gross sales prices for Wyoming coal production will ranged from $9.98 to 

$10.65 per ton from 2007 through 2012 (Wyoming CREG January 2008). PRB 

prices are generally lower than prices for coal produced in other areas of 

Wyoming; however, most of the coal produced in Wyoming is from the PRB. For 

the purposes of this EIS, a conservative average price of $9.98 per ton (Wyoming 

CREG January 2008) is estimated for the coal included in the Belle Ayr North, 

Coal Creek West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts, which have an 

average Btu value of a little over 8,400. 

3-236 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sales and Use Taxes 

$16.5 million 

(2.2%) 

Ad Valorem Taxes 

$149.3 million 

(20.2%) 

Bonus Bid Payments
 

$192.4 million
 

(26.0%)
 

Federal Mineral Royalties 

$123.6 million 

(16.7%) 

Severence Tax 

$186.8 million 

(25.3%) 

AML Fund 

$71.2 million 

(9.6%) 

Total Wyoming Revenue = $739.8 Million 

Black Lung Fund 

$142.9 million 

(27.0%) 

Bonus Bid Payments 

$192.4 million 

(36.3%) 

Federal Royalties 

$123.6 million 

(23.3%) 

AML Fund 

$71.2 million 

(13.4%) 

Total Federal Revenue = $530.1 Million 

Figure 3-49. Estimated Wyoming and Federal Revenues from 2006 Coal Production in Campbell County. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-237
 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Using the coal tonnages shown in Tables 3-1 through 3-4, projected federal and 

state revenues for the LBA tracts are presented in Table 3-18, assuming an 

average coal price of $9.98 per ton recovered and a potential range of bonus 

payments on the leased (mineable) coal of 30 to 97 cents per ton. 

Table 3-18. 	 Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the South Gillette 

Analysis Area LBA Tracts Under the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Tract and Item 

Belle Ayr North LBA 

 State Revenues 

 Federal Revenues 

 Increased Mine Life 

 Additional Employees 

No Action 

Alternative 

Existing Mine 

$382.9 million 

$283.6 million 

0 yrs 

0 

Proposed Action 

$342.2 to $410.7 million 

$261.5 to $329.9 million 

6.4 yrs 

8 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

$364.9 to $437.8 million

$278.7 to $351.6 million

6.8 yrs 

8 

West Coal Creek LBA 

 State Revenues 

 Federal Revenues 

 Increased Mine Life 

 Additional Employees 

$353.2 million 

$261.6 million 

0 yrs 

0 

$102.1 to $123.3 million 

$78.1 to $99.3 million 

4.3 yrs 

10 

$102.1 to $123.3 million

$78.1 to $99.3 million 

4.3 yrs 

10 

Caballo West LBA

 State Revenues $949.6 million $146.0 to $175.3 million $175.9 to $211.3 million

 Federal Revenues $703.4 million $111.5 to $140.8 million $134.4 to $169.8 million

 Increased Mine Life 0 yrs 2.2 yr 2.6 yr

 Additional Employees 0 0 0 

Maysdorf II LBA

 State Revenues $854.0 million $805.0 to $972.3 million $849.7 to $1026.5 million

 Federal Revenues $632.6 million $615.7 to $783.1 million $649.9 to $826.7 million

 Increased Mine Life 0 yrs 9.7 yrs 10.3 yrs 

 Additional Employees 0 60 63 

If the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

are leased and mined under the Proposed Actions or other action alternatives 

potential federal revenues would vary by LBA tract as indicated below. 

3.17.1.2.1.1 	Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range 

from approximately $261 million to $330 million. Under Alternatives 2, potential 

additional federal revenues would range from approximately $279 million to $352 

million. 

If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential 

additional state revenues would range from about $342 million to $411 million. 

3-238	 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative 2, potential additional state revenues would range from about 

$365 million to $438 million. 

The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would 

continue for over 6 additional years, depending on which alternative is selected. 

3.17.1.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Under the Proposed Action and under Alternative 2, the potential additional 

federal revenues would range from approximately $78 million to $99 million. 

If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action and under 

Alternative 2, the potential additional state revenues would range from about $102 

million to $123 million. 

The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would 

continue for just over 4 additional years. 

3.17.1.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range 

from approximately $112 million to $141 million. Under Alternative 2, potential 

additional federal revenues would range from approximately $134 million to about 

$170 million. 

If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential 

additional state revenues would range from about $146 million to $175 million. 

Under Alternative 2, potential additional state revenues would range from about 

$176 million to $211 million. 

The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would 

continue for over 2 additional years. 

3.17.1.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Under the Proposed Action, the potential additional federal revenues would range 

from approximately $616 million to $783 million. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 

potential additional federal revenues would range from approximately $650 million 

to $827 million. 

If the LBA tract is leased and mined under the Proposed Action, the potential 

additional state revenues would range from about $805 million to $972 million. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, potential additional state revenues would range from 

about $850 million to $1027 million. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-239 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The base of economic activity provided by wages and local purchases would 

continue for over 10 additional years, depending on which alternative is selected. 

3.17.1.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the potentially recoverable coal included in an 

LBA tract under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives would not be 

mined and the economic benefits associated with mining that coal would not be 

realized by the state or federal government. Currently approved mining operations 

and associated economic benefits would continue on the existing mine leases. 

Portions of the LBA tracts adjacent to the existing mines would be disturbed to 

recover the coal in the existing leases. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek 

West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the future. 

3.17.2 Population 

3.17.2.1 Affected Environment 

Campbell County had a population of 33,698 in 2000, an estimated population of 

37,405 in 2005, and an estimated population of 38,934 in 2006. This represents 

a 15.5 percent growth rate since 2000 and makes Campbell County the second 

fastest growing county in the state. Campbell County’s population ranks it as the 

fourth largest of Wyoming’s 23 counties and Gillette is the fourth largest city in 

the state, following only Cheyenne, Casper, and Laramie (USDOC 2000, CCEDC 

2007, and Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 2007). 

Gillette’s population totaled 17,054 in 1987 and, according to census data, by 

2000 Gillette’s population was 19,646 and Wright’s population was 1,347. 

Between 1990 and 2000, Gillette grew by 2,011 persons, averaging 1.1 percent per 

year. From December 2001 through December 2006, the population of Gillette 

increased from 22,867 to 27,533 (City of Gillette 2007). Wright had an average 

growth rate of 0.9 percent during the period from 1990 and 2000. In 2005, 

Gillette accounted for 22,685, or 61 percent, of the county’s residents (USDOC 

1990 and 2000 and Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 

2007). 

3.17.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.2.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

As indicated by Table 3-18, leasing and subsequently mining the Belle Ayr North, 

Coal Creek West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts would extend the life 

of the existing mines and current employment at the mines by nearly 10 

3-240 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

additional years, depending on which LBA tract and which alternative is selected. 

Average yearly employment at the mines would increase by up to 63 positions 

under the Proposed Action and other action alternatives (Cordero Rojo Mine -

Table 3-18). It is likely that the additional employees would be available from the 

existing workforce in Campbell County and no influx of new residents would occur 

as a result of filling these new positions. 

3.17.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek West, Caballo 

West, and Maysdorf II coal lease applications would be rejected and the coal 

included in an LBA tract under the Proposed Action or other action alternatives 

would not be mined. Population levels would not be affected by any additional 

employment at the existing mines. Currently approved mining operations and 

associated employment levels would continue on the existing mines leases for 

from about 6 years at the Cordero Rojo Mine up to approximately 17 years at the 

Coal Creek Mine. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek 

West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the future. 

3.17.3 Employment 

3.17.3.1 Affected Environment 

Coal mining has changed a great deal since the 1970s, and new technologies have 

been a major contributor to these changes. The local coal mining labor force grew 

during the 1970s. Between 1980 and 1998, overall production rose while 

employee numbers generally decreased or remained constant. The employment 

declines followed large industry capital investments in facilities and production 

equipment, the majority of which were aimed at increasing productivity. Direct 

employment in Campbell County at coal mines increased from 3,011 to 4,168 

between 1998 and 2005 (Wyoming Department of Employment 1998 and 2005a). 

The mining sector, which includes oil and gas workers, accounts for almost 28 

percent of all employment in Campbell County, nearly four times the statewide 

percentage. 

In the second quarter of 2007, around 7,058 people were directly employed by 

surface coal mines or coal contractors in Campbell County, representing about 26 

percent of the Campbell County employed labor force (Wyoming Department of 

Employment 2007). Campbell County also has slightly higher percentages of 

construction and wholesale trade employment, which is keeping with the 

development demands of continuing growth and the county’s position as a 

commercial center for northeast Wyoming. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-241 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.17.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

In November 2007, the unemployment rate in Campbell County was 2.0 percent 

(517 persons) (Wyoming Department of Employment 2008). It is likely that 

additional employees would be available from the existing workforce in Campbell 

County, depending on the timing of the hiring at the mine as compared to the 

timing of hiring for other ongoing and proposed projects in the county, which are 

discussed in Section 4.1. 

3.17.3.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

3.17.3.2.1.1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract 

Leasing and subsequently mining the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract would extend the 

life of the Belle Ayr Mine by up to nearly 7 additional years, depending on which 

alternative is selected. As discussed above, average yearly employment at the 

mine would not increase under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (Table 3-18). 

 The economic stability of the community of Gillette would benefit by having the 

current Belle Ayr Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the 

mine for up to about 7 additional years. 

3.17.3.2.1.2 West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

Leasing and subsequently mining the West Coal Creek LBA Tract would extend 

the life of the Coal Creek Mine by about 4 additional years, regardless of which 

alternative is selected. As discussed above, average yearly employment at the 

mine would not increase under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (Table 3-18). 

 The economic stability of the community of Gillette would benefit by having the 

current Coal Creek Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the 

mine for up to about 4 additional years. 

3.17.3.2.1.3 Caballo West LBA Tract 

Leasing and subsequently mining the Caballo West LBA Tract would extend the 

life of the Caballo Mine by up to over 2 additional years, regardless of which 

alternative is selected. As discussed above, average yearly employment at the 

mine would not increase under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (Table 3-18). 

The economic stability of the community of Gillette would benefit by having the 

current Caballo Mine workforce living in the community and employed at the mine 

for over 2 additional years. 

3.17.3.2.1.4 Maysdorf II LBA Tract 

Leasing and subsequently mining the Maysdorf II LBA Tract would extend the life 

of the Cordero Rojo Mine by up to about 10 additional years, regardless of which 

alternative is selected. As discussed above, average yearly employment at the 

3-242 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mine would increase by up to 63 positions under the Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2, Alternative 3 (North Tract) and Alternative 3 (South Tract) (Table 3­

18). The economic stability of the community of Gillette would benefit by having 

the current Cordero Rojo Mine workforce living in the community and employed at 

the mine for up to about 10 additional years. 

3.17.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the LBA tract lease applications would be 

rejected and the coal included in an LBA tract under the Proposed Action or other 

action alternatives would not be mined. Mine life and existing employment levels 

would not be extended for nearly 10 additional years, and any increase in 

employees associated with mining the coal in the tract would not occur. Currently 

approved mining operations and associated employment would continue on the 

existing mines leases for from about 6 years at the Cordero Rojo Mine to 

approximately 16 years at the Coal Creek Mine. Portions of the LBA tracts 

adjacent to the existing mines would be disturbed to recover the coal in the 

existing leases. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek 

West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the future. 

3.17.4 Housing 

3.17.4.1 Affected Environment 

According to a 2001 report on housing needs in Campbell County, roughly 61 

percent of PRB surface coal mining employees live in Gillette and surrounding 

areas, 14 percent live in Wright, and 25 percent live outside of Campbell County 

(Pederson Planning Consultants 2001). 

There were 11,538 housing units in Campbell County reported in the 1990 

census. The 2000 census counted 13,288 housing units in Campbell County, of 

which 12,207 were occupied at the time. There were 8,989 (73.6 percent) owner 

occupied units and 3,218 (26.4 percent) occupied rental units (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000). 

The number of housing units in Gillette increased from 7,078 in 1990 to 7,931 in 

2000, an increase of 12 percent. According to the City of Gillette, the housing 

stock in Gillette increased to 10,194 at the end of December 2006 (City of Gillette 

2007). The number of units added in unincorporated, rural areas of Campbell 

County is not known because the county does not require building permits or 

certificates of occupancy for residential development in unincorporated areas 

(Braunlin 2004). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-243 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The types of housing units counted in 2000 included 6,698 single-family detached 

units, 794 single-family attached units, 2,276 multi-family units, 3,432 mobile 

homes, and 88 RVs, vans, or similar types of units. Subsequent construction 

added 561 single-family detached, 61 single-family attached, 498 manufactured 

homes, and 352 multi-family units in Gillette and Wright, plus an unknown 

number of single-family and manufactured units in rural areas. The resulting 

totals are estimated at 7,259 single-family detached units (49.2 percent), 855 

single-family attached units (5.8 percent), 2,628 multi-family units (17.8 percent), 

3,930 mobile/manufactured units (26.6 percent), and 88 RV/vans (0.6 percent) 

(CSI 2005). 

The overall vacancy rate in Campbell County in 1990 was 13.6 percent, although 

the homeowner vacancy rate was just 3.6 percent while rental vacancies were at 

19.4 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 1990). By 2000, the overall vacancy rate in the 

county had dropped to 8.1 percent with the rate for rental units at 9.0 percent 

and the rate for owner units at 1.2 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Due to 

the population growth that has recently occurred in association with CBNG 

development, the housing vacancy rate within the City of Gillette has continued to 

decrease. A survey conducted in October 2004 estimated the vacancy rate of 

rental units to be 7.0 percent, based on a sample of approximately 40 percent of 

all rental units, mostly in larger complexes (CSI 2005). According to the City of 

Gillette, there was a 0.2 percent vacancy rate for rental property in 2006, while 

the average annual vacancy rate for manufactured home/mobile home rentals 

within the city limits was 9.05 percent (City of Gillette 2007). Many apartments 

had waiting lists. 

In the fourth quarter of 2006, average housing rental costs in Campbell County 

were $697 for a two-bedroom, unfurnished apartment, $283 for a single-wide 

mobile home lot and $975 for a two or three-bedroom single family home. In 

Converse County, the equivalent rates substantially lower; $515 for an apartment, 

$152 for a mobile home lot and $545 for a single family home (Wyoming 

Department of Administration and Information 2007). 

The average selling price of homes in Campbell County the average sales price, 

based on 458 sales, was $185,874. That average represents a 7 percent increase 

over that in 2004 and fifth highest among Wyoming counties (Wyoming Housing 

Database Partnership 2007). 

In addition to permanent housing, temporary or transient housing is a 

consideration for any project that might have a construction component. 

Temporary housing can include hotels or motels, campgrounds, and possibly 

mobile home parks. 

There are 17 motels in Gillette with 1,346 guest rooms, one additional 27-room 

motel in Wright and a two-room bed & breakfast in Gillette. Hotel occupancy 

rates have recently been very high and several new hotels are proposed for 

3-244 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

construction (Gillette News Record, 2006a). Gillette has two year-round 

commercial campgrounds with 150 hookups for RVs plus tent areas (Gillette 

Convention and Visitor’s Bureau 2004). Campbell County has a multi-event 

facility, the CAM-PLEX, located in Gillette. It has 1,821 RV sites, which vary from 

688 full service sites with rest rooms and shower facilities to electric only sites. 

The CAM-PLEX facilities are generally available only for scheduled special events, 

not for public camping (CAM-PLEX 2005). 

Gillette also has approximately 1,595 mobile home park spaces. Mobile home 

parks are generally considered permanent housing resources, but they sometimes 

provide temporary spaces for RVs as well if there are vacant spaces available. As 

of early October 2004, the average vacancy rate in Gillette’s mobile home parks 

was 35 percent, or 558 spaces (CSI 2005). 

3.17.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.4.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

As discussed above, average yearly employment at the mines would increase by up 

to 63 positions (Cordero Rojo Mine) and employment at the mines would be 

extended by up to approximately 10 additional years, under the Proposed Actions 

and other action alternatives. No additional demands on the existing 

infrastructure or services in the community would be expected because little or no 

influx of new residents would be needed to fill new jobs. Although housing is tight 

in Gillette, it is likely that housing for the additional employees would be available 

from the existing and proposed units in Campbell County. 

3.17.4.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected 

and the coal included in an LBA tract under the Proposed Action or other action 

alternatives would not be mined. Housing occupancy would not be affected by 

any additional employment at the mines. Currently approved mining operations 

and associated employment levels would continue on the existing mines leases for 

from about 6 years at the Cordero Rojo Mine to approximately 17 years at the Coal 

Creek Mine. Portions of the LBA tracts adjacent to the existing mines would be 

disturbed to recover the coal in the existing leases. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek 

West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the future. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-245 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.17.5 Local Government Facilities and Services 

3.17.5.1 Affected Environment 

The availability of revenues generated by mineral production has helped local 

government facilities and services keep pace with growth and are adequate for the 

current population. 

Campbell County School District No. 1’s enrollment as of December 2007 is listed 

as stable at 7,569 students, making it the third largest school district in Wyoming. 

The district facilities include: one high school (with two campuses) and two junior 

high schools in Gillette, a junior-senior high school in Wright and 15 elementary 

schools (including one in Wright and three in rural areas). The district also 

operates an alternative high school and aquatic center in Gillette (CCSD 2007). 

The Campbell County Sheriff provides police protection throughout the county, 

except within the City of Gillette. In addition to general law enforcement, the 

Sheriff’s staff provides court security, detention facilities, and animal control. For 

the 2004 fiscal year, the department budgeted for 60 law enforcement employees. 

Recent improvements have increased the Campbell County detention facility to 

128 beds, which includes separate modules for women and juveniles (BLM 

2005b). 

Fire protection throughout Campbell County is provided by the Campbell County 

Fire Department, which is governed by a city-county joint powers board (Vonsik 

2005). The department maintains four stations in Gillette and six dispersed 

throughout the county. The department has 17 full-time staff and 150 trained 

volunteers. In addition, there are 30 to 40 volunteers in outlying areas who are 

trained and equipped primarily to fight wildland fires. Campbell County coal 

mines generally provide equipment and trained staff to fight fires on mine 

property. The County Fire Department provides backup assistance with personnel 

and equipment (Vonsik 2005). 

The primary medical care facility in Campbell County is Campbell County 

Memorial Hospital, a 90-bed acute care hospital. The hospital has a medical staff 

of over 50 affiliated physicians in 20 specialties and a total staff of 800 (CCMH 

2005). The hospital also operates the Wright Clinic, a satellite clinic with a fulltime, family practice physician. Ambulance service for Campbell County is 

provided by the hospital, which has a 24-hour emergency service capability. The 

Campbell County Fire Department provides first responder service to emergency 

calls, but transport is the responsibility of the hospital affiliated ambulance 

service (Vonsik 2005). 

Water and wastewater treatment systems are provided by the City of Gillette and 

by the Wright Water and Sewer District. Gillette serves the city and some 

urbanized areas nearby from groundwater wells. The water system has the 

3-246 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

capacity to serve approximately 25,000 people. Water use approaches capacity 

during the summer months when parks and private lawns are being irrigated 

(Morovits 2005). An additional well field is being planned for completion in about 

five years. In the interim, the city has other wells it can pump if necessary, but 

high natural fluoride levels require careful monitoring if they are used (Morovits 

2005). The city is also conducting a Level II Water Study to identify longer term 

solutions to its water supply problems. The Level II study is likely to identify well 

field, transmission, pumping station and treatment additions to the current 

system. If approved by the city and if funding is secured, these improvements are 

anticipated to come on line during the next three to five years (Petersen 2007). 

Gillette’s sewer treatment system was designed for a service population of 

approximately 35,000 and improvements begun in the fall of 2004 were designed 

to increase treatment capacity to accommodate a projected population of 41,000. 

Currently, the system serves an estimated 25,000 people in the city and 

surrounding areas. The Wright district’s water and sewage treatment facilities 

were designed to serve a population of approximately 3,000, albeit with an 

additional sewage lagoon required when the service population reached about 

2,500 people. The district is planning an additional well to increase its water 

supply capacity by about 30 percent. The district facilities in Wright currently 

serve a population of approximately 1,400 people; essentially the entire town is 

hooked on to the water system and most lots are on the sewer system unless they 

have private septic systems. 

3.17.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.5.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

As discussed above, average yearly employment at the mines would increase by up 

to 63 positions (Cordero Rojo Mine) and mine life would be extended by from 

about 2 years at the Caballo Mine to approximately 10 years at the Cordero Rojo 

Mine under the Proposed Actions and other action alternatives. No additional 

demands on the existing community facilities or services in the county would be 

expected because little or no influx of new residents would be needed to fill new 

jobs. It is likely that the demand for public facilities and services will be satisfied 

by the existing facilities and services currently in place in Campbell County. 

3.17.5.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternatives, the coal lease applications would be rejected 

and the coal included in the LBA tracts under the Proposed Action or other action 

alternatives would not be mined. Local government facilities and services would 

not be affected by any additional employment at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines. Currently approved mining operations and 

associated employment levels would continue on the existing mine leases for from 

about 6 years at the Cordero Rojo Mine to approximately 16 years at the Coal 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-247 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Creek Mine. Portions of the LBA tracts adjacent to the existing mines would be 

disturbed to recover the coal in the existing leases. 

As discussed in Section 2.2, a decision to reject the Belle Ayr North, Coal Creek 

West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II lease applications at this time would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the future. 

3.17.6 Social Setting 

3.17.6.1 Affected Environment 

The social setting for coal development in the PRB, summarized in Section 

4.2.12.9, is described in the Task IC Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005b). 

That report emphasizes Campbell County and its communities as the nucleus for 

coal development in the PRB. The SGAC mines been in production since at least 

1972 and the mines and their employees contribute to the social and economic 

stability of Campbell County and the City of Gillette. 

3.17.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.6.2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 

As discussed above, employment at the mine is not anticipated to increase 

substantially under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 and 3. Consequently, 

little or no change in the social setting of Campbell County or the community of 

Gillette would be anticipated under these alternatives. 

3.17.6.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Implementation of all of the No Action Alternatives would hasten the loss of 

approximately 1,500 relatively high paying mining jobs in the PRB. A majority of 

those losses would occur in Campbell County and the City of Gillette. Loss of the 

SGAC mine-related economic activity and tax revenues are described in preceding 

sections. These losses would likely result in a disruption in the social and 

economic stability of Campbell County and the city of Gillette and some 

population relocation, unless mine employees were able to find comparable 

employment within commuting distance of Gillette. Social effects of the No Action 

Alternatives on the Town of Wright would be less substantial, because of the fewer 

number of employees involved and the potential for those employees to find other 

jobs in mines and other energy industries in Campbell County. 

3-248 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.17.7 Environmental Justice 

3.17.7.1 Affected Environment 

Environmental Justice issues are concerned with actions that unequally impact a 

given segment of society either as a result of physical location, perception, design, 

noise, or other factors. On February 11, 1994, Executive Order 12898, “Federal 

Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations”, was published in the Federal Register (59 FR 7629). The Executive 

Order requires federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, 

and activities on minority populations and low-income populations (defined as 

those living below the poverty level). The Executive Order makes it clear that its 

provisions apply fully to Native American populations and Native American tribes, 

specifically to effects on tribal lands, treaty rights, trust responsibilities, and the 

health and environment of Native American communities. 

Communities within Campbell County, entities with interests in the area, and 

individuals with ties to the area all may have concerns about the presence of 

surface coal mines in the area. Environmental Justice concerns are usually 

directly associated with impacts on the natural and physical environment, but 

these impacts are likely to be interrelated with social and economic impacts as 

well. Native American access to cultural and religious sites may fall under the 

umbrella of Environmental Justice concerns if the sites are on tribal lands or 

access to a specific location has been granted by treaty right. 

Compliance with Executive Order 12898 concerning Environmental Justice was 

accomplished through opportunities for the public to receive information on this 

EIS in conjunction with consultation and coordination described in Section 1.6 of 

this document. This EIS and contributing socioeconomic analysis provide a 

consideration of the impacts with regard to disproportionately adverse impacts on 

minority and/or low-income groups, including Native Americans. 

3.17.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.17.7.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives 

Economic and demographic data indicate that neither minority populations nor 

people living at or below the poverty level make up “meaningfully greater 

increment” of the total population in Gillette or Campbell County than they do in 

the state as a whole, or that they would be unequally impacted if the Belle Ayr 

North, Coal Creek West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are leased 

under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3. Also, the Native American 

population is smaller than in the state as a whole and there are no known Native 

American sacred sites on or near the proposed LBA sites. Consequently, 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-249 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect the 

environmental justice considerations in the area. 

3.17.7.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Economic and demographic data indicate that neither minority populations nor 

people living at or below the poverty level make up “meaningfully greater 

increment” of the total population in Gillette or Campbell County than they do in 

the state as a whole, or that they would be unequally impacted if the Belle Ayr 

North, Coal Creek West, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are leased 

under the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3. Also, the Native American 

population is smaller than in the state as a whole and there are no known Native 

American sacred sites on or near the existing mines. Consequently, the No Action 

Alternatives would not adversely affect the environmental justice considerations in 

the area. 

3.17.8 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Surface coal mines are required to pay royalty and taxes as required by federal, 

state, and local regulations. The BLM compares the amount of coal reported as 

produced with the estimated amount of coal in the ground to verify that the 

federal coal is efficiently mined and that royalties are paid on all of the coal that is 

mined. 

3.17.9 Residual Effects 

3.17.9.1 Human Health Impact Assessment 

In 2008, public concerns were brought to BLM’s attention in regard to conducting 

human health impact assessments in the PRB where coal mining activities occur. 

These public concerns included emissions from coal mining activities, such as 

particulate matter and nitrogen oxide exposure, and their potential impact on 

human health and people living in the local PRB area. 

A health impact assessment (HIA) is a method used in assessing potential impacts 

of a proposed project on human health. HIAs examine health on a broad scale, 

including social, emotional, and cultural impacts as well as physical impacts. 

HIAs rely on available scientific data, public testimony, and modeling to predict 

potential health impacts. BLM does not have jurisdiction in regard to conducting 

human health assessments. However, BLM has invited the Wyoming Department 

of Health/Environmental Health Section and the U.S. Center for Disease Control 

and Prevention to review and provide comment on the SGAC EIS. 

In reference to the stated public concerns, air pollution is controlled by state and 

federal air quality regulations and standards established under the federal Clean 

Air Act Amendments. State implementation plans are in place to ensure proposed 

3-250 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

actions like coal mining comply with all associated air quality regulations and 

criteria. The Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards are stricter than the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards and are enforced by WDEQ. 

As described in Section 3.4.2.3 of the EIS, the WDEQ/AQD 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 exceedences of the PM10 NAAQS. 

All mines are required to conduct long-term air quality modeling to show that their 

proposed operations will comply with the National and Wyoming Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and they are required to monitor to demonstrate that their 

actual air emissions do not exceed the standards. The WDEQ/Air Quality Division 

permit process for coal mines requires air quality modeling of the primary air 

pollutants PM10 and NO2. Refer to Section 3.4.2.3 in the EIS to review air quality 

mitigation measures that WDEQ/AQD implemented in order to prevent 

exceedences of the National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards by 

surface coal mines. 

3.18 The 	Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man’s 

Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term 

Productivity 

The NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1502.16 require a discussion of the “relationship 

between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity” as part of an EIS. This requirement is 

duplicated in the BLM NEPA Handbook Chapter V, Section B.2.a.(3) and C.3.h.(2). 

3.18.1 Local Area 

If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

are leased, almost all components of the present ecological system, which have 

developed over a long period of time, would be modified as the coal is mined. In 

the long term, following reclamation, the land surface would be topographically 

lower and, although the reclaimed surface would resemble original contours, it 

would lack some of the original diversity of geometric form. 

Soils and vegetation would be disturbed and the associated grazing and wildlife 

habitat that the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II 

LBA Tracts currently provide would be lost in the short term, during mining and 

reclamation. There would be a loss of native vegetation from 11,886.9 acres (total 

of all Proposed Actions) up to a maximum of 12,464.8 acres (Alternatives 2 and 3) 

if the LBA tracts are mined. This disturbance would occur incrementally over a 

period of years. Soils would be replaced and vegetation would be restored, as 

required by the mining plan (see Sections 3.8 and 3.9). In the long term, the 

reclaimed lands would provide equivalent or better forage production capacity for 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-251 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

domestic livestock. This would be required before the performance bond is 

released. Long-term productivity would depend primarily on post-mining range 

management practices, which to a large extent, would be controlled by the private 

landowners. 

Mining would disturb pronghorn and mule deer habitat. As discussed in Section 

3.10.5, potential sage-grouse habitat is scarce throughout the general project 

area. There would be loss and displacement of wildlife in the short term but, 

based on monitoring of previously reclaimed lands, it is anticipated that the 

reclaimed lands would provide habitat that would support a diversity of wildlife 

species similar to premining conditions over the long term. The diversity of 

species found in undisturbed rangeland would not be completely restored on the 

mined lands for an estimated 50 years after the initiation of disturbance. 

Re-establishment of mature sagebrush habitat, which is crucial for pronghorn and 

sage-grouse, would be expected to take even longer. 

If the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

are leased and mined, groundwater quality would be different from pre-mining 

conditions after reclamation. The water quality would remain adequate for 

livestock and wildlife. Depth to groundwater would increase in an area extending 

further to the west and south of the existing mine areas. The water levels in the 

coal aquifer should return to premining levels at some time after mining has 

ceased because recharge areas would not be disturbed when recovering the coal in 

the LBA tracts. 

Mining operations and associated activities would degrade the air quality and 

visual resources of the area on a short-term basis. Following coal removal, 

removal of surface facilities, and completion of reclamation, there would be no 

long-term impact on air quality. The long-term impact on visual resources would 

be minor. 

Short-term impacts to recreation values may occur from a reduction in big game 

populations due to habitat disturbance and reduction in access to some public 

lands. These changes would primarily impact hunting in the lease areas. 

However, because reclamation would result in a wildlife habitat similar to that 

which presently exists and access to any public lands affected by mining would be 

restored, there should be no long-term adverse impacts on recreation. 

The short- and long-term economy of the region would be enhanced as a result of 

the Proposed Actions and action alternatives. Leasing and subsequently mining 

the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts 

would extend the life of the existing mines by just over 10 additional years, 

depending on which LBA tract and which alternative is selected. 

3-252 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.18.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

There has been, and continues to be, considerable scientific investigation and 

discussion as to the causes of recent historic rise in global mean temperatures, 

and whether a warming trend will continue. This section will address greenhouse 

gas emissions as specifically related to the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines, the mine adjacent to the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, 

Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts, respectively. 

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been raised as a concern due to the greenhouse 

effect. The greenhouse effect is a theory that certain gases in the atmosphere 

impede the release of radiation from the earth, trapping heat in the atmosphere 

like glass over a greenhouse. GHGs currently include carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4), water vapor, ozone, and nitrous oxide (NO2). GHGs are not 

currently regulated, but there is a consensus in the international community that 

global climate change is occurring and that GHGs may play a role. If the coal in 

the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts is 

leased and mined, additional GHGs would be released into the atmosphere. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, BLM does not authorize mining through the issuance 

of a federal coal lease. WDEQ, with oversight from OSM, has regulatory authority 

in issuing permits to mine coal in Wyoming. However, BLM considers the impacts 

of mining coal in this EIS because it is a logical consequence of issuing a 

maintenance lease to an existing coal mine. 

The use of the coal after it is mined is not determined at the time of leasing. 

However, almost all coal that is currently being mined in the Wyoming PRB is 

being used to generate electricity by coal-fired power plants. A discussion of 

emissions and by-products that are generated by burning coal to produce 

electricity is included in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.14 of the EIS and a more complete 

discussion of the current status of global climate change and cumulative 

considerations is included Section 4.2.14.1. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, under the No Action Alternatives, the life of the Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines would be extended at about 

current levels for approximately 16 years while the mines recover their remaining 

estimated 1,564 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Under the Proposed 

Actions or Alternatives 2 or 3, the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo Mines’ contributions to global mercury emissions would be extended by just 

over 10 additional years. 

Although not all SGAC mines have completed a greenhouse gas emissions 

inventory, mines near or within the general South Gillette analysis area have 

conducted inventories of expected emissions that occurred in 2007. These mines 

also projected emissions for a typical year of operations at the mines if additional 

lands are leased and mined. Emissions are measured as metric tons of equivalent 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-253 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

CO2 (CO2e), a conversion to put any of the various gases emitted, i.e. methane or 

nitrous oxides, into the equivalent greenhouse effect as compared to CO2. 

The completed inventories included emissions for sources, such as all types of 

carbon fuels used in mining operations, electricity used on site (facilities lighting 

and operation, lighting to illuminate roads, power for electrically operated 

equipment, and conveyors), and mining processes (blasting, methane released 

from mined coal, and spontaneous combustion). Additional categories 

contributing to CO2e emissions, which were not included in SGAC CO2e emissions 

estimates due to a lack of information, include on-site rail transport as well as rail 

transport to buyers. 

Combined CO2e emissions for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo Mines were estimated (Table 3-19) by correlating the CO2e emission ratios 

(CO2e/MMT coal, CO2e/MMBCY OB, and CO2e/disturbance acres) at nearby 

mines. The correlation was based on the 2007 coal production, overburden 

production, and disturbance acres (facilities plus active pit acres) for three source 

types (fuel, electricity, and mining process) compared to Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, and 

Caballo Mines’ 2007 coal production, overburden production, and disturbance 

acres (WWC 2008). Since the combined CO2e emissions for SGAC mines are 

estimated, based on limited information, the estimated values are tentative. These 

combined total values are only included here as a means of obtaining a 

representation of potential CO2e emissions should the SGAC tracts be leased and 

mined. 

Projected greenhouse gas emission rates increase if the SGAC LBA tracts are 

added to the applicants’ mining operations (Table 3-19). The increase in CO2e 

emissions would result from the additional diesel fuel that would be used in 

consideration of the added haul distances and overburden hauling, as well as 

increased electricity and explosives related to increasing strip ratios. 

Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternatives, the emission rates for the SGAC 

mines would continue for over 16 years at rates approximately 18 percent above 

the rates measured in 2007 when production was about 108.5 MMT. 

The incremental changes with the addition of the Belle Ayr North, West Coal 

Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts to the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines, respectively, represent the estimated CO2e 

emissions for the proposed actions as well as Alternatives 2 and 3. Estimates 

assume that the annual production rate is 127.5 MMT. If the Belle Ayr North, 

West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts are leased and mined 

by the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines, respectively, the 

tracts would add from over 2 additional years to over 10 additional years to the life 

of the mines. 

3-254 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3-19. Estimated Equivalent CO2 Emissions* at the SGAC Mines. 

Source 2007 With LBA Tracts 

Fuel 303,916 552,285 

Electricity 266,443 370,919 

Mining Process 115,592 138,223 

Total of Three Sources 712,950 1,061,427 

* Equivalent CO2 in metric tons 

Source: WWC 2008 

Please see Section 4.13 for an assessment of cumulative impacts related to 

greenhouse gases, and how the proposed action and alternatives contribute. 

3.19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

The major commitment of resources would be the mining and consumption of 

731.2 million tons (Proposed Action for all four LBA tracts) up to a maximum of 

760.8 million tons (Action Alternatives for all four LBA tracts) of coal to be used for 

electrical power generation. CBNG that is not recovered prior to mining would 

also be irreversibly and irretrievably lost (see additional discussion of the impacts 

of venting CBNG to the atmosphere in Section 3.18). It is estimated that 1 to 2 

percent of the energy produced would be required to mine the coal, and this 

energy would also be irretrievably lost. 

The characteristics of topsoil on approximately 11,846 acres (Proposed Action for 

all four LBA tracts) up to a maximum of approximately 12,465 acres (Action 

Alternatives for all four LBA tracts) would be irreversibly changed. Soil formation 

processes, although continuing, would be irreversibly altered during miningrelated activities. Newly formed soil material would be unlike that in the natural 

landscape. 

Direct and indirect wildlife deaths caused by mining operations or associated 

activity would be an irreversible loss. 

Loss of life may conceivably occur due to the mining operations and vehicular and 

train traffic. On the basis of surface coal mine accident rates in Wyoming as 

determined by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (1997) for the 10-year 

period 1987-1996, fatal accidents (excluding contractors) occur at the rate of 

0.003 per 200,000 man-hours worked. Disabling (lost-time) injuries occur at the 

rate of 1.46 per 200,000 man-hours worked. Any injury or loss of life would be an 

irretrievable commitment of human resources. 

Disturbance of all known historic and prehistoric sites on the mine areas would be 

mitigated to the maximum extent possible. However, accidental destruction of 

presently unknown archeological or paleontological values would be irreversible 

and irretrievable. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 3-255 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.0 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impacts of an action added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who 

is responsible for such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor, but collectively significant, actions occurring over time. 

This section summarizes the cumulative impacts that are occurring as a result 

of existing development in the PRB1 and considers how those impacts would 

change if other projected development in the area occurs and if the four LBA 

tracts in the south Gillette general analysis area are leased and mined. 

BLM completed three regional EISs evaluating the potential cumulative impacts 

of surface coal development in the 1970s and early 1980s (BLM 1974, 1979, and 

1981). A draft document for a fourth regional EIS was prepared and released in 

1984 (BLM 1984). Since those regional EISs were prepared, BLM has prepared a 

number of NEPA analyses evaluating coal leasing actions and oil and gas 

development in the PRB. Each of these NEPA analyses includes an analysis of 

cumulative impacts in the Wyoming PRB. 

Currently, the BLM is completing a regional technical study, called the PRB Coal 

Review, to help evaluate the cumulative impacts of coal and other mineral 

development in the PRB. The PRB Coal Review consists of three tasks: 

• 	 Task 1 identifies existing resource conditions in the PRB for the baseline 

year (2003) and, for applicable resources, updates the BLM's 1996 status 

check for coal development in the PRB. 

• 	 Task 2 defines the past and present development activities in the PRB and 

their associated development levels as of 2003 and develops a forecast of 

reasonably foreseeable development in the PRB through 2020. The 

reasonably foreseeable activities fall into three broad categories: coal 

development (coal mine and coal-related), oil and gas development 

(conventional oil and gas, CBNG, and major transportation pipelines), and 

other development, which includes development that is not energy-related 

as well as other energy-related development. 

• 	 Task 3 predicts the cumulative impacts that could be expected to occur to 

air, water, socioeconomic, and other resources if the development occurs 

as projected in the forecast developed under Task 2. 

A series of reports have been prepared to present the results of the PRB Coal 

Review task studies. The Task 1, 2, and 3 reports represent components of a 

technical study of cumulative development in the PRB; they do not evaluate 

specific proposed projects, but they provide information that BLM is using to 

evaluate the cumulative impacts that would be expected to occur if specific 

1 Refer to page xxii for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document. 


Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-1 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

projects or applications, such as the four LBA tracts in the general South Gillette 

analysis area, are approved. The Task 1 reports, which include air quality 

conditions, water resources conditions, social/economic conditions, and other 

resource conditions, and the Task 2 Report have been completed. The Task 3 

reports for air quality conditions, social/economic conditions, and other 

resource conditions have been completed. The Task 3 evaluation of water 

resource conditions is in progress. The information in these reports is 

summarized later in this chapter, and the completed reports are available for 

viewing at the BLM offices in Casper and Cheyenne and on the Wyoming BLM 

website at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/ 

PRB_Coal/prbdocs.html. 

The PRB includes portions of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana. 

The Wyoming portion of the PRB is the primary focus of the PRB Coal Review 

reports. The Montana portion of the PRB is included in the Task 2 Report and 

in the Task 1 and 3 air resources studies. For the majority of resources in the 

Task 1 reports and for the Task 2 Report, the Wyoming portion of the PRB Coal 

Review study area encompasses all of Campbell County, all of Sheridan and 

Johnson Counties outside of the Bighorn National Forest, and the northern 

portion of Converse County (Figure 4-1). For some components of the Task 2 

Report and for the Task 1 and 3 air resource studies, the Montana PRB Coal 

Review study area includes portions of Big Horn, Custer, Powder River, Rosebud, 

and Treasure Counties. For several resources, the Task 1 and Task 3 study 

areas include only potentially affected portions of the Wyoming PRB Coal Review 

study area; for other resources, the study area extends outside of Wyoming and 

Montana because the impacts would extend beyond the PRB. For example, the 

groundwater drawdown is evaluated in the area surrounding and extending west 

of the mines, because that is the area where surface coal mining operations 

would impact groundwater resources; but air quality impacts are evaluated over 

a multi-state area because they would be expected to extend beyond the PRB. 

Section 4.1 summarizes the information presented in the PRB Coal Review Task 

1 and Task 2 reports. Section 4.2 summarizes the predicted cumulative impacts 

to air, water, socioeconomic, and other resources presented in the PRB Coal 

Review Task 3 reports. 

4.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Wyoming PRB are 

considered in the Task 1 and Task 2 reports for the PRB Coal Review. The Task 

1 reports describe the existing situation as of the end of 2003, which reflects the 

past and present levels of development. The Task 2 Report defines the past and 

present development activities in the PRB as of the end of 2003 and projects 

reasonably foreseeable development in the Wyoming PRB through 2020. When 

available, more current, i.e. 2007, development information is included. 

4-2 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
B.N.S.F. RR 

B.N.S.F. RR 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

PSO Ash 

Creek Mine 

Big

Mine 

Horn SHERIDAN 

COUNTY CAMPBELL 

COUNTY
 SHERIDAN 

Arvada 

Dry Fork 

Wygen 1
 Wygen 2
 Wyodak BUFFALO 1 Neil Simpson 1

Neil Simpson 2
 GILLETTE 

Barber 

Creek 

2 

JOHNSON
 COUNTY
 

Hartzog WRIGHT 

& B.N.S.F. RR U.P. 

SCALE: 1"= 20 MILES 

LEGEND 

Federal Coal Lease Areas 

Railroads 

Existing and Proposed Power Plants 

Former Surface Coal Mine Sites 

Task 1 and 2 Study Boundary 

COAL MINE SUBREGIONS 

Buckskin, Dry Fork, Eagle Butte, 1 Subregion 1 - Rawhide, and Wyodak Mines 

Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and 2 Subregion 2 - Cordero-Rojo Mines 

Antelope, North Rochelle/Black

3 Subregion 3 - Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North

Antelope/Rochelle Mines 

Two Elk 

Unit 1 

3 

CONVERSE
 COUNTY
 

Dave
 Johnston
 Mine
 

Dave Johnston 

Figure 4-1. Wyoming Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating Current and Projected Levels of 

Development. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-3
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.1.1 Coal Development 

4.1.1.1 Coal Mine Development 

The Powder River Federal Coal Region was decertified as a federal coal 

production region by the PRRCT in 1990. Decertification of the region allows 

leasing to take place on an application basis, as discussed in the regulations at 

43 CFR 3425.1-5. Between 1990 and 2008, the BLM’s Wyoming State Office 

held 25 competitive coal lease sales and issued 19 new federal coal leases 

containing almost 5.7 billion tons of coal using the LBA process. The lease sales 

are listed in Table 1-1, and the leased tracts are shown in Figure 1-1. This 

leasing process has undergone the scrutiny of two appeals to the IBLA and one 

audit by the General Accounting Office (GAO). As can be seen in Figure 4-2, 

leasing activity has generally paralleled production since decertification. This is 

consistent with the PRRCT’s objective at the time of decertification, which was to 

use the LBA process to lease tracts of federal coal to maintain production at 

existing mines. 

The pending applications in the Wyoming PRB are shown in Table 1-2. 

BLM has also completed three exchanges involving federal coal resources in the 

Wyoming PRB since decertification: 

•	 Belco Exchange – an exchange of lease rights for a portion of the 

former Hay Creek federal coal tract for lease rights to coal near 

Buffalo, Wyoming, which became unmineable when Interstate 90 was 

constructed. This exchange was authorized by Public Law 95-554 and 

completed in 2000. 

•	 Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company (P&M) Exchange – an 

exchange of federal coal in Sheridan County, Wyoming, for land and 

mineral rights in Lincoln, Carbon, and Sheridan Counties, Wyoming, 

completed in 2004. 

•	 Powder River Coal Company AVF Exchange – an exchange of lease 

rights underlying an AVF at the Caballo Mine, which cannot be mined, 

for lease rights of equal value adjacent to existing federal leases at 

Powder River Coal Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine, 

completed in 2006. 

Table 4-1 provides information about the status, ownership and production 

levels for the existing surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB in 2003 and their 

current status. In 2003, which was the baseline year for the PRB Coal Review 

Task 1 and Task 2 studies, there were 12 active surface coal mines and one 

inactive mine. Since 2003, the inactive mine (Coal Creek) has resumed 

operations and the North Rochelle Mine has ceased operation following its 

purchase by the operator of the Black Thunder Mine. The North Rochelle Mine 

leases were divided between Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle Mines 

4-4 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Cumulative Tons Leased by Year Cumulative Tons Mined by Year 

Powder River Basin

Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming 

6,000,000,0005,000,000,0004,000,000,0003,000,000,0002,000,000,0001,000,000,000

0 

Tons 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Year 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Figure 4-2. Tons of Federal Coal Leased Versus Tons of Coal Mined Since 1990. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-5
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-1. Status and Ownership of Wyoming PRB Coal Mines for 2003, the PRB Coal Review Base

Actual Permitted 

Coal Production 

Production Level 

2003 Mine 1994 Mine Owner 2007 Mine Owner (mm Tons)1 (mm Tons)2 Status and A

SUBREGION 1 (North Gillette) 

Kiewit Mining Buckskin SMC (Zeigler) 17.5 27.5 Active Properties
 

Phillips/WFA &
 Dry Fork WFA 4.4 24.4 Active (includes form

Fort Union Ltd 

Eagle Butte Cyprus-Amax Foundation Coal West 24.5 35.0 Active Rawhide Carter (Exxon) Peabody Holding Co. 3.6 24.0 Active Wyodak Wyodak Resources Wyodak Resources 4.8 12.0 Active (includes formTotal 54.8 122.9 

SUBREGION 2 (South Gillette) 

Belle Ayr Cyprus-Amax Foundation Coal West 17.9 35.0 Active Caballo Carter (Exxon) & Western Energy Peabody Holding Co. 22.7 40.0 Active (includes Roc

Butte leases) 

Cordero Rojo Kennecott & Drummond Rio Tinto Energy America3 36.1 65.0 Active (consolidation 

Caballo Rojo Mines) 

Coal Creek ARCO Arch Coal Inc. 0 25.0 Inactive in 2003, op

Total 76.7 165.0 

SUBREGION 3 (Wright) 

Antelope Kennecott Rio Tinto Energy America3 29.5 32.0 Active 

Black Thunder ARCO Arch Coal Inc. 62.6 90.0 Active 

Jacobs Ranch Kerr-McGee Rio Tinto Energy America3 36.0 55.0 Active 

N. Antelope/ Rochelle Peabody Peabody Holding Co. 80.1 85.0-105.0 Active (consolidation 

and Rochelle Mines) 

N. Rochelle SMC (Zeigler) Arch Coal Inc. 23.9 35.0 Inactive since 2005, 

Thunder and North 

Total 232.1 297.0-317.0 TOTAL FOR 3 MINE GROUPS 363.6 584.9-604.9 

1 Wyoming State Inspector of Mines (Wyoming Department of Employment 2003). 2 WDEQ permitting levels 3 Kennecott Energy Company changed its name to Rio Tinto Energy America in 2006. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

in 2006. Peabody has deferred startup of their new mine, the School Creek Mine 

which is located between the Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle mines, 

until 2009 or later. These mines are all located in Campbell and Converse 

Counties, just west of the outcrop of the Wyodak coal, where the coal is at the 

shallowest depth (Figure 1-1). As indicated in Table 4-1, there have been 

numerous changes in mine ownership since decertification, which have resulted 

in mine consolidations and mine closings within the PRB. 

Two recently active surface coal mines in Sheridan County (the Big Horn Coal 

Mine) and southern Converse County (the Dave Johnston Mine) have ended 

mining operations, relinquished their federal coal leases, and are reclaiming 

areas of disturbance. 

There are existing permits for other surface coal mining-related operations in the 

PRB. These include the Ash Creek and Welch Mine permits in Sheridan County 

and the Izita Mine permit in Campbell County. Operations at these sites are 

completed and the disturbed areas have been reclaimed, but monitoring of the 

reclaimed areas is no longer ongoing. The KFx Mine, located north of Gillette on 

privately owned coal, has stopped mining coal for processing at the KFx coal 

enhancement plant, which is discussed in Section 4.1.1.2.4. The Fort Union 

plant was idled down in March 2008, until further notice. 

The active mines in the Wyoming PRB are geographically grouped into three 

subregions (Figure 4-1). For purposes of this cumulative impact discussion, 

these subregions are called the North Gillette, South Gillette, and Wright 

subregions. Table 4-1 lists the mines included in each subregion. 

A fourth subregion includes former and proposed mines in Sheridan County, 

Wyoming, and existing mines just north of Sheridan County, in Montana. There 

are currently no active mines in the Wyoming portion of the fourth subregion. 

However, the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report projected that a new mine would 

be developed by P&M near Sheridan by 2010. In April, 2007, P&M and CONSOL 

Energy Inc. announced that they have formed a new company, Youngs Creek 

Mining Company, LLC, and entered into a joint agreement to develop a new mine 

in Wyoming north of Sheridan (Reuters 2007). According to the announcement, 

engineering, environmental and permitting work are in progress, but actual 

mine construction will not start until the joint venture has enough coal sales 

under contract to justify the investment. The coal reserves included in this 

project are all privately owned. 

The surface coal mines listed in Table 4-1 currently produce over 96 percent of 

the coal produced in Wyoming each year. Since 1989, coal production in the 

PRB has increased by an average of six percent per year. The increasing 

production is primarily due to increasing sales of low-sulfur, low-cost PRB coal 

to electric utilities who must comply with the Phase I requirements of Title III of 

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Electric utilities account for 97 percent of 

Wyoming’s coal sales. In 2003 (the baseline year for the PRB Coal Review), more 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-7 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

than 33 percent of the coal mined in the United States came from the Wyoming 

PRB. 

BLM estimates that the surface coal mines listed in Table 4-1 currently have 

about 125,180 acres of federal coal leased in Campbell and Converse Counties. 

This represents approximately 4.1 percent of Campbell County, where the 

majority of the leases are located. 

Task 2 of the PRB Coal Review projected coal development into the future for the 

years 2010, 2015, and 2020. Due to the variables associated with future coal 

production, two projected coal production scenarios (representing an upper and 

a lower production level) were developed to bracket the most likely foreseeable 

regional coal production level. The basis for the projected production levels 

included: 

1) an analysis of historic PRB production levels in comparison to the gross 

domestic product and national coal demand; 

2) an analysis of PRB coal market forecasts that model the impact of gross 

domestic product growth, potential regulatory changes affecting coal-fired 

power plants, and mining and transportation costs on PRB coal demand; 

3) the availability, projected production cost, and quality of future minespecific coal reserves within the PRB region; and 

4) the availability of adequate infrastructure for coal transportation. 

The projected upper and lower production levels subsequently were allocated to 

the Wyoming PRB subregions, discussed above, and to individual mines based 

on past market shares. Individual mine production levels were reviewed relative 

to potential future production constraints (e.g., loadout capacities), permitted 

production levels, mining costs, and coal quality. Then the projected future 

production was aggregated on a subregion basis. The actual 2003 production 

level, the 2007production level as a reference point, and the two projected coal 

production scenarios for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Figure 4-3 and 

Tables 4-2 and 4-3. 

Tables 4-2 and 4-3 also show the cumulative coal mining disturbance as of the 

baseline year and the cumulative coal mine disturbance projected for the future 

years for the upper and lower coal production scenarios. In these tables, the 

baseline year and cumulative projected disturbance areas are broken down into 

three categories: 

•	 areas which are or projected to be permanently reclaimed; 

•	 areas which are or projected to be undergoing active mining or which 

have been mined but are not yet reclaimed; and 

4-8 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Lower Production Scenerio 

0

100,000,000 

Upper Production Scenario 

Tons/

Year 

600,000,000 500,000,000 400,000,000 300,000,000 200,000,000 

Year 

2003 2005 2010 2015 2020 2007 

Actual Production 

Figure 4-3. Projected Total Coal Production from Campbell and Converse Counties Under the Lower and 

Upper Production Scenarios. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-9
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-2. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Lower Coal Productio

Cumulative 

Cumulative Area 

Cumulative Active Mining Disturbed and 

Cumulative Permanently Area and Unavailable 

Annual Disturbed Reclaimed Unreclaimed For 

Production Area Area Mined Area Reclamation1 Total Mine 

Subregion (million tons) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Employment 

Baseline year (2003) 

North Gillette Subregion 55 12,047 3,054 3,360 5,633 746 

South Gillette Subregion 77 21,249 6,783 6,107 8,359 1,174 Wright Subregion 231 35,498 11,401 13,992 10,105 3,090 Total for 2003 363 68,794 21,238 23,459 24,097 5,010 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2010 

North Gillette Subregion 62 15,231 5,004 3,968 6,260 787 

South Gillette Subregion 95 28,021 12,183 6,830 9,008 1,323 

Wright Subregion 254 55,410 27,751 16,588 11,070 3,153 Total for 2010 411 98,662 44,938 27,386 26,338 5,263 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2015 

North Gillette Subregion 74 17,457 6,654 4,202 6,601 830 

South Gillette Subregion 112 32,356 15,683 7,314 9,359 1,369 

Wright Subregion 281 67,423 38,851 16,983 11,589 3,186 Total for 2015 467 117,236 61,188 28,499 27,549 5,405 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2020 

North Gillette Subregion 78 19,729 8,429 4,350 6,950 840 

South Gillette Subregion 126 36,994 19,683 7,589 9,723 1,476 

Wright Subregion 291 80,720 51,351 17,243 12,124 3,215 Total for 2020 495 137,443 79,463 29,182 28,797 5,531 

1 Area unavailable for reclamation includes disturbed areas occupied by permanent or long-term facilities such as buildings, roads, topsoil stockpiles

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
4.0 Cumulative Envi

Table 4-3. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Upper Coal Productio

Subregion 

Annual 

Production 

(million tons) 

Cumulative 

Disturbed 

Area 

(acres) 

Cumulative 

Permanently 

Reclaimed 

Area 

(acres) 

Cumulative 

Active Mining 

Area and 

Unreclaimed 

Mined Area 

(acres) 

Cumulative 

Area 

Disturbed and 

Unavailable 

For 

Reclamation1 

(acres) 

Total 

Mine 

Employment 

Baseline Year (2003) 

North Gillette Subregion 55 12,047 3,054 3,360 5,633 746 

South Gillette Subregion 77 21,249 6,783 6,107 8,359 1,174 

Wright Subregion 232 35,498 11,401 13,992 10,105 3,090 Total for 2003 363 68,794 21,238 23,459 24,097 5,010 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2010 

North Gillette Subregion 78 15,911 5,404 4,217 6,290 811 

South Gillette Subregion 117 29,279 13,416 7,536 8,328 1,375 Wright Subregion 284 57,258 27,951 18,236 11,070 3,153 

Total for 2010 479 102,448 46,771 29,989 25,688 5,339 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2015 

North Gillette Subregion 104 18,490 7,329 4,500 6,660 905 

South Gillette Subregion 138 35,624 18,616 8,248 8,760 1,431 

Wright Subregion 301 70,431 39,451 19,391 11,589 3,186 

Total for 2015 543 124,545 65,396 32,139 27,009 5,522 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development for 2020 

North Gillette Subregion 121 21,311 9,529 4,766 7,013 1,019 

South Gillette Subregion 148 42,981 25,016 8,758 9,206 1,444 

Wright Subregion 307 84,797 51,651 21,021 12,124 3,215 

Total for 2020 576 149,089 86,196 34,545 28,345 5,678 

1 Area Unavailable for reclamation includes disturbed areas occupied by permanent or long-term facilities such as buildings, roads, topsoil stockpiles, 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-11 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

•	 areas which are or projected to be occupied by mine facilities, haul 

roads, stockpiles, and other long-term structures, and which are 

therefore unavailable for reclamation until mining operations are 

completed. 

The two tables also include estimates of baseline year and projected future coal 

mining employment, water consumption, and water production. 

The four LBA tracts in the general South Gillette analysis area are associated 

with each of the four currently operating mines in the South Gillette subregion 

of mines. Each operating mine has an LBA pending. The analysis assumes that 

if the LBAs are offered and if the applicant becomes the lessee, each mine will 

increase current production to a level where the four mines collectively will 

produce at an aggregate production level midway between the low and high 

projected coal production scenarios for 2015 and 2020 shown in Figure 4-3 and 

Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The existing and projected coal development levels and 

associated disturbance shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 include production at the 

four South Gillette Area mines during the baseline year (2003) and projected 

production at the mines for 2010, 2015, and 2020. 

As discussed above, the projected development levels shown in Tables 4-2 and 

4-3 are based on projected demand and coal market forecasts, which are not 

affected by a decision to lease or not to lease the LBA tracts in the South Gillette 

Area. The reserves in the LBA tracts if offered, and if the applicants become the 

lessees, would add to the mine life of each of the South Gillette Area mines. 

As discussed in Sections 1.1 and 2.1, FCW estimates that there were 249.5 

million tons of recoverable coal reserves on the existing Belle Ayr Mine at the end 

of 2007. In 2007, the mine produced approximately 26.6 million tons and the 

currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD) air quality permit allows mining of up to 45 

million tons of coal per year. If the mine produces at the estimated 29.0 million 

ton per year the remaining recoverable reserves would be depleted in less than 9 

years (2016). If the mine increases production to the permitted level, the 

remaining recoverable reserves at the Belle Ayr Mine would be depleted in about 

5.5 years (2013). FCW estimates that the Belle Ayr North LBA tract includes 

approximately 158.1 million tons of recoverable coal as applied for. Based on 

that estimate, acquisition of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract would increase the 

recoverable reserves at the Belle Ayr Mine by almost 30 percent. At the 

estimated future production level (29 mmtpy), mine life would be extended by 

over 5 years. However, if production levels increase to the currently permitted 

level (45 mmtpy) or if WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, 

the coal would be recovered more quickly. 

ALC estimates that there were 223.2 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on 

the existing Coal Creek Mine at the end of 2007. The Coal Creek mine resumed 

production in 2006 after a temporary shutdown, and produced approximately 

10.2 million tons in 2007. The average estimated future production rate is 13.4 

million tons per year and the currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD) air quality 

4-12 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

permit allows mining of up to 25 million tons of coal per year. If the mine 

produces at the estimated 13.4 million ton per year the remaining recoverable 

reserves would be depleted in about 17 years (2023). If the mine increases 

production to the permitted level, the remaining recoverable reserves at the Coal 

Creek Mine would be depleted in about 9 years (2016). ALC estimates that the 

West Coal Creek LBA tract includes approximately 57.0 million tons of 

recoverable coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the West 

Coal Creek LBA tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the Coal Creek 

Mine by about 26 percent. At the estimated future production level (13.4 

mmtpy), mine life would be extended by just over 4 years. However, if 

production levels increase to the currently permitted level (25 mmtpy) or if 

WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be 

recovered more quickly. 

CCC estimates that there were 600.3 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on 

the existing Caballo Mine at the end of 2007. In 2007, the mine produced 

approximately 31.2 million tons. The average estimated future production rate is 

37.8 million tons per year and the currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD) air 

quality permit allows mining of up to 50 million tons of coal per year. If the mine 

produces at the estimated 37.8 million ton per year the remaining recoverable 

reserves would be depleted in about 16 years (2022). If the mine increases 

production to the permitted level, the remaining recoverable reserves at the Coal 

Creek Mine would be depleted in about 12 years (2018). CCC estimates that the 

Caballo West LBA tract includes approximately 81.8 million tons of recoverable 

coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the West Coal Creek 

LBA tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the Coal Creek Mine by 

about 14 percent. At the estimated future production level (37.8 mmtpy), mine 

life would be extended by just over 2 years. However, if production levels 

increase to the currently permitted level (50 mmtpy) or if WDEQ/AQD approves 

a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be recovered more quickly. 

CMC estimates that there were 274.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves on 

the existing Cordero Rojo Mine at the end of 2007. In 2007, the mine produced 

approximately 40.5 million tons. The average estimated future production rate is 

46.3 million tons per year and the currently approved (by WDEQ/AQD) air 

quality permit allows mining of up to 65 million tons of coal per year. If the mine 

produces at the estimated 46.3 million ton per year the remaining recoverable 

reserves would be depleted in about 6 years (2013). If the mine increases 

production to the permitted level, the remaining recoverable reserves at the 

Cordero Rojo Mine would be depleted in about 4 years (2011). CMC estimates 

that the Maysdorf II LBA tract includes approximately 434.3 million tons of 

recoverable coal as applied for. Based on that estimate, acquisition of the 

Maysdorf II LBA tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the Cordero 

Rojo Mine by about 160 percent. At the estimated future production level (46.3 

mmtpy), mine life would be extended by just over 9 years. However, if 

production levels increase to the currently permitted level (65 mmtpy) or if 

WDEQ/AQD approves a higher annual rate of production, the coal would be 

recovered more quickly. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-13 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.1.1.2 Coal-Related Development 

Coal-related development as defined for this analysis includes railroads, coalfired power plants, major (230-kV) transmission lines, and coal technology 

projects. Table 4-4 summarizes the estimated disturbance associated with coalrelated development activities for the baseline year and the projected 

disturbance through 2020. The subsequent paragraphs summarize the existing 

coal-related development in the Wyoming PRB and the reasonably foreseeable 

development considered in the PRB Coal Review. 

Table 4-4. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal-Related 

Development Scenario. 

2003 2010 2015 2020 

Coal-Related Disturbance (Acres) 4,891 4,966 5,911 5,911 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

4.1.1.2.1 Coal Transportation 

As discussed above, electric utilities account for about 97 percent of Wyoming’s 

coal sales. Most of the coal sold to electric utilities is transported to power 

plants by rail. The coal mines in the Wright and South Gillette subregions are 

served by a joint BNSF & UP rail line. For the baseline year of 2003, the existing 

capacity of the line was estimated at approximately 350 mmtpy. For that same 

year, the existing capacity of the BNSF line, which services the North Gillette 

subregion, was estimated at 250 mmtpy. Expansion work was completed by 

2008 that increased capacity to approximately 450 mmtpy, and plans have been 

announced to raise capacity to 500 mmtpy by 2012 (BNSF 2008, CNAAC 2007). 

The PRB Coal Review projected that two coal transportation projects would be 

developed prior to 2020 in Wyoming: expansion of the BNSF & UP rail facilities 

south of Gillette and the construction of the DM&E rail line in Wyoming and 

South Dakota. A third project proposed by the Tongue River Rail Company 

would be built between Decker and Miles City Montana. 

BNSF and UP have completed work to improve sections of the existing joint 

UP/BNSF rail line and have increased capacity from 350 mmtpy to 450 mmtpy 

by 2008 with plans to improve additional sections of the existing joint rail line 

and to further increase capacity to 500 mmtpy by 2012. This work includes 

construction of third and fourth main line track segments where needed. The 

increased capacity would accommodate the projected upper and lower 

production rates at the southern mines, which are projected to produce 439 

mmtpy and 455 mmtpy by 2020. The remaining planned expansion projects are 

considered highly likely to occur. 

The proposed DM&E rail line would include new rail construction in South 

Dakota and Wyoming (approximately 15 and 265 miles, respectively) and 600 

miles of rail line rehabilitation in South Dakota and Minnesota. Approximately 

4-14 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

78 miles of the new rail construction would occur in the PRB study area, where 

the project would provide new rail spur services to the mines in the South 

Gillette and Wright subregions. The STB released a final supplemental EIS for 

this project on December 30, 2005 and granted final approval to construct the 

rail line on February 15, 2006. The supplemental EIS, which addressed issues 

that were successfully appealed after an EIS was completed in 2001, was also 

appealed. The supplemental EIS was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the 

Eighth Circuit in December 2006. In 2007, Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) 

acquired DM&E and plans to integrate DM&E’s operations into Canadian Pacific 

Railway’s operations as soon as STB approval is received, which is expected no 

later than September 30, 2008 (Associated Press 2008). The expansion into the 

PRB would require a substantial financial commitment and CP is concentrating 

on the acquisition of DM&E before making a decision on the expansion project. 

The STB recently announced approval of the final stretch of the rail line 

proposed by the Tongue River Railroad Company. The company must acquire 

necessary federal and state permits and ROWs through private and public 

property before constructing the line. If it is constructed, it would provide a 

shorter route for some of the mines in the North Gillette subregion, which ship 

coal on the existing BNSF rail line (Billings Gazette 2007). 

For the purposes of the PRB Coal Review, it was projected that the DM&E line 

would be constructed when the total rail haulage requirement from the eastern 

Wyoming PRB reaches 450 to 500 million tons per year and would potentially be 

operational by 2015. The construction of this rail line is considered moderately 

likely to occur. The PRB Coal Review assigned a low likelihood of development 

by 2010 under the upper coal production scenario, and projected the 

construction of the Tongue River Railroad Company line would not occur unless 

the Otter Creek Mine is developed. In 2007, a request was submitted to lease 

two tracts of state coal at Otter Creek (Billings Gazette 2007). 

4.1.1.2.2 Electric Power Generation 

Currently, there are five coal-fired power plants in the Wyoming PRB study area 

for Tasks 1 and 2 (Figure 4-1). Black Hills Power Corporation owns and 

operates the Neal Simpson Units 1 and 2 (21.7-MW and 80-MW, respectively), 

Wygen I and II (80-MW and 95-MW, respectively), and Wyodak (330-MW) power 

plants, all of which are located approximately five miles east of Gillette, 

Wyoming. Pacific Power and Light’s Dave Johnston Power Plant is located near 

Glenrock, Wyoming, outside of but adjacent to the study area. 

There are also three separate interconnected gas-fired power plants (Hartzog, 

Arvada, and Barber Creek) located near Gillette, Wyoming (Figure 4-1). Each 

contains three separate 5-MW-rated turbines that provide electric power to 

Basin Electric and its customers. In winter, the maximum capacity can reach 

22.6-MW from each site. All units are in operating condition, although they do 

not operate at maximum capacity. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-15 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Several additional power plants are projected to be built prior to 2020. The PRB 

Coal Review assumed that proposed coal-fired power plants that plan to initiate 

operation by 2010 would have to have been undergoing air permit review by 

2003 in order to obtain the required construction permits and complete 

construction by 2010. The following two identified projects are considered likely 

for development by 2010: 

• 	 North American Power Group has permitted a coal-fired power plant (Two 

Elk Unit 1) at a 40-acre site located approximately 15 miles southeast of 

Wright, Wyoming. As originally permitted, the project also would include 

installation of a gas-fired turbine. The unit would be dry-cooled, requiring 

very little water. The state has approved several hundred million dollars 

in tax-exempt bonds for the power plant and North American Power Group 

is completing financing for the remaining cost of the plant. The company 

recently announced that it has signed a transmissions agreement with 

Pacificorp and is planning to have the 320 MW plant in operation by 

October 2011 (Gillette News Record 2007a, 2007b). The air permit 

originally was issued in August 2002, then revoked temporarily and 

restored by DEQ in 2007. In 2008, the Wyoming Environmental Quality 

Council denied a request by the Sierra Club for a new hearing on the air 

quality permit allowing construction of the facility. The Sierra Club filed a 

law suit in District Court in Cheyenne to reverse the DEQ decision 

(Gillette News Record 2008a). 

• 	Basin Electric Power Cooperative obtained permits from the Wyoming 

Industrial Siting Council in June, 2006, and WDEQ/AQD in October, 

2007, to construct and operate the Dry Fork Station Power Plant. As 

proposed, the Dry Fork Station would be a coal-based, mine-mouth 385­

MW power plant located near the Dry Fork Mine, north of Gillette, 

Wyoming. Construction on the plant started in November, 2007, after the 

air permit was approved. Basin Electric estimates that the plant will be 

operational by 2011 (WDEQ/ISD 2007). At the time of the PRB Coal 

Review study it was estimated that 1.2 million tons of coal per year would 

be required to fuel the facility. Construction and operation of this facility 

as scheduled is considered moderately likely. 

The PRB Coal Review assumes that, under the upper coal production scenario, a 

maximum of one additional 700-MW coal-fired power plant would be 

constructed by 2020 in the Gillette area or near one or more of the operating 

coal mines. North American Power Group submitted an application in 

September 2007, for a 750-MW coal-fired power plant, Two Elk 2, to be located 

at the same site as the proposed Two Elk plant, which is discussed above. Black 

Hills Power Corporation has also announced plans to construct the Wygen III 

power plant, sized at 90MW, which is planned to be similar in design to the 

Wygen II plant. The air permit for this facility was issued in March 2007 with 

construction planned starting in 2008. (SourceWatch website 2008) The study 

assumes that all existing power plants in the PRB region would remain 

operational through 2020. 

4-16 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.1.1.2.3 Transmission Lines 

Major transmission lines in the Wyoming PRB study area that support the 

regional distribution system are associated with the Dave Johnston power plant 

located near Glenrock, Wyoming, and the power plants operated by Black Hills 

Power Corporation, which are located east of Gillette. These 230-kV 

transmission lines have been in place for several years, and their associated 

permanent disturbance is minimal. Distribution power lines associated with 

conventional oil and gas and CBNG development also occur within the study 

area. For the PRB Coal Review, these lines were included by factoring them in 

proportionally on a per well basis. 

The PRB Coal Review estimates that by 2020, one major transmission line would 

be constructed running south to Colorado markets and one would be 

constructed eastward to mid-west markets. Markets would dictate the size and 

location of such facilities, and these are not known as of this time. Because 

transmission lines are a necessary supporting infrastructure for power 

generating facilities to provide connection to the grid, the PRB Coal Review 

assumes they would be required as part of the overall system development for 

the proposed power plants discussed in the previous section. However, no 

specific proposals for these transmission lines had been identified when the PRB 

Coal Review analysis was conducted and, therefore, there was insufficient 

information to analyze or assign likelihood of development by 2020. 

The governors of California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding to encourage development of a high voltage 

power transmission line, the Frontier Line, connecting those states in April, 

2005. Since that time, no specific plans have been announced as to the location 

or timing of the Frontier Line. The 345KV Wyoming-Colorado Intertie, as well as 

the Trans West and Gateway projects have been proposed in Wyoming, in order 

to move power from Wyoming to growing western U.S. load demand areas 

(Casper Star Tribune 2007a, December 16, 2007) 

4.1.1.2.4 Coal Conversion Technology 

With rising energy prices, there has been considerable interest in either 

enhancing the quality of PRB coal and/or converting the coal to other fuels. 

Test facilities were previously constructed by KFx at the Fort Union Mine (now 

part of the Dry Fork Mine), by AMAX (predecessor to Foundation Coal West, Inc.) 

at the Belle Ayr Mine, and by ENCOAL at the Buckskin Mine, but no commercial 

production occurred and these facilities have either been dismantled or are no 

longer in use. Although several coal conversion projects have been proposed, as 

discussed below, only one (the KFx Coal Beneficiation Project) was considered to 

have a high enough likelihood of proceeding to include it in the PRB Coal 

Review, based on its status and available information. 

The KFx (now Evergreen Energy) coal beneficiation plant, located near the Dry 

Fork Mine, north of Gillette, was operational but did not reach full capacity. KFx 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-17 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

reported making its first production run and shipping coal to two customers for 

test burns in late December, 2005. In August, 2006, KFx reported that a 

trainload of enhanced coal had been loaded and sent to a customer in Ohio. 

Commercially viable product was produced through 2007 until the plant was 

idled down in 2008. It was predicted that the plant would have eventually 

produce approximately 750,000 tons of enhanced coal per year. This operation 

had a high likelihood of proceeding with production given the technology being 

used and the forecast market conditions in the PRB. Evergreen Energy Inc. and 

its strategic partner, Bechtel Power Cooperation, have decided to relocate 

operation to a different location with a greater market and will improve the plant 

design (Evergreen Energy Inc. 1008). The company has suggested that up to five 

additional units will be built, some perhaps in the PRB, but the likelihood for 

development of additional units is not known. As a result, the potential 

development of additional units was not analyzed in the PRB Coal Review. 

The following coal conversion projects have been proposed, but were not 

included in the PRB Coal Review analysis because the likelihood of their 

occurrence was not known when the coal review analysis was conducted: 

• 	 Medicine Bow Fuel and Power, a subsidiary of DKRW Advanced Fuels, 

LLC, has announced that it plans to build a coal-to-liquids plant with an 

in-service year of 2013 in northern Carbon County, Wyoming. GE Energy 

and Rentech Clean Energy Solutions are also involved in the project, 

which would obtain coal from Saddleback Hills Mine facility. Both the 

plant and mine are located outside of the PRB. The primary product 

would be ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel produced from sub-bituminous coal. 

The company is in the process of permitting the plant and expects to 

begin initial site work in 2010, with completion planned for 2011 (Casper 

Star Tribune 2007b, DKRW Advanced Fuels 2008). 

• 	Coal gasification development projects are being actively pursued by 

several groups, including the Wyoming Business Council, CCEDC, and 

CANDO. Specifically, CANDO is pursuing the development of coal 

gasification leading to production of pure hydrogen with CO2 as a byproduct within 5 to 8 years. While there appears to be substantial interest 

in these opportunities, it is unknown whether large-scale operations 

would be developed within the 2010 to 2020 timeframe, given permitting, 

engineering, and construction time requirements. When the PRB Coal 

Review was prepared, a project proponent with adequate financing to 

pursue a project that would utilize PRB coal had not been identified, and 

one has not been identified since. 

A summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable coal mines, coal-related 

facilities, coal production, coal mine employment, and coal and coal-related 

disturbance in the Wyoming PRB is presented in Table 4-5. 

4-18 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-5. Past, Present, and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine and CoalRelated Development Scenario. 

Number of Number of Number of 

Coal Active Active Active Coal Direct Coal Total Coal 

Production Coal Power Conversion Mine Disturbance 

Year (mmtpy) Mines1 Plants Facilities2 Employment (acres)3 

Past and Present 

1990 163 18 3 1 2,862 na 

1995 247 19 4 1 3,177 na 

2000 323 12 4 2 3,335 na 

2003 363 12 4 0 5,010 73,685 

Projected Development - Lower Coal Production Scenario 

2010 411 131 12 7 5,263 103,628 

2015 467 131 7 12 5,405 123,147 

2020 495 131 7 12 5,531 143,354 

Projected Development - Upper Coal Production Scenario 

2010 479 131 12 7 5,339 107,414 

2015 543 131 7 12 5,522 130,456 

2020 576 131 8 12 5,678 155,000 

1 	 Mines have consolidated and may in the future. Also, new mines may be permitted to better 

access the coal reserves projected for mining by 2020. 

2 	 Several coal conversion facilities currently are being evaluated; however, there is only one for 

which the likelihood of future development currently can be assessed. 

3 	 Disturbance area includes coal mine and coal-related disturbance areas. 

Source:	 Annual Report of the Wyoming State Mine Inspector (Wyoming Department of 

Employment 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2003) and PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 

2005d) 

4.1.2 Oil and Gas Development 

The following information on existing conventional and CBNG development is 

summarized from the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d). The 

information reported is for 2003, which was the baseline year for the coal review. 

4.1.2.1 Conventional Oil and Gas 

Conventional oil and gas development includes all non-CBNG development 

activity. Approximately 1,500 conventional oil and gas wells, including 

producing, non-producing and injection wells, were drilled between 1990 and 

2003 (IHS 2004) in the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Study Area. Of those, 60 

percent were development wells, drilled in established producing areas. The 

remaining 40 percent were classified as wildcat wells, which are wells that are 

drilled in non-producing areas or drilled to evaluate untested prospective zones 

in producing areas. Approximately 75 percent of the wildcat wells were plugged 

and abandoned. By 2003, the successful new field wildcat wells had resulted in 

the discovery of 61 new fields that produced 719,000 barrels of oil and 1.45 bcf 

of non-CBNG (WOGCC 2004). 

As of the end of 2003, there were approximately 3,500 producing conventional 

oil and gas wells in the Wyoming PRB study area plus 1,386 seasonally active 

wells (IHS 2004). The WOGCC reported that these wells produced approximately 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-19 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

13 million barrels of oil and 40 bcf of conventional gas in 2003 (WOGCC 2004). 

The USGS (2002) estimated that the mean undiscovered non-coal bed 

hydrocarbon resource in the PRB (including Montana) is 1.8 billion BOE. 

Most of Wyoming’s current oil production is from old oil fields with declining 

production and the level of exploration drilling to discover new fields has been 

low (WSGS 2002). This situation is reflected in the PRB where, over the 10-year 

period from 1992 through 2002, oil production from conventional oil and gas 

wells in Campbell and Converse Counties decreased approximately 60.4 percent 

(from 32.8 million barrels in 1992 to 13.0 million barrels in 2002). Oil prices 

have been increasing, which is reversing projections of a continuing decline in oil 

and gas production; production is now expected to increase in the PRB, with a 

peak around 2010 of approximately 15.7 million barrels (WSO-RMG 2005). Oil 

production in the short term may also be bolstered by some planned CO2 flood 

projects in the PRB (WSGS 2003). This projected temporary upward trend in 

conventional oil and gas development is reflected in the PRB Coal Review 

projections (Table 4-6). 

Table 4-6. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Conventional Oil and 

Gas Development Scenario. 

Existing	 Projected for Task 3 Study Area 

2003 2003 

Task 1 Task 3 

Category Study Area Study Area 2010 2015 2020 

Annual Gas 39.9 36.3 33.8 30.9 28.0 Production (bcf)1 

Annual Oil 12.9 11.4 13.8 12.5 11.2 Production (mmbo) 

Active and 

Seasonably Active 5,067 3,890 5,603 5,115 4,625 

Wells 

1 	 Future gas production per well was estimated based on 2003 production levels per subwatershed. A greater number 

of future well sites were assumed to occur in locations with historically lower production rates, so the projected 

future conventional gas production varies within the cumulative effects study area relative to the number of 

projected producing wells. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

The active wells identified in Table 4-6 include wells that produce year-round, 

seasonally producing wells, and service wells (mainly injection wells.) It is 

estimated that there are approximately 2,000 idle conventional oil and gas wells 

in the PRB study area (WOGCC 2005); however, the number of idle wells 

gradually would be reduced in the future through plugging programs, and the 

idle well locations (once the wells are abandoned) would be reclaimed and no 

longer represent a disturbance. 

4.1.2.2 CBNG Development 

Natural gas production has been increasing in Wyoming. In the PRB, this is due 

to the development of shallow CBNG resources. Commercial development of 

4-20 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

these resources began in limited areas west of and adjacent to the northernmost 

surface coal mines in the late 1980s. Since that time, CBNG development has 

spread south and west into other parts of the PRB Coal Review Task 1 and Task 

2 study area. 

On private and state oil and gas leases, the WOGCC and the Wyoming SEO 

authorize CBNG drilling. On federal oil and gas leases, BLM must analyze the 

individual and cumulative environmental impacts of all drilling (federal, state, 

and private), as required by NEPA, before CBNG drilling can be authorized. BLM 

does not authorize drilling on state or private leases but must consider the 

impacts from those wells in their NEPA analyses. In many areas of the PRB, the 

coal estate is federally owned, but the oil and gas estate is privately owned. A 

June 7, 1999 Supreme Court decision (98-830) assigned the rights to develop 

CBNG on a piece of land to the owner of the oil and gas estate. 

Annual CBNG production increased rapidly in the PRB between 1999 and 2003 

but has leveled off somewhat since then. At the end of 2003, there were 14,758 

producing CBNG wells in the study area (IHS 2004), and total production for 

2003 was 346 bcf, or 88 percent of the total gas production from the basin 

(WOGCC 2004). Total production for 2006 was 377 bcf (WOGCC 2007d). 

Average daily CBNG production was 900 mmcfpd in 2003 (Holcomb 2003) and it 

is estimated that it will average 1,150 mmcfpd (1.15 bcfpd) for 2007 (WOGCC 

2007d). From 1987 to 2003, the total cumulative gas production from PRB 

coals was over 1.2 trillion cubic feet. The total water production for the same 

time period was approximately 2.3 billion barrels (96,600 million gallons). Water 

production in 2003 amounted to more than 500 million barrels (21,000 million 

gallons), or about 1.4 million barrels per day. According to the WOGCC website, 

water production in the PRB associated with CBNG production has varied 

between just over 1.4 million barrels per day and about 2.2 million barrels per 

day since December 2003. 

Since the early 1990s, the Wyoming BLM has completed numerous EAs and two 

EISs analyzing CBNG projects. The most recent of these is the four-volume 

Final EIS and Proposed Plan Amendment for the PRB Oil and Gas Project, which 

was completed in January 2003 (BLM 2003b). The level of CBNG development 

since 2003 appears to be lower than was forecast in that document. New CBNG 

well numbers fell from a high of slightly more than 4,600 in 2001 to 

approximately 2,000 in 2004. The PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report discusses the 

uncertain trends for future CBNG activity in recent years. The methodology 

used to project future activity is detailed in Appendix E of that report. Table 4-7 

shows the 2003 and projected 2010, 2015, and 2020 levels of CBNG 

development levels used to evaluate projected cumulative environmental impacts 

in the PRB Coal Review. 

4.1.2.3 Oil and Gas Related Development 

Oil and gas related development activities considered in the PRB Coal Review 

include major transportation pipelines and refineries. Table 4-8 summarizes the 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-7. Baseline Year and Projected CBNG Development Scenario for the 

Wyoming PRB. 

Existing 	 Projected to Task 3 Study Area 

2003 2003 

Task 1 Task 3 

Category Study Area Study Area 2010 2015 2020 

Annual Production 338 284 480 500 443 (bcf) 


Active Wells 14,758 12,152 20,899 21,831 19,366
 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

Table 4-8.	 Wyoming PRB Conventional Oil and Gas, CBNG, and Related 

Development Disturbance and Water Production. 

Existing1	 Projected for Task 3 Study Area1 

2003 2003 

Task 1 Task 3 

Category Study Area Study Area 2010 2015 2020 

Cumulative 

Disturbed Area 187,761 148,602 237,883 304,543 361,331 

(Acres)2 

Cumulative 

Permanently 115,045 90,548 160,175 225,426 288,536 Reclaimed Area 

(Acres) 

Cumulative 

Unreclaimed Area 72,715 58,053 77,707 79,108 72,794 

(Acres) 

Annual Water 

Production 26,405 21,204 39,108 41,484 37,350 

(mmgpy) 

1 	 Minor discrepancies in total acreages are the result of number rounding. 2 	 Inclusive of conventional oil and gas and CBNG activities and major transportation pipelines. 

Disturbance associated with ancillary facilities (including gathering lines and distribution power lines 

has been factored in a per well basis. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

net disturbance, reclamation, and water production associated with oil and gas 

activity (conventional oil and gas, CBNG, and major transportation pipelines) for 

2003 (baseline year) and projects disturbance, reclamation, and water 

production for future years. 

4.1.2.3.1 Pipelines 

The availability of pipeline capacity for the transport of oil and gas to outside 

markets is a key factor in the development of CBNG and conventional oil and 

gas resources in the Wyoming PRB. In 2003, the baseline year for the PRB coal 

Review, there were 13 major transportation pipeline systems in the PRB that 

transport gas resources to markets outside of the basin (Flores et al. 2001). The 

2003 capacity of these pipeline systems was 1.9 bcf per day. The combined 

natural gas production (CBNG and conventional gas) in the Wyoming PRB Coal 

Review Task 1 and Task 2 study area was approximately 1.03 bcf per day. 

4-22 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Major transportation pipelines also provide for transport of CO2 to conventional 

oil fields for EOR. Increased recovery of crude oil also may depend somewhat on 

the availability of CO2 for EOR projects, as well as the availability of pipelines to 

transport oil to refineries for processing. 

Gathering lines and power lines associated with conventional oil and gas and 

CBNG development also occur within the study area; disturbance from these 

ancillary facilities were factored into the PRB Coal Review analysis on a per well 

basis. 

A 315-mile-long pipeline project, the Bison Pipeline Project, was proposed in 

2004 to move natural gas northward, directly out of the PRB and into the 

Northern Border Pipeline system (FERC 2004). Approximately 53 miles of the 

proposed route is within the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area. If it is 

constructed, it would have a 240 mmcfpd capacity as proposed. FERC had 

expected the Bison project proposal to be filed in December 2003, but no filing 

has been made with FERC (FERC 2004) and the project is not included as an 

active project in Wyoming on the FERC website. As a result, the Bison Pipeline 

project was assumed to have a low likelihood rating for the purposes of the PRB 

Coal Review. 

The following two proposed pipeline projects in the PRB were listed on the 

Wyoming Pipeline Authority webpage (http://www.wyopipeline.com) as of 

October 2007: MDU Resources Group, Inc. Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline 

‘Grasslands Pipeline’ Expansion and ONEOK Cantera Gas Holdings Fort Union 

Gas Gathering Expansion. These are both expansion projects which involve 

adding capacity to an existing pipeline. Information on pipeline projects 

proposed in Wyoming can also be found in the “For Citizens” section of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission website at http://www.ferc.gov. 

The amount of available pipeline capacity could limit the amount of future 

CBNG development. In 2003, it was estimated that growth of Wyoming PRB 

CBNG production could rise from the 2003 level of 900 mmcfpd up to 3 to 4 bcf 

per day around 2007 and remain at or above those levels until 2015 (Holcomb 

2003). If CBNG production levels reach 3 to 4 bcf per day, it is reasonable to 

assume that several pipeline projects with up to 1.0 bcf per day capacity each 

could be built in the PRB. However, as discussed previously, the actual average 

production for 2007 is currently projected to be 1.15 bcfpd and, based on the 

assumptions in Appendix E of the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report, the basinwide CBNG production is projected to reach approximately 1.7 bcf per day in 

2020. New pipeline construction projects were not considered in the PRB Coal 

Review analysis because the likelihood for additional new pipeline construction 

was unknown when the PRB Coal Review was prepared. 

The CO2 pipeline from Bairoil, Wyoming, to Salt Creek, Wyoming, may be 

extended into the PRB Coal Review study area to the Sussex Field to support 

additional EOR activity. Although it took many years for a CO2 source to reach 

the Wyoming PRB, it is very likely that several pipelines could be built in the 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-23 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

study area in the near future to provide additional gas for EOR projects. 

However, no pipeline projects were identified that would transport CO2 beyond 

Salt Creek and the likelihood for construction of additional CO2 pipelines was 

unknown when the PRB Coal Review analysis was prepared, and they were not 

considered. 

4.1.2.3.2 Refineries 

There are no existing petroleum refineries in the Wyoming PRB study area, and 

no plans for the construction and operation of any petroleum refineries in the 

Wyoming portion of the PRB have been identified. 

4.1.3 Other Development Activity 

4.1.3.1 Other Mining 

Uranium, sand, gravel, bentonite, and clinker (or scoria) have been and are 

being mined in the Wyoming PRB study area. 

There are three defined uranium districts in the PRB: Pumpkin Buttes, 

Southern Powder River, and Kaycee (BLM 2003b). Numerous mined out or 

uneconomic uranium mining sites are present in these districts. Uranium is 

currently produced in the Southern Powder River District using the in-situ leach 

method. There is one operating in-situ uranium recovery site in the PRB, the 

Smith Ranch-Highland Mine in Converse County, but the recent increase in 

interest in uranium for power plants here and abroad is generating interest in 

new development in the PRB. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission website (http://www.nrc.gov), interest has been expressed in 

restarting in-situ operations at the Christianson Ranch Site in Johnson County, 

Wyoming, and an application has been received from Energy Metals Corporation 

to construct and operate an in-situ uranium recovery facility at Moore Ranch in 

Campbell County, Wyoming. Based on commodity forecasts and uranium 

activity as of June 2004, the likelihood and potential timing of new uranium 

mining operations in the PRB was not known, and additional development was 

not projected in the PRB Coal Review analysis. 

Bentonite is weathered volcanic ash that is used in a variety of products, 

including drilling mud and kitty litter, because of its absorbent properties. 

There are three major bentonite producing districts in and around the PRB: the 

Colony District in the Northern Black Hills, the Clay Spur District in the 

Southern Black Hills, and the Kaycee District west of Kaycee, Wyoming. Within 

the PRB Coal Review study area, bentonite is mined at Kaycee (WMA 2006). The 

PRB Coal Review assumed that bentonite mining would continue throughout the 

study period and that production would continue at existing active mines, with 

no new mines developed through 2020. 

Aggregate, which is sand, gravel, and stone, is used for construction purposes. 

In the PRB, the more important aggregate mining localities are in Johnson and 

4-24 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Sheridan Counties (WSGS 2004). The largest identified aggregate operation is 

located in northern Converse County. It has an associated total disturbance 

area of approximately 67 acres, of which four acres have been reclaimed. 

Scoria or clinker (which is formed when coal beds burn and the adjacent rocks 

become baked) is used as aggregate where alluvial terrace gravel or in-place 

granite/igneous rock is not available. Scoria generally is mined in the Converse 

and Campbell Counties portion of the Wyoming PRB study area. 

Increased sand, gravel, and scoria production and associated surface 

disturbance are anticipated in the Wyoming PRB study area in the future 

because aggregate would be required for road maintenance and new 

construction activities as other primary resources, such as coal and oil and gas, 

continue to be developed. New operations and increased production from 

existing operations can be expected. These operations would vary in size based 

on the immediate need from the primary industries, but there is no specific 

information about these projected operations. As a result, new sand, gravel, or 

scoria operations were not analyzed in detail in the PRB Coal Review. 

4.1.3.2 Industrial Manufacturing 

There are a number of existing industrial manufacturing establishments located 

in the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area. Most are relatively small with 

fewer than 25 employees; they predominately serve regional and local markets, 

and most are directly or indirectly related to energy resource development and 

production. Over the years, some of these firms have expanded such that they 

now support activities and serve markets outside of the region, but those 

operations remain dependent upon the local and regional markets to sustain 

their existing operations. 

The PRB Coal Review anticipates that increased coal production would result in 

an increased demand for fuels and explosives. This increased demand could 

result in the need for the development of new off-site chemical feedstock plants 

in the study area. Project-specific information is not available, however, and the 

potential development of new chemical feedstock plants was not considered in 

the PRB Coal Review. 

Local economic development organizations, including CCEDC and CANDO, are 

continually engaged in efforts to recruit or assist new business formation in the 

PRB study area. For example, CANDO has pursued development of long-term 

potential projects; however, the outcomes of those projects are uncertain and 

little information and detail are available. As a result, they were not considered 

in the PRB Coal Review. 

4.1.3.3 Wind Power 

Wind power facilities have been proposed at various sites in Wyoming, including 

the Powder River Basin region. There is potential in the Wyoming sites for wind 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-25 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

power, and these facilities can contribute to meeting forecasted electric power 

demands, however they are dependent on available transmission capacity to 

send power to users. The transmission capability is a constraining factor 

(Gillette News Record 2008b). Specific wind energy developments were not 

identified as part of the PRB coal review analysis. However, these projects could 

warrant consideration in a cumulative analysis as development of this type 

becomes more certain. 

4.1.3.4 Reservoirs 

Currently, there are five key water storage reservoirs in the Wyoming PRB Coal 

Review study area (Healy, Lake DeSmet, Muddy Guard No. 2, Gillette, and Betty 

No. 1) (HKM Engineering et al. 2002a and 2002b). The total disturbance 

associated with these five key water storage areas is 3,263 acres. 

Based on the applicable water plans prepared for the Wyoming Water 

Development Commission for its Basin Planning Program (HKM Engineering et 

al. 2002a and 2002b), there are long range projections for development of 

additional reservoirs in the Wyoming PRB study area. However, none of these 

reservoirs have reached the planning stage; therefore, there was not enough 

information to analyze them in the PRB Coal Review. 

4.1.3.5 Other Non-Energy Development 

In addition to the specific projects and developments described above, a network 

of public and private physical infrastructure, private enterprises, and public 

activities has been developed in the PRB over time. Examples of infrastructure 

include the highway and road networks, airports, government offices, hospitals, 

public schools, municipal water systems, and extensive residential and 

commercial real estate development. Private enterprises include local retail and 

service establishments, newspaper publishing, and transportation and 

distribution firms. 

The construction, maintenance, and continuing operations associated with this 

network of development represent an extensive series of public and private 

investments, as well as changes in land use, surface disturbances, water 

consumption, and the factors that characterize local air quality. Those 

investments and changes have occurred over a period of time and in response to 

many different influences. 

Some of the identified and anticipated plans or proposals for future investment 

in public, private, and commercial infrastructure in the PRB are summarized 

below. 

• 	 The WYDOT State Transportation Improvement Program for 2004 includes 

anticipated 2005 through 2009 construction costs of approximately 

$215.4 million for highway and airport maintenance, reconstruction, and 

improvement projects in the PRB Coal Review Study area. No 

4-26 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

construction of new highways is scheduled and no new airports are 

proposed between now and 2009. 

• 	A $10.7 million expansion and renovation of the Campbell County 

courthouse was completed in late 2005. 

• 	 Expansion of the CAM-PLEX conference and multi-event center facility in 

Gillette was approved in a special election in May 2005. 

• 	The 2005 approved master plans for Wyoming public school facilities 

spending included a total of $72.3 million in new capital construction for 

the seven school districts that are completely or partially in the Wyoming 

PRB study area (WSFC 2005). 

• 	 Construction and maintenance projects for the City of Gillette include a 

recently completed project to renovate and expand the waste water 

treatment plant. 

• 	 Commercial development includes recently completed construction of a 

Home Depot store and expansion of the Wal-Mart store in Gillette. 

A capital facilities tax ballot question in Campbell County in the 2004 election 

asking voters to approve the imposition of a $0.01 sales and use tax (to be used 

for updated and expanded diesel mechanic and welding programs at the Gillette 

Campus of the Northern Wyoming Community College (now Gillette College) and 

for two community development projects in Wright) and an increase in the 

lodging tax were defeated in 2004. A renewed attempt to get the lodging tax on 

the ballot for the 2006 primary election failed to gain the approval of the 

Campbell County Board of Commissioners. In their 2007 session, the Wyoming 

Legislature committed to pay half of the cost of a technical education center at 

Gillette College that will house diesel technology, welding and industrial 

electrician programs. The Campbell County Board of Commissioners has 

approved a tax increase to pay for the other half of the cost of the project. 

Given the timing, scale, year-to-year variability, relatively short construction 

timetables associated with such investments, the existence of a relatively large 

and diversified construction industry in the region and nearby areas, and the 

limited potential for these projects to alter long-term conditions in the PRB, they 

are not included in the PRB Coal Review analysis. However, one or more of 

these and similar projects could warrant consideration in a cumulative analysis 

for a site-specific project due to proximity or coincidental project schedules and 

timetables. 

4.2 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Section 4.1 of this chapter discusses existing and projected levels of 

development in the Wyoming PRB, and includes summaries of the results of PRB 

Coal Review Task 2 studies. This section summarizes the existing conditions 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-27 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

resulting from baseline year (2003) development and the cumulative 

environmental consequences of the projected development for 2010, 2015, and 

2020 based on the results of the analyses conducted for PRB Coal Review Task 1 

and 3 reports, respectively. 

As discussed in Section 4.1, the Wyoming portion of the PRB is the primary 

focus of the PRB Coal Review analyses. For the majority of resources in the 

Task 1 analysis, the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area encompasses all of 

Campbell County, all of Sheridan and Johnson Counties outside of the Bighorn 

National Forest, and the northern portion of Converse County (Figure 4-1). The 

study areas for the Task 3 analyses are different. For the majority of the 

resources considered in the PRB Coal Review, the Task 3 study area is based on 

watershed boundaries in the PRB and includes the portions of the Upper Powder 

River, Little Powder River, Upper Belle Fourche River, Upper Cheyenne River, 

Antelope Creek, and Dry Fork Cheyenne River subwatersheds that lie within 

Sheridan, Johnson, Campbell and northern Converse Counties (Figure 4-4). 

This study area includes over 4 million acres. Table 4-9 summarizes the total 

disturbance and reclamation acreages for the baseline year of 2003 and the total 

projected disturbance and reclamation acreages for 2010, 2015, and 2020 

within the Task 3 study area described above. 

A total of approximately 220,688 acres of this land area had been disturbed by 

development activities as of 2003, which represents about 5.6 percent of the 

Task 3 study area. This is projected to increase to as much as 514,732 acres in 

2020 under the upper coal production scenario which would represent 

approximately 13.1 percent of the Task 3 study area. This projected disturbance 

includes coal mining, coal-related development, and oil and gas and related 

development disturbance in the Task 3 study area. Areas reclaimed during each 

future time period shown in Table 4-9 reflect how much of the disturbed acreage 

is projected to be permanently reclaimed by that point in time. The acres of 

unreclaimed disturbance would be reclaimed incrementally or following a 

project’s completion, depending on the type of development activity and permit 

requirements. The acres currently not available for reclamation are occupied by 

long-term facilities that are needed to conduct mining operations or coal-related 

activities. These areas would be reclaimed near the end of each mine or facility’s 

life. 

Adjustments were made to the study area described above and shown in Figure 

4-4 for several resources as described below: 

•	 The potential air quality impacts were evaluated over a multi-state 

area (including most of Wyoming, southeastern Montana, Figure 4-4 

southwestern North Dakota, western South Dakota, and northwestern 

Nebraska) because they would be expected to extend beyond the 

Wyoming and Montana PRB study area that was used to identify 

emissions sources for the air quality analysis. 

4-28 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
Tongue 

Big 

Creek Goose 

Little Goose

Creek 

Prairie 

Dog 

Creek 

Sage Creek 

Dry Fork Cheyenne 

River 

Antelope Creek 

Porcupine Creek 

Little Thunder Creek 

Black Thunder Creek 

Bacon Creek 

Belle 

Fourche River 

Four 

Horse Creek 

Cr

Ca 

eek

ballo 

Cottonwood Creek 

Little

River 

Wild

Cat

Creek 

Salt 

Creek 

South

Fork Powder

River 

Buffalo Middle

Creek 

Fork Powder River 

Bear Trap 

Red Powder 

River 

North

Fork

River 

Crazy Woman

Creek 

Trabing

Dry Creek 

Crazy 

Woman

Creek 

Rock Creek 

Piney Creek 

Clear Creek 

Powder River 

Spotted Horse Creek 

Middle Prong

Horse 

Wild 

Creek 

Timber Creek 

Little

Powder River 

ForkCrazy 

Woman 

Creek 

Powder 

River 

Wild Horse Creek 

Bitter

Creek 

Fourmile Creek 

Pumpkin Creek 

Dry Fork Powder 

River 

North Fork Bear 

Creek 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Powder

Upper 

PSO ASH CREEK MINE BIG HORN MINE SHERIDAN River COUNTY 

SHERIDAN 

Little 

Powder
 River CAMPBELL 

COUNTY 

1
 Upper

Powder
 River
 

GILLETTE 

BUFFALO 

North 

Upper

Belle
 Fourche 2 South River 
 Fork
 

JOHNSON 

COUNTY 

Powder 

Fork WRIGHT 

Creek 

River 

3
 

SCALE: 1"= 20 MILES Antelope

Creek
 

LEGEND 

Federal Coal Lease Areas 

CONVERSE Subwatersheds in the Environmental COUNTY Consequence Study Area 

Groundwater Model Domain Dry Creek 

Railroads 

Dry Fork Former Surface Coal Mine Sites Cheyenne River 

COAL MINE SUBREGIONS 

Buckskin, Dry Fork, Eagle Butte, DAVE JOHNSTON 1 Subregion 1 Rawhide, and Wyodak Mines MINE -

Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and 2 Subregion 2 - Cordero-Rojo Mines 

Antelope, North Rochelle/Black

3 Subregion 3 - Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North

Antelope/Rochelle Mines 

Figure 4-4. Wyoming Task 3 Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating Projected Environmental 

Consequences. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-29
 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-9. Baseline Year and Projected Wyoming PRB Total Development 

Scenario – Task 3 Study Area. 

Acres Acres 

Total Acres Acres Acres Unavailable for Affected by 

Year Disturbed1 Reclaimed1 Unreclaimed1 Reclamation2 Coal Mining 

Baseline Year 

2003 220,688 111,786 108,901 27,073 68,794 

Projected Development - Lower Coal Production Scenario 

2010 339,912 205,113 134,799 29,389 98,662 

2015 426,084 286,614 139,472 31,546 117,236 

2020 503,085 367,999 135,085 32,794 137,443 

Projected Development - Upper Coal Production Scenario 

2010 343,698 206,946 136,752 28,739 102,448 

2015 433,392 290,822 142,570 31,006 124,545 

2020 514,732 374,732 139,998 32,342 149,089 1 Minor discrepancies in total acreages are the result of number rounding. 2 Includes coal mine and coal-related disturbance. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

•	 The groundwater drawdown was evaluated in the area surrounding 

and extending west of the surface coal mines, shown in Figure 4-4, 

because that is the area where groundwater drawdown related to 

surface coal mining operations and CBNG production operations 

would overlap. 

•	 The socioeconomic impact analysis focused on Campbell County, but 

also considered Converse, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston 

Counties as directly affected and Niobrara and Natrona Counties as 

indirectly affected. 

4.2.1 Topography and Physiography 

The PRB is located within the Upper Missouri Basin Broken Lands 

physiographic subprovince that includes northeastern Wyoming and eastern 

Montana to the Canadian border. The topography generally is of low to 

moderate relief with occasional buttes and mesas. The general topographic 

gradient slopes down gently from southwest to northeast with elevations ranging 

from 5,000 to 6,000 ft above sea level on the southern and western portions of 

the basin to less than 4,000 ft above sea level on the north and northeast along 

the Montana state line. The major drainages in the basin are the Tongue, 

Powder, Belle Fourche, and Cheyenne rivers. Most of the drainages in the area 

are intermittent and have flows during high precipitation events or during 

periods of snowmelt. The drainages are part of the upper Missouri River Valley 

drainage basin. 

The disturbance associated with the majority of the past, present, and projected 

activities have resulted in or would result in the alteration of the surface 

topography. Surface coal mining, which is projected to continue in the area of 

the existing coal mines shown in Figure 4-4, permanently alters the topography 

by removing the overburden and coal and then replacing the overburden. 

4-30 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Recontouring during reclamation to match approximate original contours, as 

required by regulation, reduces the long-term impact to topography. After 

mined-out areas are reclaimed, the restored land surfaces are typically gentler, 

with more uniform slopes and restored basic drainage networks. Oil and gas 

exploration and development has occurred and is projected to continue 

throughout most of the Task 3 study area. It also results in the alteration of 

topography to accommodate facilities (e.g., well pads, power plants, etc.) and 

roads, but the disturbance tends to occur in smaller, more discrete areas than 

coal mining and the development is spread out over a larger area. 

The disturbance and reclamation acreages associated with all existing and 

projected development in the Task 3 study area for the years 2003, 2010, 2015, 

and 2020 are given in Table 4-9. 

4.2.2 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology 

The cumulative effects study area for geology, mineral resources, and 

paleontology is the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area (Figure 4-4). 

The PRB is one of a number of structural basins in Wyoming and the Rocky 

Mountain area that were formed during the Laramide Orogeny. The basin is 

asymmetric with a structural axis that generally trends northwest to southeast 

along the western side of the basin (Flores et al. 1999). Natural earthquakes, 

landsides, and subsidence do not present a hazard in the PRB based on the lack 

of active faults in the study area (USGS 2004); the low risk of ground shaking in 

the region if a maximum credible earthquake were to occur (Frankel et al. 1997); 

and the absence of evidence of subsidence, landslides, or other geologic hazards 

in association with CBNG production. USGS monitors the magnitude of blasting 

activity in the PRB under the Routine Mining Seismicity Earthquake Hazards 

Program (USGS 2008). Coal mine blasting operations induced seismic activity 

does occur throughout the PRB and has reached a USGS local magnitude rating 

of 3.6 (USGS 2004). 

4.2.2.1 Coal 

Most of the coal resources of the basin are found in the Fort Union and Wasatch 

Formations. Although coals are present in the Wasatch, they are thinner and 

less continuous than the coals in the Fort Union and, therefore, they are not as 

economically important as the coals in the Fort Union for either coal mining or 

CBNG development. Projected levels of coal production and disturbance under 

the lower and upper coal production scenarios are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. 

In the coal mine areas, the overburden and coal would be removed and the 

overburden replaced, resulting in a permanent change in the geology of the area 

and a permanent reduction of coal resources. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-31 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.2.2 Oil and Gas 

Drilling for conventional oil and gas in the Wyoming PRB has declined 

considerably in the last 15 years. However, as discussed above, increasing 

prices have led to increased interest in drilling and there remains potential for 

finding and developing these resources in the deeper formations of the basin. 

Conversely, CBNG production increased rapidly from 1999 through 2002 but 

began to level off in 2003. Projected production rates for conventional oil and 

gas and CBNG in 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-6 and 4-7. 

Oil and gas and related development accounts for most of the projected mineral 

disturbance outside of the coal mining areas. It generally would result in only 

shallow, discrete areas of surface disturbance, as discussed above. The 

acreages over which these impacts were occurring (as of 2003) and are projected 

to occur in the years 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-9. 

4.2.2.3 Other Mineral Resources 

As discussed in Section 4.1.3.1, other mineral resources that are being mined in 

the Wyoming PRB include uranium, bentonite, clinker, and aggregate. 

Production of uranium and bentonite is not likely to be affected by development 

of coal or CBNG in the PRB. Aggregate and clinker production levels are more 

likely to be affected by other mineral development levels because these resources 

would be used in construction projects related to other mineral development. 

4.2.2.4 Paleontology 

Scientifically significant paleontological resources, including vertebrate, 

invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, are known to occur in many of the geologic 

formations within the Wyoming PRB. These fossils are documented in the 

scientific literature, in museum records, and are known by paleontologists and 

land managers familiar with the area. 

The Wasatch Formation is the most geographically widespread unit exposed on 

the surface over most of the Task 3 study area. It is underlain by the Fort Union 

Formation. The fossiliferous Morrison and Lance Formations crop out in the 

western portion of the basin but occur at depth in the vicinity of the coal mines 

and CBNG activity in the eastern portion of the basin. Within the Task 3 study 

area, the highly fossiliferous White River Formation occurs only on Pumpkin 

Buttes in southwestern Campbell County. 

As of 2003, no significant or unique paleontological localities had been recorded 

on federal lands in the PRB. However, the lack of localities in the PRB does not 

mean that scientifically significant fossils are not present, as much of the area 

within and surrounding the PRB has not been adequately explored for 

paleontological resources. As a result, development activities in the Task 3 

study area have the potential to adversely affect scientifically significant fossils, 

if they are present in or adjacent to disturbance areas. 

4-32 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The potential for impacts to scientifically significant fossils would be greatest in 

areas where Class 4 or 5 formations are present (see Section 3.3.3.1). The 

Wasatch Formation is classified as a Class 5 formation. The Fort Union 

Formation is classified as a Class 3 formation, which means that fossil content 

varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence. The greatest 

potential impact to surface and subsurface fossils would result from disturbance 

of surface sediments and shallow bedrock during construction and/or 

operations, depending on the type of project. Potential subsurface disturbance 

of paleontological resources (e.g., during drilling operations) would not be visible 

or verifiable. The areas over which these impacts occurred as of 2003 and are 

projected to occur as a result of all projected development in the years 2010, 

2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-9. As only portions of the Task 3 study 

area have been evaluated for the occurrence of paleontological resources, and 

discrete locations for development activities cannot be determined at this time, 

no accurate estimate can be made as to the number of paleontological sites that 

may be affected by cumulative development activities. 

Development activities which involve federally owned surface and/or minerals 

are subject to federal guidelines and regulations protecting paleontological 

resources. Protection measures, permit conditions of approval, and/or 

mitigation measures would be determined on a project-specific basis at the time 

of permitting to minimize potential impacts to paleontological resources as a 

result of these activities. 

4.2.3 Air Quality 

The Task 1A Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005a) documents the 

modeled air quality impacts of operations during a baseline year, 2002, using 

actual emissions and operations for that year. Emissions from permitted minor 

sources were estimated, due to unavailability of actual emissions data. The 

baseline year analysis evaluated impacts both within the PRB itself and at 

selected sensitive areas surrounding the region. The analysis specifically looked 

at impacts of coal mines, power plants, CBNG development, and other 

development activities. Results were provided for both Wyoming and Montana at 

the individual receptor areas. The Task 2 Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 

2005d) identifies reasonably foreseeable development activities for the years 

2010, 2015, and 2020. 

The Task 3A Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2006a) evaluates the impacts 

on air quality and air quality-related values for the year 2010 using the 

development levels projected for 2010 and the same model and meteorological 

data that were used for the baseline year study in the Task 1A Report. Impacts 

for 2015 and 2020 were projected qualitatively based on evaluation of 

anticipated changes in emissions and on modeled impacts for the 2010 lower 

and upper coal production scenarios. BLM is now planning to update the model 

and conduct an impact analysis for the year 2015. As currently proposed, a 

revised baseline year emissions inventory would be developed using 2004 actual 

emissions data or emissions estimates and incorporating recent analyses of 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-33 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

emissions in Wyoming and Montana, which were not available when the 2010 

modeling study was done. 

Existing and projected emissions sources for the baseline year (2002) and 2010 

analyses were identified within a study area comprised of the following counties 

in the PRB in Wyoming and Montana: 

• 	Campbell County, all of Sheridan and Johnson Counties except the 

Bighorn National Forest lands to the west of the PRB, and the northern 

portion of Converse County, Wyoming. 

• 	Rosebud, Custer, Powder River, Big Horn, and Treasure Counties, 

Montana. 

A state-of-the-art, guideline dispersion model was used to evaluate impacts of 

the existing and projected source emissions on several source groups, as follows: 

• 	Near-field receptors in Wyoming and Montana covering the PRB Coal 

Review Task 1A and 3A study area in each state. Overall, the near-field 

receptor grid points were spaced at one kilometer intervals over the study 

area; 

• 	 Receptors in nearby federally designated pristine or “Class I” areas; and 

• 	 Receptors at other sensitive areas (Class II sensitive areas). 

The EPA guideline CALPUFF model system (Scire et al. 1999a) and the same 

meteorological data set were used for the Task 1A and Task 3A studies. The 

impacts for the baseline year (2002) and for 2010 lower and upper coal 

production scenarios were directly modeled. As discussed above, the modeling 

domain extends over most of Wyoming, southeastern Montana, southwestern 

North Dakota, western South Dakota, and western Nebraska. An interagency 

group participated in developing the modeling protocol and related domain that 

were used for this analysis. 

The modeling approach for the Task 3A Report used actual emissions from 

existing sources representative of 2002 operations and adjusted those emissions 

for the expected level of development in 2010. No specific emissions data were 

available for the projected levels of development. The baseline year emissions 

data were gathered from a variety of sources, but mainly relied on data collected 

by the WDEQ/AQD and the MDEQ. Only actual emission sources inside the 

study area described above were included in the modeling. Key major sources 

were included, such as the coal-fired power plants, gas-fired power plants, and 

sources that were included in the Title V (operating permit) program. The Dave 

Johnston power plant, which is located outside of but adjacent to the study area 

in Converse County, was included in the baseline year study and in the 

projected emissions. Some operational adjustments were made to accommodate 

small sources with air permits that were presumed to be operating at less than 

4-34 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

full capacity. Emissions from other sources, including estimated constructionrelated fugitive dust emissions, were computed based on EPA emission factors 

and on input data from WDEQ/AQD. 

Meteorological data were developed for 1996 for the modeling domain, using the 

guideline Version V of the CALMET (Scire et al. 1999b) diagnostic model, 

identical to that used in the PRB Oil and Gas EIS Project (BLM 2003b) and in 

the Task 1A Report. These data provide a four-dimensional depiction that 

represents actual meteorological conditions for that year. The data baseline was 

enhanced by using data for specific surface stations and precipitation data. 

Terrain and land use data from the USGS also were used. Modeling data 

settings generally were set to default values. Baseline year ozone concentrations 

also were incorporated into the model using measured concentrations 

representative of the study area, and were not changed for this study. 

The existing regional air quality conditions generally are very good in the PRB 

Coal Review Task 1A and Task 3A study area. There are limited air pollution 

emissions sources (few industrial facilities, including the surface coal mines, and 

few residential emissions in relatively small communities and isolated ranches) 

and good atmospheric dispersion conditions. The available data show that the 

region is in compliance with the ambient air quality standards for NO2 and SO2. 

There have been no monitored exceedances of the annual PM10 standard in the 

Wyoming PRB. 

Air quality modeling indicates the projected mine activities at the four South 

Gillette Area operating mines will be in compliance with the PM10 ambient air 

standards for the life of these mines at their permitted mining rates. All 

applicants have indicated that they propose to mine the respective LBA tracts at 

a rate below the permit levels. Visibility data collected around the region 

indicate that, although there are some days with notable impacts at Class I 

areas, the general trend in the region shows little change in visibility impacts at 

Badlands National Park and at the Jim Bridger Wilderness area over the period 

from 1989 to 2003 (Figure 3-10). 

Predicted impacts from baseline year (2002) and projected 2010 emissions were 

modeled for three air quality criteria pollutants (NO2, SO2, and PM10), along with 

changes in air quality-related values at Class I areas and at identified sensitive 

areas. For regulatory purposes, the Class I PSD evaluations are not directly 

comparable to the air quality permitting requirements, because the modeling 

effort does not identify or separately evaluate increment consuming sources that 

would need to be evaluated under the PSD program. The cumulative impact 

analysis focuses on changes in cumulative impacts, but not on a comparison to 

PSD-related evaluations, which would apply to specific sources. 

Table 4-10 presents the modeled impacts on ambient air quality at the near-field 

receptors in Montana and Wyoming. Results indicate the maximum impacts at 

any point in each receptor group, and data are provided for the baseline year 

(2002) analysis and for both coal production scenarios for 2010. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-35 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-10. Projected Maximum Potential Near-field Impacts (μg/m3). 

Base 

2010 Lower 

Coal 

2010 Upper 

Coal 

Year Production Production 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

(2002) 

Impacts 

Scenario 

Impacts 

Scenario 

Impacts NAAQS 

Wyoming 

AAQS 

M

Wyoming Near-field 

NO2 Annual 37.3 42.4 49.0 100 100 

SO2 Annual 

 24-hour  3-hour 

3.9 

14.5 

37.9 

4.8 

33.5 

148.0 

5.6 

34.8 

154.2 

80 

365 

1,300 

60 

260 

1300 

PM10

NO2

 Annual 

 24-hour 

 Annual 

 1-hour 

42.7 

335.5 

8.85 

365.8 

49.0 56.6 

378.8 439.9 

Montana Near-field 

11.3 11.8 

415.9 519.5 

--2

150

100 

-­ 50 150 

--1 

--1 

SO2 Annual 

 24-hour  3-hour  1-hour 

1.3 

18.9 

74.7 

240.7 

2.3 

19.5 76.4 

246.4 

2.7 

20.4 79.8 

257.3 

80 

365 

1,300 

-­

--1 

--1 

--1 

--1 

PM10 Annual 

 24-hour 

19.6 

175.8 

22.5 

200.0 

27.7 

247.7 

--2

150

 --1 

 --1 

1	 No standard or increment. 2	 On September 21, 2006, the EPA announced final revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter, which were published in 

October 17, 2006 and took effect December 18, 2006. The revision not only strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 standard fro

revoked the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3. Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the Wyoming Ambient Air Q

that time, however, Wyoming will retain the 50 ug/m3 annual PM10 standard. See additional discussion in Chapter 3, Se

Bold values indicate projected exceedances of AAQS. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2006a) 

-36 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area C
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Based on the modeling results, the baseline year (2002) maximum impacts on 

ambient air quality were well below the ambient air quality standards for NO2, 

SO2, and Annual PM10 in both Montana and Wyoming. The 2002 maximum 

modeled 24-hour PM10 are greater than the 150 μg/m3 ambient air standard for 

some near-field receptors near PRB sources in both Montana and Wyoming. The 

modeling also indicated that visibility impacts in the surrounding Class I areas in 

2002 were above the detectable levels at many receptor areas. 

For the Montana near-field receptors, the modeling for the 24-hour PM10 levels 

projects a maximum impact above the NAAQS for both coal production scenarios 

for 2010. The upper coal production scenario shows an increase in the impact of 

more than 40 percent above the baseline year for this parameter. Projected 

impacts for NO2, SO2, and Annual PM10 show compliance with the NAAQS and 

the Montana AAQS. Large percentage increases in annual SO2 impacts are 

projected, but the impacts themselves are well below the NAAQS. 

For the Wyoming near-field receptors, the modeling projects maximum 24-hour 

PM10 levels greater than the 150 μg/m3 ambient air standard for the 2010 lower 

and upper coal production scenarios at some receptors. For the 2010 upper 

development scenario, the modeled levels are above 150 μg/m3 at seven of the 

near-field receptors in Wyoming; those receptors are confined in an area of 

intensive coal development. As shown in Table 4-10, the maximum modeled 

PM10 impacts from all sources are nearly three times the 24-hour standard for 

the 2010 upper coal production scenario. As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2.1, 

modeling tends to over-predict the 24-hour impacts of surface coal mining and, 

as a result, WDEQ/AQD does not consider short-term PM10 modeling to be an 

accurate representation of short-term impacts. In view of this, a Memorandum of 

Agreement between WDEQ/AQD and EPA Region VIII, dated January 24, 1994, 

allows WDEQ/AQD to conduct monitoring in lieu of short-term modeling for 

assessing coal mining-related impacts in the PRB. This agreement also requires 

Wyoming to implement “Best Available Work Practice” mitigation measures at 

any mine where an exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS has occurred. The monitored 

exceedances at surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB and the measures that 

WDEQ/AQD has implemented or is proposing to implement to prevent future 

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS are discussed in Chapter 3, Sections 3.4.2.1 and 

3.4.2.3. 

The maximum modeled impacts on the annual PM10 levels are also projected to 

be above the standard (50 μg/m3) at one near-field receptor in Wyoming for the 

2010 upper coal production scenario. EPA has revoked the annual PM10 

standard of 50 μg/m3 but until Wyoming enters into rulemaking to revise the 

WAAQS, that standard is still effective. It should be noted that WDEQ/AQD 

issues permits to mine coal. AQD cannot issue any permit that violates Ambient 

Air Quality Standards. Impacts of NO2 and SO2 emissions are predicted to be 

below the NAAQS and Wyoming AAQS at all Wyoming near-field receptors. A 

large portion of the impacts for all scenarios would be associated with coalrelated sources, although non-coal sources would contribute a notable portion of 

the impact. 

Draft EIS, West Antelope II Coal Lease Applications 4-37 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-11 lists the three Class I areas and two Class II areas where the modeled 

impacts are the greatest. Table 4-11 includes a comparison to ambient air 

quality standards and PSD increments; however, it must be noted that this 

modeling analysis did not separate PSD increment-consuming sources from 

those that do not consume increment. The PSD-increment comparison is 

provided for informational purposes only and cannot be directly related to a 

regulatory interpretation of PSD increment consumption. For the Class I 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, modeled impacts for the baseline year 

(2002) and the two coal production scenarios for 2010 are less than the annual 

SO2 PSD Class I increment; slightly above the PSD Class I increment levels for 

annual PM10, 24-hour SO2, and 3-hour SO2; and well above the Class I 

increments for 24-hour PM10. For annual NO2, the modeled impacts for the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservations are less than the annual increment for the 

baseline year and lower coal production scenario and slightly above the annual 

increment for the upper coal production scenario. In the other two Class I areas, 

only the 24-hour PM10 impacts are higher than the comparison to the PSD 

increment levels for the baseline year and both coal production scenarios. In the 

sensitive Class II areas, all modeled impacts are well below the Class II PSD 

increment for the upper coal production scenario. In the other two Class I areas, 

only the 24-hour PM10 impacts are higher than the comparison to the PSD 

increment levels for the baseline year and both coal production scenarios. In the 

sensitive Class II areas, all modeled impacts are well below the Class II PSD 

increments, with the exception that the 24-hour PM10 impacts are greater than 

the Class II 24-hour PM10 increments at the Crow Indian Reservation for the 

baseline year and both coal production scenarios. 

The projected modeled visibility impacts for the baseline year (2002) and for the 

lower and upper coal production scenarios for 2010 for all analyzed Class I and 

sensitive Class II areas are listed in Table 4-12. For the baseline year, the 

maximum visibility impacts at Class I areas were determined to be at the 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation in Montana and at Wind Cave and 

Badlands National Parks in South Dakota. For these locations, modeling showed 

more than 200 days of impacts with a change of 10 percent or more in extinction. 

A 10 percent change in extinction corresponds to 1.0 dv. 

To provide a basis for discussing the modeled visibility impacts resulting from the 

projected increased production under the lower and upper coal production 

scenarios for 2010, the modeled visibility impacts for 2002 were subtracted from 

the model results for 2010. Table 4-12 shows the number of additional days that 

the projected impacts were greater than 1.0 dv (10 percent in extinction) for each 

site for the upper and lower coal production scenarios. Using Badlands Park as 

an example, the modeling analysis projected 238 days with impacts greater than 

1.0 dv in 2002. Under the 2010 lower coal production scenario, the modeling 

analysis projects an additional 19 days with impacts greater than 1.0 dv, or a 

total of 257 days with impacts greater than 1.0 dv. 

For acid deposition, all predicted impacts are below the deposition threshold 

values for both nitrogen and sulfur compounds. There are substantial 

4-38 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
4.0 Cumulative Environ

Table 4-11. Maximum Predicted PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Area Impacts (μg/m3)1. 

2010 Lower Coal 

2010 Upp

Coal 

Location Pollutant 

Averaging 

Period 

Base Year (2002) 

Impacts 

Production 

Scenario 

Productio

Scenario 

Class I Areas 

NO2 Annual 2.0 2.3 2.7 

Annual 0.6 0.8 0.9 

Northern Cheyenne 

Indian Reservation 

SO2 24-hour 

3-hour 

6.1 

26.8 

6.5 

27.9 

6.9 

29.3 

PM10 Annual 24-hour 5.0 42.0 5.8 47.8 7.0 59.4 

NO2 Annual 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Annual 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Washakie Wilderness SO2 24-hour 1.0 3.0 3.3 

Area 3-hour 2.0 5.1 5.6 

Annual 0.3 0.4 0.4 

PM10 24-hour 14.5 16.5 16.9 

NO2 Annual 1.2 1.5 1.7 

Annual 0.2 0.4 0.5 

Wind Cave National SO2 24-hour 1.2 3.5 3.8 

Park 3-hour 3.5 9.9 10.3 

PM10 Annual 24-hour 1.3 10.7 1.7 14.0 1.9 15.7 

Sensitive Class II Areas 

NO2 Annual 5.7 6.2 6.7 

Annual 0.8 0.9 0.9 

Crow Indian SO2 24-hour 4.7 5.1 5.3 

Reservation 3-hour 14.7 15.1 15.7 

Annual 3.0 3.7 4.0 

PM10 24-hour 30.5 35.1 36.7 

NO2 Annual 0.5 0.7 0.7 

Annual 0.1 0.2 0.3 

Cloud Peak SO2 24-hour 1.4 3.3 3.7 

Wilderness Area 3-hour 3.6 6.5 7.9 

PM10 Annual 24-hour 0.8 13.3 1.1 17.1 1.2 17.9 

1 The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD increments consumption analysis. 

Bold values indicate exceedance of PSD Class I or II standards. Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2006a) 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

 4

-39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-12. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive 

Class II Areas. 

2002 

2010 Lower Coal 

Production 

Scenario 

2010 Upper Coal 

Production 

Scenario 

Location 

No. of 

Days 

>10% 

Change in 

No. of Days 

> 10% 

Change in 

No. of Days 

> 10% 

Federally and Tribally Designated Class I Areas 

Badlands National Park 1 238 19 26 

Bob Marshall WA 12 2 4 

Bridger WA 47 4 7 

Fitzpatrick WA 42 3 5 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation 69 8 9 

Gates of the Mountain WA 14 6 7 

Grand Teton National Park 26 2 5 

North Absaroka WA 47 6 6 

North Cheyenne Indian Reservation 305 5 10 

Red Rock Lakes 16 3 5 

Scapegoat WA 14 4 4 

Teton WA 40 4 5 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park 98 15 22 

UL Bend WA 49 4 5 

Washakie WA 53 2 3 

Wind Cave National Park 261 11 15 

Yellowstone National Park 42 7 8 

Sensitive Class II Areas 

Absaroka Beartooth WA 53 3 5 

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 199 26 30 

Big Horn Canyon National Rec. Area 108 7 8 

Black Elk WA 263 16 22 

Cloud Peak WA 137 8 8 

Crow Indian Reservation 284 10 15 

Devils Tower National Monument 279 15 21 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 46 3 4 

Fort Laramie National Historic Site 153 27 30 

Jedediah Smith WA 23 1 2 

Jewel Cave National Monument 267 14 18 

Lee Metcalf WA 25 2 4 

Mount Naomi WA 8 6 8 

Mount Rushmore National Monument 248 19 25 

Popo Agie WA 47 7 8 

Soldier Creek WA 223 23 29 

Wellsville Mountain WA 6 5 7 

Wind River Indian Reservation 66 12 15 1 The U.S. Congress designated the Wilderness Area portion of Badlands National Park as a mandatory Federal PSD 

Class I area. The remainder of Badlands National Park is a PSD Class II area. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2006a) 

4-40 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

percentage increases in deposition under the lower and upper coal production 

scenarios for 2010; however, impacts remain well below the threshold values. 

The acid neutralizing capacity of sensitive lakes also was analyzed, and results 

are summarized in Table 4-13. No significant impacts were projected at any of 

the lakes for the baseline year study; however, the lower and upper coal 

production scenarios for 2010 show an increased impact at Florence Lake, 

leading to an impact that is above the 10 percent ANC. Impacts also are 

predicted to be above the 1 μeq/L threshold for Upper Frozen Lake. 

The study also modeled impacts of selected hazardous air pollutant emissions 

(benzene, ethyl benzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane, toluene, and xylene) on the 

near-field receptors in Montana and Wyoming. Model results for the 2010 upper 

coal production scenario show that impacts were predicted to be above the acute 

Reference Exposure Level for formaldehyde (94 μg/m3) at two receptors in 

Wyoming but are below all Reference Exposure and Reference Concentrations for 

Chronic Inhalation levels in Montana and for other compounds in Wyoming. 

Essentially, the modeled impacts for 2010 showed a continuation of the patterns 

exhibited for the baseline year analysis. 

For 2015 and 2020, the PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report includes a qualitative 

analysis of potential air quality impacts and the impacts from individual source 

groups, based on the projected changes from 2002 to 2010 for the respective 

coal production scenarios. The production from conventional oil and gas and 

CBNG activities is projected to peak at 2010, with slight declines predicted over 

the following decade. Therefore, from these sources, expected impacts would 

decrease slightly from 2010 to 2015 and 2020. The coal mining sources would 

be the major contributors to PM10 impacts in the near-field, and these impacts 

would result from the proximity of the receptors to the coal mining operations. If 

coal mines expand or relocate, those impacts likely would follow that 

development; however, the specific impacts would need to be addressed with a 

more refined modeling effort, specifically including accurate source parameters. 

Power plants currently are the major contributors to all SO2 impacts in the nearfield in both states. However, the projected impacts are well below any ambient 

standard or PSD increment. According to the PRB Coal Review Air Quality 

modeling analysis, predicted future expansion modeled to the year 2020 should 

not jeopardize the attainment of those standards. Impacts on NO2 

concentrations are the result of emissions from all the source groups. No one 

source group dominates the NO2 impacts in the near-field. 

A pattern that is similar to the near-field receptors holds true for the Class I and 

sensitive Class II receptor groups. Essentially, the mine operations would 

continue to dominate the PM10 impacts, the power plants would continue to 

dominate the SO2 impacts (although they would continue to be below the 

standards), and the overall source groups would continue to contribute to NO2 

impacts, but impacts should remain below the NO2 standard for 2015 and 2020. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-41 
1 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Table 4-13. Predicted Total Cumulative Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity of Sensitive Lakes. 

Background Base Year 2010 Lower Coal 2010 Uppe

ANC Area 2002 Change Production Scenario Production S

Location Lake (μeq/L) (hectares) (percent) Change (percent) Change (pe

Black Joe 67.0 890 1.3 1.88 1.97 Deep 60.0 205 1.4 2.08 2.18 

Bridger Wilderness Area Hobbs 70.0 293 0.9 1.37 1.43 

Upper Frozen 5.0 65 0.71 0.991 1.041

Emerald 55.3 293 5.3 6.59 6.89 

Cloud Peak 

Florence 32.7 417 8.9 11.52 12.03 

Fitzpatrick Ross 53.5 4,455 0.9 1.37 1.43 Wilderness Area Popo Agie Lower 55.5 155 1.9 2.58 2.70 

Wilderness Area Saddlebag 

Data for Upper Frozen Lake presented in changes in μeq/L rather than percent change. (For lakes with less than 25 μeq/L backg

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3A Report (BLM 2006a) 

-42 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Based on modeling results, none of the acid deposition thresholds were exceeded 

at Class I areas for either the baseline year or for the lower or upper coal 

production scenarios for 2010. In general, the projected increases in coal 

development (and power plants) are not expected to raise the deposition levels 

above the threshold, extended into 2020. The only concern relates to the acid 

deposition into sensitive lakes. The model results showed that the increased 

deposition, largely from SO2 emissions from power plants, exceeded the 

thresholds of significance for the ANC at two sensitive (high alpine) lakes. The 

results indicate that with increased growth in power plant operations, the 

reduced ANC of the sensitive lakes would become significant and would need to 

be addressed carefully for each proposed major development project. 

WDEQ/AQD and WDEQ/LQD mitigation and monitoring requirements for coal 

mine emissions are discussed in Sections 3.4.2.3 and 3.4.3.3. The discussion in 

these sections includes the operational control measures that are currently in 

place and would be required for mining operations on LBAs that are issued in 

the future, as well as measures that may be required to avoid future 

exceedances of the WAAQS and NAAQS and/or future mine-related impacts to 

the public. 

4.2.4 Water Resources 

Surface and groundwater are used extensively throughout the PRB for 

agricultural water supply, municipal water supply, and both domestic and 

industrial water supply. Surface water use is limited to major perennial 

drainages and agricultural areas within the basin are found mainly along these 

drainages. Municipal water supply comes from a combination of surface and 

groundwater. Domestic and industrial water supply primarily is from 

groundwater. 

The PRB Coal Review Task 1B Report (BLM 2006c) describes the existing water 

resource conditions in the PRB Task 1 study area (Figure 4-1). The Task 3B 

Report provides an assessment of the cumulative impact to surface and ground 

water resources associated with future projected levels of coal mining, coal mine 

dewatering, CBNG groundwater withdrawal and surface disposal, and coal mine 

and conventional oil and gas surface disposal of groundwater in the Task 3 

study area (Figure 4-4). The groundwater portion of the impact analysis has not 

yet been completed. The surface water analysis addresses the cumulative 

impacts to surface water quality and channel stability as a result of surface 

discharge of groundwater by CBNG development and coal mine dewatering. The 

surface water quality portion of this analysis has been completed, but the 

channel stability portion is not yet complete. The following discussion includes 

a summary of the results of the Task 1B Report and the Task 3B surface water 

quality impact analysis, including a recent channel stability study. The Task 3B 

groundwater impact analysis will be incorporated into future EIS analyses when 

completed. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-43 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.4.1 Groundwater 

There are five main aquifers in the PRB Coal Review Task 1 study area (Figure 4­

1) that can be used for water supply: 

• Madison Aquifer System; 

• Dakota Aquifer System; 

• Fox Hills/Lance Aquifer System; 

• Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System; and 

• Quaternary Alluvial Aquifer System. 

The Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System includes the coal and overburden 

aquifers that are directly affected by surface coal mining and CBNG 

development. It is also a major source of local water supply for domestic and 

stock water use. Table 4-14 shows the recoverable groundwater in the 

components of the Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System. The volumes of 

recoverable groundwater from the sandstones within the Wasatch/Tongue River 

Aquifer, the Lebo Confining Layer, and the Tullock Aquifer were determined from 

the volume of sandstone in each of these units multiplied by the 13 percent 

specific yield value for sandstone. Similarly, the volume of recoverable 

groundwater from the coals within the Wasatch/Tongue River was calculated 

from the volume of coal multiplied by the 0.4 percent specific yield value for coal. 

Table 4-14. Recoverable Groundwater in the Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer 

System. 

Hydrogeologic 

Unit 

Surface Area (acres)Average Formation Thickness (ft)Percentage of Sand/CoalAverage Sand/CoalThickness (ft)Specific Yield(percent)Recoverable Groundwater (acre-feet)1 

Wasatch-Tongue 

River Aquifer 

Sandstones 

5,615,609 2,035 50.0 1,018 13.0 743,169,695 

Wasatch-Tongue 

River Aquifer Coals 4,988,873 2,035 6.2 126 0.4 2,514,392 

Lebo Confining 

Layer Sandstones 6,992,929 1,009 33.0 250 13.0 227,270,193 

Tullock Aquifer 

Sandstones 7,999,682 1,110 52.0 430 13.0 447,182,224 

1 	 Calculated by multiplying Surface Area × Average Sand/Coal Thickness × Specific Yield. These 

numbers vary slightly from the numbers presented in Table 3-5 of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the PRB Oil and Gas Project (BLM 2003b). 

Source: BLM 2003b 

As a result of statutory requirements and concerns, several studies and a 

number of modeling analyses have been conducted to help predict the impacts 

of surface coal mining on groundwater resources in the Wyoming portion of the 

PRB. Some of these studies and modeling analyses are discussed below. 

4-44 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

In 1987, the USGS, in cooperation with the WDEQ and OSM, conducted a study 

of the hydrology of the eastern PRB. The resulting description of the cumulative 

hydrologic effects of all current and anticipated surface coal mining (as of 1987) 

was published in 1988 in the USGS Water-Resources Investigation Report 

entitled “Cumulative Potential Hydrologic Impacts of Surface Coal Mining in the 

Eastern Powder River Structural Basin, Northeastern Wyoming”, also known as 

the “USGS CHIA” (Martin et al. 1988). This report evaluates the potential 

cumulative groundwater impacts of surface coal mining in the area and is 

incorporated by reference into this EIS. The USGS CHIA analysis considered the 

proposed mining at the Antelope Mine. It did not evaluate potential groundwater 

impacts related to additional coal leasing in this area and it did not consider the 

potential for overlapping groundwater impacts from coal mining and CBNG 

development. 

Each mine must assess the probable hydrologic consequences of mining as part 

of the mine permitting process. The WDEQ/LQD must evaluate the cumulative 

hydrologic impacts associated with each proposed mining operation before 

approving the mining and reclamation plan for each mine, and they must find 

that the cumulative hydrologic impacts of all anticipated mining would not 

cause material damage to the hydrologic balance outside of the permit area for 

each mine. As a result of these requirements, each existing approved mining 

permit includes an analysis of the hydrologic impacts of the surface coal mining 

proposed at that mine. If revisions to mining and reclamation permits are 

proposed, then the potential cumulative impacts of the revisions must also be 

evaluated. If the four South Gillette Area Coal LBA tracts are leased to the 

respective applicants, the existing mining and reclamation permits for each 

current mine must be revised and approved to include the new lease before it 

can be mined. 

The PRB Oil and Gas Project FEIS (BLM 2003b) includes a modeling analysis of 

the groundwater impacts if an additional 39,000 new CBNG wells are drilled in 

the PRB by the end of 2011. The project area for this EIS, which covers all of 

Campbell, Sheridan, and Johnson Counties, as well as the northern portion of 

Converse County, is similar to the study area for the PRB Coal Review Task 1 

and Task 2 study area (Figure 4-1). 

Another source of data on the impacts of surface coal mining on groundwater is 

the monitoring that is required by WDEQ/LQD and administered by the mining 

operators. Each mine is required to monitor groundwater levels and quality in 

the coal and in the shallower aquifers in the area surrounding their operations. 

Monitoring wells are also required to record water levels and water quality in 

reclaimed areas. 

The coal mine groundwater monitoring data are published each year by GAGMO, 

a voluntary group formed in 1980. Members of GAGMO include most of the 

companies with operating or proposed mines in the Wyoming PRB, WDEQ, the 

Wyoming SEO, BLM, USGS, and OSM. GAGMO contracts with an independent 

firm each year to publish the annual monitoring results. GAGMO also 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-45 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

periodically publishes reports summarizing the water monitoring data collected 

since 1980 in the Wyoming PRB (e.g., Hydro-Engineering 1991, 1996, and 

2001a). 

The major groundwater issues related to surface coal mining that have been 

identified are: 

•	 the effect of the removal of the coal aquifer and any overburden 

aquifers within the mine area and replacement of these aquifers with 

backfill material; 

•	 the extent of the temporary lowering of static water levels in the 

aquifers around the mine due to dewatering associated with removal 

of these aquifers within the mine boundaries; 

•	 the effects of the use of water from the subcoal Fort Union Formation 

by the mines; 

•	 changes in water quality as a result of mining; and 

•	 potential overlapping drawdown due to proximity of coal mining and 

CBNG development. 

The impacts of large scale surface coal mining on a cumulative basis for each of 

these issues are discussed in the following paragraphs. 

The effect of replacing the coal and overburden with backfill is the first major 

groundwater concern. The following discussion of recharge, movement, and 

discharge of water in the backfill aquifer is excerpted from the USGS CHIA 

(Martin et al. 1988): 

Postmining recharge, movement, and discharge of groundwater in the 

Wasatch aquifer and Wyodak coal aquifer will probably not be 

substantially different from premining conditions. Recharge rates and 

mechanisms will not change substantially. Hydraulic conductivity of the 

spoil aquifer will be approximately the same as in the Wyodak coal 

aquifer allowing groundwater to move from recharge areas where clinker 

is present east of mine areas through the spoil aquifer to the undisturbed 

Wasatch aquifer and Wyodak coal aquifer to the west. 

Monitoring data verify that recharge has occurred and is continuing in the 

backfill (Hydro-Engineering 1991, 1996, 2001a, and 2005). The water 

monitoring summary reports prepared each year by GAGMO list current water 

levels in the monitoring wells completed in the backfill and compare them with 

the 1980 water levels, as estimated from the 1980 coal water-level contour 

maps. In the 1991 GAGMO 10-year report, some recharge had occurred in 88 

percent of the 51 backfill wells reported at that time (Hydro-Engineering 1991). 

4-46 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

In the GAGMO 20-year report, 79 percent of the 82 backfill wells measured 

contained water (Hydro-Engineering 2001a). 

Coal companies are required by state and federal law to mitigate any water 

rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by mining. 

The cumulative size of the backfill area in the PRB and the duration of mining 

activity would be increased by mining the currently pending LBA tracts, 

including the four South Gillette Area Coal LBA tracts. Because the mined-out 

areas are being backfilled and the monitoring data demonstrate that recharge of 

the backfill is occurring, substantial additional impacts are not anticipated as a 

result of the pending leasing actions. 

Scoria or clinker, the baked and fused rock formed by prehistoric burning of the 

Wyodak-Anderson coal seam, occurs all along the coal outcrop area (Figure 3­

12) and is believed to be the major recharge source for the backfill aquifer, just 

as it is for the coal. However, not all clinker is saturated. Some scoria is mined 

for road-surfacing material, but saturated clinker is not generally mined since 

abundant clinker exists above the water table and does not present the mining 

problems that would result from mining saturated clinker. Therefore, the major 

recharge source for the backfill aquifer is not being disturbed by current mining. 

Scoria occurs only in limited amounts on the LBA tracts as applied for under the 

Proposed Actions or within the additional areas evaluated under the other action 

alternatives. 

The second major groundwater issue is the extent of water level drawdown in the 

coal and shallower aquifers in the area surrounding the mines. In general, the 

saturated sand aquifers in the Wasatch Formation overburden have limited 

extent and, as a result, the drawdowns in the Wasatch Formation are much 

smaller and cover much less area than the coal drawdowns. In this EIS, 

assessment of cumulative impacts to groundwater related to surface coal mining 

is based on impact predictions made by the South Gillette Area mines Those 

drawdowns are extrapolated to evaluate the potential impacts of mining of the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. 

Figure 4-5 depicts the extrapolated extent of the five-ft cumulative drawdown 

contour within the Wyodak coal aquifer resulting from the four mines in the 

South Gillette subregion. The extent of the five-ft drawdown contour is used by 

WDEQ/LQD to assess the cumulative extent of the impact to the groundwater 

system caused by mining operations. 

The GAGMO 20-year report provides actual groundwater drawdown information 

after 20 years of mining (Hydro-Engineering 2001a). Most of the monitoring 

wells included in the GAGMO 20-year report (488 wells out of 570) are 

completed in the coal beds, in the overlying sediments, or in sand channels or 

interburden between the coal beds at 16 active and proposed mine sites. Since 

1996, some BLM monitor wells have been included in the GAGMO reports. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-47 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The USGS CHIA predicted the approximate area of five feet or more water level 

decline in the Wyodak coal aquifer which would result from “all anticipated coal 

mining”. “All anticipated coal mining” included 16 surface coal mines operating 

at the time the report was prepared and six additional mines proposed at that 

time. All of the currently producing mines, including the South Gillette Area 

mines, were considered in the USGS CHIA analysis (Martin et al. 1988). The 

study predicted that water supply wells completed in the coal may be affected as 

far away as eight miles from mine pits, although the effects at that distance were 

predicted to be minimal. 

As drawdown propagates to the west, available drawdown in the coal aquifer 

increases. Available drawdown is defined as the elevation difference between the 

potentiometric surface (elevation to which water will rise in a well bore) and the 

bottom of the aquifer. Proceeding west, the coal depth increases faster than the 

potentiometric surface declines, so available drawdown in the coal increases. 

Since the depth to coal increases, most stock and domestic wells are completed 

in units above the coal. Consequently, with the exception of CBNG wells, few 

wells are completed in the coal in the areas west of the mines. Those wells 

completed in the coal have considerable available drawdown, so it is unlikely 

that surface coal mining would cause adverse impacts to wells outside the 

immediate mine area. 

Wells in the Wasatch Formation were predicted to be impacted by drawdown 

only if they were within 2,000 ft of a mine pit (Martin et al. 1988). Drawdown 

occurs farther from the mine pits in the coal than in the shallower aquifers 

because the coal is a confined aquifer that is areally extensive. The area in 

which the shallower aquifers (Wasatch Formation, alluvium, and clinker) 

experience a five-ft drawdown would be much smaller than the area of 

drawdown in the coal because the shallower aquifers are generally 

discontinuous, of limited areal extent, and often unconfined. 

When the USGS CHIA was prepared, there were about 1,200 water supply wells 

within the maximum impact area defined in that study. Of those wells, about 

580 were completed in Wasatch aquifers, about 100 in the Wyodak coal aquifer, 

and about 280 in strata below the coal. There were no completion data available 

for the remainder of the wells (about 240) at the time the USGS CHIA was 

prepared. 

If the South Gillette Area Coal LBA tracts are leased and mined, the groundwater 

drawdown would be extended into the area surrounding the proposed new 

leases. When a lease is issued to an existing mine for a maintenance tract, the 

mine must revise its existing mining permit to include the new tract in its mine 

and reclamation plans. In order to do that, the lessee would be required to 

conduct a detailed groundwater analysis to predict the extent of drawdown in 

the coal and overburden aquifers caused by mining the new lease. WDEQ/LQD 

would use the revised drawdown predictions to update their cumulative 

hydrologic impact analysis (WDEQ CHIA) for this portion of the PRB. The 

applicant has installed monitoring wells that would be used to confirm or refute 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-49 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

drawdown predicted by analysis. This analysis would be required as part of the 

WDEQ mine permitting procedure discussed in Sections 1.2 and 1.3. 

Potential water-level decline in the subcoal Fort Union Formation is the third 

major groundwater issue. Water level declines in the Tullock Aquifer have been 

documented in the Gillette area. According to Crist (1991), these declines are 

most likely attributable to pumpage for municipal use by Gillette and for use at 

subdivisions and trailer parks in and near the city of Gillette. Most of the waterlevel declines in the subcoal Fort Union wells occur within one mile of the 

pumped wells (Crist 1991, Martin et al. 1988). Many of the mines have water 

supply wells completed in zones below the coal, but the mine facilities in the 

PRB are separated by a distance of one mile or more, so little interference 

between mine supply wells would be expected. 

In response to concerns voiced by regulatory personnel, several mines have 

conducted impact studies of the subcoal Fort Union Formation. The OSM also 

commissioned a cumulative impact study of the subcoal Fort Union Formation 

to address the effects of mine facility wells on this aquifer (OSM 1984). 

Conclusions from these studies are similar and may be summarized as follows: 

•	 Because of the discontinuous nature of the sands in this formation 

and because most large-yield wells are completed in several different 

sands, it is difficult to correlate completion intervals between wells. 

•	 In the Gillette area, water levels in this aquifer have probably 

declined because the city of Gillette and several subdivisions have 

utilized water from the formation (Crist 1991). (Note: Gillette is 

mixing Fort Union Formation water with water from wells completed 

in the Madison Formation. Also, because drawdown has occurred, 

some operators are able to dispose of CBNG water by injecting it into 

the subcoal Fort Union Formation near the city of Gillette.) 

•	 Because large saturated thicknesses are available (locally) in this 

aquifer unit, generally 500 ft or more, a drawdown of 100 to 200 ft in 

the vicinity of a pumped well would not dewater the aquifer. 

Most of the existing coal mines in the PRB have permits from the Wyoming SEO 

for subcoal Fort Union Formation water supply wells. Two industrial water 

supply wells within Belle Ayr Mine’s existing permit area (Belle Ayr No. 2 Plant 

#2 Well) are completed in the Fort Union Formation. The Coal Creek Mine uses 

two wells (State 16-46-70 and CCFU-17-1) completed in this formation to supply 

water for human consumption and mining operations. The Caballo Mine uses 

two wells completed in the sub-coal Fort Union Formation (DW-1 and 

FTUNION#2) to supply water for human consumption and mining operations. 

Cordero Rojo Mine uses four wells (Rojo No. 1, Rojo No. 2A, PW-24-1-P, and PW24-2-P) completed in this formation to supply water for human consumption 

and mining operations. Locations of Fort Union Formation supply wells for the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines are shown on 

4-50 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Supplementary Information document Figures S1-3, S2-2, S3-3, and S4-3, 

respectively. Extending the life of the South Gillette Area mines by issuing new 

leases would result in additional water being withdrawn from the subcoal Fort 

Union Formation, but no new sub-coal water supply wells would be required. 

The additional water withdrawal would not be expected to extend the area of 

water level drawdown over a substantially larger area due to the discontinuous 

nature of the sands in the Tullock Member and the fact that drawdown and yield 

reach equilibrium in a well due to recharge effects. Due to the distances 

separating subcoal Fort Union Formation wells used for mine water supply, 

these wells have not experienced interference and are not likely to in the future. 

Water requirements and sources for proposed power plants are not currently 

known, however, there are no proposed power plants in the immediate vicinity of 

the South Gillette Area mines. The Wyoming SEO is discouraging further 

development of the lower Fort Union Formation aquifers, so the most likely 

groundwater source for future power plants the Lance-Fox Hills Aquifer System. 

This would reduce the chances that the power plants would add to cumulative 

hydrologic impacts of mining and CBNG production. 

The fourth issue of concern with respect to groundwater is the effect of mining 

on water quality. Specifically, what effect does mining have on the water quality 

in the surrounding area, and what are the potential water quality problems in 

the backfill aquifer following mining? 

In a regional study of the cumulative impacts of coal mining, the median 

concentrations of dissolved solids and sulfates were found to be higher in water 

from backfill aquifers than in water from either the Wasatch Formation 

overburden or the Wyodak coal aquifer (Martin et al. 1988). This is expected 

because blasting and movement of the overburden materials exposes more 

surface area to water, increasing dissolution of soluble materials, particularly 

from the overburden materials that were situated above the saturated zone in 

the premining environment. 

One pore volume of water is the volume of water that would be required to 

saturate the backfill following reclamation. The time required for one pore 

volume of water to pass through the backfill aquifer is greater than the time 

required for the postmining groundwater system to reestablish equilibrium. 

According to the USGS CHIA, estimates of the time required to reestablish 

equilibrium range from tens to hundreds of years (Martin et al. 1988). 

The major current use of water from the aquifers being replaced by the backfill 

(the Wasatch Formation overburden and Wyodak coal aquifers) is for livestock 

because these aquifers are typically too high in dissolved solids for domestic use 

and well yields are typically too low for irrigation (Martin et al. 1988). Chemical 

analyses of 336 samples collected between 1981 and 1986 from 45 wells 

completed in backfill aquifers at 10 mines indicated that the quality of water in 

the backfill will, in general, meet the state standard for livestock use of 5,000 

mg/L for TDS when recharge occurs (Martin et al. 1988). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-51 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The 2000 annual GAGMO report (Hydro-Engineering 2001b) evaluated samples 

from 48 backfill wells in 1999 and found that the TDS in 75 percent were less 

than 5,000 mg/L, TDS in 23 percent were between 5,000 and 10,000 mg/L, and 

TDS in one well was above 10,000 mg/L. An analysis of about 2,000 samples 

collected from 95 backfill monitoring wells between 1986 and 2002 found that 

the water quality in 75 percent of the wells were within the acceptable range for 

the Wyoming livestock standard, with 25 percent exceeding that standard (Ogle 

2004). 

WDEQ/LQD calculated a median TDS concentration of 3,293 mg/L for the 

backfill aquifer in the east-central area of the PRB, which includes the mines in 

the general South Gillette analysis area, based on 1,384 samples (Ogle et al. 

2005). These results suggest that the TDS in the backfill aquifer in the middle 

group of mines meets the requirements for livestock use and is similar to TDS 

found in the undisturbed Wasatch Formation overburden but typically larger 

than TDS found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. The 2005 Annual GAGMO report 

(Hydro-Engineering 2006) indicates that TDS concentrations in 2005 ranged 

from 802 mg/L at BTB-24 (Black Thunder Mine) to 12,409 mg/L at SP-4-NA 

(North Antelope Rochelle Mine). The TDS concentrations at the Belle Ayr Mine in 

2005 ranged from 656 mg/L at RW2902 to 5730 mg/L at RW3401. The TDS 

concentrations at the Caballo Mine in 2005 ranged from 683 mg/L at CA-1449­

B to 6691 mg/L at CA-724-b. These values are consistent with the findings of 

the WDEQ CHIA. The incremental effect on groundwater quality due to leasing 

and mining the South Gillette Area Coal LBA tracts would be to increase the 

total volume of backfill and, thus, the time for equilibrium to reestablish. 

The fifth area of concern is the potential for cumulative impacts to groundwater 

resources due to the proximity of coal mining and CBNG development. The 

Wyodak coal is being developed by mining and CBNG production in the same 

general area. Dewatering activities associated with CBNG development have 

overlapped with and expanded the area of groundwater drawdown in the coal 

aquifer in the PRB over what would occur due to coal mining development alone, 

and this would be expected to continue. 

Numerical groundwater flow modeling was used to predict the impacts of the 

cumulative stresses imposed by mining and CBNG development on the Fort 

Union Formation coal aquifer in the PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS (BLM 2003b). 

Modeling was necessary because of the large areal extent, variability, and 

cumulative stresses imposed by mining and CBNG development on the Fort 

Union coal aquifers. Information from earlier studies was incorporated into the 

modeling effort for this analysis. 

As expected, the modeling indicated that the groundwater impacts from CBNG 

development and surface coal mining would be additive in nature and that the 

addition of CBNG development would extend the area experiencing a loss in 

hydraulic head to the west of the mining area. The 20-year GAGMO report 

stated that drawdowns in all areas have greatly increased due to the water 

4-52 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

production from the Wyodak coal aquifer by CBNG producers (HydroEngineering 2001a). 

Drawdowns in the coal caused by CBNG development would be expected to 

reduce the need for dewatering in advance of mining, which would be beneficial 

for mining operations. Wells completed in the coal may also experience 

increased methane emissions in areas of significant aquifer depressurization. 

There is a potential for conflicts to occur over who (coal mining or CBNG 

operators) is responsible for replacing or repairing private wells that are 

adversely affected by the drawdowns; however, the number of potentially 

affected wells completed in the coal is not large. 

As discussed previously, coal companies are required by state and federal law to 

mitigate any water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by 

coal mining. In response to concerns about the potential impacts of CBNG 

development on water rights, a group of CBNG operators and local landowners 

developed a standard water well monitoring and mitigation agreement that can 

be used on a case-by-case basis as development proceeds. All CBNG operators 

on federal oil and gas leases are required to offer this water well agreement to 

the surface landowners (BLM 2003b). 

After CBNG development and coal mining projects are completed, it will take 

longer for groundwater levels to recover due to the overlapping drawdown 

impacts caused by the dewatering and depressuring of the coal aquifer by both 

operations. 

4.2.4.2 Surface Water 

For the PRB Coal Review Task 1B Report, which describes the baseline year 

(2003) water resource conditions including surface water use and surface water 

availability, the Wyoming PRB is divided into two major water planning areas: 

the Powder/Tongue River Basin and the Northeast Wyoming River Basins. 

The main rivers in the Powder/Tongue River Basin are the Tongue River and the 

Powder River. The Powder/Tongue River Basin receives substantial surface 

water runoff from the Big Horn Mountains, leading to major agricultural 

development along drainages in the Tongue River and Powder River basins. 

Reservoirs are used throughout the basin for agricultural water supply and for 

municipal water supply in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. Water use in the 

Powder/Tongue River Basin as of 2002 is summarized in Table 4-15. 

The Little Bighorn River, Tongue River, Powder River, Crazy Woman Creek, and 

Piney Creek carry the largest natural flows in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. 

Many of the other major drainages are affected by irrigation practices to the 

extent that their flows are not natural (HKM Engineering et al. 2002a). Water 

availability in the major sub-basins of the Powder/Tongue River Basin is 

summarized in Table 4-16. This table presents the amount of surface water in 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-53 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-15. Water Use as of 2002 in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. 

Dry Year Normal Year Wet Year 

(acre-feet per year) 

Water Use Surface Ground- Surface Ground- Surface Ground- 


Categories Water water Water water Water water 


Agricultural 178,000 200 184,000 200 194,000 300 

Municipal 2,700 500 2,700 500 2,700 500 

Domestic --- 4,400 --- 4,400 --- 4,400 

Industrial1 --- 68,000 --- 68,000 --- 68,000 

Recreation Non-consumptive 

Environmental Non-consumptive 

Evaporation 11,300 -- 11,300 -- 11,300 -­

Total 192,000 73,100 198,000 73,100 208,000 73,200 

1 Includes conventional oil and gas production water and CBNG production water. Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002a 

Table 4-16. Surface Water Availability in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. 

Surface Water Availability 

(acre-feet per year) 

Sub-basin Wet Years Normal Years Dry Years 

Little Bighorn River 152,000 113,000 81,000 

Tongue River 473,000 326,000 218,000 

Clear Creek 213,000 124,000 80,000 

Crazy Woman Creek 69,000 32,000 16,000 

Powder River 547,000 324,000 16,000 

Little Powder River 48,000 12,000 3,000 

Total 1,502,000 931,000 414,000 

Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002a 

acre-feet that is physically available above and beyond allocated surface water in 

these drainages. As a result of the Yellowstone River Compact, Wyoming must 

share some of the physically available surface water in the Powder/Tongue River 

Basin with Montana. 

The main rivers in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins are the Belle Fourche in 

Campbell and Crook Counties and the Cheyenne River in Converse, Weston, and 

Niobrara Counties. Water in these rivers and their tributaries comes from 

groundwater baseline flow and from precipitation, especially from heavy storms 

during the summer months. Water use in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins 

as of 2002 is summarized in Table 4-17. 

Stream flow in the major drainages of the Northeast Wyoming River Basins is 

much less than in the Powder/Tongue River Basin, due to the absence of a 

major mountain range to provide snow melt runoff. Water availability in the 

major sub-basins of the Northeast Wyoming Rivers Basin is summarized in 

Table 4-18. 

The portions of the PRB Coal Review Task 3B Report that have been completed 

evaluate cumulative impacts to surface water quality as a result of CBNG, 

conventional oil and gas, and surface coal mining development in 2003, and 

projected development in 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 

4-54 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-17. Water Use as of 2002 in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins. 

Dry Year Normal Year Wet Year 

(acre-feet per year) 

Water Use Surface Ground- Surface Ground- Surface Ground-


Categories Water water Water water Water water 


Agricultural 65,000 11,000 69,000 17,000 71,000 17,000 

Municipal --- 9,100 --- 9,100 --- 9,100 

Domestic --- 3,600 --- 3,600 --- 3,600 

Industrial --- 46,000 --- 46,000 --- 46,000 

(Oil and Gas)1 

Industrial (Other) 2 --- 4,700 --- 4,700 --- 4,700 

Recreation Non-consumptive 

Environmental Non-consumptive 

Evaporation 14,000 --- 14,000 --- 14,000 ---

(Key Reservoirs) 


Evaporation 6,300 --- 6,300 --- 6,300 ---


(Stock Ponds)
 

Total 85,300 74,400 89,300 80,400 91,300 80,400 

1 Includes conventional oil and gas production water and CBNG production water. 


2 Includes electricity generation, coal mining, and oil refining.
 

Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002b
 

Table 4-18. Surface Water Availability in the Northeast Wyoming River 

Basins. 

Surface Water Availability 

(acre-feet per year) 

Sub-basin Wet Years Normal Years Dry Years 

Redwater Creek 34,000 26,000 17,000 

Beaver Creek 30,000 20,000 14,000 

Cheyenne River 103,000 31,000 5,000 

Belle Fourche River 151,000 71,000 13,000 

Total 318,000 148,000 49,000 

Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002b 

study area (Figure 4-4). The surface water resources in the PRB Coal Review 

Task 3 study area consist primarily of intermittent and ephemeral streams and 

scattered ponds and reservoirs. A major impact of the projected development 

activities would be direct surface disturbance of these surface water features. 

Table 4-9 summarizes the cumulative baseline (2003) and projected (in 2010, 

2015, and 2020) acres of surface disturbance and reclamation. The projected 

activities would result in surface disturbance in each of the six Task 3 study 

area subwatersheds (Figure 4-4). Discrete locations for development 

disturbance and reclamation areas cannot be determined based on existing 

information. However, the projected disturbance would primarily involve the 

construction of additional linear facilities, product gathering lines, and road 

systems associated with conventional oil and gas and CBNG activities, plus 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-55 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

additional disturbance associated with extending coal mining operations onto 

lands adjacent to the existing mines. 

Surface disturbing activities can result in sediment input to water bodies, which 

affects water quality parameters such as turbidity and bottom substrate 

composition. Contaminants also can be introduced into water bodies through 

chemical characteristics of the sediment. Studies have shown that TDS levels in 

streams near reclaimed coal mine areas have increased from one percent to 

seven percent (Martin et al. 1988). Typically, sedimentation effects are shortterm in duration and localized in terms of the affected area. Suspended 

sediment concentrations would stabilize and return to typical background 

concentrations after construction or development activities have been completed. 

It is anticipated that sediment input associated with development disturbance 

areas would be minimized by implementation of appropriate erosion control 

measures, as would be determined during future permitting. 

Future coal mining could remove intermittent or ephemeral streams and stock 

ponds in the Little Powder River, Upper Belle Fourche River, Upper Cheyenne 

River, and Antelope Creek subwatersheds. As discussed in Section 3.5.2, the 

South Gillette Area mines are in the Upper Belle Fourche River subwatershed. 

Coal mine permits provide for removal of first- through fourth-order drainages. 

During reclamation, third- and fourth-order drainages must be restored; firstand second-order drainages often are not replaced (Martin et al. 1988). 

Coal mining-related surface water would be discharged into intermittent and 

ephemeral streams in four subwatersheds (Antelope Creek, Little Powder River, 

Upper Belle Fourche River, and Upper Cheyenne River). Based on current 

trends, it is assumed that most, if not all, of the coal mine-produced water 

would be consumed during operation. As discussed in Section 3.5.2.2, changes 

in surface runoff would occur as a result of the destruction and reconstruction 

of drainage channels as mining progresses. Sediment control structures would 

be used to manage discharges of surface water from the mine permit areas. 

State and federal regulations require treatment of surface runoff from mined 

lands to meet effluent standards. 

The PRB Coal Review assumes that future permitting would allow a portion of 

CBNG-produced water to be discharged to intermittent and ephemeral drainages 

as is currently allowed in the six subwatersheds in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 

study area (Figure 4-4). It is estimated that up to 39,108, 41,899, and 37,390 

mmgpy of water would be produced in 2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively. 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3B surface water quality impact analysis utilizes the 

surface water model described in the Surface Water Quality Analysis Technical 

Report (Greystone 2003), which was prepared in support of the PRB Oil and Gas 

Project EIS (BLM 2003b), to evaluate the cumulative impacts to surface water 

resources from surface discharge of CBNG development. Based on past 

monitoring in receiving streams, most CBNG discharge water either infiltrates or 

evaporates within a few miles of the discharge points and generally is not 

4-56 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

recorded at USGS Stream gauging stations. Impacts to surface water flow and 

quality are therefore generally limited to within a few miles of the discharge 

point. In view of this, the PRB Coal Review Task 3B water quality impact 

analysis assumes a conveyance loss of 70 percent for the water quality 

assessment and modeling analysis. 

Key water quality parameters for predicting the potential effects of CBNG 

development in the surface water quality impact analysis focused on the 

suitability of surface water for irrigated agriculture. Sodium adsorption ratio, or 

SAR, and salinity, measured by electrical conductivity or EC, were utilized for 

this prediction. Most restrictive (MRPL) and least restrictive (LRPL) regulatory 

standards for EC and SAR applicable to the subwatersheds were developed and 

used in the analysis. The limits presented in Table 4-19 were used during the 

comparison of EC and SAR valued for resulting mixtures of existing streamflows 

and discharges from CBNG wells under various flow conditions and the CBNG 

water discharge projections for 2010, 2015, and 2020. 

Table 4-19. Summary of Proposed Limits for SAR and EC. 

Subwatershed 

Most Restrictive Proposed Limit 

(MRPL) 

Least Restrictive Proposed Limit 

(LRPL) 

SAR EC (μS/cm) SAR EC (μS/cm) 

Little Powder 5 2,000 9.75 2,500 

Powder 2 2,000 9.75 2,500 

Belle Fourche 6 2,000 10 2,500 

Cheyenne, 

Antelope Creek 10 2,000 10 2,500 

Source: Wyoming DEQ, Montana DEQ, and South Dakota Legislative Council 

The impacts to water quality on the receiving drainages assumed two hydrologic 

conditions: dry year conditions and normal year conditions. The impact 

analysis, conducted using monthly flows, comparatively evaluated the water 

quality parameters (SAR and EC) of the receiving drainage before and after 

mixing with discharge water generated by the CBNG wells within that drainage. 

In general, the water discharged from the CBNG wells reflected increased levels 

of SAR and reduced levels of EC compared to the water quality of the receiving 

drainages. Impacts to water quality are likely to be maximized during the low 

flow months; consequently, the comparative evaluation of water quality also 

focused on the minimum monthly flow associated with the dry year and normal 

year conditions. 

The water quality impact analysis made several observations regarding the 

overall effects of mixing CBNG well production water with surface water in the 

PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. These general observations are 

summarized below. 

Before mixing, the surface water in the Upper Powder River exceeds the MRPL 

for both EC and SAR throughout the majority of the year. Levels of SAR are less 

than the LRPL while EC values generally exceed the LRPL from July through 

December. After mixing, a minimal reduction in EC and a minor increase in 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-57 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

SAR are projected, which reflects the relatively small contribution of CBNG well 

production water to the much larger flows in the Upper Powder River. Projected 

SAR values exceed the MRPL through out the year while meeting the LRPL. 

Projected EC values exceed the MRPL throughout the majority of the year and 

the LRPL from July though December. 

For Antelope Creek and the Dry Fork Cheyenne River under the before mixing 

scenario, the SAR values are relatively low and do not exceed the MRPL. The EC 

values exceed the MRPL during the low-flow months, but are typically less than 

the LRPL all year. After mixing, SAR levels increase but are projected to 

continue to meet the MRPL and a reduction in EC is projected that meets the 

MRPL throughout the year. This is a reflection of the lack of surface water in 

these streams combined with the relatively low values for EC and SAR in the 

CBNG well production water. 

Before mixing, the surface water in the Little Powder River exceeds the MRPL for 

EC and SAR throughout the majority of the year. SAR levels remain below the 

LRPL throughout the year, but EC levels exceed the LRPL during the low flow 

months. After mixing, the projected SAR values exceed the MRPL throughout 

the year and exceed the LRPL from one month (in 2003) to five months (in 2010 

and 2015) of the year. The projected EC exceeds the MRPL for four months of 

the year but meets the LRPL throughout the year. 

For the Upper Cheyenne River before mixing, the SAR levels do not exceed the 

MRPL and the EC levels exceed the MRPL for eleven months of the year and the 

LRPL for nine months of the year. After mixing, the projected SAR levels 

continue to meet the MRPL throughout the year and the projected EC levels 

exceed the MRPL for 10 or more months of the year and the LRPL for six or more 

months of the year. 

Before mixing, the surface water in the Upper Belle Fourche River exceeds the 

MRPL for SAR from November though January while meeting the LRPL 

throughout the year. The EC levels exceed the MRPL from September through 

January and exceed the LRPL from November through January. After mixing, 

the projected SAR values exceed the MRPL six or more months of the year while 

continuing to meet the LRPL throughout the year. The projected EC values meet 

the MRPL throughout the year. 

The suitability of the mixed water for irrigation purposed is related to EC and 

SAR. In general, the water most suitable for irrigation has a relatively low SAR 

and a relatively high EC. Elevated SAR values may reduce permeability in clayey 

soils, which reduces the rate of water infiltration. As discussed above, the water 

discharged from the CBNG wells is generally characterized by higher levels of 

SAR and reduced levels of EC compared to the water quality of the receiving 

drainages. In those cases where mixing results in a significant increase in SAR 

and the EC is moderately low, the water was considered unsuitable. For 

Antelope Creek, the Dry Fork Cheyenne River, the Little Powder River and the 

Upper Belle Fourche River, the projected water quality after mixing 

4-58 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

demonstrated adequate suitability for irrigation during normal year conditions 

and unsuitability for irrigation during some to all of the irrigation season during 

dry year conditions. In general, for periods where CBNG well production water 

represents the majority of the flow available for irrigation purposes, there is a 

reduction in the suitability of the water for irrigation purposes. 

4.2.5 Channel Stability 

A qualitative assessment of the impacts to receiving drainages resulting from the 

introduction of CBNG well production water was made. The channel of the Belle 

Fourche River below Moorcroft would change by less than 0.2%, while the 

channel of the Little Powder River near Weston would change by less than 0.3% 

(Table 4-20). Given the low increase in mean annual discharge from introduced 

CBNG water, changes in channel geomorphology (width, depth, gradient, bed 

material transport and meander wavelength) are considered imperceptible. 

Table 4-20. Impact of CBNG Production Water on Perennial Streams. 

Location 

Channel 

Forming 

Discharge (1) 

(cfs) 

CBNG 

Discharge Estimated Width 

Potential 

Impact 

[Increased 

Width] 

(cfs) (%) 

Existing 

Conditions 

(ft) 

Combined 

Discharge 

(ft) (ft) (%) 

Little Powder River 

above Dry Creek near 

Weston, Wyoming 

(USGS Gage 06324970) 

270 to 420 2.2 0.5% to 

0.8% 47.3 to 56.3 47.4 to 56.4 

0.15 to 

0.12 0.3% 

Belle Fourche River 

below Moorcroft, 

Wyoming 

(USGS Gage 06426500) 

652 to 789 3.9 0.5% to 

0.6% 66.9 to 72.1 67.0 to 72.2 

0.16 to 

0.14 0.2% 

(1) Discharge associated with the 1.5 to 2 year recurrence interval. 

Discharge of CBNG well production water into ephemeral drainages may start or 

exacerbate erosion in the channel. Given the potentially greater increase in 

ephemeral drainages due to a lower natural flow, channel geomorphology is 

more likely to be perceptible. Monitoring and mitigation for erosion are included 

in water management planning for oil and gas drilling approvals. According to 

the BLM Task 3B Report, a special study was done of the Caballo Creek 

drainage in the Belle Ayr mine permit area, to see how reclaimed drainages were 

impacted by increased CBNG discharges. It was determined that CBNG 

discharge represented less than 1% of the 2-year peak discharge. No active 

erosion was noted in the natural or diverted portions of the Caballo Creek 

channel, while an increase in vegetative diversity and density was noted. The 

minor amount of flow increase would not likely result in increased erosion in 

streams similar to Caballo Creek. While it is more likely that creeks with smaller 

drainage areas, like Duck Nest or Bone Pile Creeks may experience more erosion 

due to relatively larger flow increases due to CBNG discharge, such effects were 

not observed in the field (BLM 2008). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-59 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.6 Alluvial Valley Floors 

The identified AVFs for all coal mines in the PRB Coal Review study area are 

described in the PRB Coal Review Task 1D Report (BLM 2005c), based on 

individual mine State Decision Documents. Regulatory determinations of AVF 

occurrence and location are completed as part of the permitting process for coal 

mining operations, because their presence can restrict mining activities under 

SMCRA and Wyoming laws. The WDEQ/LQD administers the AVF regulations 

for coal mining activities in Wyoming. Coal mine-related impacts to designated 

AVFs generally are not permitted if the AVF is determined to be significant to 

agriculture. If an AVF is determined not to be significant to agriculture or if the 

permit to affect the AVF was approved prior to the effective date of SMCRA, the 

AVF can be disturbed during mining but must be restored to essential 

hydrologic function during reclamation. 

The formal AVF designation and related regulatory programs described above 

are specific to coal mining operations; however, other development-related 

activities in the study area would potentially impact AVF resources. The 

portions of the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area that lie outside of the mine 

permit areas have generally not been surveyed for the presence of AVFs; 

therefore, the locations and extent of the AVFs outside of the mine permit areas 

have not been determined. 

4.2.7 Soils 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to soils as a result of projected development activities in the 

PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The area of surface coal mining 

disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year (2003) and the projected 

cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are 

shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The area of disturbance and reclamation for all 

development for the baseline year and the projected cumulative total areas of 

disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-9. 

Development activities such as increased vehicle traffic, vegetation removal, soil 

salvage and redistribution, discharge of CBNG produced groundwater, and 

construction and maintenance of project-specific components (e.g., roads, 

ROWs, well pads, industrial sites, and associated ancillary facilities) would 

result in cumulative impacts to soils in the study area. In general, soil 

disturbance and handling from these activities would generate both long-term 

and short-term impacts to soil resources through accelerated wind or water 

erosion, declining soil quality factors, compaction, and the essentially 

permanent removal of soil resources at industrial sites. 

Of the types of development projects in the study area, coal mining activities 

would create the most concentrated cumulative impacts to soils. This is due to 

the large acreages involved and the tendency of mining operations to occur in 

contiguous blocks. These factors would encourage widespread accelerated wind 

4-60 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

and water erosion. Extensive soil handling would cause compaction and a 

corresponding loss of permeability to water and air; a decline in microbial 

populations, fertility, and organic matter; and potential mixing of saline and/or 

alkaline soil zones into seedbeds, which would reduce soil quality. There would 

be a limited availability of suitable soil resources for reclamation uses in some 

areas. 

However, for surface coal mining operations, there are measures that are either 

routinely required or can be specifically required as necessary to reduce impacts 

to soil resources and to identify overburden material that may be unsuitable for 

use in reestablishing vegetation, as discussed in Sections 3.3.1.3, 3.4.2.3, and 

3.8.3. 

As described in Appendix E of the PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d), 

a variety of CBNG water disposal methods may be employed in the Task 3 study 

area. The potential impacts to soils would depend on the water treatment 

method, if any, and the nature of the disposal method. As discussed in the PRB 

Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f), due to elevated SAR levels in water 

produced from the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone in the Upper Powder River and 

Little Powder River subwatersheds, land applications of CBNG-produced water 

in those areas could increase soil alkalinity. As discussed above in Section 

4.2.4.2, the SAR values are generally low for the Upper Belle Fourche 

subwatershed and tend to exceed the MRPL after mixing with discharged CBNG 

water during six months of the year while meeting the LRPL throughout the 

year. Land application of CBNG-produced water is not anticipated in this area. 

The specific approaches to CBNG water discharges, the resource conditions and 

locations in which they occur, the timing of discharges, and the discharge permit 

stipulations from regulatory and land management agencies would determine 

the extent and degree of potential impacts to soils. 

4.2.8 Vegetation, Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to vegetation, wetlands, and riparian areas as a result of 

projected development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The 

area of surface coal mining disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year 

(2003) and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 

2010, 2015, and 2020 related to surface coal mining are shown in Tables 4-2 

and 4-3. For all projected development, the baseline year area of disturbance 

and reclamation and the projected cumulative total areas of disturbance and 

reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Table 4-9. 

4.2.8.1 Vegetation 

The PRB is characterized as a mosaic of general vegetation types, which include 

prairie grasslands, shrublands, forested areas, and riparian areas. These broad 

categories often represent several vegetation types that are similar in terms of 

dominant species and ecological importance. Fourteen vegetation types were 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-61 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

identified within the PRB Coal Review Task 1 study area, of which 10 primarily 

consist of native vegetation and are collectively classified as rangeland. These 

vegetation types include short-grass prairie, mixed-grass prairie, sagebrush 

shrubland, other shrubland, coniferous forest, aspen, forested riparian, shrubby 

riparian, herbaceous riparian, and wet meadow. The remaining vegetation types 

support limited or non-native vegetation and include cropland, urban/disturbed, 

barren, and open water. The vegetation types are described in more detail in the 

Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005c). 

Impacts to vegetation can be classified as short-term and long-term. Potential 

short-term impacts arise from the removal and disturbance of herbaceous 

species during a project’s development and operation (e.g., coal mining, CBNG 

drilling and production, etc.), which would cease upon project completion and 

successful reclamation in a given area. Reclaimed mine land is defined by 

WDEQ/LQD as affected land that has been backfilled, graded, topsoiled, and 

permanently seeded in accordance with the approved practices specified in the 

reclamation plan (Christensen 2002). Species composition on the reclaimed 

lands may be different than on the surrounding undisturbed lands. The 

removal of woody species would be considered a long-term impact since these 

species take approximately 25 years or longer to attain a size comparable to 

woody species present within proposed disturbance areas. Potential long-term 

impacts would also include permanent loss of vegetation and vegetative 

productivity in areas that would not be reclaimed in the near term (e.g., power 

plant sites, etc.). 

4.2.8.2 Special Status Plant Species 

Special status plant species are those species for which state or federal agencies 

afford an additional level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in 

this category are federally listed and federally proposed species (species that are 

protected under the ESA), BLM Sensitive Species, USDA-FS Sensitive Species, 

and WGFD Species of Special Concern in Wyoming. Further discussions of 

species that are protected under the ESA, BLM Sensitive Species, and USDA-FS 

Sensitive Species are included in Appendices H and I of this EIS. One federally 

listed species (Ute ladies’-tresses orchid) and three USDA-FS sensitive species 

(Barr’s milkvetch, Rosy palafox, and Lemonscent) are known to occur in the PRB 

Coal Review Task 3 study area. Three BLM sensitive species [Nelson’s milkvetch 

and Laramie columbine (Casper Field Office) and William’s wafer-parsnip 

(Buffalo Field Office) may occur in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. 

Potential direct impacts to special status plant species in the study area could 

include the incremental loss or alteration of potential or known habitat, 

associated with past and projected activities. Direct impacts also could include 

the direct loss of individual plants within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study 

area, depending on their location in relation to development activities. Indirect 

impacts could occur due to increased dispersal and establishment of noxious 

weeds, which may result in the displacement of special status plant species in 

the long term. 

4-62 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.8.3 Noxious and Invasive Weed Species 

Once established, invasive and non-native plant species can out-compete and 

eventually replace native species, thereby reducing forage productivity and the 

overall vigor and diversity of existing native plant communities. The State of 

Wyoming has currently designated the following 25 plant species as noxious 

weeds: 

• Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) 

• Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 

• Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) 

• Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) 

• Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) 

• Hoary cress (Cardaria draba) 

• Perennial pepperweed (giant whitetop) (Lepidium latifolium) 

• Ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) 

• Skeletonleaf bursage (Franseria discolor Nutt.) 

• Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens L.) 

• Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) 

• Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) 

• Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) 

• Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) 

• Common burdock (Arctium minus) 

• Plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides) 

• Dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria) 

• Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) 

• Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.) 

• Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa Lam.) 

• Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) 

• Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) 

• Common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) 

• Common Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) 

• Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.) 

Campbell County does not have a declared list of weeds 

Development-related construction and operation activities would potentially 

result in the dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species within and beyond 

the surface disturbance boundaries, which would result in the displacement of 

native species and changes in species composition in the long term. The 

potential for these impacts would be higher in relation to the development of 

linear facilities (e.g., pipeline ROWs, oil- and gas-related road systems, etc.) than 

for site facilities (e.g., mines, power plants, etc.) due to the potential for dispersal 

of noxious weeds over a larger area. 

Chapter 4, Section 2(d)(xiv) of the WDEQ/LQD rules and regulations requires 

that surface coal mines address weed control on reclaimed areas as follows: 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-63 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The operator must control and minimize the introduction of noxious 

weeds in accordance with Federal and State requirements until bond 

release. 

Accordingly, the reclamation plans for all surface coal mines in the Wyoming 

PRB include steps to control invasion by weedy (invasive nonnative) plant 

species. As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.9.4, the South Gillette Area mines 

work with the Campbell County Weed and Pest Department and conduct an 

active noxious weed control program on their existing coal leases. Similar 

measures to identify and control noxious weeds are used at all of the surface 

coal mines in the Wyoming PRB as a result of the WDEQ/LQD regulatory 

requirements. 

Mitigation to control invasion by noxious weeds for CBNG developers is 

determined on a site-specific basis and may include spraying herbicides before 

entering areas and washing vehicles before leaving infested areas. BLM reviews 

weed educational material during preconstruction on-site meetings with CBNG 

operators, subcontractors, and landowners. BLM also attaches this educational 

information to approved APDs or PODs (BLM 2003b). BLM also participates in a 

collaborative effort with the South Goshen Cooperative Extension Conservation 

District, the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, private surface 

owners, WGFD, and the Weed and Pest District in a prevention program that 

includes a long-term integrated weed management plan, public awareness and 

prevention programs, and a common inventory (BLM 2003b). 

4.2.8.4 Wetland and Riparian Species 

Operations associated with development activities in the study area would result 

in the use of groundwater. Annually, during 2010-2020, from 30,000-35,000 

mmgpy of CBNG-produced water would be discharged to impoundments or 

intermittent and ephemeral streams or reinjected. The discharge of produced 

water could result in the creation of wetlands in containment ponds, landscape 

depressions, and riparian areas along segments of drainages that previously 

supported upland vegetation. In addition, existing wetlands and riparian areas 

that would receive additional water would become more extensive and potentially 

support a greater diversity of wetland species in the long term. Alternately, the 

discharge of abnormally high flows or water with SARs of 13 or more could 

impact existing vegetation as discussed in the Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal 

Review (BLM 2005c). For agricultural uses, the current Wyoming water quality 

standard for SAR is 8.0 (WDEQ/WQD 2005). SARs of 5 to 10 have been 

observed in discharge waters in the study area (BLM 2003b). Once water 

discharges have peaked and subsequently decrease in the long term, the extent 

of wetlands and riparian areas and species diversity would decrease accordingly. 

After the complete cessation of water discharges, artificially-created wetland and 

riparian areas once again would support upland species and previously existing 

wetland and riparian areas would decrease in areal extent. 

4-64 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.9 Wildlife and Fisheries 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to wildlife as a result of projected development activities in 

the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The area of habitat disturbance and 

reclamation related to surface coal mining for the baseline year (2003) and the 

projected cumulative areas of habitat disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 

2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The baseline year area of total 

habitat disturbance and reclamation and the projected cumulative total areas of 

habitat disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in 

Table 4-9. 

Impacts to wildlife can be classified as short-term and long-term. Potential 

short-term impacts arise from habitat disturbance associated with a project’s 

development and operation (e.g., coal mines, CBNG wells, etc.) and would cease 

upon project completion and successful reclamation in a given area. Potential 

long-term impacts consist of long-term or permanent changes to habitats and 

the wildlife populations that depend on those habitats, irrespective of 

reclamation success, and habitat disturbance related to longer term projects 

(e.g., power plant facilities, rail lines, etc.). Direct impacts to wildlife populations 

as a result of development activities in the study area could include direct 

mortalities, habitat loss or alteration, habitat fragmentation, or animal 

displacement. Indirect impacts could include increased noise, additional human 

presence, and the potential for increased vehicle-related mortalities. 

Habitat fragmentation from activities such as roads, well pads, mines, pipelines, 

and electrical power lines also can result in the direct loss of potential wildlife 

habitat. Other habitat fragmentation effects such as increased noise, elevated 

human presence, dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species, and dust 

deposition from unpaved road traffic can extend beyond the surface disturbance 

boundaries. These effects result in overall changes in habitat quality, habitat 

loss, increased animal displacement, reductions in local wildlife populations, 

and changes in species composition. However, the severity of these effects on 

terrestrial wildlife would depend on factors such as sensitivity of the species, 

seasonal use, type and timing of project activities, and physical parameters (e.g., 

topography, cover, forage, and climate). 

4.2.9.1 Game Species 

Big game species that are present within the Task 3 study area include 

pronghorn, white-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk. Potential direct impacts to 

these species would include the incremental loss or alteration of potential forage 

and ground cover associated with construction and operation of the past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future development discussed in Section 4.1. 

Development associated with coal mining, drilling for CBNG, ancillary facilities, 

agricultural operations, urban areas, and transportation and utility corridors 

result in vegetation removal. Assuming that adjacent habitats would be at or 

near carrying capacity and considering the variabilities associated with drought 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-65 
 

1 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

conditions and human activities in the study area, the PRB Coal Review Task 3D 

study concluded that displacement of wildlife species (e.g., big game) as a result 

of development activities would create some unquantifiable reduction in wildlife 

populations. 

There are a number of big game habitat ranges within the PRB Coal Review Task 

3 study area. In Wyoming, the WGFD and the BLM have established habitat 

classifications based on seasonal use. Classification types include crucial 

winter, severe winter, winter yearlong, and yearlong. Crucial winter range areas 

are considered essential in determining a game population’s ability to maintain 

itself at a certain level over the long term. As discussed in the PRB Coal Review 

Task 2 Report, discrete locations for most of the disturbance related to the 

projected development could not be determined based on the available 

information. However, identified future coal reserves were used for the Task 3D 

Report to provide some level of quantification of potential future impacts to big 

game ranges. Tables 4-21 through 4-24 summarize the effects on pronghorn, 

deer, and elk game ranges as a result of the predicted lower and upper levels of 

coal production through 2020. 

Table 4-21. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Pronghorn Ranges from 

Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

 Pronghorn Ranges1 

Time 

Period/Scenario Crucial Winter Severe Winter Winter Yearlong Yearlong 

2010/Lower N/A 1,472 / 3% 33,196 / 2% 32,099 / 1% 

2010/Upper N/A 1,472 / 3% 34,760 / 2% 33,172 / 1% 

2015/Lower N/A 1,460 / 3% 32,649 / 2% 34,828 / 1% 

2015 Upper N/A 1,460 / 3% 34,177 / 2% 36,999 / 1% 

2020/Lower N/A 1,422 / 3% 33,637 / 2% 35,714 / 1% 

2020/Upper N/A 1,422 / 3% 33,580 / 2% 37,437 / 2% 

Potential coal mine related impacts to big game ranges were determined based on GIS information as 

follows: the total acres of a big game range (e.g., crucial winter, severe winter, winter yearlong, and 

yearlong) within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area was divided by the sum of the potential 

disturbance acreage for the time period (based on GIS mapping of coal reserves for the lower coal 

production scenario) and existing (2003) disturbance from coal mine development. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

Direct and indirect effects to small game species (i.e., upland game birds, 

waterfowl, small game mammals) within the Task 3 study area as a result of 

development activities would be the same as discussed above for big game 

species. Impacts would result from the incremental surface disturbance of 

potential wildlife habitat, increased noise levels and human presence, dispersal 

of noxious and invasive weed species, and dust effects from unpaved road traffic. 

Operations associated with development activities in the Task 3 study area 

would result in the use of groundwater. The PRB Coal Review assumes that 

most, if not all, of the coal mine-produced water would be consumed during 

operation and anticipates that up to approximately 39,108, 41,484, and 37,350 

mmgpy of water would be produced in association with oil and gas production in 

2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively. The portion of the water that is produced in 

4-66 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-22. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to White-tailed Deer Ranges 

from Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

White-tailed Deer Ranges1 

Time 

Period/Scenario Crucial Winter Severe Winter Winter Yearlong Yearlong 

2010/Lower N/A N/A N/A 1,411 / 0.6% 

2010/Upper N/A N/A N/A 1,411 / 0.6% 

2015/Lower N/A N/A N/A 1,497 / 0.7% 

2015 Upper N/A N/A N/A 1,495 / 0.7% 

2020/Lower N/A N/A N/A 1,704 / 0.7% 

2020/Upper N/A N/A N/A 1,707 / 0.8% 

1	 Potential coal mine-related impacts to big game ranges were determined based on GIS information as 

follows: the total acres of a big game range (e.g., crucial winter, severe winter, winter yearlong, and 

yearlong) within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area was divided by the sum of the potential 

disturbance acreage for the time period (based on GIS mapping of coal reserves for the lower coal 

production scenario) and existing (2003) disturbance from coal mine development. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

Table 4-23. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Mule Deer Ranges from 

Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

Mule Deer Ranges1 

Time 

Period/Scenario Crucial Winter Severe Winter Winter Yearlong Yearlong 

2010/Lower N/A N/A 6,808 / 0.4% 25,390 / 1% 

2010/Upper N/A N/A 6,924 / 0.4% 26,641 / 1% 

2015/Lower N/A N/A 6,956 / 0.4% 26,420 / 1% 

2015 Upper N/A N/A 7,285 / 0.5% 27,205 / 1% 

2020/Lower N/A N/A 6,958 / 0.4% 27,004 / 1% 

2020/Upper N/A N/A 7,413 / 0.5% 27,990 / 1% 

1	 Potential coal mine-related impacts to big game ranges were determined based on GIS information as 

follows: the total acres of a big game range (e.g., crucial winter, severe winter, winter yearlong, and 

yearlong) within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area was divided by the sum of the potential 

disturbance acreage for the time period (based on GIS mapping of coal reserves for the lower coal 

production scenario) and existing (2003) disturbance from coal mine development. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

Table 4-24. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Elk Ranges from 

Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios (acres/percent affected). 

 Elk Ranges1 

Time 

Period/Scenario Crucial Winter Severe Winter Winter Yearlong Yearlong 

2010/Lower 24 / 0.4% N/A 375 / 1% 1,444 / 0.9% 

2010/Upper 24 / 0.4% N/A 375 / 1% 1,444 / 0.9% 

2015/Lower 24 / 0.4% N/A 351 / 1% 1,161 / 0.7% 

2015 Upper 24 / 0.4% N/A 351 / 1% 1,162 / 0.7% 

2020/Lower 24 / 0.4% N/A 351 / 1% 1,121 / 0.7% 

2020/Upper 24 / 0.4% N/A 351 / 1% 1,168 / 0.7% 

1	 Potential coal mine-related impacts to big game ranges were determined based on GIS information as 

follows: the total acres of a big game range (e.g., crucial winter, severe winter, winter yearlong, and 

yearlong) within the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area was divided by the sum of the potential 

disturbance acreage for the time period (based on GIS mapping of coal reserves for the lower coal 

production scenario) and existing (2003) disturbance from coal mine development. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-67 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

association with the CBNG and discharged to impoundments or intermittent and 

ephemeral streams would be available for area wildlife (e.g., waterfowl). 

Although much of the water would evaporate or infiltrate into the ground, it is 

anticipated that substantial quantities of water would remain on the surface and 

would result in the expansion of wetlands, stock ponds, and reservoirs, 

potentially increasing waterfowl breeding and foraging habitats. The median 

sodium concentration of CBNG-produced water from the Fort Union Formation 

is 270 mg/L. If sodium concentrations are maintained below 17,000 mg/L in 

the evaporation ponds, the potential adverse effects to waterfowl would be 

minimal. 

4.2.9.2 Non-game Species 

Potential direct impacts to non-game species (e.g., small mammals, raptors, 

passerines, amphibians, and reptiles) would include the incremental loss or 

alteration of existing or potential foraging and breeding habitats from 

construction and operation of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

development activities (e.g., vegetation removal for coal mines and CBNG wells, 

ancillary facilities, and transportation and utility corridors). Impacts also could 

result in mortalities of less mobile species (e.g., small mammals, reptiles, 

amphibians, and invertebrates), nest or burrow abandonment, and loss of eggs 

or young in the path of vehicles and heavy equipment. Indirect impacts would 

include increased noise levels and human presence, dispersal and invasion of 

noxious weeds, and dust effects from unpaved road traffic. Assuming that 

adjacent habitats would be at or near carrying capacity, and considering 

variable factors such as drought conditions and human activities in the study 

area, the PRB Coal Review concluded that displacement of wildlife species from 

the Task 3 study area would result in an unquantifiable reduction in wildlife 

populations. 

Numerous migratory bird species have been documented within the PRB over 

the last two to three decades of wildlife monitoring. Development activities that 

occur during the migratory bird breeding season (April 1 through July 31) could 

cause the abandonment of a nest site or territory or the loss of eggs or young, 

resulting in the loss of productivity for the breeding season. Loss of an active 

nest site, incubating adults, eggs, or young would not comply with the intent of 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and could potentially affect populations of 

important migratory bird species that may occur in the PRB. 

Breeding raptor species that occur within the Task 3 study area include the bald 

eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk, 

Swainson’s hawk, American kestrel, prairie falcon, northern harrier, great 

horned owl, short-eared owl, burrowing owl, and long-eared owl (Asio otus). 

Bald eagles and long-eared owls are rare nesters in the area. 

One potential direct impact to raptors is habitat (nesting and foraging) loss due 

to additional surface disturbance within the Task 3 study area. In the event that 

development activities were to occur during the breeding season (February 1 

4-68 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

through July 31), these activities could result in nest or territory abandonment, 

or loss of eggs or young. Such losses would reduce productivity for the affected 

species during that breeding season. As discussed above, loss of an active nest 

site, incubating adults, eggs, or young would not comply with the intent of 

several laws, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act. 

Additional direct impacts could result from construction of new overhead power 

lines in the region. New power line segments in the study area would 

incrementally increase the collision and/or electrocution potential for migrating 

and foraging bird species (e.g., raptors and waterfowl) (APLIC 1994). However, 

the potential for avian collisions with overhead power lines is typically dependent 

on variables such as the location of the structures relative to high-use areas 

(e.g., nesting, foraging, staging, and roosting habitats), the orientation of the 

power line to flight patterns and movement corridors, species composition, line 

visibility, and structure design. 

In addition, new power lines could pose an electrocution hazard for raptor 

species attempting to perch on the structure. Configurations greater than 69 kV 

typically do not present an electrocution potential, based on conductor 

placement and orientation (APLIC 2006). It is assumed that future permitting 

for power lines would require the use of appropriate raptor-deterring designs, 

thereby minimizing potential impacts. For example, SMCRA requires that 

surface coal mine operators use the best technology available to ensure that 

electric power lines are designed and constructed to minimize electrocution 

hazards to raptors. Power line impacts to raptors can be reduced with the 

increased use of underground power lines wherever possible. Many of the power 

lines for CBNG development currently are being constructed underground. 

4.2.9.3 Fisheries 

Potential cumulative effects on fisheries as a result of development activities in 

the Task 3 study area would be closely related to impacts on ground and surface 

water resources. In general, development activities could affect fish species in 

the following ways: 1) alteration or loss of habitat as a result of surface 

disturbance; 2) changes in water quality as a result of surface disturbance or 

introduction of contaminants into drainages; and 3) changes in available habitat 

as a result of water withdrawals or discharge. The potential effects of 

development activities on aquatic communities are discussed below for each of 

these impact topics. 

The predominant aquatic habitat type in the Task 3 study area consists of 

intermittent and ephemeral streams and scattered ponds and reservoirs. In 

general, perennial streams within the study area are limited to the Little Powder 

River and Belle Fourche River. Warm water game fish and non-game species are 

present in some perennial stream segments and numerous scattered reservoirs 

and ponds. However, the latter features are typically stocked artificially either 

following construction or annually, depending on the depth of the water body. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-69 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Due to the lack of constant water in most of the potentially affected streams and 

static water bodies, existing aquatic communities are mainly limited to 

invertebrates and algae that can persist in these types of habitats. The removal 

of stock ponds would eliminate habitat for invertebrates and possibly fish 

species. This loss would be temporary if the stock ponds are replaced during 

reclamation. 

Development activities could result in the loss of aquatic habitat as a result of 

direct surface disturbance. Table 4-9 summarizes the cumulative acres of 

surface disturbance and reclamation as of 2003 and projects cumulative acres of 

surface disturbance and reclamation in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Discrete 

locations for development disturbance and reclamation areas cannot be 

determined based on existing information. However, projected development that 

could result in the loss of aquatic habitat would involve the construction of 

additional linear facilities, product gathering lines and road systems associated 

with conventional oil and gas and CBNG activities, as well as any additional 

disturbance that would be associated with extending coal mine operations onto 

lands adjacent to the existing mines. The removal of aquatic habitat eliminates 

existing and potential habitat for invertebrates and some fish species. This loss 

would be temporary if such ponds are reconstructed and recharged as part of 

the reclamation process. 

Projected activities would result in surface disturbance in each of the six Task 3 

study area sub-watersheds. Information relative to the stream crossing 

locations for the majority of the linear facilities is not available at this time. The 

initial phases of the proposed Bison Pipeline project commenced in April 2008 

and is projected to be completed by November 2010. If the project is 

constructed as planned, it would cross Cottonwood Creek, a tributary of the 

Little Powder River. Typically, the associated disturbance corridor would consist 

of a 100-foot-wide construction ROW; however, site-specific stream crossing 

methods and reclamation would be determined at the time of project permitting. 

Future coal mining also could remove intermittent or ephemeral streams and 

stock ponds in the Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, Upper Belle Fourche 

River, and Little Powder River sub-watersheds. Coal mine permits provide for 

removal of first- through fourth-order drainages. During reclamation, third- and 

fourth-order drainages must be restored; first- and second-order drainages often 

are not replaced (Martin et al. 1988). As discussed in Section 3.5.2, The Upper 

Belle Fourche River and its tributaries drain the existing South Gillette Area 

mine permit areas and the LBA tracts. All streams within and adjacent to the 

tracts are typical for the region, in that flow events are ephemeral. Under 

natural conditions, aquatic habitat is limited by the ephemeral nature of surface 

waters in the general South Gillette analysis area. The results of fish surveys 

conducted in the Belle Fourche River, Caballo Creek, and various area stock 

ponds during baseline studies for the mines that started in the mid1970s were 

discussed in Section 3.10.7.1; no uncommon species were documented during 

those efforts. 

4-70 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The PRB Coal Review assumes that surface disturbing activities would not be 

allowed in perennial stream segments or reservoirs on public lands that contain 

game fish species. It also assumes that other types of development operations 

would not occur within stream channels nor would they remove ponds or 

reservoirs as part of construction or operation and, therefore, would not result in 

the direct loss of habitat for these species. 

Water quality parameters such as turbidity and bottom substrate composition 

can be impacted by surface disturbing activities through erosion of sediment 

into water bodies. Contaminants can also be introduced into those systems 

through the chemical characteristics of the eroded sediment. Potential related 

effects on aquatic biota could include physiological stress, movement to avoid 

affected areas, or alterations of spawning or rearing areas (Waters 1995). 

Studies have shown that TDS levels in streams near reclaimed coal lands have 

increased from one percent to seven percent (Martin et al. 1988). Typically, 

sedimentation effects are short-term in duration and localized in terms of the 

affected area. TDS concentrations would stabilize and return to more typical 

concentrations after construction or development activities have been completed. 

The PRB Coal Review anticipated that the use of appropriate erosion and spill 

control measures during both development and reclamation activities, as 

determined during the permitting process, would minimize the introduction of 

additional sediments into the sub-watershed. 

The removal of streamside vegetation would impact both riparian vegetation and 

stream parameters in those locations. Loss of vegetation along stream channels 

would reduce the shade and increase bank erosion, both of which would degrade 

aquatic habitats. Effects on aquatic habitats from linear projects, such as 

ROWs, would be limited to a relatively small portion of the stream (generally no 

more than 100 feet in width), whereas mine-related disturbance could affect 

considerably larger stretches. Because perennial streams are protected from 

development by a buffer zone on either side of center, these types of impacts 

would presumably be limited to intermittent and ephemeral creeks. It is 

anticipated that reclamation practices to restore riparian vegetation would be 

required during future project permitting, thereby minimizing such impacts. 

CBNG and coal mining are the primary types of development activities that use 

or manage water as part of their operations. Based on current trends, the PRB 

Coal Review assumes that most, if not all, of the water produced during coal 

mining would be consumed during operation. As discussed in Section 3.5.2.2, 

changes in surface runoff characteristics and sediment discharges would occur 

during surface coal mining as a result of the destruction and reconstruction of 

drainage channels as mining progresses, and the use of sediment control 

structures to manage discharges of surface water from the mine permit area. 

State and federal regulations require treatment of surface runoff from mined 

lands to meet effluent standards. After treatment, coal mine-related surface 

water in the region would ultimately be discharged into intermittent and 

ephemeral streams in four sub-watersheds (Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne 

River, Belle Fourche River, and Little Powder River). The PRB Coal Review 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-71 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

projects that up to approximately 39,108, 41,484, and 37,350 mmgpy of water 

would be produced in association with oil and gas production in 2010, 2015, 

and 2020, respectively, and assumes that a portion of the water that is produced 

in association with the CBNG would be discharged to intermittent and 

ephemeral drainages in the general analysis area, much as is currently allowed 

in the six sub-watersheds in the study area. Based on past monitoring in 

receiving streams, no change in surface flows would be expected beyond 

approximately two miles from the discharge points (BLM 2003b). Water 

discharged from CBNG wells has supplied some drainages and water bodies in 

the PRB nearly continuously for several years. Within the general analysis area, 

Spring Creek has experienced an influx of CBNG water in recent years, but has 

not become perennial. The same is true for other streams elsewhere in the PRB 

that receive CBNG discharge water. 

4.2.9.4 Special Status Species 

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford 

an additional level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this 

category are federally listed and federally proposed species (species that are 

protected under the ESA), BLM Sensitive Species, USDA-FS Sensitive Species, 

and WGFD Species of Special Concern in Wyoming. Further discussions of 

species that are protected under the ESA, as well as BLM and USDA-FS 

Sensitive Species, are included in Appendices H and I of this EIS document. The 

USFWS also has a list of Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in 

Wyoming, which is discussed in Section 3.10.6. Special status species 

potentially occurring in the Task 1 study area are identified in Section 2.4.3.5 of 

the PRB Coal Review Task 1D Report (BLM 2005c). Additional information 

about the occurrence of these species in the general analysis area can be found 

in the Annual Wildlife Reports for the four South Gillette Area mines, on file with 

the Cheyenne, Wyoming office of the WDEQ/LQD. 

Potential impacts to special status terrestrial species would be similar to those 

discussed above for non-game wildlife (e.g., small mammals, birds, amphibians, 

and reptiles). Potential direct impacts would include the incremental loss or 

alteration of potential habitat (native vegetation and previously disturbed 

vegetation) from construction and operation of development activities (e.g., 

vegetation removal for coal mines and CBNG wells, ancillary facilities, and 

transportation and utility corridors). Impacts could also result in mortalities of 

less mobile species (e.g., small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians), nest or 

burrow abandonment, and loss of eggs or young in the path of vehicles and 

heavy equipment. Indirect impacts would include increased noise levels and 

human presence, introduction and dispersal of noxious weeds, and dust effects 

from unpaved road traffic. 

In general, direct and indirect impacts to special status species would result in a 

reduction in habitat suitability and overall carrying capacity for species currently 

inhabiting the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. Development within 

potential habitat for special status species likely would decrease its overall 

4-72 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

suitability, and potentially would reduce or preclude use by some species due to 

increased activity and noise. Future use by a special status species of habitats 

subject to development would be strongly influenced by the quality and 

composition of remaining habitat, with the degree of impact dependent on 

variables such as breeding phenology, nest and den site preferences, the species’ 

relative sensitivity to disturbance, and possibly the presence of visual barriers 

(e.g., topographic shielding) between nesting efforts and disturbance activities. 

Bird species that have been identified as occurring within the PRB and are on 

two or more of the special status species lists include common loon, American 

bittern, white-faced ibis, trumpeter swan, greater sandhill crane, mountain 

plover, upland sandpiper, long-billed curlew, black tern, yellow-billed cuckoo, 

Lewis’ woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, Baird’s 

sparrow, sage sparrow, Brewers sparrow, and greater sage-grouse. Any 

development activities (oil and gas, coal mining, other operations and associated 

infrastructure) that occur during the breeding season (April 1 through July 31) 

could result in the abandonment of a nest site or territory, or the loss of eggs or 

young. As discussed previously, loss of an active nest site, incubating adults, 

eggs, or young as a result of any of these development activities would not 

comply with the intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and could potentially 

impact populations of important migratory bird species that are known to or 

may occur in the PRB. 

A number of raptor species have been documented in the PRB and are on two or 

more of the special status species lists including bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, 

northern goshawk, merlin, peregrine falcon, western burrowing owl, and shorteared owl. Those species that have been documented in the general South 

Gillette general analysis area are discussed at length in Appendices H and I of 

this EIS. Potential direct impacts to raptors would result from the surface 

disturbance of nesting and foraging habitat, as well as injury or mortalities due 

to collisions with vehicles and equipment. Breeding raptors in or adjacent to 

development activities could abandon their nest sites or territories, or lose eggs 

or young. As previously described, such losses would constitute noncompliance with the intent of several laws including the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and could potentially affect 

populations of important migratory bird species that are known to or may occur 

within the region. Incremental construction of new overhead power lines in the 

area to support energy industries would increase risks of electrocution and 

collision for perching, migrating, and foraging bird species such as the larger 

raptors. Use of current APLIC guidelines for construction designs and 

retrofitting measures for new and existing utility structures would help mitigate 

these impacts. 

A total of 239 greater sage-grouse strutting grounds (leks) were identified in the 

six sub-watersheds in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area as of 2003, 

though that study did not evaluate the status (i.e., active or inactive) of those 

leks. As discussed in Section 3.10.5 and in the PRB Coal Review Task 1D 

Report, the trend in the sage-grouse population for the Sheridan Region 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-73 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

suggests about a 10-year cycle with periodic highs and lows. More recent 

population peaks have been lower than previous highs, suggesting a steadily 

declining sage-grouse population with the Sheridan Region (Oedekoven 2001). 

Direct and indirect impacts to sage-grouse as a result of development activities 

would result from the incremental surface disturbance of existing and potential 

habitat, increased levels of noise and human presence, introduction or dispersal 

of noxious and invasive weed species, and effects of dust from increased traffic 

on unpaved roads. In addition to disturbance-related impacts, sage-grouse are 

susceptible to infection with West Nile Virus, and the incidence of infection is 

much higher in northeastern Wyoming than the rest of the state. 

Eighteen known or potential sage-grouse leks have been identified in the 

combined evaluation area for the four LBA tracts analyzed in this EIS. Five of 

those 18 sites are classified by the WGFD as historical, and 5 others have been 

largely inactive over the last 10-12 years. The eight leks with the most recent 

activity are all more than 2 miles from the specific wildlife general analysis area 

of each LBA tract. If the LBA tracts and/or added lands are leased and mined, 

potential nesting habitat for grouse that were bred at those leks would be 

affected by mining activity in those areas. However, as discussed in Section 

3.10.5.2, no sage-grouse nests or broods have been recorded on any of the four 

LBA Tracts as applied for or on lands added under each respective Alternative 2, 

during specific surveys or incidental to other wildlife surveys conducted in those 

areas annually since at least 1994. The noise associated with mining operations 

may also disrupt sage-grouse breeding and nesting activities that might occur in 

those areas. Direct and indirect effects to greater sage-grouse within the general 

South Gillette analysis area as a result of development activities are outlined in 

Appendix I of this EIS. 

Based on existing information, the spatial relationship between projected future 

disturbance and reclamation areas for the coal production scenarios and the 

resource-specific information in the GIS layers could not be determined for the 

PRB Coal Review. However, the analysis did use GIS layers for future coal 

reserves to provide some quantification of potential future coal mining-related 

impacts to greater sage-grouse. The results of this analysis are summarized in 

Table 4-25. The difference in the number of lek sites that would occur within 

two miles of coal mining activities under the lower coal production scenario 

versus the upper coal production scenario is due to slight variations in the 

projected disturbance areas. An unquantifiable number of lek sites initially 

could be impacted by CBNG activity, which would occur in advance of coal mine 

development. Potential direct impacts to sage-grouse, if present, could include 

loss of foraging areas, abandonment of a lek site, or loss of eggs or young as a 

result of development activities. 

Seven special status fish species potentially occur in the PRB Coal Review 

Task 3 study area sub-watersheds: the flathead chub (Platygobio gracilis) 

(Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, and Little Powder River subwatersheds), plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus) (Upper Cheyenne River), 

goldeye (Hiodon alosoides) (Little Powder River), lake chub (Couesius plumbeus) 

4-74 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-25.	 Potential Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-grouse Leks from 

Coal Mine Development - Upper and Lower Coal Production 

Scenarios. 

2010/ 2010/ 2015/ 2015/ 2020/ 2020/ 

Lek Categories Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 

Number of Directly 

Affected Leks 10 10 15 15 15 15 

Number of Leks 

within Two Miles of 

Coal Mining 47 47 47 49 50 49 

Activity 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

(Little Powder River), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) (Little Powder 

River), silvery minnow (Hybognathus argyritis) (Little Powder River), and plains 

minnow (Upper Cheyenne River, Upper Belle Fourche River, and Little Powder 

River). Potential impacts to special status fish species as a result of development 

activities would be similar to effects discussed above for fisheries. Surface 

disturbance in three sub-watersheds (Upper Cheyenne River, Upper Belle 

Fourche River, Little Powder River) could alter habitat or affect water quality 

conditions for special status fish species. Erosion control measures, as required 

by existing (2003) and future permits, and NPDES permit requirements would be 

implemented for each project. These efforts would help decrease disturbancerelated sediment input into stream segments that may contain one or more of 

the special status fish species. Therefore, it is anticipated that impacts to 

special status fish species would be low. 

4.2.10 Land Use and Recreation 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to land use and recreation as a result of projected 

development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area (Figure 4-4). 

The baseline year (2003) area of disturbance and reclamation related to surface 

coal mining and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation 

for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Table 4-9 shows the 

total area of disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year and the projected 

cumulative total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 

2020. 

The PRB is a predominantly rural, wide open landscape. With little rainfall and 

limited alternative sources of water, the primary land use is grazing. 

Nevertheless, there is a range of other land uses. The major categories include 

agriculture, forested, mixed rangeland, urban, water, wetlands, coal mines, and 

barren land. The relative amounts of these lands in the PRB Coal Review Task 1 

and Task 2 study area (Figure 4-1) is tabulated in Table 4-26. 

A large part of the PRB consists of split estate lands (privately owned surface 

lands underlain by federally owned minerals). This results in conflicts between 

surface users, which are mainly ranching interests, and mineral developers. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-26. Land Use by Surface Ownership. 

Surface Ownership Total 

Use Category BLM USDA-FS State Private Acres Percent 

Agriculture 2,627 14,197 13,770 472,811 503,405 6.3 

Barren 165 205 187 9,396 9,953 0.1 

Forested 137,555 14,604 48,645 332,062 532,866 6.7 

Mixed Rangeland 732,014 218,156 561,363 5,271,644 6,783,177 86.0 

Urban 893 17 1,039 25,469 27,418 0.3 

Water 35 73 334 4,773 5,215 <0.1 

Wetlands 0 104 559 1,566 2,229 <0.1 

Coal Mines 149 7,236 2,805 40,917 51,107 0.6 

Total 873,438 254,592 628,702 6,158,638 7,915,370 100.0 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 1D Report (BLM 2005c) 

There also may be conflicts with some dispersed rural residences, although 

specific locations cannot be identified until development is proposed. 

Much of the study area is also used for dispersed recreational activities such as 

hunting. The study area includes surface lands that are federally, state, and 

privately owned. With nearly 80 percent of the area privately owned, public 

lands provide important open space and recreation resources including both 

developed recreation facilities and areas to pursue dispersed recreation 

activities. The private sector contributes the elements of commercial recreation 

opportunities and tourism services such as motels and restaurants. Some 

private land owners also allow hunting with specific permission, sometimes for a 

fee. 

4.2.10.1 Grazing and Agriculture 

Potential impacts to grazing in the Task 3 study area as a result of development 

activities can be classified as short-term and long- term. Potential short-term 

impacts arise from: 

•	 the temporary loss of forage as a result of vegetation removal/ 

disturbance; 

•	 temporary loss of AUMs; 

•	 temporary loss of water-related range improvements, such as improved 

springs, water pipelines, and stock ponds; 

•	 temporary loss of other range improvements, such as fences and cattle 

guards; and 

•	 restricted movement of livestock within an allotment due to the 

development and operation of projects like surface coal mines, which 

would cease after successful reclamation had been achieved and 

replacement of water-related and other range improvements had been 

completed. 

The discharge of produced water could increase the availability of water to 

livestock, which may offset the temporary loss of water-related range 

improvements. Potential long-term impacts consist of permanent loss of forage 

and forage productivity in areas, such as power plants, that would not be 

4-76 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

reclaimed in the near term. Indirect impacts may include dispersal of noxious 

and invasive weed species within and beyond the surface disturbance 

boundaries, which decreases the amount of desirable forage available for 

livestock grazing in the long term. 

Development activities could result in short- and long-term impacts to 

agricultural land, depending on their spatial relationship. Short-term impacts 

would include the loss of crop production during development and operational 

phases of the projects. Long-term impacts would result from the permanent loss 

of agricultural land due the development of permanent facilities such as power 

plants and railroads. 

Table 4-27 contains an estimate of the number of AUMs unavailable on lands 

disturbed and not yet reclaimed through 2020 for the high and low levels of 

predicted development activity, along with the acreage of cropland estimated to 

be affected. 

Table 4-27.	 AUMs and Acres of Cropland Estimated Unavailable on Lands 

Disturbed and Not Yet Reclaimed as a Result of Development 

Activities. 

2003/ 2010/ 2010/ 2015/ 2015/ 2020/ 2020/ Category Baseline Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 

Unavailable 

AUMs1 18,150 22,467 22,792 23,245 23,761 22,514 23,333 

Unavailable Crop 

Land (acres) 48 59 60 134 139 206 289 1 Based on an average stocking rate of six acres per AUM. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

4.2.10.2 Urban Use 

It is expected that there would be additional expansion of urban residential and 

commercial development as a result of the projected 48 percent growth in 

population (between 2003 and 2020) in Campbell County. Section 4.2.12 and 

the Task 3C Report of the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005e) contain additional 

information on employment and population issues in the study area. A majority 

of the new urban development would be expected to occur adjacent to existing 

communities, primarily Gillette, which accounts for approximately 60 percent of 

the Campbell County population and, to a lesser extent, Wright and other small 

communities. Most of this development would occur on land that is currently in 

use for grazing or agriculture. 

4.2.10.3 Recreation 

Accessible public lands provide diverse opportunities for recreation, including 

hunting, fishing, ORV use, sightseeing, and wildlife observation. Public lands 

generally provide dispersed recreational uses in the study area. Some developed 

recreational facilities occur in special management areas, including recreation 

areas. While opportunities are available on public lands throughout the PRB, 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-77 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

the majority of dispersed recreational uses occur in the western part of the PRB 

Coal Review Task 1 and Task 2 study area, including the South Big Horn 

Mountains area and along the Powder River. Public lands elsewhere consist 

mainly of isolated tracts of land that are too small to provide a quality 

recreational experience. Larger parcels of public lands occur in the southwest 

part of Johnson County and along the Powder River (administered by BLM) and 

in the Thunder Basin National Grassland (administered by the USDA-FS). 

Public lands are accessible via public roads or across private land with the 

landowner’s permission. 

Hunting is a major recreation use of state and federal lands in the study area. 

Various big game and upland game bird species are hunted in the region. 

Fishing is a popular year-round activity for residents of the study area. 

Mule deer and pronghorn hunting are by far the most popular hunting activities 

in the Task 1 study area, accounting for 35,529 and 21,304 hunter days, 

respectively, in 2003 (Stratham 2005). The next highest were cottontail rabbit 

(2,348 hunter days) and elk (2,055 hunter days), followed by wild turkey (1,019), 

sharp-tailed grouse (508), and sage-grouse (38). Consistent trends in hunter 

activity over the past decade are not discernible from the WGFD data considered 

in the PRB Coal Review. All of the most prominent species hunted in the study 

area have had high years and low years. Pronghorn hunting, for example, was 

greatest from 1993 to 1996, while elk hunting was at its peak in 2001 and 2002. 

Mule deer hunting has been the most consistent, ranging from a low of 28,311 

hunter days in 1996 to a high of 37,307 hunter days in 2002. 

ORV use in the Task 1 study area is available on most BLM-managed lands. 

Most of the public land in Johnson, Sheridan, and Campbell Counties has been 

inventoried and designated as open, limited, or closed to ORV use. For the 

baseline year, approximately 20,386 acres were open to unlimited vehicle travel 

on and off roads. There were 4,680 acres in the area that were closed to all ORV 

use and approximately 867,534 acres were available for limited use. Limited use 

typically means ORVs are restricted to existing roads and vehicle routes. 

Recreational use of public lands in the Task 1 study area has increased 

substantially over the past two decades, and is expected to continue to increase 

by about five percent every 5 years for most recreational activities (BLM 2003b). 

Total visitor use by residents and nonresident visitors in Campbell and Converse 

Counties in 1980 was projected at 1,276,000 visitor days (BLM 1979). The total 

visitor days of 1,881,763 estimated for 1990 was approximately 47 percent 

higher than the 1980 visitor days (BLM 2001b). Fewer than three percent of 

visitor days were estimated to occur on public lands. 

Few, if any, of the developed recreation sites in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 

study area would be affected by development related disturbance. As most of 

the projected disturbance area would occur on privately owned surface land, the 

extent of effects on dispersed recreation activities largely would depend on 

whether the disturbance areas had been open to public or private lease hunting. 

4-78 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

It is projected that cumulative development activities, especially the dispersed 

development of CBNG and, to a lesser extent, conventional oil and gas, would 

tend to exacerbate the trend toward a reduction in private land available for 

public hunting, which has been observed by WGFD in recent years (Shorma 

2005). A reduction in available private land for dispersed recreation would 

contrast with the anticipated increase in demand for recreational opportunities 

and would tend to push more recreationists toward public lands where the BLM 

has projected a five percent increase in use every 5 years (BLM 2001a). After 

coal- and oil and gas-related development activities have been completed and the 

disturbed areas have been reclaimed, many of the adverse effects on dispersed 

recreation activities would be reduced. 

It is expected that the development activities also would tend to expand and 

exacerbate the qualitative degradation of the dispersed recreation experience, in 

general, and of the hunting experience, in particular, as reported by the WGFD 

(Jahnke 2005). As noted in the Task 1D Report of the PRB Coal Review (BLM 

2005c), reductions in land available for hunting also make herd management 

more difficult for the WGFD and reduce its hunting-derived revenues (Shorma 

2005). 

No direct effects on wilderness or roadless areas would be expected from the 

projected development activities. There are no designated wilderness areas in 

the study area, and mineral development would not be permitted in the 

Fortification Creek Wilderness Study Area until and unless Congress acts to 

remove it from Wilderness consideration. 

There would be no effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers as the only river segment 

identified as both “eligible” and “suitable” in the Task 1D Report of the PRB Coal 

Review is not in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. 

4.2.11 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to cultural resources as a result of projected development 

activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The baseline year (2003) 

area of disturbance and reclamation related to surface coal mining and the 

projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 

2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. Table 4-9 shows the total area of 

disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year and the projected cumulative 

total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020. 

Cultural sites occur throughout the study area. Surface disturbing activities 

can result in the loss or destruction of these sites. Table 4-28 contains an 

estimate of the amount of projected disturbance through 2020 for the projected 

lower and upper levels of coal development activity, along with the number of 

cultural sites estimated to be affected. The sites fall into two categories; 

prehistoric sites and historic sites, as described below. Also below are 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-79 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-28. Square Miles of Projected Cumulative Disturbance and Number of Potentially Affected 

in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 Study Area – Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenario

Lower Coal Production Scenario Upper Coal Pr

Average Year 2010 Year 2015 Year 2020 Year 2010 Yea

Number of 

Sites per Square Square Square Square Squar

Sub-watershed Square Mile1 Miles2 Sites3 Miles2 Sites3 Miles2 Sites3 Miles2 Sites3 Miles

Antelope Creek 4.7 74 346 97 484 122 608 75 376 99 Dry Fork Cheyenne 8.9 8.3 74 12 109 17 151 8.3 74 12 

River Little Powder River 4.6 90 415 108 495 123 567 91 419 109 Upper Belle 4.3 164 704 186 801 209 899 166 713 192 Fourche River Upper Cheyenne 5.2 60 314 72 375 83 433 62 321 74 

River Upper Powder River 5.0 135 674 190 953 232 1,159 135 674 191 Total 531 2,527 665 3,217 786 3,817 537 2,577 677 

1 Average number of sites per square mile based on previous surveys in the study area. 2 Calculated, based on database disturbance acreages prepared for the Task 2 Report for the PRB Coal Review, Past and Present a

Development Activities (Appendices A and D) (BLM 2005d). 

3 The number of sites was calculated by multiplying the average density of known cultural sites per square mile (based on previou

square miles of projected cumulative disturbance. 

Source: Task 3D Report for the PRB Coal Review Cumulative Environmental Effects (BLM 2005f) 

-80 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

description of Native American traditional cultural places and a summary of the 

program to protect sites in any of these categories. 

4.2.11.1 Prehistoric Sites 

All recognized prehistoric cultural periods, from Clovis through Protohistoric 

(about 11,500 to 200 years ago), are represented in the PRB Coal Review study 

area (see Section 3.12 for additional discussion about the prehistoric cultural 

periods.) The earliest prehistoric cultural periods, Paleoindian through Early 

Plains Archaic, are represented by only a small number of sites. Archaic and 

later prehistoric period sites (Archaic to Protohistoric) are represented in 

increasing numbers as a result of higher populations through time and better 

preservation of more recent sites. Important prehistoric site types in the region 

include artifact scatters, campsites, stone circles, faunal kill and processing 

sites, rock alignments and cairns, and stone material procurement areas. 

Artifact scatters dominate prehistoric sites in the study area. When there is 

adequate information to evaluate these types of sites, most are not eligible to the 

NRHP. However, complex sites and sites with buried and dateable material can 

yield important information and are often field evaluated as eligible. The 

proportion of unevaluated sites is lower in the subwatersheds in which more 

studies and more follow-up studies have been conducted, such as Antelope 

Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, and Upper Belle Fourche River. Some portions of 

some of the subwatersheds which have more varied habitats or conditions more 

conducive to preservation are very rich in significant prehistoric sites. Within 

the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area, these areas include the lower Antelope 

Creek drainage and eastern portions of the Upper Belle Fourche River. While 

prehistoric sites do exist in the general South Gillette analysis area, it does not 

appear to be particularly plentiful in significant prehistoric sites. More detailed 

information on the known cultural sites that are present in the PRB based on 

the existing surveys is included in the Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal Review 

(BLM 2005c). 

4.2.11.2 Historic Sites 

In the PRB region, sites are documented within the broad contexts of Rural 

Settlement, Urban Settlement, Mining, Transportation, Military, Exploration, 

and Communication. Each of these site categories and the types of sites they 

include are detailed in the Task 1D Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005c). 

Evaluation of the importance of historic sites, districts, and landscapes must 

consider aspects of both theme and period in assessing the historic character 

and contributing attributes of the resources. 

4.2.11.3 Native American Traditional Cultural Places 

General ethnographies of the tribes that may have had traditional ties to this 

region do not provide information on specific resources in the study area that 

are likely to be traditional cultural concerns because these resources are 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-81 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

considered confidential by the tribes. Within this region, there are prominent 

and identifiable places such as the Medicine Wheel to the west in the Big Horn 

Mountains and Devils Tower to the east in the Black Hills area. These known 

sites offer some indication of the types of places valued by the Plains horse 

cultures in the historic period. Any identification of sacred or traditional 

localities must be verified in consultation with authorized tribal representatives. 

4.2.11.4 Site Protection 

At the time an individual project is permitted, the development activities 

considered in this study would be subject to the following regulations relative to 

cultural resources. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

as amended, its implementing regulations (including but not limited to 36 CFR 

800, 36 CFR 61, and Executive Order 11593), and NEPA and its implementing 

regulations, including 40 CFR 1500 - 1508, provide the legal environment for 

documentation, evaluation, and protection of historic properties (i.e., cultural 

resources eligible for inclusion on the NRHP) that may be affected by 

development activities. In cases of split estate (where surface ownership and 

mineral ownership differ), surface resources, such as cultural sites, belong to 

the surface owner. The surface owner must be consulted about investigation, 

mitigation, or monitoring. 

4.2.12 Transportation and Utilities 

The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) discusses potential 

cumulative impacts to transportation and utilities systems as a result of 

projected development activities in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area. The 

baseline year (2003) area of disturbance and reclamation related to surface coal 

mining and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 

2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The total area of 

disturbance and reclamation for the baseline year and the projected cumulative 

total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown 

in Table 4-9. 

Generally, transportation systems in the study area would not be directly 

affected by the disturbance associated with projected development. Site-specific 

instances of disturbance may require that segments of highways, pipelines, 

transmission lines, or railroads be moved to accommodate expansion of certain 

coal mines. In such cases, the agencies authorized to regulate such actions 

would have to approve any proposal to move any segments of any transportation 

systems and construction of alternative routing would be required prior to 

closing existing links so that any disruptive effects on transportation systems 

would be minimized. 

The coal mines in the North Gillette subregion currently ship most of their coal 

via the east-west BNSF rail line through Gillette. That subregion produced 55 

mmtpy in the baseline year (2003), which was just 22 percent of the estimated 

250 mmtpy capacity of the BNSF rail line (BLM 2005f). The coal mines in the 

4-82 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

South Gillette and Wright subregions produced approximately 308 mmtpy in 

2003, which was 88 percent of the estimated 350 mmtpy capacity of the joint 

BNSF & UP line serving those areas in the baseline year. 

Potential effects of development activities on transportation and utilities may be 

either short- or long-term in nature, varying with the type of development. A 

power plant or an urban community development would be considered longterm, and the demand for transmission line capacity would be virtually 

permanent, lasting for the economic life of the activity. The effects of coal 

production and the related demand for rail capacity would vary with market 

changes. In recent years, coal production has been increasing and the PRB Coal 

Review projects that the trend would continue, as shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. 

Similarly, the demand for pipeline capacity would vary with market conditions 

as well as with the rate of depletion of the oil or gas resource. 

Potential direct effects of projected development on roads and highways would 

include increased vehicular traffic and risk of traffic accidents on existing 

roadways in the PRB Coal Review Task 3 study area from daily travel by workers 

and their families. Indirect effects would include increased wear and tear on 

existing roads, additional air emissions from vehicles, additional fugitive dust 

from roads, noise, increased potential access to remote areas, and an increased 

risk of vehicle collisions with livestock and wildlife. Direct effects on railroads, 

pipelines, and transmission lines primarily would include increased demand for 

capacity to move coal, oil and gas, and electricity from production locations in 

the study area to markets outside the area. Indirect effects would include 

potential impacts of the accumulation of coal dust and fines blowing or sifting 

from moving, loaded rail cars. The PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report does not 

discuss the cumulative effects of coal dust resulting from the transport of coal 

along rail lines. 

The socioeconomic analysis conducted as a part of Task 3C of the PRB Coal 

Review projects a population increase of approximately 48 percent between 2003 

and 2020 in Campbell County under the upper coal production scenario (BLM 

2005e). Campbell County accounts for most of the population in the PRB Coal 

Review Task 3 study area. Based on traffic studies conducted independently of 

the PRB Coal Review, vehicle miles traveled tend to increase at or above the rate 

of population growth. Consequently, highway traffic would be expected to 

increase by at least 48 percent by 2020. Approximately 60 percent of the 

population growth would occur in or near Gillette, which would indicate that the 

same proportion of traffic would originate in the Gillette area. The remainder of 

the traffic growth would be dispersed throughout the study area. Under this 

scenario, the greatest impact on traffic would occur in the Gillette area, where 

existing traffic volume to capacity ratios are highest. The increased traffic would 

be expected to cause delays in the Gillette area and might require widening of 

some streets and roads or other measures to increase traffic capacity. It is 

anticipated that there would be an increase in the risk of traffic accidents 

approximately proportional to the increase in traffic. Highway capacity on major 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-83 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

routes away from Gillette would be expected to be sufficient to accommodate the 

growth without substantial constraints. 

Existing rail lines, together with proposed upgrades on the joint BNSF & UP line, 

would be expected to accommodate the projected coal transportation traffic 

through 2015 (Table 4-29). The PRB Coal Review Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) 

projects that the proposed DM&E line would be built and operational by 2015 

(pending completion of additional environmental analysis), which would add 100 

mmtpy in additional shipping capacity for the South Gillette and Wright 

subregions. A collaborative effort between the National Coal Transportation 

Association, the mines, and the BNSF and UP Railroads is resulting in measures 

to reduce coal dust emissions from loaded, moving rail cars. 

Table 4-29. PRB Rail Lines Coal Hauling Capacity and Projected Use. 

2010 Projected 2015 Projected 2020 Projected 

Rail 

Line 

North 

BNSF 

2010 

Capacity 

mmtpy

250

Rail Use 

Increase1 

 mmtpy % 

 62-78 25-31 

2015 

Capacity 

mmtpy 

250

Rail Use 

Increase1 

mmtpy % 

 74-104 30-42

2020 

Capacity 

mmtpy 

250 

Rail Use 

Increase1 

mmtpy % 

78-121 31-48 

South 

BNSF & 

UP 

400 349­

401 

87­

100 500 393-4392 79-882 500 417­

4552 83-912 

DM&E 0 0 0 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 2 - 3 - 3 

1 	 The range of increase in use shown for each year reflects the increases that are projected for the Lower and Upper Coal 

Production Scenarios, respectively. 2 	 The DM&E is assumed to be built and operational by 2015, adding 100 mmtpy of capacity for the mines served by the 

BNSF & UP South line. 3 	 The BNSF & UP South figures represent the projected combined traffic and percent capacity on the BNSF & UP South 

line and the projected DM&E line. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) 

The Task 2 Report for the PRB Coal Review projected that basin-wide production 

of CBNG could potentially double by 2020, which would suggest that additional 

pipelines could be built. One potential additional pipeline (Bison Project) was 

identified for completion by November 2010. The filing for this project was made 

with FERC on June 2, 2008. Other potential projects are discussed in Section 

4.1.2.3.1 was (Bison Pipeline 2008). 

An estimated 1,700 MW of new power production capacity is anticipated in the 

cumulative effects area by 2020. This level of production would require 

construction of additional transmission line capacity. It is assumed that new 

transmission lines would be constructed to connect new power plants to the 

grid. 

4.2.13 Socioeconomics 

The cumulative socioeconomic impact analysis focuses on Campbell County, but 

also considers Converse, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston Counties as 

directly affected and Niobrara and Natrona Counties as indirectly affected. 

4-84 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Recent and projected socioeconomic conditions are described in more detail in 

the Task 1C and 3C reports for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005b and 2005e). 

REMI Policy Insight (REMI), a professionally recognized regional economic model, 

was used to develop the cumulative employment and population projections 

presented below. The version of the REMI model for the Coal Review was 

comprised of two economic regions: one being Campbell County alone, the 

second composed of those Wyoming counties bordering Campbell County and 

linked to its economy by established industrial and consumer trade linkages and 

by work force commuting patterns. Results for the second region were analyzed 

to focus on the five counties, Converse, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston, 

that are the most directly linked. Collectively, these five counties are referred to 

in the PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e) as the surrounding 

counties. Additional analysis was undertaken to translate the population and 

employment forecasts for each of the surrounding counties into housing needs 

and to project future school enrollment. 

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the PRB emerged as a major coal producing 

region. Federal coal leasing has been a high profile activity because over 90 

percent of the coal resources in the PRB are federally owned. The surface coal 

mines that developed during the 1970s and early 1980s are now mature 

operations, providing a stable economic and social foundation for the region. 

While energy development has produced periodic surges in population, followed 

occasionally by population declines in some communities, the growth in 

domestic energy consumption, coupled with the PRB’s vast energy resource 

base, has resulted in a 50-year growth trend in the region without the severe 

economic dislocations that have characterized other western U.S. resource 

booms. 

This period of extended energy development has been accompanied by 

substantial economic changes and benefits, including economic growth, 

employment opportunity, tax revenue growth, and infrastructure development 

for local governments, both locally and across Wyoming, funded by tax 

revenues generated by production of coal and other energy resources. At the 

same time, periods of rapid growth have stressed communities and their social 

structures, housing resources, and public infrastructure and service systems. 

The emergence of the coal and other energy resource development industries in 

the PRB has had long-term cumulative affects on regional social and economic 

conditions. In general, Campbell County and the entire PRB region have 

developed an enhanced capacity to respond to and accommodate growth. The 

regional coal industry also provides a measure of insulation from dramatic 

economic and social dislocations. Key cumulative social and economic 

conditions identified in the PRB Coal Review are described below. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-85 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.13.1 Employment and the Economic Base 

Energy resource development since 1970 has resulted in substantial economic 

expansion across the PRB. Total employment expanded by 163 percent as 

40,674 net new jobs were added between 1970 and 2004. The most rapid 

expansion occurred between 1975 and 1980. After modest growth and slight 

decline in the 1980s and early 1990s, employment growth resumed in the late 

1990s, led by increases in coal mine employment, including subcontractors, 

and CBNG development. Across the six-county area, total employment was 

65,597 in 2004. Nearly half of the net job gain occurred in Campbell County, 

where total employment increased from 6,026 jobs in 1970 to 25,921 jobs in 

2004. Strong gains also were posted in Sheridan County (9,821 jobs) and 

Converse County (4,421 jobs). 

The economic stimuli associated with the gains in mining and CBNG 

employment and the long-term population growth triggered secondary job gains 

in construction, trade, services, and government. In 2004, business and 

consumer services accounted for 51 percent of all jobs in the region, while 

mining and government accounted for 14 percent and 16 percent of all jobs, 

respectively. Farm employment in the region, as a share of total employment, 

declined from 14 percent in 1970 to 5.0 percent in 2004. However, that shift is 

primarily due to growth in non-farm employment rather than declines in 

farming, as total farm employment in the PRB recorded a net decline of only 

375 jobs, from 3,571 to 3,196 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006). 

The largest impetus to future growth over the PRB Coal Review study period 

(2003 to 2020) is expected to occur by 2010. Under the lower production 

scenario, employment in 2010 related to coal mining, oil and gas production, 

and oil field services is projected to increase by one-third, or more than 2,300 

jobs, as compared to 2003 levels. Many of the jobs gained would be the result of 

increased oil and gas development. While the number of coal mining jobs would 

increase, the projected coal mine-related productivity gains would limit increases 

in the number of mine employees required for operations. 

Beyond 2010, total mining industry employment would decline as major 

infrastructure development (e.g., additional CBNG compression capacity) is 

completed and the pace of conventional oil and gas drilling decreases. Increases 

in CBNG production and coal mining employment would occur thereafter, such 

that total mining employment would approach pre-2010 levels by the end of the 

forecast period (2020). Under the development scenarios, construction of three 

new power plants, having a combined capacity of 1,000 MW and a peak work 

force of approximately 1,550 in 2007-2008, is assumed to occur concurrently 

with the increases in mining employment. Under the upper production 

scenario, a second temporary construction work force impact would occur 

between 2016 and 2020 in conjunction with the construction of an additional 

700-MW power plant. 

4-86 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The net effects of these activities, including secondary effects on suppliers, 

merchants, service firms, state agencies and local government in the region, 

would be the creation of more than 8,700 new jobs in the region between 2003 

and 2010. Of those, more than 5,600 jobs (a 22 percent increase over 2003) 

would be based in Campbell County. The pace of economic expansion, at least 

in terms of jobs, would moderate after 2010. Total employment growth of 2,017 

additional jobs is projected in Campbell County between 2010 and 2020, with 

1,741 additional jobs projected in the surrounding counties. 

However, to achieve the projected levels of energy and mineral development 

activity through 2010 assumes that industry has access to the necessary 

equipment, materials, labor, and other vital inputs. Current oil and gas 

exploration and development across the Rocky Mountain region has absorbed 

the available inventory of drilling rigs and crews. A lack of access to resources 

could delay or limit the job gains below the levels projected, even though 

prospects for such growth remain. Furthermore, competition for equipment, 

combined with tight labor markets, could negate the productivity gains that 

underlie the projections, such that the employment and associated impacts do 

materialize, but are associated with lower levels of activity (e.g., a lengthier 

construction period for a power plant or fewer new wells drilled each year). 

Employment effects associated with the upper coal production scenario, 

assuming productivity gains in coal mining equivalent to those in the lower coal 

production scenario, would result in total employment gains of 11,563 jobs by 

2010 in the six-county study area, with an additional 3,667 jobs by 20202. As 

compared to the employment projections under the lower coal production 

scenario, those gains include 2,821 additional jobs in 2010 and 3,214 additional 

jobs in 2020. Most of the incremental gains would be in Campbell County, 

further stressing labor markets, housing, and other community resources. Such 

pressures could delay or affect the development plans of individual firms and 

operators, such that the projected employment levels would not be realized in 

the time frames shown. Nonetheless, substantial growth in employment is 

expected to occur, and even if the projected total employment levels are not 

realized, substantial social and economic impacts still would be anticipated. 

The economic stimuli associated with the projected development also would 

stimulate increases in employment in other nearby counties beyond the five 

surrounding counties identified above. However, the potential effects in these 

areas are not addressed in the PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report because most of 

2 The number of jobs in the coal mining industry under the upper production scenario was 

estimated assuming future productivity gains comparable to those used for the lower production 

scenario. This approach differs from that described for the upper production scenario in the 

Task 2 report of the coal study, whereby a 16 percent higher production would be achieved with 

a 2.5 percent increase in workforce. Although that assumption reflects a continuation of historic 

productivity gains, it may underestimate population and employment growth and related 

socioeconomic effects if the production levels are achieved but productivity lags. Using the 

productivity gains from the lower production scenario provides a more conservative perspective 

on potential long-term population growth for purposes of the cumulative analysis. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-87 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

the effects would comprise indirect or induced growth that would be limited in 

scale relative to the size of the respective economies. Furthermore, the economic 

outlook for those areas is influenced by factors that are beyond the scope of this 

study, such as the role of the oil and gas support services industry based in 

Natrona County in supporting energy development in the south-central and 

southwestern portions of Wyoming. 

4.2.13.2 Labor Market Conditions 

Labor market conditions in the PRB reflect a generally healthy economy, with 

average annual county unemployment rates between 2.1 percent (Campbell) and 

3.5 percent (Weston) in 2006. Statewide and national unemployment rates for 

the period were 3.2 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively (U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 2007). 

Over time, local unemployment levels and rates have reflected the influences of 

the large, relatively stable employment baseline associated with the region’s coal 

mining industry and the more transitory and variable influences of natural gas 

development. Prior to the onset of CBNG development in 1989, unemployment 

in Campbell County fluctuated between 4.8 and 5.3 percent, slightly above the 

corresponding statewide averages. Labor demand associated with CBNG 

development contributed to a decline in unemployment to below 3.0 percent in 

the 2001. As the pace of CBNG development stabilized, labor demand eased and 

unemployment rates climbed to 3.7 percent in 2003, before again falling to 

current record lows. 

The employment effects identified above indicate substantial pressures on local 

labor markets. Strong demand for labor would maintain low unemployment, 

creating upward pressure on wages and salaries. Those influences would 

stimulate substantial economic migration into Campbell County, causing 

impacts to population, housing demand, and other economic and social 

conditions. Similar influences would occur in surrounding counties, although 

the implications are less severe because the scale of effects would be smaller and 

would be distributed over multiple communities and service providers. 

4.2.13.3 Personal Income 

A benefit associated with energy resource development, whether it is mineral 

mining or oil and gas development, is local wages and salaries that are among 

the highest in the state. Personal income registered strong gains across the 

region, but especially in Campbell County, during the late 1970s and early 

1980s. In 1981, per capita personal income in Campbell County was $17,520, 

compared to the national average of $11,280 and the statewide average of 

$12,879. Personal income growth was tempered by several years of economic 

stagnation during the late 1980s. Renewed economic vitality since then 

resulted in per capita personal income in Campbell County reaching $33,388 

in 2004. Those gains notwithstanding, per capita income among Campbell 

County’s residents was below statewide and national norms, as well as that for 

4-88 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Sheridan ($35,716) County. When measured on a median household or family 

income basis in the 2000 census, Campbell County led statewide, national, 

and other counties in the PRB by considerable margins. That pattern has been 

maintained due to the strong economic growth in the region; in 2006 the 

median household income in Campbell County was $60,800 compared to a 

statewide median of $43,785 and national median of $44,374. Median 

household incomes for the other five PRB counties ranged from $40,195 to 

$46,883 (U.S. Census Bureau 2006b). 

In terms of total personal income, Campbell County led the six-county region 

with $1.22 billion in 2004. Sheridan County residents recorded aggregate 

personal income of $972 million in 2004. Total personal income in the other 

counties was substantially lower, ranging from $193 million in Crook County 

to $389 million in Converse County. 

Personal incomes in the region would increase over the time period 2007-2020, 

both in aggregate and on a per capita basis, in conjunction with the economic 

outlooks foreshadowed by the projected development scenarios. In 2004, total 

personal income in the six-county area was $3.24 billion. Under the lower 

production scenario, total personal income would more than double to $7.57 

billion in 2020 (in nominal dollars). The upper production scenario would 

generate an additional $266 million per year in Campbell County and an 

additional $35 to $40 million per year in the surrounding counties by 2020. 

Annual per capita incomes are projected to increase by approximately 27 

percent (in real terms) across the region between 2003 and 2020. Households 

with one or more workers employed directly in the energy industry, associated 

service firms, and the construction industry likely would realize larger shares 

of the gains (BLM 2005e). 

4.2.13.4 Population and Demographics 

Population change over time is perhaps the single best indicator of cumulative 

social and economic change in the PRB. Campbell County was not among the 

original 13 counties when Wyoming was admitted to statehood, but was carved 

from Weston and Crook Counties in 1911. Campbell County’s 1920 population 

of 5,233 ranked it seventeenth among Wyoming’s counties. Forty years later 

and prior to the onset of coal development in the region, Campbell County 

ranked eighteenth among Wyoming’s counties in terms of population, with a 

5,861 residents. Neighboring Converse, Sheridan, and Weston Counties all 

had larger populations. 

By 1980, Campbell County’s population had increased by more than 300 

percent, to 24,367, seventh among Wyoming’s counties. Energy development 

contributed to population growth in Sheridan, Converse, Johnson, and Crook 

Counties during that period. Weston County recorded a population decline 

during the period; however, the combined population of the PRB climbed from 

49,311 in 1960 to 82,598 in 1980. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-89 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Annual coal production in the PRB has increased by nearly 560 percent since 

1980, accompanied by expanded mine service and rail transportation capacity, 

stimulating further growth. The impetus for growth in local employment was 

tempered by substantial productivity increases in the mining industry, coupled 

with declining production of other energy resources. Consequently, the region’s 

population gained a relatively modest 11 percent, 9,318 residents, between 

1980 and 2000, reaching 91,916. Campbell County registered a net gain of 

9,331 residents during that period, raising its total population to 33,698 in 

2000, fourth highest in the state. Across the PRB, the loss of about 2,000 

residents in Converse County was offset by modest gains in the other four 

counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). 

More recently, the PRB has seen renewed population growth, primarily linked to 

CBNG development. Population estimates for 2006 indicate a total regional 

population of 100,504, a 9.3 percent increase over the 2000 census population. 

Gains were reported for all six counties, ranging from 118 persons in Weston 

County to 5,236 persons in Campbell County (Table 4-30). 

Table 4-30. Recent and Projected PRB Population. 

Six 

Year 

Campbell 

County 

Converse 

County 

Crook 

County 

Johnson 

County 

Sheridan 

County 

Weston 

County 

County 

PRB 

Total 

Census 

2000 33,698 12,104 5,895 7,108 26,606 6,642 92,053 

2003 36,381 12,326 5,971 7,530 27,116 6,665 95,989 

2006 38,934 12,866 6,255 8,014 27,673 6,762 100,504 

Lower Coal Production Scenario 

2010 45,925 13,103 6,542 8,389 28,459 7,108 109,526 

2015 48,905 13,671 6,759 8,867 30,016 7,174 115,392 

2020 50,995 14,193 6,989 9,326 31,467 7,208 120,178 

Upper Coal Production Scenario 

2010 47,662 13,160 6,570 8,424 28,579 7,137 111,532 

2015 51,558 13,763 6,802 8,924 30,214 7,219 118,480 

2020 54,943 14,313 7,045 9,403 31,733 7,266 124,703 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2006b - historical data) and PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e) 

The magnitude and timing of projected employment changes from 2003-2020 

under either coal production scenario would trigger corresponding effects to 

population across the PRB, particularly in Campbell County (Figure 4-6). 

Under the lower coal production scenario, Campbell County’s population is 

projected to increase by more than 14,550 residents between 2003 and 2020, 

nearly 9,500 of which are anticipated by 2010. Growth over the next 3 years will 

maintain pressures on housing and other community resources. The projected 

energy and mineral development in the lower coal production scenario would 

also result in substantial population growth elsewhere in the PRB, with 

Sheridan, Johnson, and Converse Counties all projected to gain substantial 

population. Population growth, like employment growth, would moderate after 

2010. Projected population growth between 2003 and 2020 ranges from 0.5 

4-90 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

2003 2007 2011 2015 2019 

Population -U pperProduction 

Em ploym ent-U pperProduction 

Population -Low erProduction 

Em ploym ent-Low erProduction 

Source: PRB CoalReview Task 3C Report(BLM 2005f) 

Figure 4-6. Projected Campbell County Population and Employment to 2020. 

percent CAGR in Weston County to 2.0 percent CAGR in Campbell County. In 

absolute terms, the net change ranges from 537 additional residents in Weston 

County to a gain of 14,557 residents in Campbell County. The total population 

of the six-county study area is projected to climb to 120,178 in 2020, a 1.3 

percent compounded annual growth rate (CAGR). 

As with employment, changing development conditions could result in actual 

population growth varying from projected growth. If project schedules or levels 

of development vary from the projected levels, corresponding effects on 

population growth could result (e.g., lower growth). Population demographics 

could also change due to migration and commuting, with more immigrating 

construction workers being single-status, rather than accompanied by families. 

Another possibility is that the spatial distribution of population growth could 

shift as a result of housing or labor constraints, such that less growth would 

occur in Gillette and Campbell County, and more growth would occur elsewhere. 

Projected population growth through 2020 under the upper coal production 

scenario is approximately 19 percent higher than under the lower coal 

production scenario (28,625 compared to 24,100, with the six-county population 

reaching 124,703 by 2020). Much of the incremental population growth would 

occur by 2010 in Campbell County, and in particular in and near Gillette. 

Community population growth under the upper coal production scenario 

generally would mirror growth under the lower coal production scenario but with 

higher growth in Wright, Douglas, and Newcastle due to the effects of higher coal 

production, coal transportation, and power generation concentrated in the 

southern portion of Campbell County. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-91 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.13.5 Housing 

While the population grew by 55 percent in the 1970s, the housing stock in the 

study area grew by almost 78 percent. Housing growth was especially rapid 

during the 1970s in Campbell County, where population grew by 88 percent and 

the housing stock grew by 140 percent. The expansion in housing supply, 

combined with the slowdown in the rate of population growth, produced doubledigit vacancy rates for rental housing in the late 1980s and early 1990s. After 

growth resumed in the mid-1990s, most county-level vacancy rates for 

ownership units were at or below the state levels in 2000. Vacancy rates for 

rental units declined even more sharply. Vacancy rates have fallen even more as 

a result of recent growth, with current rates below 1.5 percent in five of the sixcounties, and that in Johnson County at only 2.8 percent (Table 4-31). 

Table 4-31. Rental Housing Vacancy Rates, 2004 4Q and 2006 4Q. 

Campbell Converse Crook Johnson Sheridan Weston 

Year County County County County County County Wyoming 

2004 4Q 2.8% 8.3% 10.4% 2.1% 4.5% 5.0% 4.8% 

2006 4Q 0.4% 1.4% 1.0% 2.8% 0.5% 0.0% 2.4% 

Source: Wyoming Housing Database Partnership (2007) 

In 2000, the housing inventory in the six-county study area was 41,203 units 

(Table 4-32). Total housing inventory had expanded to 43,363 units in 2005, a 

net addition of 2,160 since 2000. However, new construction hasn’t kept pace 

with population growth, resulting in tighter market conditions in terms of 

availability, and higher prices. 

Table 4-32. Total Housing Stock in 2000 and 2005. 

Year 

Campbell 

County 

Converse 

County 

Crook 

County 

Johnson 

County 

Sheridan 

County 

Weston 

County 

Six-county 

PRB Region 

2000 13,288 5,669 2,935 3,503 12,577 3,231 41,203 

2005 14,085 5,852 3,132 3,694 13,283 3,317 43,363 

Change 797 183 197 191 706 86 2,160 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2006a) 

In 2005, the average sales price of homes in the study area varied from $80,303 

in Weston County to $186,095 in Sheridan County. The average home price 

statewide in 2006 was $178,183 (Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 

2007). In addition to Sheridan County, Campbell ($185,874) and Johnson 

($180,209) Counties also had average home sale prices above the statewide 

average in 2006. The average sales price in Converse County was $149,096, 17 

percent below the statewide average. 

Monthly costs for rental housing in the PRB, measured in the fourth quarter of 

2006, were highest in Campbell County (Table 4-33). 

Temporary housing resources are available in the PRB in the form of hotel-motel 

rooms, private and public campgrounds, and vacant spaces in mobile home 

parks. In all, there are more than 70 lodging establishments with a total of more 

4-92 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-33. Monthly Housing Rents in 20061 in the PRB Study Area and 

Percent Change from 2004. 

County Apartments 

Mobile Home 

Lots Houses 

Mobile Homes on 

a Lot 

Rent Change Rent Change Rent Change Rent Change 

Campbell 

Converse 

Crook 

Johnson 

Sheridan 

Weston 

Wyoming 

$697 25.8% 

$515 31.4% 

$391 17.4% 

$477 -5.4% 

$571 14.0% 

$459 47.1% 

$567 14.1% 

$283 22.0% 

$152 1.3% 

$125 5.9% 

$170 16.4% 

$285 4.4% 

$119 17.8% 

$225 15.4% 

$975 23.0% 

$545 2.8% 

NA NA 

$700 15.3% 

$857 27.9% 

$567 36.3% 

$782 13.0% 

$758 20.5% 

$452 22.5% 

NA NA 

$518 5.5% 

$650 26.7% 

$505 27.5% 

$561 15.2% 

1 Data are for the fourth quarter of 2006. Change is the percent change since fourth quarter of 

2004. 

NA = information not available due to insufficient sample size. 

Source: Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Division of Economic Analysis (2006 

and 2007) 

than 2,500 rooms. These temporary housing resources, supplemented by 

whatever apartments, townhouses, and mobile home spaces are available in 

Gillette, Wright and Douglas, have accommodated temporary housing needs 

associated with natural resource and energy projects in the past. 

Both projected coal production scenarios indicate a strong demand for housing 

across the six-county study area through 2020. Net housing requirements under 

the lower coal production scenario are for approximately 9,110 units through 

2020, a 21 percent increase above the 2006 existing inventory (Figure 4-7). New 

housing requirements under the upper coal production scenario are estimated at 

10,900 units, a 25 percent increase compared to the 2006 inventory and 1,790 

units more than for the lower coal production scenario. Approximately 60 

percent of the overall demand for new housing through 2010 would be in 

Campbell County. 

A substantial portion of the near-term housing demand in Campbell County 

would be associated with the assumed concurrent construction of three power 

plants. If that occurs, one or more project sponsors may be required by the 

Wyoming Industrial Siting Administration to pro-actively provide housing (e.g., a 

construction camp for single-status workers). Such actions could temper the 

needs for more housing; however, the remaining needs would nonetheless be 

substantial, straining public and private sector residential development capacity. 

Although smaller in scale than those in Campbell County, housing demands in 

the surrounding counties may also strain the capabilities of the residential 

construction sector to respond. Furthermore, residential contractors would be 

competing for available labor, contributing to the population growth and housing 

demand, and fueling increases in construction costs and housing prices. 

The relative scale of the housing needs can be evaluated in comparison to past 

growth in the study area. One benchmark for comparison is the rapid growth 

that occurred in the PRB in the 1970s. During that decade, the number of 

housing units in the six-county study area rose by approximately 14,900 units, 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-93 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

4,500 

5,000 

2003-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 

Cam pbell 

Converse 

Crook 

Johnson 

Sheridan 

W eston 

Figure 4-7. Projected Housing Demand in the PRB Study Area Under the Lower 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f) 

Coal Production Scenario. 

approximately 1,500 units per year on average compared to the 850 to 975 new 

units per year projected under the upper and lower coal production scenarios 

through 2010. The rapid pace of development in the 1970s coincided with a 

period of economic expansion and strained the region’s construction trade and 

building supply industries. Although the underlying economies of the region are 

now larger, the projected needs would tax the ability of communities to respond. 

Signs of strain are apparent in Gillette and could surface elsewhere as greater 

housing needs arise in the remaining counties of the six-county study area 

under the low coal production scenario. 

Projected housing demands under either coal production scenario, although 

lower than what Campbell County and the region experienced in the “boom” 

years of the 1970s, would exert substantial pressure on housing markets, 

prices, and the real estate development and construction industries, all at a time 

when demand for labor and other resources would be high overall. 

4.2.13.6 Public Education 

There are 10 school districts in the six-county PRB study area, ranging in size 

from CCSD #1 with 7,337 students in the 2005 school year to Sheridan County 

School District # 3 (based in Clearmont, Wyoming) with fewer than 100 

students. CCSD #1, based in Gillette, and Converse #1 in Douglas, serve the 

primary energy and resource development region. 

Public school enrollment trends generally mirrored population trends during 

the period of rapid population growth. District-wide enrollment in Campbell 

County grew by more than 4,600 students (131 percent) between 1975 and 

1985. Enrollment increased in all districts in Converse and Sheridan Counties 

4-94 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

as well. Enrollment in CCSD #1 subsequently peaked, but remained near 

record high levels for nearly a decade. Elsewhere in the region enrollments 

generally declined with a combined enrollment of 9,525 in the other study area 

districts in 2005, the lowest since 1975 (Wyoming Department of Education 

2006). Recent natural gas and mining development has tempered, but not 

reversed, the trend of declining school enrollments across the region. 

Communities across the PRB study area would see population growth due to 

economic migration from 2003 to 2020; however, the effects of such migration 

on public school enrollments would vary. As the demographics of the population 

change, school districts in the PRB would be affected by new trends. In some 

counties, the size of the school-age population (generally aged five to 17 years) 

may even trend in the opposite direction of total population in the short-term 

due to underlying demographics of the established resident population. 

The demographic projections for the two coal production scenarios forecast 

growth in elementary school enrollments in Campbell County through 2010 and 

after 2010 for most PRB school districts. Projected enrollments in CCSD #1 

would be approximately 10 percent higher by 2020 under the upper coal 

production scenario, with those in the surrounding districts about one percent 

higher. However, several districts still may experience enrollment levels in 2020 

below current levels, as growth from 2010 to 2020 would not offset recent 

declines or those projected to occur before 2010. 

Under the lower coal production scenario, Campbell County would experience an 

increase of 1,587 students, or 22 percent above recent levels, in school 

enrollment through 2020. However, the net impact on CCSD #1 would be 

composed of two trends; a substantial increase in grades K-8 but only small 

increases in grades 9-12 (Figure 4-8). School districts in the surrounding 

counties are projected to experience declining elementary and middle school 

enrollments through 2010 and declining high school enrollments through 2015. 

Thereafter, growth and the associated influences on demographics would 

generate renewed enrollment growth, particularly in the elementary grades in 

Johnson, Sheridan, and Converse Counties. 

Under either scenario, projected enrollments may cause short-term school 

capacity shortages, depending on the specific grade levels and residential 

locations of the additional students. Under the Wyoming School Facilities 

Commission planning guidelines, impacted school districts generally need to 

accommodate minor capacity shortages through the use of temporary facilities, 

such as portable classrooms. For larger and more long-term increases, the 

Commission’s policy is to fund capital expansion where warranted by projections 

developed during updates of school districts’ five-year plans. The approved fiveyear plan for CCSD #1 has a $57.4 million budget covering construction of 

several new schools and numerous major maintenance and facility upgrade 

projects. The approved five-year plans for the other school districts have 

combined cost of $163 million. Capital investment in public education facilities 

has been a statewide priority in Wyoming for the past decade, with taxes and 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-95 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

0 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

8,000 

9,000 

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

C C SD #1,G rades K-8 C C SD #1,G rades 9-12 

O therD istricts,K-8 O therD istricts,9-12 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f) 

Figure 4-8.	 Projected School Enrollment to 2020 Under the Lower Coal

 Production Scenario. 

royalties on mineral and energy resources the primary source of program 

funding (Wyoming School Facilities Commission 2007 and Wyoming CREG 

2007). 

4.2.13.7 Facilities and Services 

The types and levels of facilities and services provided by local governments 

reflect service demand, revenue availability, and community values regarding 

appropriate services and service standards. As with most socioeconomic 

characteristics, the level and availability of local government facilities and 

services varies by county and community across the PRB. There are literally 

several hundred separate service providers in the region. Although virtually all 

local government facilities and services are affected by energy development and 

the demand related thereto, the critical facilities and services include municipal 

water and sewer systems, law enforcement at the county level, and hospitals. A 

comprehensive assessment of facilities and services is beyond the scope of the 

PRB Coal Review. However, an initial screening revealed no critical needs or 

shortfalls and indicated that most providers are engaged in an ongoing longterm process to maintain and improve facilities and services to meet community 

needs and to comply with various regulations and standards. 

The PRB Coal Review socioeconomic analysis focuses on water supply and 

wastewater systems (two essential services that are costly and have the longest 

lead times to develop) and law enforcement, emergency response, and road 

4-96 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

maintenance (three services that typically are most affected by energy 

development). 

Water supply and wastewater systems in most communities have the capacity to 

accommodate the cumulative population growth associated with either projected 

coal production scenario through 2020, assuming ongoing or planned 

improvements are completed. In Gillette, there may be a timing issue with 

planned water supply system expansions, as completion of planned 

improvements would occur when substantial growth is anticipated under both 

projected coal production scenarios. Consequently, Gillette may experience 

water shortages in the summer months for several years, particularly if growth 

follows that under the upper coal production scenario. Douglas is looking to 

add water treatment capacity to provide additional capacity and management 

flexibility to address needs during times of drought. 

The ability to provide desired levels of services to the projected energy-related 

population and development is less clear in Campbell County, Gillette, Wright, 

and outlying rural communities. Campbell County and its communities would 

experience a 25 percent increase in population between 2003 and 2010 under 

the lower coal production scenario and 30 percent under the upper coal 

production scenario. 

Growth rates and the resultant facility and service demand in other counties 

within the study area would be substantially less during the 2003 to 2010 

period under either scenario; all communities other than Johnson County and 

Buffalo would grow substantially less than 10 percent during the period. The 

populations of Johnson County and Buffalo would increase 10 percent by 2010, 

driven primarily by CBNG development. 

Growth rates and resultant increases in service demands would slow 

substantially during both the 2011 to 2015 and 2016 to 2020 periods under 

either projected coal production scenario. In most communities except Sheridan 

County and the city of Sheridan, there would be little difference in population 

growth and service demand between the two scenarios. 

4.2.13.8 Fiscal Conditions 

Federal mineral royalties and state and local taxes levied on coal and other 

mineral production are vitally important sources of public revenue in Wyoming. 

Taxes, fees, and charges levied on real estate improvements, retail trade, and 

other economic activity supported by energy development provide additional 

revenues to support public facilities and services. These revenues benefit not 

only those jurisdictions within which the production or activity occurs, but also 

the federal treasury, state coffers, school districts, and local governments across 

the state through revenue-sharing and intergovernmental transfer mechanisms. 

Coal and other minerals produced in Wyoming, regardless of ownership, are 

subject to ad valorem taxation by local taxing entities and a statewide levy to 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-97 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

support public education. Statewide ad valorem taxable valuation on coal 

production in 2005 was $2,280.1 million. Of that total, 88 percent was based 

on production in the PRB. 

The total assessed valuation of Campbell County, boosted by recent increases 

in CBNG production, was $4,264 million in 2006. Valuations on aggregate 

mineral production accounted for 87 percent of that total. Because Campbell 

County has been the primary beneficiary of mineral production gains over the 

past three decades and the recent gains tied to CBNG, the county’s assessed 

valuation in 2006 was nearly 38 times that of Weston County ($112.5 million) 

and 31 times that of Crook County ($137.2 million). The 2006 valuation of 

2005 coal production in Campbell County was $1,995.3 million (Wyoming 

Department of Revenue 2006). 

Wyoming levies a severance tax on coal and many other minerals produced in 

the state. The severance tax rate, levied on the value of production, has varied 

from 1.0 percent to 10.5 percent over time. The current rate of 7.0 percent was 

established in 1992. Cumulative statewide severance tax proceeds on coal 

production since 1970 exceed $2.8 billion. Cumulative severance tax revenues 

on coal produced in Campbell County total $1.89 billion. Cumulative 

severance tax revenues for the corresponding period total $96.5 million from 

Converse County, $60.5 million from Sheridan County, and $758.0 million 

from the remainder of the state (Wyoming CREG 2007 and Wyoming 

Department of Revenue 2006). 

Producers pay a 12.5 percent royalty to the federal treasury on the value of all 

surface coal production from federal leases. Total federal mineral royalties of 

nearly $3.3 billion have been paid on coal produced in Wyoming since 1970, 

approximately half of which is returned to the state. Estimated 2005 mineral 

royalties of about $377 million were paid on federal coal produced in the PRB 

(Minerals Management Service 2006). 

At the foundation of the mineral development revenue projections for the period 

2003 to 2020 are projected levels of future energy and mineral resource 

production. The projected total value of annual mineral production under the 

lower coal production scenario will climb by $3.49 billion (2004 dollars) over 

2003 levels, reaching $8.54 billion by 2020, a 69 percent increase over the 2003 

value. The aggregate value of energy and mineral resource production under the 

upper coal production scenario would increase to $9.21 billion in 2020. The 

incremental difference, compared to the value under the lower coal production 

scenario, would be $670 million per year, all of which represents the value of 

higher annual coal output. 

The overwhelming majority of future mineral production value is anticipated to 

be in Campbell County. Over time, the future value of production in Sheridan 

and Johnson Counties would climb. Total annual mineral production value by 

2020 is projected to reach $6.37 billion in Campbell County and $2.17 billion in 

the surrounding counties. Between 2005 and 2020, total royalty and tax 

4-98 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 1 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

receipts derived from the key selected sources range between $21.1 and $22.6 

billion for the lower and upper coal production scenarios, respectively. Receipts 

derived from coal production would account for the majority of the totals under 

either scenario, with federal mineral royalties on coal at $4.9 to $5.7 billion 

being the single largest source. Severance taxes, ranging from $6.3 to $6.7 

billion, also would accrue to the state (Tables 4-34 and 4-35). 

Table 4-34. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated with 

Energy Resource Production Under the Lower Coal Production 

Scenario (million $). 

Industry and Taxes 2005-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total 

Coal1 $3,164.8 $3,178.9 $3,756.3 $10,100.0
 

CBNG $2,915.2 $3,076.4 $3,288.7 $9,280.3
 

Conventional Oil and Gas $568.5 $576.4 $614.0 $1,759.0
 

Totals $6,648.5 $6,831.7 $7,659.0 $21,139.3 

Severance Tax $1,995.9 $2,012.4 $2,249.3 $6,257.6
 

Federal Mineral Royalties $2,754.1 $2,839.4 $3,166.3 $8,759.8
 

State Mineral Royalties $233.5 $225.8 $251.4 $710.7 


Ad Valorem Tax (Counties) $417.6 $443.0 $502.8 $1,363.3
 

Ad Valorem Tax (Schools) $1,247.5 $1,311.1 $1,489.3 $4,047.9
 

Totals $6,648.6 $6,831.7 $7,659.1 $21,139.3 

1 Does not include coal lease bonus bids due to the uncertainty regarding timing. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e) 

Table 4-35. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated with 

Energy Resource Production Under the Upper Coal Production 

Scenario (million $). 

Industry and Taxes 2005-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total1 

Coal1 $3,538.0 $3,703.0 $4,350.0 $11,591.0
 

CBNG $2,915.2 $3,076.4 $3,288.7 $9,280.3
 

Conventional Oil and Gas $568.5 $576.4 $614.0 $1,759.0
 

Totals $7,021.7 $7,355.8 $8,252.7 $22,630.3 

Severance Tax $2,104.1 $2,159.0 $2,415.4 $6,678.5
 

Federal Mineral Royalties $2,946.3 $3,099.9 $3,461.4 $9,507.6
 

State Mineral Royalties $233.5 $225.8 $251.4 $710.7 


Ad Valorem Tax (Counties) $435.8 $472.0 $535.0 $1,442.8
 

Ad Valorem Tax (Schools) $1,302.3 $1,398.9 $1,589.8 $4,291.0
 

Totals $7,022.0 $7,355.6 $8,253.0 $22,630.6 

Does not include coal lease bonus bids due to the uncertainty regarding timing. 

Source: PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e) 

The federal and state governments also benefit from coal lease bonus bids 

derived from future coal leasing. Bonus bids have risen over time, with 

successful bids for recent sales ranging from 30 cents per ton to 97 cents per 

ton. There is no guarantee of that trend continuing. Considerable uncertainty 

also exists with respect to the timing and scale of future leases, although BLM 

currently has pending applications for more than four billion tons of federal coal, 

including this application. The state receives 50 percent of the bonus bid 

revenue. 

Taxes and mineral royalties levied on energy and mineral resource production 

accruing to the state are disbursed to the Permanent Water Development Trust 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-99 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Fund, Wyoming School Foundation and Capital Facilities funds, capital 

construction fund for state and local government facilities, and other programs 

according to a legislatively-approved formula. Through these funds, the 

revenues derived from resource development benefit the entire state, not just 

agencies, businesses, and residents of the PRB. 

County governments and school districts would realize benefits from future 

energy and mineral resource development in the form of ad valorem taxes. Such 

taxes, estimated on the basis of future coal, oil, and natural gas production, are 

estimated to range between $5.4 billion and $5.7 billion through 2020. Those 

sums do not include future property taxes levied on the new power plants, 

expanded rail facilities, or new residential and commercial development 

associated with future growth, or sales and use taxes levied on consumer and 

some industrial purchases. These latter revenues are not estimated in this 

study, but would be substantially lower than those on resource production. 

Local governments would benefit from property taxes on new development, as 

well as from sales and use taxes on taxable sales within their boundaries. Such 

revenues are not estimated for this study due to the large number of 

jurisdictions and other analytical considerations. 

4.2.13.9 Social Setting 

The past 30 years have seen sweeping social change in the U.S. and 

throughout much of the world. But in addition to the broad forces that have 

driven social change in the U.S. as a whole, social conditions in some PRB 

communities have been substantially influenced by energy development. 

Factors that have affected social conditions in the PRB include industrial and 

natural resource development, economic and demographic change, housing 

and public infrastructure development, and institutional change at the local 

and state government levels. 

One of the key drivers of social change in the PRB has been energy-related 

population growth. When the first oil boom occurred in the late 1950s, 

Campbell County was a relatively stable, sparsely-populated rural county. Like 

many places in Wyoming and throughout the rural west, Campbell County was 

a small, relatively homogeneous ranching community (ROMCOE 1982). The oil 

booms of the 1950s and 1960s brought an influx of new people. Development 

of coal mines, continued oil and gas drilling, and power plant construction 

precipitated another round of growth. In all, Campbell County population grew 

by almost 600 percent between 1950 and 2000. 

On the one hand, this population growth, combined with a robust economy, 

generated a variety of positive social effects. Financial and technical resources 

poured into the community as it mobilized to accommodate the new 

population. Job opportunities were created in the construction industry, as 

the community responded to demands for housing, public facilities, and retail 

goods and services. The large and rapid influx of new residents, eager to take 

4-100 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

advantage of the employment opportunities, created energy, vitality, and a 

sense of economic optimism about the community. Where economic 

advancement had been limited before the boom, there was now opportunity 

(Gardiner 1985). 

On the other hand, it is likely that many residents had mixed feelings about 

these changes (Heinecke 1985). New residents brought new ideas, new ways of 

doing things, new preferences for goods and services, and new demands for 

government services. Some long-time residents, particularly those who were 

not directly participating in the economic benefits of energy development, 

viewed these changes as negative. 

Today, almost any organization, committee, or government body is made up of 

a cross-section of energy employees, ranchers, and other community members 

whose tenure in the community may be long or short (Bigelow 2004, Spencer 

2004). Moreover, because of the turnover in the energy companies, the 

community has become accustomed to newcomers. 

Cumulative energy development in the PRB through the year 2020 has the 

potential to generate both beneficial and adverse effects on community social 

conditions. Social effects of development activities in the PRB would vary from 

county to county and community to community under the coal production 

scenarios developed for this study, based on the existing social setting and the 

type of development that would occur. 

Beneficial social effects would be associated with an expanding economy and 

employment opportunities associated with energy development and resulting 

improvements in living standards for those employed in energy-related 

industries. Adverse social effects could occur as a result of conflicts over land 

use and environmental values. Negative social effects also could occur if the 

pace of growth exceeds the abilities of affected communities to accommodate 

energy-related employees and their families with housing and community 

services. 

In the PRB, social conditions in Campbell County, the city of Gillette, and the 

town of Wright are most likely to be affected because the county would host 

much of the cumulative energy development workforce, and the county and its 

municipalities would receive the largest increments in population growth. 

Campbell County and its municipalities have a long history of energy 

development, and they have developed infrastructure and management 

systems to plan for and manage growth; consequently, major adverse social 

effects would not be anticipated. However, under either scenario, the county 

and the two municipalities may face challenges in providing adequate housing 

and expanding community services in anticipation of population growth 

through 2010, particularly if several power plant and coal mine construction 

projects occur simultaneously. As municipalities receive only sales and use tax 

revenues directly from development and purchases made within their 

boundaries, Gillette and Wright could face challenges in securing the necessary 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-101 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

funding to improve municipal facilities and services. Housing shortages and 

limitations in public services could contribute to adverse community social 

effects in these communities. 

Many of the people who would immigrate to Campbell County for energy-related 

jobs are likely to share characteristics with much of the current population; 

therefore, few barriers to social integration are anticipated. 

Social effects on other communities in the PRB are likely to be minimal to 

moderate. Energy-related population growth is anticipated to be moderate in 

other communities. Sheridan County, also familiar with coal mining, is the only 

other county anticipated to host a major construction project under the 

development assumptions used for either projected coal production scenario. 

Converse, Weston, and Crook Counties could experience spillover growth from 

projects in Campbell County. 

Johnson, Sheridan, and Campbell Counties could experience continued conflict 

over split estate and water issues associated with CBNG development, and the 

pace and scale of energy development across the PRB is likely to continue to 

generate social and political conflict over environmental issues under either coal 

production scenario. 

4.2.14 Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Plant Related Emissions and ByProducts 

As discussed in Chapter 1, BLM does not authorize mining by issuing a lease for 

federal coal, but the impacts of mining the coal are considered in this EIS 

because it is a logical consequence of issuing a maintenance lease to an existing 

mine. The use of the coal after it is mined is also not determined at the time of 

leasing, however, almost all of the coal that is currently being mined in the 

Wyoming PRB is being used by coal-fired power plants to generate electricity. As 

a result, a discussion of emissions and by-products that are generated by 

burning coal to produce electricity is included in this section of the EIS. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, under the currently approved mining plan, which 

represents the Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative), from 2008 on, the Belle Ayr 

Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production level of 29.0 

mmtpy for another 8.6 years under, compared with an average of 29.0 mmtpy 

for 14.1 years under the Proposed Action, or an average of 29 mmtpy for another 

13.9 years under Alternative 2 (Table 2-2). 

The Coal Creek Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production 

level of 13.4 mmtpy for another 16.7 years from 2008 on under Alternative 1 (No 

Action Alternative), compared with an average of 13.4 mmtpy for 21 years under 

the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (Table 2-3). 

From 2008 on, the Caballo Mine would be able to produce coal at an average 

production level of 37.8 mmtpy for another 15.9 years under Alternative 1 (No 

4-102 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Action Alternative), compared with an average of 37.8 mmtpy for 18.1 years 

under the Proposed Action, or an average of 37.8 mmtpy for another 18.3 years 

under Alternative 2 (Table 2-5). 

The Cordero Rojo Mine would be able to produce coal at an average production 

level of 46.3 mmtpy for another 5.9 years from 2008 on under Alternative 1 (No 

Action Alternative), compared with an average of 46.3 mmtpy for 15.3 years 

under the Proposed Action, or an average of 46.3 mmtpy for another 15.9 years 

under Alternatives 2 and 3 (Table 2-7). 

Section 3.4.5 contains estimates of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the 

combined mine operations at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero 

Rojo Mines from projected operations under the proposed action and 

alternatives. 

4.2.14.1 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of anthropogenic 

(man-made) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and changes in biological carbon 

sequestration due to land management activities on global climate. Although 

GHG levels have varied for millennia, recent industrialization and burning of 

fossil carbon sources have caused CO2(e) concentrations to increase 

dramatically. As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties 

associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply that scientists 

do not have confidence in many aspects of climate change science. Some aspects 

of the science are known with virtual certainty, because they are based on wellknown physical laws and documents trends (EPA 2008f). 

The National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability 

and Change, an interagency effort initiated by Congress under the Global 

Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law 101-606, has confirmed that climate 

change is impacting some natural resources that the Department of the Interior 

has the responsibility to manage and protect (DOI 2001). The Synthesis Report, 

the final part of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) (available online at http://www.ipcc.ch), was released 

in preliminary form on November 17, 2007. The Synthesis Report (Bernstein et 

al. 2007) summarizes the results of the assessment carried out by the three 

working groups of the IPCC. Observations and projections addressed in the 

report include: 

•	 “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from 

observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperature, 

widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” 

•	 “Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans show that 

many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, 

particularly temperature increases.” 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-103 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

From 1850 to present, historic trend data show an increase of 1°C in global 

mean temperature. The increase is not linear, and there have been extended 

periods (decades) where temperature has dropped or stayed constant. This 

historic warming over that same period has caused sea levels to rise by about 20 

cm on average, and has also resulted in changes in climate patterns on land. 

These changes are not uniform. In some areas near the equator, temperatures 

have cooled by about 5°C, while closer to the poles, temperatures have risen by 

equal amounts (Hansen and Lebedeff 1987). In northern latitudes (above 24° N), 

temperature increases of nearly 1.2°C (2.1°F) have been documented since 1900. 

Temperature changes can result in shifts of weather patterns (rainfall and 

winds) which may then affect vegetation and habitat. The importance of 

temperature change and changes in precipitation in species migration and 

change is being investigated. 

Several activities contribute to the phenomena of climate change, including 

emissions of GHGs (especially carbon dioxide and methane) from fossil fuel 

development, large wildfires and activities using combustion engines; changes to 

the natural carbon cycle; and changes to radiative forces and reflectivity 

(albedo). It is important to note that GHGs will have a sustained climatic impact 

over different temporal scales. (EPA 2008f). There has been, and continues to 

be, considerable scientific investigation and discussion as to the causes of the 

recent historic rise in global mean temperatures, and whether the warming 

trend will continue. 

Solar variability may play a role in global climate change, though the magnitude 

of the influence of increased sun activity is not well understood. Physical 

aspects of the sun, like sunspots and solar radiation output, are known to vary 

over time. The intensity of energy from the sun has varied through time and has 

resulted in global temperature variation. 

Human population doubled to two billion from the period 1780 to 1930, then 

doubled again by 1974. The atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases 

have increased as human populations have increased. More land and resources 

were used to provide for the needs of these populations. As human activities 

have increased, carbon-based fuels have been used to provide for those 

additional energy needs. Forests and vegetation were cleared in order to provide 

for food production and human use. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, water vapor, ozone, and nitrous oxide (NO2) are 

recognized as greenhouse gases. Through complex interactions on a regional 

and global scale, these GHG emissions and net losses of biological carbon sinks 

cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the 

amount of heat energy radiated by the earth back into space. Like glass in a 

greenhouse, these gases trap radiation from the sun and act as an insulator 

around the Earth, holding in the planet’s heat. 

4-104 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

According to the IPCC’s synthesis report (Bernstein et al. 2007): 

•	 “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 

(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of 

human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values 

determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.” 

•	 “Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the 

mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in 

anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. It is likely there has been 

significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over 

each continent (except Antarctica).” 

•	 “There is high agreement and much evidence that with current climate 

change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, 

global greenhouse gas emission will continue to grow over the next few 

decades.” 

•	 “Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would 

cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate 

system during the 21st century that would be very likely to be larger than 

those observed during the 20th century.” 

•	 “There is high confidence that by mid-century, annual river runoff and 

water availability are projected to increase at high latitudes and in some 

tropical wet areas and decrease in some dry regions in the mid-latitudes 

and tropics. There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas (e.g., 

Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and 

northeast Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate 

change.” 

•	 “Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries 

due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, 

even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.” 

•	 “Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise could lead to some impacts 

that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of 

the climate change.” 

•	 “There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilization levels 

assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that 

are either currently available or expected to be commercialized in coming 

decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for 

their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing 

related barriers.” 

The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed these findings, but also has 

indicated there are uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect 

different regions. Computer model predictions indicate that increases in 

temperature will not be equally distributed, but are likely to be accentuated at 

higher latitudes. Warming during the winter months is expected to be greater 

than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum temperatures is more 

likely than increases in daily maximum temperatures. Increases in temperatures 

would increase water vapor in the atmosphere, and reduce soil moisture, 

increasing generalized drought conditions, while at the same time enhancing 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	 4-105 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

heavy storm events. Although large-scale spatial shifts in precipitation 

distribution may occur, these changes are more uncertain and difficult to predict 

(EPA 2008f). 

Relatively steep elevation gradients between valley floors and adjacent mountain 

ranges in the western U.S. produce considerable geographic climate variability. 

Warm, dry, semiarid conditions are typical on valley floors; moist and cool 

conditions are typical in higher parts of mountain ranges. Different plant 

communities occur within specific elevation zones. There also have been 

patterns of historic climatic variation in these areas for more than 10,000 years, 

during which plant communities gradually shift to higher or lower elevations 

depending on the direction of temperature and precipitation changes (Tausch et. 

al. 2004). 

If global warming trends continue into the foreseeable future, Chambers (2006) 

indicates that the following changes may be expected to occur in the West: 

•	 The amount and seasonal variability of precipitation will increase over 

most areas. IPCC (2001) climate model scenarios indicate that by 2100, 

precipitation will increase about 10 percent in summer, about 30 percent 

in fall, and 40 percent in winter. Less snowfall will accumulate in higher 

elevations, more precipitation will occur as rain, and snowmelt will occur 

earlier in the spring because of higher temperatures. 

•	 Streamflow patterns will change in response to reduced snowpacks and 

increasing precipitation. Peak flows in spring are expected to occur earlier 

and be of lower magnitude because of snowpack changes. Runoff from 

greater amounts of winter rainfall will cause higher winter flows. Summer 

flows will be lower, but with higher variability depending on the severity of 

storm events 

•	 Some populations of native plants, invasive species, and pests will expand. 

Increasing amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide. and precipitation 

during the growing season will provide favorable growth conditions for 

native grasses, perennial forbs, woody species, and invasive annuals such 

as cheatgrass. Insect populations also will likely increase because milder 

winter temperatures will improve reproduction and survival rates. 

•	 Fire frequency, severity, and extent will increase because of the increased 

availability of fine fuels (grasses, forbs, and invasives) and accumulation of 

fuels from previous growing seasons. Higher temperatures will extend the 

length of fire seasons. Expansion of pinyon-juniper species and 

increasing tree densities could increase the number of high severity crown 

fires. Higher rates of insect damage and disease also may increase fuel 

accumulations. 

•	 Sensitive species and overall biodiversity will be reduced. High-elevation 

habitats will shrink in area or disappear as lower-elevation plant 

communities expand. It is probable that some mammalian, avian, and 

other species that currently inhabit these high-elevation habitats may 

become extinct. Higher rates of disease and insect damage also may pose 

threats to other sensitive plant and animal species. 

4-106	 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

In 2006, transportation sources accounted for approximately 29 percent of total 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA 2008f). Transportation is the fastest 

growing source of U.S. GHGs, accounting for 47 percent of the net increase in 

total U.S. emissions since 1990 (EPA 2008f). Transportation is also the largest 

end-use source of CO2, which is the most prevalent GHG (EPA 2008f). 

Historically, the coal mined in the PRB has been used as one of the sources of 

fuel to generate electricity in power plants located throughout the United States. 

Coal-fired power plant emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), which has been 

identified as a principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas. According to the Energy 

Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy 2007a, 2007b): 

•	 CO2 emissions represent about 84 percent of the total U.S. greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

•	 Estimated CO2 emissions in the U.S. totaled 5,934.2 million metric tons in 

2006, which was a 1.8 percent decrease from 2005. 

•	 Estimated CO2 emissions from the electric power sector totaled 2,343.9 

million metric tons, or about 39.5 percent of total U.S. energy-related CO2 

emissions in 2006. 

•	 Estimated CO2 emissions from coal electric power generation in 2005 

totaled 1,937.9 million metric tons or about 33 percent of total U.S. 

energy-related CO2 emissions in 2006. 

•	 Coal production from the Wyoming PRB represented approximately 42 

percent of the coal used for power generation in 2006, which means that 

Wyoming PRB surface coal mines were responsible for about 13.9 percent 

of the estimated U.S. CO2 emissions in 2006. 

Wyoming PRB coal is shipped nationwide. The mines in the Powder River Basin 

have sold, and are expected to sell coal into the open coal market. Each mine’s 

ability to sell coal in this market will determine annual production rates at that 

mine. Historically, the coal buyers have been domestic electric producers, 

although the coal could be used in other coal applications or could be exported. 

Relatively little PRB coal, about two percent, is burned in Wyoming. In 2005, 

Wyoming coal went to 35 states besides Wyoming. As noted above, coal 

represented 50.2 percent of the fuel mix used by electric generators nationally in 

2004. In the NERC power regions where PRB coal is sold, coal use ranges from 

74.2 percent in the upper Midwest, to 15.6 percent in the northeast U.S. (EPA 

2007g). 

There are methods of generating electricity that result in fewer greenhouse gas 

emissions than burning coal, including natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, 

solar, wind, and geothermal resources. However, coal-burning power plants 

currently supply about 50 percent of the electric power generated in the U.S. 

The demand for power is increasing in the U.S. and throughout the world. 

According to a recent report by the North American Electric Reliability Council, 

peak demand for electricity in the U.S. is expected to double in the next 22 years 

(Associated Press 2007). Many developing countries, including China and India, 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	 4-107 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

are also relying heavily on coal to meet their rapidly increasing power demands 

as coal is more economical and more available than other sources of electrical 

generation. 

Coal sales are made on short term contracts, generally to individual power 

generators, or coal is sold on a spot market. This market is very dynamic and 

competitive. During the coal leasing EIS process, it is uncertain and speculative 

to predict who might purchase future PRB coal, how it would be used, and 

where the coal might be transported to. 

Technologies for producing cleaner, more efficient and more reliable power from 

coal are currently available, although not yet commercially established. These 

include advanced pulverized coal, circulating fluidized bed, and integrated 

gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technologies. The FutureGen project 

proposes to produce electricity by turning coal into gas, remove impurities, 

extract CO2 from the waste stream, and then sequester the CO2 underground. A 

site in southeastern Illinois was recently selected for the plant, which has a goal 

of being operational in 2012 (Biello 2007). 

At this time, there is no national policy or law in place that regulates CO2 

emissions. A number of bills were introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2007 

related to global climate change. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, 

which was introduced in October, 2007 by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (ID-CT) 

and John W. Warner (R-VA), would establish a cap-and-trade within the United 

States. This program would require a 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas 

emissions from covered sources, which represents over 80 percent of total U.S. 

emissions. It was voted out of the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee in December, 2007 (http://www.pewclimate.org, accessed 

12/21/2007). The last action on the bill was on May 20, 2008 when it was 

placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 

740. 

Additionally, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court (Massachusetts v. EPA) held that 

CO2 qualifies as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 302(g). 

The case was remanded to EPA to take further action to regulate CO2 under the 

CAA unless the EPA determines that CO2 does not endanger public health or 

welfare. At this time, EPA has not made that determination. 

Federal, state, and local governments are also developing programs and 

initiatives aimed at reducing energy use and emissions. The 2002 Clear Skies 

and Global Climate Change Initiative is a voluntary national program to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. There are federal tax incentives for energy efficiency 

and conservation, and some states have renewable energy and energy efficiency 

policies. Regional initiatives have been started in the northeast (Northeast 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) as well as the Western Climate Initiative in 

the western states. At this time, it is not possible to predict how all of these 

programs would be melded into a national regulatory process if one were to be 

enacted. 

4-108 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

A number of U.S. financial and corporate interests have acknowledged that 

enactment of federal legislation limiting the emissions of CO2 and other 

greenhouse gases seems likely (NARUC 2007). There is uncertainty about 

anticipated CO2 emission limits and carbon capture/sequestration regulations. 

This has caused some proponents to cancel or delay their proposed projects that 

use existing and emerging technologies to produce electricity from coal (Casper 

Star Tribune 2007b, 2007c). 

The regulatory mechanisms proposed under the Climate Security Act, as well as 

the past regulation of other pollutants under the CAA, are imposed at the point 

when coal is burned and converted to electric energy and by-products like CO2. 

Over 95 percent of coal produced in the PRB is sold in an open market where 

coal is purchased on short term contracts or spot prices based on a coal feed 

stock that is suitable for each buyer’s power generating facility. Coal production 

at any one mine is not tied in any predictable way over a period of time to any 

one power plant. Power plant buyers attempt to buy coal from suppliers at the 

most economical prices that meet their needs. PRB coal has competed well in 

this market due to its low sulfur content. This makes it valuable in lowering 

sulfur dioxide pollution, as well as competitive mining costs when compared to 

delivered costs of coal from other coal producing areas. 

U.S. coal production increased from 1,029.1 million tons in 1990, when the 

Powder River Federal Coal Region was decertified, to 1,161.4 million tons in 

2006, an increase of 12.9 percent (U.S. Department of Energy 2007c). Wyoming 

coal production increased from 184.0 million tons in 1990 to 444.9 million tons 

in 2006, an increase of 242 percent (Wyoming Department of Employment 

2007a). The share of electric power generated by burning coal was consistently 

around 50 percent during that time frame. Also, the percentage of total U.S. 

CO2 emissions related to coal consumption was consistently around 36 percent 

during that same time frame. The percentage of U.S. CO2 emissions related to 

the coal electric power sector increased from about 31 percent in 1990 to about 

33 percent in 2006 (U.S. Department of Energy 2007a, 2007b). 

Wyoming coal production has increased at a more rapid rate than other 

domestic coal. Wyoming coal is low in sulfur, providing a way for electric 

generators to achieve acid rain reduction requirements. Coal coming out of the 

Wyoming PRB is mined using surface mining methods which are generally safer 

and less labor intensive than underground mining. Rural rangelands are the 

areas that are mainly mined; they are reclaimed according to WDEQ/LQD’s 

standards (see Section 3.9.4). PRB coal reserves are in thick seams, resulting in 

more production from areas of similar land disturbance, and lower mining and 

reclamation costs. 

As discussed earlier in this chapter, future coal mining impacts are estimated 

based on two forecast scenarios for PRB coal production through 2020. In the 

low scenario, the percentage of coal use for electric generation would stay about 

the same, assuming that all forms of electric generation would grow at a 

proportional rate to meet forecast electric demand. In the high scenario, 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-109 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

percentage of coal use would also remain about the same, but with PRB coal 

displacing coal from other domestic coal regions. 

If public sentiment results in changed electric demand, or if CO2 emissions are 

ultimately regulated, the demand forecast for coal for electric generation could 

change. The Department of Energy has forecasted that by 2030, the coal share 

of total energy use will increase from 23 percent in 2006 to 25 percent in 2030, 

while the share of natural gas will fall from 22 percent to 20 percent, and the 

liquids share is predicted to fall from 40 percent to 37 percent. The combined 

share of carbon-neutral renewable and nuclear energy is forecasted to grow from 

15 percent in 2006 to 17 percent in 2030. 

Taken together, projected growth in the absolute level of primary energy 

consumption and a shift toward a fuel mix with slightly lower average carbon 

content will cause projected energy-related emissions of CO2 to grow by 16 

percent from 2006 to 2030. This is slightly lower than the projected 19 percent 

increase in total energy use. Over the same period, the economy becomes less 

carbon-intensive, because the 16 percent increase in CO2 emissions is about 

one-fifth of the projected increase in GDP (79 percent), and emissions per capita 

decline by 5 percent. 

In the 2008 study, projected energy-related CO2 emissions grew from 5,890 

million metric tons in 2006 to 6,851 million metric tons in 2030. In the Annual 

Energy Outlook 2008 study, energy-related CO2 emissions were projected to 

grow by about 35 percent, to 7,950 million metric tons in 2030. This reflects 

both a higher projection of overall energy use and, to a lesser extent, a different 

mix of energy sources (U.S. Department of Energy 2008). This forecast is within 

the range of the high and low scenarios presented in Chapter 4. 

The Annual Energy Outlook 2008 report projected that energy-related emissions 

of CO2 will grow by 16 percent from 2006 to 2030. In this projection, the mix of 

sources for this generation include coal, natural gas, nuclear, liquids 

(petroleum), hydro-power, and non-hydro renewable (wind, solar, etc.). The 

forecasted generation mix by 2030 as compared to 2007 is included in Table 4­

36. 

Table 4-36. Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source (2007 and 2030). 

Source 2007 2030 

Coal 51% 58% 

Nuclear 21% 19% 

Natural Gas 18% 11% 


Petroleum 1% 1% 

Hydro Power 7% 6% 


Renewables 2% 5% 


The Electric Power Research Institute (James 2007) attempted to identify a 

scenario of how the full portfolio of technologies to provide for electric energy 

would respond if national policy were to require that CO2 emissions be reduced 

4-110 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

to 1990 levels. As noted earlier, there is no regulatory structure or CO2 emission 

levels or limits that have been set by national policy or law yet. This scenario 

provides some analysis of the possible effect of regulation as well as decreased 

demand through energy efficiency at the user end, in transmission, and at the 

producer end. The forecasted generation mix by 2030 as compared to 2007 is 

included in Table 4-37. 

Table 4-37. Projected Percent of CO2 Emissions by Source (2007 and 2030) 

Under a Reduced CO2 Emissions Scenario. 

Source 2007 2030 

Coal 51% 52% 

Nuclear 21% 29% 

Natural Gas 18% 5% 


Petroleum 1% 0% 

Hydro Power 7% 5% 


Renewables 2% 9% 

This study predicts that national policy that forces a reduction of CO2 emissions 

to 1990 levels would promote increased energy efficiency, and the growth of “non 

carbon” sources such as nuclear and renewable. Renewable sources include 

wind and solar, as well as emerging technologies like tidal power, river turbines 

and others reported in the media. Hydropower is limited because most 

opportunities for hydropower have been used or require large infrastructure. 

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. 

The mines in the Powder River Basin have sold and are expected to sell coal into 

the open coal market. In both EIA market projections and market projections 

that contemplate CO2 regulation, the coal market supplies half or more of the 

electric generation mix through 2020. Each mine’s ability to sell coal in this 

market will determine annual production rates at that mine. Historically, the 

coal buyers have been domestic electric producers, although the coal could be 

used in other coal applications or be exported. 

The SGAC Mines produced 100.1 million tons of coal in 2006, which represents 

about 22.7 percent of the coal produced in the Wyoming PRB in 2006, or about 

3.2 percent of the estimated U.S. CO2 emissions in 2006. Under the No Action 

Alternative, CO2 emissions attributable to burning coal produced by the Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines would be extended at about 

this level for up to approximately 16 years, while the mines recovers their 

remaining estimated 1,564 million tons of currently leased coal reserves. It is 

likely that, by that time, regulations limiting CO2 emissions will be in place and, 

potentially, projects utilizing the emerging technologies to reduce and/or 

sequester CO2 emissions would be more established. 

Section 3.18.2 contains estimates of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from 

the specific mine operations at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek Caballo, and Cordero 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-111 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Rojo Mines from projected operations under the Proposed Actions and 

alternatives. 

Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines anticipate producing the coal included in the 

Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts, 

respectively, at currently permitted levels using existing production and 

transportation facilities, which would extend CO2 emissions related to burning 

coal from the applicant mines for up to just over 10 additional years beyond July 

2008. It is not possible to project the level of CO2 emissions that burning the 

coal in the SGAC LBA Tracts would produce due to the uncertainties about what 

emission limits will be in place at that time or where and how the coal in the 

SGAC LBA Tracts would be used after it is mined. It is not likely that selection 

of the No Action Alternatives would result in a decrease of U.S. CO2 emissions 

attributable to coal-burning power plants in the longer term because there are 

multiple other sources of coal that, while not having the cost, environmental, or 

safety advantages, could supply the demand for coal beyond the time that the 

Belle Ayr, Coal Creek Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines complete recovery of the 

coal in their existing leases. 

CBNG, which is composed primarily of methane, another greenhouse gas, is 

released into the atmosphere when coal is mined. According to the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy 2007a and 2007b): 

•	 U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions totaled 605 million metric tons 

CO2 equivalent in 2006. 

•	 U.S. 2006 methane emissions from coal mining were estimated at 64.7 

million metric tons CO2 equivalent, which represents approximately 10.7 

percent of the U.S. total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2006. 

•	 Surface coal mining operations in the U.S. were estimated to be 

responsible for methane emissions of about 14.2 million metric tons of 

CO2 equivalent in 2006, which represents about 2.35 percent of the 

estimated U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions in 2006, and about 22 

percent of the estimated methane emissions attributed to coal mining of 

all types. 

•	 The Wyoming PRB produced approximately 53.7 percent of the coal mined 

in the U.S. in 2006 using surface mining techniques, which means that 

Wyoming PRB surface coal mines were responsible for approximately 1.26 

percent of the estimated U.S. anthropomorphic methane emissions in 

2006. The SGAC Mines contributed about 22.7 percent of the Wyoming 

PRB production in 2006. 

Since 1990, when BLM began leasing using the lease by application process, 

total U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions declined from 708.4 million metric 

tons CO2 equivalent to 605.1 million metric tons CO2 equivalent in 2006. Total 

coal mining related emissions declined from 97.7 million metric tons CO2 

equivalent to 64.7 million metric tons CO2 equivalent during the same time 

period. The Energy Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy 

4-112 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

2007b) attributes the overall decrease in coal mine emissions of methane since 

1990 to the fact that the coal production increases during that time had been 

largely from surface coal mines that produce relatively little methane. 

CBNG is currently being commercially produced by oil and gas operators from 

wells within and near the SGAC LBA Tracts. CBNG that is not recovered prior to 

mining would be vented to the atmosphere during the mining process. Selection 

of the No Action Alternatives would potentially allow more complete recovery of 

the CBNG from the SGAC LBA Tracts in the short term (ten years), during the 

time that the mine’s currently leased coal is being recovered. However, BLM’s 

analysis suggests that a large portion of the CBNG resources that are currently 

present on the tract would be recovered prior to mining under the Proposed 

Action or Alternatives 2 or 3. Selection of the No Action Alternatives (Alternative 

1) would not be likely to directly decrease U.S. methane emissions attributable 

to coal mining in the long term because there are multiple other sources of coal 

that could supply the coal demand beyond the time that the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines recovers the coal in their existing leases. 

4.2.14.2 Mercury, Coal Combustion Residues, and Other By-Products 

To meet the nationwide consumer demand and requirement for energy, coal is 

burned in power plants to produce electricity for the United States. Coal is an 

important component of the U.S. energy supply partly because it is the most 

abundant domestically available fossil fuel (USGS 2002). One-quarter of the 

world’s coal reserves are found within the United States (USDOE 2008); the 

energy content of U.S. coal resources exceeds that of all the world’s known 

recoverable oil (USDOE 2008). Coal resources supply more than half of the 

electricity consumed by Americans (USDOE 2008). Many countries are even 

more reliant on coal for their energy needs than is the United States (USGS 

2000). More than 70 percent of the electricity generated in China and India 

comes from coal (USGS 2000). The value of coal is partially offset by the 

environmental impacts of coal combustion (USGS 2000). As described below, 

some of these impacts may have direct or indirect effects on human health 

(USGS 2000). 

One of the concerns associated with burning coal for electricity production is the 

release of elements from coal to the environment (USGS 2002). When coal is 

burned, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other 

compounds and elements, including lead and cadmium, are released (EPA 

2007h). The principal pollutants generated by coal combustion that can cause 

health problems are particulates, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, trace elements 

(including arsenic, fluorine, selenium, and radioactive uranium and thorium), 

and organic compounds generated by incomplete coal combustion (USGS 2000). 

In coal combustion, concentrations of these elements and compounds vary 

depending on the chemistry of the coal deposits and on the type of air pollution 

controls in place when the coal is burned. Coal use in developing countries can 

potentially cause serious human health impacts (USGS 2000). Some coal mined 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-113 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

in China is known to have caused severe health problems in several local 

populations because the coal was mined and burned with little regard to its 

chemical composition (USGS 2000). Chinese coals that contained high levels of 

arsenic, fluorine, selenium, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have caused 

severe, life-threatening health impacts to some residents that burned the coal in 

unvented stoves in their homes (USGS 2000). 

Coal that is burned in the U.S. generally contains low to modest concentrations 

of potentially toxic trace elements and sulfur (USGS 2000). Specifically, Powder 

River Basin coal is recognized as being a clean burning coal due to its low sulfur 

and low ash properties. In a 2002 analysis conducted by USGS (2002b), PRB 

coal was found to contain, on average, approximately 8 times less sulfur than 

coals being utilized from the Appalachian and Illinois basins to supply U.S. 

power plants (feed coal). PRB feed coal was also found to contain nearly half as 

much uranium (8.9 ppm), 7 times less arsenic (17 ppm), 5 times less lead (19 

ppm), and 3 times less cadmium (1.1 ppm) as compared to Appalachian and 

Illinois basin feed coals. When burned, PRB coal produced, on average, 38 

percent less fly ash than Appalachian and Illinois basin coals (USGS 2002b). 

The fly ash resulting from combusted PRB coal contained approximately 39 

times less mercury than fly ash that was generated from combusted 

Appalachian and Illinois basin coal (USGS 2002b). 

Additionally, many U.S. coal burning power plants use sophisticated pollutioncontrol systems that efficiently reduce the emission of hazardous elements 

(USGS 2000). The EPA conducted a detailed study of possible health impacts 

from exposure to emissions of approximately 20 potentially toxic substances 

from U.S. coal-burning power plants (USGS 2000). The EPA concluded that, 

with the exception of possibly mercury, there is no compelling evidence to 

indicate that emissions from U.S. coal-burning power plants cause human 

health problems (USGS 2000). 

Mercury is a naturally occurring element and enters the environment as a result 

of natural sources, such as active volcanoes, and through human activities such 

as industrial combustion and mining (EPA 2006b). Natural sources of mercury, 

such as volcanic eruptions and emissions from the ocean, have been estimated 

to contribute about 33 percent of the current worldwide mercury air emissions; 

anthropogenic (human-caused) mercury emissions account for the remaining 67 

percent, though these estimates are highly uncertain (EPA 2007i). 

When fossil fuels burn, mercury vapor can be released into the atmosphere 

where it may drift for a year or more, spreading with air currents over vast 

regions of the globe (DOE 2006). In 1995, an estimated 5,500 tons of mercury 

was emitted globally from both natural and human sources (DOE 2006). Coalfired power plants in the United States contributed to less than one percent of 

that total (DOE 2006). 

Mercury is a global problem that knows no national or continental boundaries. 

It can travel thousands of miles in the atmosphere before it is eventually 

4-114 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

deposited back to the earth in rainfall or in dry gaseous forms (EPA 2007i). EPA 

estimates that about one-third of the U.S. anthropogenic mercury emissions are 

deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle 

(EPA 2007i). 

Table 4-38 summarizes how the various continents contributed to the worldwide 

anthropogenic mercury emissions in 2004. The 2004 U.S. anthropogenic 

mercury emissions were estimated to account for about three percent of the 

global total (EPA 2007i). EPA (2006a) estimates that 83 percent of the mercury 

deposited in the U.S. originates from international sources, with the remaining 

17 percent coming from the U.S. and Canada. These figures include mercury 

from natural and anthropogenic sources. 

Table 4-38. 2004 Percent Contribution to Worldwide Anthropogenic Mercury 

Emissions. 

Continent Percent 

Asia: 53% 

Africa: 18% 

Europe: 11% 

North America: 9% 

Australia: 6% 

South America; 4% 

Source: EPA 2007i 

In 2006, EPA estimated that 50-70 percent of current global anthropogenic 

atmospheric emissions came from fuel combustion, and much of it came from 

China, India, and other Asian countries (EPA 2006b). Coal consumption in Asia 

is expected to grow significantly over the next 20 years (EPA 2006b). This 

international source of mercury emissions may grow substantially if left 

unaddressed (EPA 2006b). 

Over the past decade, addressing environmental and human health mercury 

risks has been a focus for EPA (EPA 2006a). Overall U.S. mercury air emissions 

have been reduced by 45 percent since 1990 (EPA 2006a). EPA is most 

concerned with methyl mercury, a potent form of mercury and the form to which 

humans are primarily exposed (EPA 2006a). 

Atmospheric mercury can settle into water or onto land where it can be washed 

into the water. Certain microorganisms can transform mercury into methyl 

mercury, a highly toxic mercury compound that builds up in fish and shellfish 

when they feed. Methyl mercury is the only form of mercury that biomagnifies 

in the food web. Concentrations of methyl mercury in fish are generally on the 

order of a million times the methyl mercury concentration in the water (EPA 

2006a). The primary pathway of human exposure to mercury is through eating 

fish containing methyl mercury (EPA 2006a). 

There are adverse health effects to humans and other animals that consume 

these fish and shellfish. Birds and mammals that eat fish may be more exposed 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-115 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

to mercury more than other animals in water ecosystems (EPA 2008d). At high 

levels of exposure, methyl mercury’s harmful effects may include death, reduced 

reproduction, slower growth and development, and abnormal behavior (EPA 

2008d). Research has shown that most people’s fish consumption does not 

cause a health concern, but high levels of methyl mercury in the bloodstream of 

unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous systems of 

those children (EPA 2006a). 

DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy has been sponsoring studies on mercury emissions 

from coal-based power generators to identify effective and economical control 

options for the past decade (DOE 2006). The Office of Fossil Energy manages 

the largest funded program in the U.S. for developing an understanding of 

mercury emissions and developing emission control technologies for the coalfired electric generating industry in the U.S. (DOE 2006). Research on advanced 

and improved mercury control technology is ongoing (DOE 2006). 

In the U.S., coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of 

mercury emissions being released into the air, accounting for about 40 percent 

of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions (EPA 2008d). However, these 

emissions contribute little to the global mercury pool. EPA estimated that 

mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants account for about one 

percent of the global total (EPA 2007k). 

Coal production from the Wyoming PRB represented approximately 42 percent of 

the coal used for power generation in 2006, which would represent about 0.4 

percent of the global anthropogenic mercury emissions. The South Gillette Area 

Mines produced about 22.7 percent of the coal produced in the Wyoming PRB in 

2006, which would represent about 0.1 percent of the global mercury emissions. 

Under the No Action Alternatives, mercury emissions attributable to burning 

coal produced by the South Gillette area mines would be extended at about 

current levels of up to approximately 16 years, while the mines recover their 

remaining estimated 1,564 million tons of currently leased coal reserves. Under 

the Proposed Actions or Alternatives 1 or 2, the South Gillette Area mines 

contribution to global mercury emissions would be extended from 2 to 10 

additional years, depending on the tract and alternatives selected. Uncertainties 

about future regulatory requirements and the use of the coal mined from the 

South Gillette Area LBA tracts make it difficult to project the impacts of mercury 

emissions produced by burning SGAC coal. 

Additionally, burning coal in electric utility boilers generates residual materials 

which are referred to as coal combustion residues. These residues include noncombustible materials left in the furnaces and ash that is carried up the 

smokestacks and collected by air pollution control technologies. As previously 

referenced, coal and coal combustion residues can contain a variety of 

compounds, metals, and other elements depending on the coal deposit and upon 

the site-specific characteristics of where the coal originated from. Coal-fired 

boilers are required to have control devices to reduce the amount of emissions 

that are released into the atmosphere (EPA 2007j). The use of air pollution 

4-116 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

control equipment at power plants has resulted in fewer emissions but has also 

increased the amount of solid residues. 

In the past, coal combustion residues have generally been recycled or disposed 

of in landfills or surface impoundments. More recently, these residues have 

been disposed of in mines. There can potentially be risks of contamination of 

drinking water supplies and surface water bodies by coal combustion residues, 

particularly when they are disposed of in mines (National Academy of Science 

2006, EPA 2002). The EPA is evaluating management options for solid wastes 

from coal combustion, including whether current management practices pose 

risks to human health or ecological receptors. A draft report, dated August 6, 

2007, prepared for the EPA Office of Solid Waste, and entitled “Human and 

Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes”, is available at 

http://www.earthjustice.org/library; however, the report is labeled as a draft 

document which is not to be cited or quoted. 

As discussed above, the South Gillette Area coal mines produced about 22.7 

percent of the coal produced in the Wyoming PRB in 2006. Under the No Action 

Alternatives, production of coal combustion residue attributable to burning coal 

from the South Gillette area mines would be extended at about current levels for 

up to approximately 16 years, while the mines recover their remaining estimated 

1,564 million tons of currently leased coal reserves. Under the Proposed Action 

or Alternatives 1 or 2, coal combustion residue related to burning coal mined at 

the South Gillette area mines would be extended from 2 to 10 additional years, 

depending on the tract and alternatives selected. Uncertainties about future 

regulatory requirements and the use of the coal mined from the South Gillette 

Area LBA tracts make it difficult to project the impacts of disposing of coal 

combustion residues produced by burning SGAC coal. 

Depending on the size, shape, and chemical composition, some coal combustion 

residues can be recycled and beneficially reused as components of building 

materials or as replacement to raw materials that would ordinarily need to be 

mined such as sand, gravel, or gypsum (EPA 2007l). Coal combustion products 

(CCPs) are the materials produced primarily from the combustion of coal in coalfired power plants (EPA 2007l) and can include the following materials: fly ash, 

bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization material (EPA 2007l). 

Studies and research conducted or supported by the EPA, Electric Power and 

Research Institute (EPRI), other government agencies, and universities have 

indicated that the beneficial uses of coal combustion products have not been 

shown to present significant risks to human health or the environment (EPA 

2008c). 

Fly ash is a byproduct of burning finely ground coal in a boiler to produce 

electricity (EPA 2007k). Physically, fly ash is a fine, powdery material composed 

mostly of silica and nearly all particles are spherical in shape (EPA 2007k). Fly 

ash is a pozzolan—a siliceous material which, in the presence of water, will react 

with calcium hydroxide at ordinary temperatures to produce cementitious 

compounds (EPA 2007k). Because of its spherical shape and pozzolanic 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-117 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

properties, fly ash can be useful in cement and concrete applications (EPA 

2007k). 

Bottom Ash is agglomerated ash particles, formed in pulverized coal furnaces 

that are too large to be carried in the flue gases (EPA 2007m). Bottom ash is 

coarse with grain sizes spanning from fine sand to fine gravel (EPA 2007m). It 

can be used as a replacement for aggregate and is usually sufficiently wellgraded in size to avoid the need for blending with other fine aggregates to meet 

gradation requirements (2007d). 

Boiler slag is the molten bottom ash collected at the base of slag tap and cyclone 

type furnaces (EPA 2007n). Boiler slag particles are uniform in size, hard, and 

durable with a resistance to surface wear (EPA 2007n). The permanent black 

color of this material is desirable for asphalt applications and aids in the melting 

of snow (EPA 2007n). 

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) material is a product of a process typically used 

for reducing SO2 emissions from the exhaust gas system of a coal-fired boiler 

(EPA 2007h). These materials can be used as embankment and road base 

material, wallboard manufacturing, and in place of gypsum for the production of 

cement (EPA 2007h). Currently, the largest single market for FGD material is in 

wallboard manufacturing (EPA 2007h). 

Utilizing CCPs can generate significant environmental and economic benefits 

(EPA 2007l). CCPs can be used for raw feed for cement clinker, concrete, grout, 

flowable fill, structural fill, road base/sub-base, soil modification, mineral filler, 

snow and ice traction control, blasting grit and abrasives, roofing granules, 

mining applications, wallboard, waste stabilization/solidification, and soil 

amendment (EPA 2007l). 

Using CCPs can reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and 

can help reduce the need for landfill space (EPA 2007o). Economic benefits 

include reduced costs associated with managing coal ash and slag disposal, 

potential revenue from the sale of CCPs, and savings from using CCPs in place of 

other more costly raw materials (EPA 2003b). 

CCPs offer product-performance benefits as well. Boiler slag is a sought-after 

replacement for sand in blasting grit because it is free of silica and eliminates 

the potential health risk of silicosis (EPA 2007o). High coal ash content concrete 

is used for building long-lived pavements designed to last 50 years—twice the 

lifetime of conventional pavements (EPA 2003b). Coal fly ash can create 

superior products because of its self-cementing properties (EPA 2007o). Using 

coal fly ash in concrete can also produce stronger and longer-lasting buildings 

(EPA 2007o). This not only reduces the costs of maintaining buildings, but 

provides the additional environmental benefit of reducing the need for new 

concrete to repair or replace aging buildings. This translates to a significant 

reduction in future energy consumption and GHG emissions (EPA 2007o). 

4-118 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

In 2005, demand had become so strong for coal ash that some power plants 

were selling all the ash they produced (EPA 2005). EPA (2008e) estimated that 

through the utilization of 15 million tons of coal fly ash, the U.S. reduced their 

greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the annual emissions of nearly 2.5 

million passenger vehicles. 

Because of the many potential uses of CCPs, EPA has sponsored the Coal 

Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2) Program to further the beneficial use 

of these coal combustion by-products (EPA 2003b). With more than 170 private 

and public partners (EPA 2008e), the C2P2 Program is a cooperative effort 

between EPA and various organizations to help promote the beneficial use of 

CCPs and the environmental benefits which can result from the proper use of 

these potentially recyclable materials (EPA 2003b). The C2P2 program will help 

meet the national waste reduction goals of the Resource Conservation 

Challenge—an EPA effort to find flexible yet more protective ways to conserve 

valuable natural resources through waste reduction, energy recovery, and 

recycling (EPA 2008b). 

In 2007, the U.S. used approximately 43 percent of its coal combustion products 

(EPA 2008e). The C2P2 program aims to reduce adverse effects on air and land 

by increasing the use of coal combustion products to 50 percent in 2011 from 

31 percent in 2001 (EPA 2008b). The program also plans to increase the use of 

CCPs as a supplementary cementitious material in concrete by 50 percent, from 

12.4 million tons in 2001 to 18.6 million tons in 2011 (EPA 2008b); this would 

decrease GHG emissions from avoided cement manufacturing by approximately 

5 million tons (EPA 2008b). 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 4-119 
 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

In addition to this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)1, other factors and 

consultations are considered and play a major role in determining the decision on 

this proposed lease application. These include the following. 

Regional Coal Team Consultation 

The four coal lease applications included in this EIS were reviewed and discussed 

at Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT) public meetings held on April 24, 

2005, in Gillette, Wyoming (Belle Ayr North Tract), on April 19, 2006 in Casper, 

Wyoming (Caballo West and West Coal Creek Tracts), and on January 18, 2007, in 

Gillette, Wyoming (Maysdorf II Tract). Each of the applicants presented 

information about their existing mine and pending lease application to the PRRCT 

at those meetings. Voting and nonvoting members of the PRRCT include the 

governors of Wyoming and Montana, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Crow 

Tribal Council, the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USDA-FS), 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS). The PRRCT determined that the lands in the four applications met the 

qualifications for processing as production maintenance tracts. The PRRCT 

recommended that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) continue to process all 

four lease applications. 

Governor's Consultation 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Director notified the 

Governor of Wyoming on March 14, 2007, that Foundation Coal West (FCW) had 

filed a lease application with BLM for the Belle Ayr North Lease by Application 

(LBA) Tract. The BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming 

on April 27, 2006, that Caballo Coal Company (CCC) had filed a lease application 

with BLM for the Caballo West LBA Tract. The Governor was notified on 

September 18, 2006 that Ark Land Company (ALC) had filed a lease application 

for the West Coal Creek LBA Tract and that Cordero Mining Company (CMC) had 

filed a lease application for the Maysdorf II LBA Tract. 

Public Notice 

A notice announcing the receipt of the Belle Ayr North coal lease application was 

published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2005; a BLM news release 

announcing the receipt of the Caballo West and West Coal Creek coal lease 

applications was issued on March 27, 2006; and a notice announcing the receipt 

of the Maysdorf II coal lease application was published in the Federal Register on 

December 12, 2006. These notices also announced the date, time, and place of 

the PRRCT meetings to be held to discuss these lease applications. BLM 

1 Refer to page xxii for a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this document. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-1 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and 

Notice of Scoping in the Federal Register on March 29, 2007 and in the Gillette 

News-Record on April 4, 2007. The publications served as public notice that the 

four coal lease applications had been received, announced the time and location of 

a public scoping meeting, and requested public comment on all four of the 

applications. 

Parties on the distribution list were sent letters announcing the time and location 

of a public scoping meeting in April 11, 2007 in Gillette, Wyoming. At the public 

meeting, the applicants orally presented information about their mines and their 

need for the coal. The presentations were followed by a question and answer 

period, during which no oral comments were made. The scoping period extended 

from March 29 through June 10, 2007, during which time BLM received written, 

e-mailed, and telephoned comments from six entities. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will publish a Notice of Availability in 

the Federal Register for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The 

BLM will publish a Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Hearing in the 

Federal Register for the DEIS. There will be a 60-day comment period on the 

DEIS. A formal public hearing will be held during the 60-day comment period to 

solicit public comments on the DEIS and on the fair market value, the maximum 

economic recovery, and the proposed competitive sale of coal from the four LBA 

tracts. Following comment period on the DEIS, the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) will be prepared. Comments received from the public, state, and 

federal review agencies on the DEIS will be included in the FEIS. Parties on the 

distribution list will be sent copies of the FEIS when it is completed, and the EPA 

and BLM will publish a Notice of Availability for the FEIS. After a 30-day 

availability period, BLM will make a separate decision to hold or not to hold a 

competitive lease sale for the federal coal in each of these LBA tracts and a Record 

of Decision (ROD) for each of the tracts will be signed. Copies of each ROD will be 

mailed to parties on the mailing list and others who commented on this LBA 

during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. There will be a 30­

day appeal period after each ROD is signed before the ROD is implemented. 

Department of Justice Consultation 

After each competitive coal lease sale, but prior to issuance of a lease, BLM will 

solicit the opinion of the Department of Justice on whether the planned lease 

issuance creates a situation inconsistent with federal anti-trust laws. The 

Department of Justice is allowed 30 days to make this determination. If the 

Department of Justice has not responded in writing within the 30 days, BLM can 

proceed with issuance of the lease 

5-2 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
ces

 

 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Other Consultations 

Other federal, state, and local governmental agencies that were consulted in 

preparation of this EIS are listed in Table 5-1. 

Table 5-1. Federal, State, and Local Governmental Agencies Consulted in the 

EIS Preparation. 

Name Project Responsibility 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association 

Pieter Tans Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring 

Division Carbon Cycle and Greenhouse Gases Senior 

Scientist 

University of Wyoming 

Bonnie Heidel Wyoming Natural Diversity Database Botanist 

Ron Hartman Rocky Mountain Herbarium Curator 

B. Ernie Nelson Rocky Mountain Herbarium Manager 

BLM National Science and Technology Center 

(Powder River Basin Coal Review) 

Craig Nicholls Air Quality and Climate 

Paul Summers Water Resources 

ENSR International 

(Powder River Basin Coal Review) 

Valerie Randall Project Manager 

Dolora Koontz Assistant Project Manager and Task 2 Manager 

(Existing Development and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development) 

Eldon Strid, Matt Reilly 	 Existing and Projected Coal Development and Coal 

Transportation Scenarios 

Doree Dufresne 	 Database Development 

Bruce MacDonald, PhD 	 Air Quality 

Robert Berry, PhD 	 Water Resources 

James Rumbaugh 	 Ground Water Modeling 

Brad Anderson	 Surface Water 

Ron Dutton, George Blankenship	 Socioeconomics 

Bernhard Strom 	 Land Use, Transportation, and Utilities 

William Berg 	 Topography, Geology, and Minerals 

James Burrell, James Nyenhuis 	 Soils and Alluvial Valley Floors 

Jon Alstad	 Vegetation, Wetlands, and Grazing 

Charles Johnson 	 Wildlife 

Rollin Daggett 	 Fisheries 

Kim Munson	 Native American Concerns, and Paleontological 

Resour 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-3 
 

 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

List of Preparers 

This EIS was prepared by WWC Engineering, a third-party contractor, under the 

direction of the BLM. Representatives from cooperating agencies reviewed and 

contributed to the EIS. Tables 5-2 and 5-3 provide listings of the BLM, OSM, and 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) interdisciplinary team 

and the third-party consultant personnel who prepared and reviewed this EIS. 

Table 5-2. List of Contributors and Reviewers. 

Name	 Project Responsibility 

BLM Wyoming State Office 

Bob Janssen Coal Program Coordination 

Linda Slone NEPA Coordination 

Mavis Love Land Adjudication 

Larry Jensen Socioeconomics 

Susan Caplan Air Quality and Climate 

John Zachariassen Air Quality and Climate 

Rick Schuler Water Resources 

Julie Weaver Land Adjudication 

BLM Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group 

Dwain McGarry CBNG Geology 

Lee Almasy CBNG Reservoir Engineering 

Karl Osvald CBNG Geology 

BLM Buffalo Field Office 

B.J. Earle Cultural Resources 

Buck Damone Cultural Resources 

Larry Gerard Wildlife 

Jerry Queen Mining Claims 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 


Western Regional Coordinating Center
 

Heather Erickson	 EIS Project Coordinator 

Wyoming State Planning Office 

Steve Furtney 	 Coal Issues Coordination/Cooperating Agency 

Representative 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 


Land Quality Division 


Kathy Muller Ogle CHIA Program Supervisor 

Doug Emme Blasting Program Principal 

Mark Rogaczewski District Three Supervisor 

Air Quality Division 

Kelly Bott	 Engineer/EIS Cooperating Agency Division Representative 

Water Quality Division 

John Wagner	 Water Resources 

Wyoming Department of Transportation 

Larry Konetzki	 DOT District Maintenance Engineer 

Wyoming Game and Fish 

John Emmerich	 Deputy Director – External Programs 

5-4 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-3. List of Preparers. 

Name Education/Experience Responsibility 

BLM Casper Field Office 

Mike Karbs 33 years professional experience, M.S., B.S. Project Supervisor 

Mineral Engineer, Public Policy 

Teresa Johnson M.S. course work in Ecosystem Management, EIS Project Leader/Editor 

B.S. Earth Systems Ecology, Native American 

Cultural Emphasis Phase 

2 years professional NEPA experience 

Sarah Bucklin M.S. Candidate Zoology, B.S. Biology, EIS Project Advisor 

Registered Associate Wildlife Biologist, 

9 Years Professional Experience 

Nancy Doelger M.S., B.S. Geology, EIS Project Advisor 

30 years professional NEPA experience 

WWC Engineering 

Third-Party Contractor 

John Berry B.S. Wildlife Biology, Project Management 

31 years professional experience Report Preparation 

Ken Collier B.S. Geology, Report Preparation 

29 years professional experience 

(Licensed Wyoming Geologist) 

Heidi Robinson 16 years professional experience Document Production 

Mal McGill 10 years professional experience CADD 

Subcontractors for FCW Responsibility 

TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. Paleontology Survey 

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. Air Quality Assessment 

WWC Engineering Water Resources Study 

Preliminary AVF Assessment 

Wetlands Assessment 

James Nyenhuis Soil Survey 

ESCO Associates, Inc. Vegetation Survey 

T&E Vegetation Survey 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes Wildlife Survey 

T&E Animal Survey 

Environmental Solutions, Inc. Land Use Assessment 

TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. Cultural Resource Survey 

Planera, Inc./WWC Engineering Socioeconomic Study 

Subcontractors for ALC/TBCC Responsibility 

SWCA Environmental Consultants Paleontology Survey 

Knight Technologies, Inc Water Resources Study 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Wetlands Survey 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Soil Survey 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Vegetation Survey 

T&E Vegetation Survey 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes Wildlife Survey 

T&E Animal Survey 

ACR Consultants, Inc. Cultural Resource Survey 

WWC Engineering Socioeconomic Study 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-5 
 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-3. List of Preparers (Continued). 

Subcontractors for CCC Responsibility 

GCM Services, Inc. Paleontology Survey 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Wetlands Survey 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Soil Survey 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. Vegetation Survey 

T&E Vegetation Survey 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes Wildlife Survey 

T&E Animal Survey 

GCM Services, Inc. Cultural Resource Survey 

WWC Engineering Socioeconomic Study 

Subcontractors for CMC Responsibility 

Aqua Terra Consultants Geology 

TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. Paleontology Survey 

Aqua Terra Consultants Water Resources Study 

ESCO Associates, Inc. Wetlands Survey 

James Nyenhuis Soil Survey 

ESCO Associates, Inc. Vegetation Survey 

T&E Vegetation Survey 

Intermountain Resources Wildlife Survey 

T&E Animal Survey 

TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. Cultural Resource Survey 

WWC Engineering Socioeconomic Study 

Distribution List 

This EIS was distributed to Congressional offices, federal agencies, state 

governments, local governments, industry representatives, interest groups, and 

individuals for their review and comment (Tables 5-4a and 5-4b). 

5-6 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4a. General BLM Information Distribution List. 

Elected Offices/Officials 

City Council, City of Douglas 

Converse County Commission 

Governor of Montana Brian Schweitzer 

Governor of Wyoming Dave Freudenthal 

US Senator John Barrasso 

US Senator Mike Enzi 

US Representative Barbara Cubin 

Wyoming Representative Dave Edwards 

Wyoming Representative Erin Mercer 

Wyoming Representative Sue Wallis 

Wyoming Representative Thomas Lubnau 

Wyoming Senator Anderson 

Wyoming Senator John Hinew 

Wyoming Senator Michael Von Flatern 

Government Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Big Horn County Commission, Hardin, MT 

BLM, Washington, DC 

BLM, Buffalo, WY 

BLM, Casper, WY 

BLM Library, Denver, CO 

BLM Montana State Office 

BLM, Miles City, MT 

BLM, Cheyenne, WY 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 

Campbell City Board of Commissioners 

Campbell County Conservation District 

Campbell County School District 

City of Gillette 

Converse City Joint Powers Board 

Converse County School District 

Converse County, Special Projects 

Department of Energy, Casper, WY 

Department of the Interior, Denver, CO 

Devils Tower National Monument 

DOI, Washington, DC 

HQ-USAF/CEVP, Washington, DC 

Gillette Dept. of Community Development 

Medicine Bow National Forest 

Mineral Management Bureau, Helena, MT 

MMS, Denver, CO 

MMS, Herndon, VA 

NPS, Washington, DC 

NPS, Austin, TX 

NPS, Denver, CO 

NRCS 

OEPC, Denver Region 

Office of State Lands and Investments 

Office of the State Treasurer, Cheyenne, WY 

Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 

OSM, Casper, WY 

OSM, Denver,CO 

OSM, Washington, DC 

Rocky Mountain Region Solicitor, 

Lakewood, CO 

Rosebud County Commission, Forsyth, MT 

Town of Wright 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

US EPA Region VIII, Denver, CO 

US EPA, Washington, DC 

US Fish & Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA 

US Fish & Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, WY 

US Geological Survey, Cheyenne, WY 

US Geological Survey, Denver, CO 

US Geological Survey, Reston, VA 

US Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC 

USDA-Forest Service, Golden, CO 

USDA- Forest Service, Douglas, WY 

USDA- Forest Service, Lakewood, CO 

Weston City Board of Commissioners 

WY DOE Research & Planning 

Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Comm. 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

Wyoming Dept. of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources & Policy Section 

Wyoming Department of Education 

WDEQ/Land, Water & Air Quality Divisions 

Wyoming Department of Transportation 

Wyoming DEQ/ISD 

Wyoming Division of Economic Analysis 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department 

WY Office of State Lands & Investments 

Wyoming Parks & Cultural Resources Dept. 

Wyoming Public Service Commission 

Wyoming State Engineer's Office 

Wyoming State Geological Survey 

Wyoming State Geological Survey 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

Wyoming State Planning Office 

Wyoming Water Development Commission 

Native American Organizations/Tribes 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Arapahoe Business Council 

Comanche Nation 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal 

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

Crow Tribe 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

Kiowa Business Committee 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

Northern Arapaho Tribe 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

Oglala Sioux Tribe 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

Santee Sioux Tribe 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-7 
 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4a. General BLM Information Distribution List (Continued). 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

Companies/Businesses 

And Organizations 

All American Equipment 

American Colloid Co., Belle Fourche, SD 

Antelope Coal Company 

Ark Land Company 

Belle Fourche Pipeline Company 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

Bjork Lindley Little PC 

BKS Environmental 

BNSF Railway Company, Fort Worth, TX 

Bridgeview Coal Co. 

Buckskin Mine 

Burns & McDonnell 

Campbell Co. Economic Development Corp 

CANDO 

Center For Biological Diversity 

CH Snyder Company 

CONSOL, Inc., Exploration & Land Dept. 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

CSU Library 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Dry fork Coal Company 

Ducker Montgomery et al. 

Economic Analysis Division 

ENSR 

Environmental Solutions Inc, Beulah, WY 

EOG Resources Inc. 

Foundation Coal West Inc 

Foundation for North American Wild Sheep 

Great Points Energy 

Hardin & Associates 

Intermountain Resources 

Interwest Mining Company 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Company 

JIREH Exploration and Consulting LLC 

Kenneth R. Paulsen Consultants 

Kiewit Mining Company, Decker, MT 

Kiewit Mining Group Inc, Omaha, NE 

Kiewit Mining Properties Inc 

LE Peabody & Associates 

M & K Oil Company Inc 

Marston & Marston 

McGraw-Hill 

McVehil _Monnett Assoc. Inc 

Medicine Wheel Coalition 

Meineadair Consultants 

Mine Engineers Inc 

Mining Associates of Wyoming 

National Mining Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Nerco Coal Company 

NM Doelger Consulting, LLC 

Northwestern University 

P & M Coal Mining Company 

Pahasha Ranch Ltd. 

Peabody Energy 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Powder River Coal Company 

Powder River Energy Corporation 

Rio Tinto Energy America 

Riverside Technology Inc 

San Juan Coal Company 

Sierra Club 

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 

Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Thunder Basin Coalition 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes 

TRC Environmental 

Trout Unlimited 

Union Pacific Railroad 

University of Wyoming Libraries 

URS Greiner Woodward Clyde 

US West Communications 

Western Energy Company 

Western Fuels Association 

WildEarth Guardians 

WWC Engineering 

WY Assoc of Prof. Archeologists 

WY Assoc. of Professional Archeologists 

Wyoming Bankers Association 

Wyoming Business Alliance 

Wyoming Business Council/NE Region 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Wyoming Wool Growers Assoc 

Yates Petroleum Corp 

Press 

Associated Press 

Cheyenne-Wyoming Eagle 

Gillette News-Record 

Rocky Mountain Oil Journal 

Individuals 

Barbero, Ralph 

Benson, Scott 

Bierman, Sheldon 

Budget, Douglas 

Cundy, Cecil 

Ford, Frank 

Glustrom, Leslie 

McAfee, Paul 

McCreery, Paul 

Nyenhuis, Jim 

Papp, Alex 

Saulcy, Bill 

5-8 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4a. General BLM Information Distribution List (Continued). 

Ward, Linda 

Williams, John 

Winland, Mark 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-9 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4b. Distribution List for SGAC Draft EIS. 

Individuals 

Atkins, Mary 

Baalman, Lynne & Mark 

Basham, Leftridge & June 

Bertalot, Kenneth & Angela 

Brandner-Davis, Marjorie 

Brown, Maurice 

Buckendorf, Margaret 

Carter, Chrystal 

Christensen, Nita 

Clabaugh, Bonnie 

Clabaugh, Kyle 

Cole-Ballantyne, Betty 

Coleman, Mark 

Conkey, Bonnie 

Couch, Marion 

Cowan, Minnie 

Cupery, Karla 

Deaver, Michael & Pam 

Diefenderfer, Michael 

Doyet, Barbre 

Duncan, Nicholas 

Duncan, Walter 

Dunlap, Helen 

Duvall, Kenneth & Norma 

Edwards, Dennis 

Edwards, Orin 

Edwards, Teddy & Renae 

Eichenberger, Lucy 

Ellexson, Vera 

Farrell, Jane 

Farrell, Joyce 

Farrell, Margaret 

Farrell, Martin 

Farrell, Thomas 

Fisk, Dennis 

Fisk, Sheila 

Floyd Jr. Fred 

Fluharty, Kristi 

Ford, Gerald 

Freeburn, Jolene 

Fuller, RP 

Geis, Byron 

Geis, Gwendolyn 

Geis, Kahla 

Ghanavatzad, Khanon 

Ginsbach, Jane 

Graham, Terrel 

Graham-Bowe, Helen 

Gray, Jess & Hellon 

Green, Gaylord 

Guida, Betty 

Gulley, Beverly 

Haight, Bruce & Jillaine 

Haight, Leslie & Sandra 

Haight, Mark & Deena 

Haines, Shirley 

Hall 

Harden III, James 

Harris, J. 

Harris, Michele 

Harris, Tami 

Hayden, Kerry 

Hayden, Troy 

Hays, Joseph 

Hays, Robert 

Hewit, Betty 

Hoecher, Velda 

Hogan, Debbie 

Holt, David 

Hudson II, William 

Hudson Jr., Edward 

Hudson, Mary 

Johnson, Bob 

Johnson, Bob & Chrystal 

Johnson, Steven & Debora 

Kamon, Ken 

Keidel, Craig 

King, Dorcas 

King, James 

King, John 

Kirkwood, Robert 

Kirkwood, Steven 

Knapp, Everett & Waruny 

Knotts, Marshal 

Koch, Kathy 

Kundrick, Kenneth 

Larson, Patsy 

Lauchnor, Emily 

Lawson, Robert & Beverly 

Lee, Helen 

Lee, Marcea 

Lippard, Gary 

Loflin, Linda 

McGuire, Joanne 

Miller, Gary & Patty 

Miller, Glenn & Susan 

Mills, Edith & Dale 

Mills, Kahla 

Morgan Jr., Norvid 

Morgan, Alice 

Morgan, Richard 

Morgan, Rock 

Morris, Julie 

Nelson, Toni 

Nely, Regina 

Oedekoven, John 

O'Reilly, Jane 

Osborn, Dale 

Plemmons, Daniel 

5-10 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4b. Distribution List for SGAC Draft EIS (Continued). 

Plemmons, Jason 

Plemmons, John 

Plemmons, Leonard 

Plemmons, Robert 

Plemmons, Roy 

Prewitt, Jason & Megan 

Purcelli, Dean 

Raitt, Keith 

Ratcliff, Sam 

Reynolds, Jay 

Rosenthal, Richard 

Roudebush, Betty 

Roudebush, Betty (Green) 

Sauter, Orval & Bryna 

Schicktanz, William & Dorothy 

Schott, Kim 

Shanan, Russel & Michelle 

Sigler, Lisa 

Smith, Nancy 

Stock, Christopher & Barbara 

Tennant, Brent & Rebecca 

Terry, Kent & Charlotte 

Teselle, Rodger 

Thrush, Earl 

Thrush, Jakob 

Thrush, Richard 

Thrush, Valdo 

Thompson, David & Jessie 

Ultican-Hamilton, Norma 

Ultican-Ross, Betty 

Ultican-Spear, Lois 

Wagensen-Coltrane, Mary 

Wagensen-Fisher, Leslie 

Wagner, David & Jean 

Wilmot, Roger 

Wing, Everett & Virginia 

Winniger, Lora 

Wlater, Michael 

Wolf, Karen 

Wolff, Patrick 

Wolff, Shelly 

Companies / Businesses 

And Organizations 

1995 Income Program, LLC 

ABO Petroleum Corp 

AG Andrikopoulos Resources 

AG Hoadley Memorial Trust 

Alta Vivian-Hayden Trust 

American National Bank 

Ballard Petroleum Holdings LLC, Billings, 

MT 

Ballard Petroleum Holdings LLC, Cheyenne, 

WY 

Bank of America, NA, Boston, MA 

Bank of America, NA, Dallas, TX 

Bank of America, National Trust and 

 Savings Assoc. 

Bank One, Texas 

Barbara Evans Family Trust 

Barrett Resources Corporation 

Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. 

Bessie Mae Trust 

BHCH Mineral, Led 

BHCH Mineral, Ltd 

Bill Barrett Corporation 

Blackbear Oil & Gas, LLC 

BNSF 

Bowden Energy Corporation 

BWAB, LLC 

Caballo Coal Company 

Campbell County Cemetery District 

Campbell County Engineer 

Campbell County Roads and Bridges 

Canaan Resources, LLC 

Cavalier Petro. Corp. 

Chaco Energy Company 

Chess Oil & Gas LLC 

Chevron Midcontinent LP 

Cima Energy, LLC 

Citation Oil & Gas Corporation 

Climate and Energy Program 

Club O & G Ltd. 

Coal Creek Mine 

Cordero Mining Company 

Cramer Oil Company 

DAC Interests, LLC 

Dee Bentley, Inc. 

Delmar Hudson Lewis Living Trust 

Diverse Energy Investments 

DJR Trust 

Donald B. Anderson, Ltd. 

Double T. Resources, LLC 

Douglas B. Bickerstaff Revocable Trust 

Doyle & Lora Hayden, Trust 

Doyle G. Hayden Revocable Trust 

Duncan Inc. 

Duncan Oil Inc. 

Dunlap Family LLC 

Dunway Investment Co. 

Electra Investment 

Ella Oil Company 

Ellbogen Property Management LTD 

Exxon Mobile Corporation 

Fedricksburg Royalty, Ltd 

First National Bank of Gillette 

Five Star Energy, LLC 

Floyd Family Mineral Trust 

Forest Oil Corp 

Foundation Coal West, Inc PKA 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-11 
 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4b. Distribution List for SGAC Draft EIS (Continued). 

Four-Ten Exploration 

Frank A. Ford, Trustee 

Gene F. Lang & Company 

Germany Oil Company 

GH Exploration, Inc. 

Gunlikson Petroleum, Inc. 

Headington Minerals Inc. 

Hulett National Bank 

Inexco Oil Company 

ING (US) Capital LLC 

Ira Douglas & Pauline B. Wilson Family 

 Revocable Trust 

Issacs Family Limited Liability Partnership 

J. Walter Duncan, Jr., Inc. 

James F. Rourke et al 

Jeanette C. Vandewark Revocable Trust 

John B. Carrier, Trust 

John E. Jacobs Family Company LLC 

John E. Jacobs Revocable Trust 

JWD III Inc 

KAB Acquisition LP II 

Kaiser-Francis Oil Company 

Kathleen Mae Glade Trust 

Keidel Family Limited Partnership 

Keidel Family LP 

Keith F. Walker Oil & Gas, LLC 

Kerr McGee Oil & Gas Onshore 

Key Production Co. Inc 

Kinder Morgan Operating LPA 

KM Gas Gathering, Inc 

KM Upstream, LLC 

KN Gas Gathering Inc 

Koch Exploration Company LLC 

Kona, Ltd 

Labin Garret, Trust 

Lance Oil & Gas Company Inc. 

Landmark Oil & Gas, LLC 

Lario Oil & Gas Company 

Larry & Katherine Dunlap Family Trust 

Lasmo Oil & Gas Inc. 

Laura C. Steele Living Trust 

Linda K. Rourke, Rev. Living Trust 

Lindys Living Trust 

Lorie Amie Hayden Revocable Trust 

Lorraine E. Broyles Family Trust 

Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. 

M & K Oil Company, Inc 

Macquarie Bank Limited 

Macsy Height, Trust 

Marquiss Minerals, Inc. 

Maxim Drilling & Exploration 

McCulloch Interstate Gas Corp. 

Meagher Oil and Gas Properties Inc. 

Medicine Bow Land Company 

MEG Wyoming Gas Service, LLC 

Merit Energy Partners III, LP 

Morenergy Exploration Company 

MYCO Industries, Inc 

Nance Petroleum Corp 

Nina Mae Evans Partnership 

North Trust Company 

Oswald Family Trust 

P & M Petroleum Management LLC 

Paseo Resources, LLC 

Paul D. Rourke Living Trust et al 

PDI Trust 

Peabody Natural Gas LLC 

Pendragon Res LP 

Petro Atlas Corporation 

Petrogulf II Ltd. 

Petroleum, Inc 

PIP Energy VIII Associates 

Powder River Energy Corp 

Powder River Energy Corporation 

Powder River Oil Company 

PPP Co One Oil Company, Ltd 

Prima Exploration, Inc. 

Primary Natural Resources Inc. 

Providence Energy Corporation 

Puckett Holdings, LLC 

Pure Petroleum LLC 

Quantum Energy 

Quiogue Woods Building Co. LLC 

Qwest Communication International, Inc. 

Raymond T. Duncan Oil Properties, Ltd 

Reverend Aline E Mankin, Trustee 

Reverend Gary B. Hayden, Trust 

RIM Offshore, Inc. 

RIM-CBM LLC 

RMG I LLC 

Robert & Joan Davis Family Revocable 

 Trust 

Robert E & Joan B Davis Family Revocable 

 Trust 

Robert M Deaver Revocable Trust 

Rocky Mountain Gas Inc. 

Rourke Trust 

Royal Properties Inc. 

RSR Energy, LLP 

Ruth R. Ellbogen Limited Partnership 

Sapphire Bay, LLC 

Separate Property Trust 

Severy Revocable Trust 

State of Wyoming 

State of Wyoming Office of State Lands & 

 Investments 

State of Wyoming, Commissioner of Public

 Lands 

State of Wyoming, Wyoming Farm Loan

 Board 

States, Ltd 

T 7 Resources LLC 

5-12 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4b. Distribution List for SGAC Draft EIS (Continued). 

TC Minerals LLC 

Tess Garret, Trust 

The Harris Family Partnership 

The Ogle Corporation 

The Termo Company 

Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC 

Tomas G. Dorough Family Trust 

US Bank National Association 

US West Communications 

UV Industries, Inc 

Vegas Production Co. 

Vera E Deaver Revocable Trust 

Veracruz Ventures, LLC 

Victoria Exploration, Inc. 

Viola Mae Wimot, Trust 

Wachovia Bank, National Association 

Walter Duncan Oil 

Warren Broyles & Co. 

Wells Fargo Bank, NA 

Wellstar Corporation 

Western Gas Resources Inc 

Whiting Oil & Gas Corp 

William K. Warren Foundation 

Williams Production RMT Co. 

Williams Production RMT, Denver, CO 

Winter Ridge Energy, LLC 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission 

Yates Drilling Co. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 5-13 
6.0 References Cited 

6.0 REFERENCES CITED 

Allen & Crouch Petroleum Engineers, Inc. (A&C), 2008, Report of Findings, A 

reserve estimate of conventional oil and gas resources in the general 

South Gillette analysis area. Prepared for WWC Engineering, January 

30, 2008. 

Argonne, 2002, Technical Support Document - Air Quality Impact Assessment 

for the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plans and the Wyoming Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil 

and Gas Project. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Montana and Wyoming State Offices, by 

the Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory. 

Argonne, Illinois. 

Associated Press, 2007, Market Spotlight: Coal Producers, by Samantha 

Bomkamp. Available from website on the Internet as of December 5, 

2007: <http://www.forbes.com>. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC), 1994, Mitigating Bird 

Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric 

Institute, Washington, D.C. 

, 2006, Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The 

State of the Art in 2006, Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research 

Foundation, Washington, DC, 125 pp. 

Bernstein, L., P. Bosch, O. Canziani, Z. Chen, R. Christ, O. Davidson, W. Hare, 

S. Huq, D. Karoly, V. Kattsov, Z. Kundzewicz, J. Liu, U. Lohmann, M. 

Manning, T. Matsuno, B. Menne, B. Metz, M. Mirza, N. Nicholls, L. 

Nurse, R. Pachauri, J. Palutikof, M. Parry, D. Qin, N. Ravindranath, A. 

Reisinger, J. Ren, K. Riahi, C. Rosenzweig, M. Rusticucci, S. Schneider, 

Y. Sokona, S. Solomon, P. Stott, R. Stouffer, T. Sugiyama, R. Swart, D. 

Tirpak, C. Vogel, and G. Yohe, 2007, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis 

Report, Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change Fourth Assessment Report November 17, 2007. 

Biello, 2007, “New Power Plant Aims to Help Coal Clean Up.” Scientific 

American, Available from website on the Internet as of December 17, 

2007: <http://www.sciam.com>. 

Bigelow, S., 2004, Personal communication between S. Bigelow, Executive 

Director, Campbell County Economic Development Corporation, and G. 

Blankenship, Blankenship Consulting, LLC, July 9. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-1 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Billings Gazette, 2006, “Coal Dust on Railways Targeted,” March 18, 2006, 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008: 

http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/03/18/news/wyomings/50­

dust.txt. 

, 2007a, “Federal board OKs final segment of Tongue River Railroad,” by 

Matthew Brown, Associated Press, October 10, Available from website on 

the Internet: <http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/10/ 

news/state/17-rail.txt>. 

, 2007b, “Railroad owner aims to make deal for leasing coal,” by Jim 

Gransbery, Available from website on the Internet as of August 2008: 

<http:www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/13/news/state/21­

railroad.txt>. 

Bison Pipeline LLC, 2008, Bison Pipeline LLC Internet site, Available from 

website on the Internet as of August 2008: 

<http.//www.bisonpipelinellc.com/>. 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. (BKS), 2007a, Report of Findings, 

Vegetation sampling and mapping in the West Coal Creek LBA Tract 

general analysis area, 2007. Prepared for Coal Creek Mine. 

, 2007b, Report of Findings, Vegetation sampling and mapping in the 

Caballo West LBA Tract general analysis area, 2007. Prepared for 

Caballo Coal Mine. 

Borden, G.W., R.R. Fletcher, and D.T. Taylor, 1994, Economic Impact of Coal 

on Wyoming’s Economy, Cooperative Extension Service Department of 

Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, University of Wyoming, B987. 

Braun, C.E., 1998, Sage-Grouse declines in western North America: What are 

the problems? Proceedings of the Western Associated of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies 78:139-156. 

Braunlin, Deanna, 2004, Personal communication between D. Braunlin, 

Campbell County Planner, Gillette, Wyoming, and B. Strom, Planera, 

Inc., November 18. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1974, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Eastern Powder River Basin of Wyoming. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 1979, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Development of 

Coal Resources in the Eastern Powder River Wyoming. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

6-2 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

, 1981, Final Powder River Regional Coal Environmental Impact 

Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 1983, Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Riley Ridge Natural 

Gas Project, Sublette, Lincoln, and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. 

BLM-YA-EA-84-002-1327. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 1984, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Round II Coal Lease 

Sale in the Powder River Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 1985, Buffalo Resource Area Resource Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Re-source Area, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 1989, Manual 3420, Competitive Coal Leasing. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

, 1991, Powder River Regional Coal Team Operational Guidelines for Coal 

Lease-By-Applications. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 1992, Final West Rocky Butte Coal Lease Application Environmental 

Impact State-ment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Casper District Office, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2001a, Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo 

Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as 

of March 2005: <http://www.wy.blm.gov>. 

, 2001b, Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas 

Development in the Buffalo Field Office Area, Campbell, Johnson and 

Sheridan Counties, Wyoming. 

, 2003, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field 

Office, Buffalo, Wyoming, January 2003. 

, 2005a, Task 1A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Current Air Quality Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State 

Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City 

Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, September 

2005. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-3 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2005b, Task 1C Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Current Social and Economic Conditions. Prepared for the BLM 

Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM 

Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, 

Colorado, March 2005. 

, 2005c, Task 1D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Current Environmental Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming 

State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles 

City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, June 

2005. 

, 2005d, Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Past 

and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. 

Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field 

Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, 

Fort Collins, Colorado, December 2005. 

, 2005e, Task 3C Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Cumulative Social and Economic Effects. Prepared for the BLM 

Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM 

Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, 

Colorado, December 2005. 

, 2005f, Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Cumulative Environmental Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State 

Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City 

Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, December 

2005. 

, 2006a, Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153. Policy and Guidance 

on Conflicts between Coalbed Natural Gas and Surface Coal Mine 

Development in the Powder River Basin. Reissued May 11, 2006. 

, 2006b, Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Cumulative Air Quality Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State 

Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City 

Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, February 2006. 

, 2006c, Task 1B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Current Water Resource Conditions. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming 

State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles 

City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

, 2006d, Task 3B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Cumulative Water Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, 

BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field 

Office by ENSR Corporation. 

6-4 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2006e, Powder River Basin Coal Leases by Application Data Sheets. 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2006: 

<http://www.wy.blm.gov/minerals/coal/prb/LBA_title.htm>. 

, 2007a, BLM Land and Mineral Use Record web site. Available from 

website on the Internet: <www.geocommunicator.gov/NILSPARCEL2/map.jsp?MAP=MC>. 

, 2007b, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Maysdorf Coal 

Lease Application – WYW154432. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

, 2008a, NEPA Handbook H-1790-1. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

, 2008b, Task 3B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Cumulative Water Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, 

BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field 

Office by ENSR Corporation. 

, 2008c, June 12, 2008 Letter from BLM to Governor Freudenthal. 

Available from website on the Internet: <http://governor.wy.gov/ 

Media.aspx?MediaId=529>. 

, 2008d, Invited field survey. Observations and measurements by BLM 

Casper Field Office staff, July 7. 

, 2008e, West Antelope II DEIS Public Hearing. Gillette, WY. March 24, 

2008. 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), 2008, Advisory Board, July 9, 2008. 

CANAC, Inc., 2007, Presentation by CANAC, Inc. at the 2007 Coal Marketing 

Days in Pittsburg, PA. 

Caballo Coal Company (CCC), 2003, Caballo Mine Permit Application, 

WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 433-T5, approved June 14, 2003. On 

file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2006, Caballo Mine 2005-2006 Annual Report. On file with 

WDEQ/LQD. Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2007, Caballo Mine 2006-2007 Annual Mine and Reclamation Report. 

On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

Campbell County, 2005, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan for Campbell County, 

Town of Wright and City of Gillette. Prepared by Beck Consulting. Final 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-5 
 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

– November 2005. Available from website on the Internet as of December 

2005: <http://ccg.co.campbell.wy.us/>. 

Campbell County Economic Development Corporation (CCEDC), 2007, 

Economic Conditions and Outlook, updated December 2006. Available 

from website on the Internet as of July 2008: 

<http://www.ccedc.net/data.html>. 

Campbell County Memorial Hospital (CCMH), 2005, Campbell County 

Memorial Hospital information. Available from website on the Internet as 

of March 2005: <http://www.ccmh.net>. 

Campbell County School District No. 1 (CCSD), 2007, Facts About Campbell 

County School District. Available from website on the Internet as of April 

2007: <http://esc.ccsd.k12.wy.us/hr/distinfo.html>. 

CAM-PLEX, 2005, CAM-PLEX Multi-Event Facilities. (Brochure) Gillette, 

Wyoming. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2005: 

<http://www.cam-plex.com>. 

Casper Star Tribune, 2007a, “Coal dust concerns Converse,” March 12, 2007, 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008: 

<http://www.trib.com/articles/2007/03/12/news/Wyoming/>. 

, 2007b, “Clean-Coal Investors Plead for Regulations,” by Dusting 

Bleizeffer, October 11. 

, 2007c, “Utility Snuffs Coal Projects,” by Dustin Bleizeffer, 

December 11. 

, 2007d, “Plant Promises Regional Impact,” by Richard Hodges, 

September 13. 

, 2007e, “Will Wyo's electrical export ambitions go up in smoke?,” 

December 16, 2007, Available from website on the Internet as of August 

2008: <http://www.trib.com/articles/2007/12/16/news/wyoming/ 

79d40159e02ad89c872573b200649bb7.txt>. 

, 2008, “Wygen II plant fires up,” January 13, 2008, Available from 

website on the Internet as of January 2008: <http://www.trib.com/ 

articles/2008/01/13/news/business/fad57b29289e4be5872573ce0026 

8512.txt>. 

Cerovski, A., M. Gorges, T. Byer, K. Duffy, and D. Felley, 2001, Wyoming Bird 

Conservation Plan, Version 1.0, Wyoming Partners in Flight, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. July 1, 2001. 

6-6 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
6.0 References Cited 

Cerovski, A.O., M. Grenier, B. Oakleaf, L. Van Fleet, and S. Patla, 2004, Atlas 

of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department Nongame Program, Lander, 206 pp. 

Chambers, J.C., 2006, Climate change and the Great Basin, in proceedings 

prepared for Collaborative Watershed Research and Management 

Conference: November 28-30, 2006, Reno, Nevada, accessible on the 

Internet at <http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/GreatBasinWatershed/Issues_ 

Papers.pdf>. 

Chancellor, Rick, 2003, Personal communication between R. Chancellor, 

WDEQ, Cheyenne State Office, and Nancy Doelger, BLM, Casper Field 

Office, June 16. 

Christensen, R., 2002, Personal communication between R. Christensen, 

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne, Wyoming and C. Florian, Greystone 

Environmental Consultants, regarding summary report of coal permit 

totals to date: Active Coal Mine Permits, Powder River Basin, 1999-2001, 

July 31, 2002. 

Christiansen, Tom, 2004, Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Population Trend 

Relative to the 2005 Hunting Season – A Summary Report and 

Recommendation. Available from website on the Internet as of March 

2005: <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sagegrouse/ 

index.asp>. (See 2005 Hunting Summary and Recommendations). 

City of Gillette, 1978, City of Gillette/Campbell County Comprehensive 

Planning Program. June 1978. Updated March 1994. Gillette, 

Wyoming. 

, 2007, Department of Community Development, Planning Division, 2006 

Housing and Demographics Survey, January-December 2007. 

Clark, D.W., 1995, Geotechnical processes in ground water resulting from 

surface mining of coal at the Big Sky and West Decker Mine area, 

southeastern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 95-4097, 80 pp. 

Clark, M.L. and J.P. Mason, 2007, Water-quality characteristics for sites in the 

Tongue, Powder, Cheyenne, and Belle Fourche River drainage basins, 

Wyoming and Montana, Water Years 2001-05, with temporal patterns of 

selected long-term water quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007-5146, 65 pp. 

Clark, T.W. and M.R. Stromberg, 1987, Mammals in Wyoming. Museum of 

Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-7 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Clayton, Kort M., John D. Berry, Patrick Farmer, Bruce Waage, Chris Yde, and 

Jessica M. Gregory, 2006, Small Mammal Reoccupancy Of Reclaimed 

Habitat: A Potential Indicator Of Reclamation Success. Paper presented at 

the 2006 Billings Land Reclamation Symposium, June 5-8, 2006, 

Billings, MT and jointly published by BLRS and ASMR, 3134 Montavesta 

Rd., Lexington, KY 40502. 

Community Strategies Institute (CSI), 2005, Campbell County Housing Needs 

Assessment. Prepared for the Campbell County Economic Development 

Corporation. Denver, Colorado. January 2005. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroedoer, and S.J. Stiver, 2004, 

Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush 

Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, unpublished 

report, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Cordero Mining Company (CMC), 1999, Air Quality Permit Application for the 

Cordero Rojo Complex to combine the Caballo Rojo and Cordero Mines, 

Permit No. MD-457A, prepared for CMC by McVehil-Monnett Associates, 

Inc., January 1999. 

, 2007a, Cordero Rojo Mine 2006-07 Annual Report. On file with 

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2007b, Cordero Rojo Mine Permit, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit No. 

237-T8, approved March 26, 2007. On file with WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne 

and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

Crist, M.A., 1991, Evaluation of groundwater-level changes near Gillette, 

northeastern Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Investigations Report 88-4196. 

De Bruin, R.H. and R.M. Lyman, 1999, Coalbed Methane in Wyoming. Pages 

61-72 in: Coalbed Methane and Tertiary Geology of the Powder River 

Basin of Wyoming and Montana. Wyoming Geological Association 50th 

Field Conference Guidebook. 

Delson, E., 1971, Fossil Mammals of the Early Eocene Wasatchian Powder 

River Local Fauna, Eocene of Northeast Wyoming. American Museum of 

Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 146, pp. 305-364. 

DKRW Advanced Fuels (DKRW), 2008, DKRW Advanced Fuels website on the 

Internet, Available from website on the Internet as of August 2008: 

<http://www.dkrwadvancedfuels.com/fw/main/Fact_Sheet-112.html>. 

Erathem-Vanir Geological PPLLC (EVG), 2001, Paleontological Inventory and 

Evaluation 2001 Baseline Survey, Cordero Mining Company, Campbell 

6-8 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
6.0 References Cited 

County, Wyoming. Prepared for TRC-Mariah & Associates, Inc., Laramie, 

Wyoming, 8 pp. 

Emme, Doug, 2003, Personal communication with D. Emme, WDEQ/LQD, 

Blasting Program Principal, May 7. 

, 2007, Personal communication with D. Emme, WDEQ/LQD, Blasting 

Program Principal, April 2. 

ESCO Associates Inc. (ESCO), 1996, Report of Findings, Ute Ladies’-Tresses 

Surveys, Belle Ayr Mine, Campbell County, Wyoming. Prepared for 

submittal to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Field Office, 

Cheyenne. 

, 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. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 2004, “Major Pipeline Projects 

on the Horizon as of February 2004.” Available from website on the 

Internet as of February 2004: <http://www.ferc.gov/forcitizens/project/ 

search/SearchProjects aspx>. 

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong, 1994, Mammals of 

Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado. 

Flores, R.M., A.M. Ochs, L.R. Bader, R.C. Johnson, and D. Vogler, 1999, 

Framework Geology of the Fort Union Coal in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming and Montana. Chapter PF, pages 1-40, in Fort Union Coal 

Assessment Team. 1999 Resource Assessment of Selected Tertiary Coal 

Beds and Zones in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains 

Region. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625-A, Chapter PF. 

Flores, R.M., G.D. Stricker, J.F. Meyer, T.E. Doll, P.H. Norton, Jr., R.J. 

Livingston, and M.C. Jennings, 2001, A Field Conference on Impacts of 

Coalbed Methane Development in the Powder River Basin. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-126. 

Foundation Coal West, Inc. (FWC), 2003, Belle Ayr Mine Permit Application, 

WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 214-T6, approved November 25, 2003. 

On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2006, Air Quality Permit No. MD-1476, approved November 7, 2006. 

On file with WDEQ/AQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2007, Belle Ayr Mine 2006-07 Annual Report. On file with 

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-9 
6.0 References Cited 

Frankel, A.C., C. Mueller, T. Barnhand, D. Perkins, E.V. Leyendecker, N. 

Dickman, S. Hanson, and M. Hopper, 1997, Seismic-hazard Maps for the 

Coterminous United States, Map F - Horizontal Spectral Response 

Acceleration for 0.2 Second Period (5% of critical damping) with 10 % 

Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 97-131-F. 

Frison, George, 1978, Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press: New 

York, New York. 

, 1991, Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press: New York, 

New York. 

, 2001, Hunting and Gathering Tradition: Northwestern and Central 

Plains, in Plains, edited by Raymond J. DeMaille, pp. 131-145. 

Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 13, Part I, William C. 

Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Gardiner, S., 1985, editor, Rumblings from the Razor City: The Oral History of 

Gillette, Wyoming, an Energy Boomtown. 

Gillette Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, 2004, “Gillette, Wyoming – Take 

Another Look!” (Brochure). Gillette, Wyoming. 

Gillette News-Record, 2006a, “Weary travelers compete with workers who need 

a place to stay,” by Kelsey Dayton, July 10. 

, 2007a, “Two Elk Plant Inks Transmission Deal,” by the Associated 

Press, October 5. 

, 2007b, “Will Wright Boom?” by Peter Gartrell, October 19. 

, 2007c, “Railway Officials Focus on Coal Dust Solutions,” by Peter 

Gartrell, July 1. 

, 2008a, “Coal's future: Environmentalist groups threaten to tie up new 

coal-burning power plants, even as the nation's demand for energy 

skyrockets,” by Matthew Brown, January 15. 

, 2008b, “Forum focuses on harnessing Wyoming's wind,” by Wendilyn 

Grasseschi, March 3. 

Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc., 2003, Surface Water Quality 

Analysis Technical Report. Surface Water Modeling of Water Quality 

Impacts Associated with Coal Bed Methane Development in the Powder 

River Basin, January 2003. 

6-10 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
6.0 References Cited 

Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987, Global Trends of Measured Surface Air 

Temperature, 92 J. Geophysical Res. 345. 

Heinecke, B., 1985, Director Mental Health Service, Northeast Wyoming Mental 

Health Center, Oral History in Rumblings from Razor City: The Oral 

History of Gillette, Wyoming, an Energy Boomtown. Edited by S. 

Gardiner. 

HKM Engineering, Inc., Lord Consulting, and Watts and Associates, 2002a, 

Powder/Tongue River Basin Plan. Prepared for Wyoming Water 

Development Commission Basin Planning Program, February 2002. 

, 2002b, Northeast Wyoming River Basin Plan. Prepared for Wyoming 

Water Development Commission Basin Planning Program, February 

2002. 

Holcomb, J., 2003, Rocky Mountain Pipeline Assessment, prepared for PACE 

Global Energy Services and presented at the Rocky Mountain Association 

of Geologists and Petroleum Technology Transfer Council CBM 

Symposium, Denver, Colorado, June 10, 2003. 

Hydro-Engineering, 1991, GAGMO 10-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, 

Casper, Wyoming. 

, 1996, GAGMO 15-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater 

Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2000, 2000 GAGMO Annual Report. Prepared for Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, 

Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2001, GAGMO 20-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater 

Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2004, 2004 GAGMO Annual Report. Prepared for Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, 

Casper, Wyoming. 

, 2006, 2005 GAGMO Annual Report. Prepared for Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, 

Casper, Wyoming, January 2006. 

, 2007, GAGMO 25-Year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater 

Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. 

IHS Energy Services (IHS), 2004, Oil and Gas Production and Well History 

Database. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-11 
 

6.0 References Cited 

IMPROVE, 2007, IMPROVE Summary Data – Summary data through 2007. 

Available from website on the Internet as of as of May 2007: 

<http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/IMPROVE/summary_dat 

a.htm>. 

Jahnke, L., 2005, Personal communication between L. Jahnke, Wildlife 

Management Coordinator, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Sheridan, Wyoming and B. Strom, ENSR, May 20. 

James, R., 2007, Electricity Technology in a Carbon-Constrained Future, 

Carnegie-Mellon University, November, 2007 and The Full Portfolio, an 

article by Revis James in Electric Perspectives, January/February 2008. 

Law, B.E., 1976, Large-scale compaction structures in the coal/bearing Fort 

Union and Wasatch Formations, northeast Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: in Wyoming Geological Association: Guidebook on geology and 

energy resources of the Powder River Basin, pp. 221-229. 

Lewis, B.D. and W.R. Hotchkiss, 1981, Thickness, percent sand, and 

configuration of shallow hydrogeological units in the Powder River Basin, 

Montana and Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Misc. Investigations 

Series Map I-1317. 

Martin, L.J., D.L. Naftz, H.W. Lowham, and J.G. Rankl, 1988, Cumulative 

potential hydrologic impacts of surface coal mining in the eastern Powder 

River Structural Basin, northeastern Wyoming (CHIA). U.S. Geological 

Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 88-4046. Prepared in 

cooperation with WDEQ and OSM, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Martin, W., 1999, Archaeological Investigations Along the Wyoming Segment of 

the Express Pipeline, in Contributions to Archaeology, Volume 5. Project 

Synthesis, pp. 4-1, 4-22. William Martin and Craig S. Smith, series 

editors. TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc., 1997, NO2 Concentrations in Northeastern 

Wyoming: Historical Data and Projections. Report prepared and 

submitted to WDEQ/AQD July 1997. 

Minerals Management Service, 2006, Mineral Revenue Management, Federal 

Mineral Royalty Revenue Reported and Disbursed, By State and 

Commodity. Available from website on the Internet: <http://ww.mrm. 

mms.gov/MRMwebStats>. 

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), 1997, 645 Database, Wyoming 

Summary Employment and Injury Information. 

6-12 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

Morovits, Pam, 2005, Senior Water Systems Operator, City of Gillette Water 

Division, Gillette, Wyoming. Personal communication with B. Strom, 

Planera, Inc., January 14, 2005. 

MSNBC, 2007, “Canadian Pacific buying U.S. railroad DM&E.” September 5, 

2007, Available from website on the Internet as of February 2008: 

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20601064/>. 

Murphree, P.A., 2005, Tracking the Source: Backfill and Backfill Water Quality 

at a Large Powder River Basin Coal Mine. Presentation to the 2005 

National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 

Breckenridge CO, June 19-23, 2005. Published by ASMR, 3134 

Montavesta Rd., Lexington, KY 40502. 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), 2007, 

Committee on Energy Resources and the Environment, Resolution on 

State Regulatory Policies Toward Climate Change, adopted 11/14/2007. 

Available from website on the Internet: <http://www.naruc.org> 

accessed on 12/21/2007>. 

National Coal Transportation Association (NCTA), 2007, “Ballast Fouling 

Initiative on the PRB Joint Line.” February 13 PowerPoint presentation. 

Available from website on the Internet as of July 23, 2008: 

<http://www.nationalcoaltransportation.org/events/BallastFoulingMitig 

ation _2_13_07.pdf>. 

National Coal Transportation Association (NCTA), 2008, Mission statement. 

Available from website on the Internet as of July 23, 2008: <http:// 

www.nationalcoaltransportation.org>. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1969, 

Climatography of the United States: Asheville, North Carolina, National 

Climatic Center, Climatological Summaries, No. 20-48. 

Naugle, D.E., C.L. Aldridge, B.L. Walker, T.E. Cornish, B.J. Moynihan, M.J. 

Holloran, K. Brown, G.D. Johnson, E.T. Schimidtman, R.T. Mayer, C.Y. 

Kato, M.R. Matchett, T.J. Christiansen, W.E. Cook, T. Creekmore, R.D. 

Falise, E.T. Rinkes, and M.S. Boyce, 2004, West Nile Virus: a pending 

crisis for greater sage-grouse. Ecology Letters, Vol. 7, pp. 704-713. 

Niering, W.A., 1985, Wetlands. Chanticlear Press, Inc., New York, New York, 

638 pp. 

Oedekoven, O.O., 1994, Distribution, habitat use, and population dynamics of 

the Rochelle Hills elk herd, Final Report, Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Gillette, Wyoming. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-13 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2001, Sage-Grouse Job Completion Report, Sheridan Region, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 1980, Noise 

impact assessment for the Caballo Rojo Mine. Unpublished report 

prepared by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Aurora, 

Colorado. 

, 1984, Correlation and effect of mine facility wells on the Tullock Aquifer 

in the Gillette, Wyoming, vicinity. Prepared by G.E. McIntosh, C.A. 

Harrison and J.V. Wilcox. 

Ogle, K. M., 2004, Spatial Examination of Backfill Aquifer Water Quality, 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming Using GIS. Paper presented at the 2004 

Advanced Integration of Geospatial Technologies in Mining and 

Reclamation, December 7-9, 2004, Atlanta, GA. 

Ogle, K.M., M. Calle, G. Mooney, and D.N. Dornak, 2005, Cumulative 

Hydrological Impact Assessment (CHIA) of Coal Mining in the Middle 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, Land Quality Division, WDEQ-CHIA-14. 

Ogle, K.M., M. Calle, and D.N. Dornak, 2006, Cumulative Hydrological Impact 

Assessment (CHIA) of Coal Mining in the Northern Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality 

Division, WDEQ-CHIA-15. 

Oil and Gas Journal, 2004, Wyoming, Regional Summary. Oil and Gas 

Journal, July 5, 2004, 44 pp. 

Orpet, J., 2007, Maysdorf II Wildlife Technical Report document submitted to 

WWC Engineering and on file with BLM Casper Field Office. 

Patton, T.M., 1997, Distribution and status of fishes in the Missouri River 

drainage in Wyoming: Implications for identifying conservation areas. 

PhD Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Pederson Planning Consultants, 2001, Appendix D, in the Wyoming Energy 

Commission, Preliminary Progress Report to the Wyoming Legislature, 

Joint Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee, 

December 14, 2001. Draft Report commissioned by the Wyoming Energy 

Commission, 34 pp. 

Petersen, Steve, 2007, City of Gillette Engineering Department. Personal 

communication with G. Blankenship, Blankenship Consulting LLC. April 

20, 2007. 

6-14 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
6.0 References Cited 

Pitchford, M.L. and W.C. Malm, 1994, Development and Applications of a 

Standard Visual Index, in Atmospheric Environment, 28(5): 1,049-54. 

Rahn, P.H., 1976, Potential for Coal Strip-Mine Spoils as Aquifers in the 

Powder River Basin: Project Completion Report Prepared for Old West 

Regional Committee, Project No. 10470025. 

Rehm, B.W., G.H. Groenewold, and K.A. Morin, 1980, Hydraulic properties of 

coal and related materials. Northern Great Plains: Groundwater, v. 18, 

no. 6, pp. 551-561. 

Reuters, 2007, “CONSOL Energy, Pittsburg and Midway Coal Announce 

Venture to Develop New Powder River Basin Coal Mine,” April 24. 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), 2007, Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation News Release, RTEA and Jacobs Ranch Mine Donate 

Conservation Easement to Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, June 25, 

2007. Available from website on the Internet as of July 2007: 

<http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsReleases/2007/ 

JacobsRanch.htm>. 

ROMCOE, 1982, Center for Environmental Problem Solving, Rapid Growth 

Communities Project, Community Profiles. Boulder Colorado, July 1982. 

Schneider, E.A., J. Johnston, and J. Lowe, 2000, Appendices D-2 and D-3A for 

the Buckskin Mine Expansion Permit. Report prepared for Triton Coal 

Company’s Buckskin Mine by TRC Mariah Associates, Inc., Laramie, 

Wyoming. 

Scire, J.S., D.S. Strimitis, and R.J. Yamartino, 1999a, A User’s Guide for the 

CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5.0). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, 

Massachusetts. October 1999. 

Scire, J.S., F.R. Robe, M.E. Fernau, and R.J. Yamartino, 1999b, A User’s Guide 

for the CALMET Meteorological Model (Version 5.0). Earth Tech, Inc., 

Concord, Massachusetts. September 1999. 

Shamley, Judy, 2007, Personal communication with J. Shamley, WDEQ/AQD, 

Senior Engineering Analyst. 

Shelley, Kevin, 1992, Habitat Reclamation for Birds and Small Mammals on 

Surface Mined Lands in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis 

Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

Wyoming. 

Sheridan Press, 2006, “Rails try to keep up with Wyoming coal production,” 

UP, January 9. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-15 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2007a, “Railroad’s coal plans unclear after loan denial,” February 28, 

2007. 

, 2007b, “Defeated in D.C., DM&E now looks to Wall Street for investors,” 

March 5, 2007. 

Shorma, G., 2005, Personal communication between G. Shorma, Regional 

Supervisor, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Sheridan, Wyoming, 

and B. Strom, ENSR, May 20, 2005. 

SourceWatch, 2008, Wygen Unit 3, Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wygen_Unit_3>. 

Spencer, D.R., 2004, Personal communication between D.R. Spencer, 

Northeast Region Director, Wyoming Business Council and G. 

Blankenship, Blankenship Consulting, LLC, April and July 2004. 

Straskraba, Vladimir, 1986, Groundwater Recovery Problems Associated with 

Open Pit Reclamation in the Western U.S. International Journal of Mine 

Water and the Environment, Vol. 5, No. 4. December 1986. 

Stratham, A., 2005, Personal communication between A. Stratham, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department and B. Strom, ENSR, May 12, 2005. 

Surface Transportation Board (STB), 2001, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad Powder River Basin 

Expansion Project. Cooperating agencies: U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of 

Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of 

Reclamation, U.S. Coast Guard. STB Finance Docket No. 33407. 

November 2001. 

, 2006, News release, “STB issues Final SEIS on Dakota, Minnesota & 

Eastern’s PRB Expansion Project.” Available from website on the 

Internet as of January 2006: <http://www.stb.dot.gov/>. 

Tausch, R.J., Nowak, C.L., and Mensing, S.A., 2004, Climate change and 

associated vegetation dynamics during the Holocene: The Paleoecological 

Record, in Great Basin Riparian Ecosystems: Ecology, Management, and 

Restoration, edited by J.C. Chambers and J.R. Miller, Island Press. 

Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC), 2005, Chapter 6, Section 2 Permit 

Modification for Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC Coal Creek Mine, 

WDEQ Air Quality Permit, Submitted September 2005. 

, 2006, Coal Creek Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine 

Permit 483-T5, approved June 20, 2006. On file with WDEQ/LQD in 

Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

6-16 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2007, Coal Creek Mine 2006-2007 Annual Mine and Reclamation 

Report. On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes (TJS), 2007, Personal communications with G. 

McKee, TJS, January 11, 2007. 

Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), 2005, Southern Powder River Updates – 2005, 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008: 

<http://www.uprr.com/customers/energy/sprb/updates_2005.shtm>. 

, 2006, Southern Powder River Updates – 2006 Year-End Review, 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008: 

<http://www.uprr.com/customers/energy/sprb/updates.shtm>. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands 

Delineation Manual, by the Environmental Laboratory, Department of 

the Army, Waterways Experiment Station. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2006, Regional Economic Information 

System – Full-time and Part-time Employment by NAICS, 1969 – 2004 

and Personal Income and Earnings NAICS, 1969 – 2004, Available from 

website on the Internet: <http://www.bea.gov/regional/ 

index.htm#state>. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007, Local Area Unemployment Statistics – 

1997 to 2006, Not Seasonally Adjusted. Available from website on the 

Internet: <http://data.bls.gov/>. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, General Population and Housing Characteristics: 

1990. 1990 Summary Tape File (STF-1). Available from website on the 

Internet as of December 2005: <http://factfinder.census.gov/>. 

, 2000, Housing-Physical Characteristics data from 2000 census. 

Campbell County and Gillette, Wyoming. Available from website on the 

Internet as of December 2005: <http://factfinder.census.gov/>. 

, 2001, 2000 Census of Population and Housing – Wyoming. Available 

from website on the Internet: <http://www.census.gov>. 

, 2006a, Annual Estimates of Housing Unit Counts in Wyoming: April 1, 

2000 to July 1, 2005 (HU-EST2005-04-56), August 21, 2006, Available 

from website on the Internet: <http://www.census.gov/popest/ 

housing/HU-EST2005-4.html>. 

, 2006b, Annual Estimates of Population for Counties of Wyoming: April 

1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CO-EST2006-01-56), August 21, 2006, Available 

from website on the Internet: <http://www.census.gov/popest/ 

counties/CO-EST2006-01.html>. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-17 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2007, Annual Estimates of Population for Counties of Wyoming: April 1, 

2000 to July 1, 2007 (CO-EST2007-01-56), March 20, 2008, Available 

from website on the Internet as of August 8, 2008: 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2007-01.html>. 

U.S. Department of	 Agriculture – Forest Service (USDA-FS), 1987, Plant 

Associations of Region Two, Edition 4, USDA-FS publication RC-ECOL87-2. USDA-FS Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, Colorado. 429 pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), 1990, Economics and Statistics 

Administration, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and 

Housing. 

, 2000, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, 

2000 Census of Population and Housing. 

U.S. Department of	 Energy (USDOE), 2003, “Coal Combustion Products 

Partnership (C2P2)” Fact Sheet. EPA530-F-03-004. January 2003. 

, 2006, “Mercury Emission Control R&D,” Available from website on the 

Internet as of July 29, 2008: <http://www.fossil.energy.gov/ 

programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview_mercurycontrols.ht 

ml>. 

, 2007, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 

2005, Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008: 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/07Upfron 

t.pdf>. 

, 2008, Annual Energy Outlook 2008, Report # DOE/EIA-0383, March 

2008. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2006, 

Annual Coal Report - 2005, DOE/EIA 0584 (2005), Available from 

website on the Internet as of October 2006: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr_sum.html>. 

, 2007a, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2006.” 

Available from website on the Internet as of December 2007: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelcoal.html>. 

, 2007b, “2006 Annual Report.” Available from website on the Internet 

as of December 2007: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelcoal.html>. 

, 2007c, Annual Energy Review 2006, Chapter 7, Coal. 

, 2008, Annual Energy Outlook 2008, Report # DOE/EIA-0383, March 

2008. 

6-18 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1974, (Environmental Protection 

Agency). Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect 

Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA 550/9­

74-004. March. NNA19870406.0098. 

, 2001a, Region 8 comment letter to Nancy Doelger, BLM, on the North 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Lease Application DEIS, dated March 1. Reference to 

WMA Report “PRB Short-Term Exposure NO2 Study,” April 2000. 

, 2001b, Visibility in Mandatory Federal Class I Areas (1994-1998): A 

Report to Congress, Executive Summary, November 2001. 

, 2003, Region 8 comment letter to Nancy Doelger, BLM, on the South 

Powder River Basin Coal DEIS dated April 16. Reference to air quality, 

nitrogen dioxide. 

, 2003b, “Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2)” Fact Sheet. 

EPA530-F-03-004. January 2003. 

, 2005, EPA May 20, 2005 News Release: Coal Waste Becomes Viable 

Product, Available from website on the Internet as of May 2, 2008: 

<http://www.circainfo.ca/pdf/ US%20EPA%20Press%20Release.pdf>. 

, 2006a, “EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury.” Executive Summary. EPA-HQOPPT-2005-0013, Available from website on the Internet as of July 29, 

2008: < http://www.epa.gov/mercury/ roadmap.htm>. 

, 2006b, “EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury.” Chapter V: Addressing 

International Mercury Sources. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0013, Available 

from website on the Internet as of July 29, 2008: 

<http://www.epa.gov/mercury/roadmap.htm>. Accessed on July 29, 

2008. 

, 2006c, Basic information about mercury. Available from website on the 

Internet as of April 21, 2006: <http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about. 

htm>. 

, 2007a Particle Pollution, Health and Environment. Available from 

website on the Internet as of April 2007: <http://www.epa.gov/air 

/particlepollution/health.html>. 

, 2007b, NOx – How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breath – 

What Is It? Available from website on the Internet as of July 2007: 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/what.html>. 

, 2007c, NOx – How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breath – 

Chief Causes for Concern. Available from website on the Internet as of 

July 2007: <http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/chf.html>. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-19 
 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2007d, EPA’s Decision on New Air Quality Standards, Updated Air 

Quality Standards for Smog (ozone) and Particulate Matter. Available 

from website on the Internet as of July 2007: <http://www.epa.gov 

/ttn/oarpg/naaqsfin>. 

, 2007e, Clean Air Mercury Rule. Basic information available from 

website on the Internet as of January 2007: <http://www.epa.gov/air/ 

mercuryrule/basic.html>. 

, 2007f, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Memorandum following the U.S. 

Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision, June 5, 2007. Available from 

website on the Internet as of December 2007: 

<http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/RapanosGuidance6507.pdf>. 

, 2007g, Clean Energy, eGRID, 2006 Version 2.1, April 2007. 

, 2007h, “Flue Gas Desulfurization Material,” Available from website on 

the Internet as of July 28, 2008: <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ 

osw/conserve/c2p2/ccps/fgd.htm>. 

, 2007i, “Mercury Emissions: The Global Context,” Available from 

website on the Internet as of July 29, 2008: 

<http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/global.htm>. 

, 2007j. EPA Clean Energy website available at: 

<http://www.epa.gov/solar/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html>. 

Accessed April 30, 2008. 

, 2007k, “Fly Ash,” Available from website on the Internet as of July 28, 

2008: <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ osw/conserve/c2p2/ccps/ 

flyash.htm>. 

, 2007l, “About Coal Combustion Products,” Available from website on 

the Internet as of July 25, 2008: <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ 

osw/conserve/c2p2/ccps/index.htm>. 

, 2007m, “Bottom Ash,” Available from website on the Internet as of July 

28, 2008: <http://www.epa.gov/ epaoswer/osw/conserve/c2p2/ 

ccps/bottomash.htm>. 

, 2007n, “Boiler Slag,” Available from website on the Internet as of July 

28, 2008: <http://www.epa.gov/ epaoswer/osw/conserve/c2p2/ 

ccps/boilslag.htm>. 

, 2007o, “Benefits of Using CCPs,” Available from website on the Internet 

as of July 25, 2008: <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/ 

c2p2/use/benefits.htm>. 

6-20 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2008a, “Transportation and Climate.” Available at: 

<http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/>. Accessed on July 28, 2008. 

, 2008b. “About C2P2,” Available from website on the Internet as of July 

28, 2008: <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/c2p2/ 

about.htm>. 

, 2008c, “Environmental and Health Information,” Available from website 

on the Internet as of July 28, 2008: <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ 

osw/conserve/c2p2/use/effects.htm>. 

, 2008d, “Mercury: Basic Information,” Available from website on the 

Internet as of July 29, 2008: <http://www.epa.gov/mercury/ 

about.htm>. 

, 2008e, “EPA Recognizes Leadership in Beneficial Uses of Industrial 

Materials,” Available from website on the Internet as of August 3, 2008: 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/4F3C92C9741B1827852 

5747A00632626>. 

, 2008f, “Climate Change – Science – State of Knowledge” webpage. 

Available from website on the Internet as of August, 2008: 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html>. 

U.S. 	Forest Service (USFS), 2006, Environmental Assessment – Yates 

Petroleum Corporation Marine Coal Bed Natural Gas Development 

Project. USDA–FS Douglas Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National 

Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland, Campbell County, 

Wyoming, June 2006. Available from website on the Internet as of July 

2006: <http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/mbr/projects/mineral/adobepdf/Yates 

Marine_EA_Final.pdf>. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2000a, 12-month administrative 

finding for a petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog from the National 

Wildlife Federation, dated July 30, 1998. Available from website on the 

Internet as of August 2000: <http://www.r6.fws.gov/btprairiedog>. 

, 2000b, 12-month finding for a petition to list the black-tailed prairie 

dog as threatened. Federal Register 65(24): 5476 – 5488. 

, 2002a, Memorandum from Mike Long, Field Supervisor, USFWS 

Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming to BLM Casper Field Office 

Manager, Casper, Wyoming, dated June 7, 2002. 

, 2002b, Coal Mine List of Migratory Bird Species of Management 

Concern in Wyoming, based on Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, 

Version 1.0, report available from Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-21 
 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2004, Letter from Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor, USFWS Wyoming Field 

Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Kimberly Wolf, Cordero Rojo Mine, dated 

August 13, 2004. 

, 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. 

, 2008, Mountain/Prairie Region Endangered Species Program -

Mountain Plover, Available from website on the Internet as of January 

2008:www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/birds/mountainplover. 

US Geological Survey (USGS), 2000, Health Impacts of Coal Combustion. 

USGS Fact Sheet FS-094-00. 

, 2002a, Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the 

Powder River Basin Province of Wyoming and Montana, 2002. U.S. 

Geological Survey National Oil and Gas Assessment Fact Sheet FS 146­

02. 

, 2002b, Characterization and Modes of Occurrence of Elements in Feed 

Coal and Fly Ash—An Integrated Approach. USGS Fact Sheet-038-02. 

May 2002. 

, 2008, State-By-State List of Mining Region – Wyoming, Available from 

website on the Internet as of August 2008: 

<http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/mineblast/source.html>. 

, 2004, Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States. 

Available from website on the Internet as of December 2004: 

<http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states.php>. 

Van Voast, W.A., and J.C. Reiten, 1988, Hydrogeologic response–twenty years 

of surface coal mining in southeastern Montana: Montana Bureau of 

Mines and Geology Memoir 62. 

Van Voast, W.A., R.B. Hedges, and J.J. McDermott, 1978, Hydrologic 

Characteristics in Coal Mine Spoils, Southeastern Montana, Montana 

Bureau of Mines and Geology, Bull. 102, 43 pp. 

Vonsik, Brenda, 2005, Campbell County Fire Department. Gillette, Wyoming. 

Personal communication with B. Strom, Planers, Inc. January 14, 2005. 

Waters, T.F., 1995, Sediment in Streams, Sources, Biological Effects and 

Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, 251 pp. 

6-22 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Westerman, J.W. and C. Prink, 2004, Soils Survey of Campbell County, 

Wyoming, Southern Part. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, in cooperation with USDI-Bureau of Land Management, USDAForest Service, and Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Western Water Consultants (WWC), 1992, Geology, Geomorphology and 

Essential Hydrologic Functions of Caballo, Bone Pile, and Duck Nest 

Creeks for the 214-T4 Extension Area. Prepared for AMAX Coal Co., 

March 6, 1992. Appears as Appendix 2.11-12, Volume 8, Belle Ayr Mine 

Permit 214-T6. On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, 

Wyoming offices. 

, 2008, Report of Findings, Using known CO2e emission source values to 

estimate combined SGAC CO2e emission source values. Prepared August 

2008. 

Winterfeld, G.F., 1978, Unpublished field notes, surveys of coal mines in 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Business Council, 2004, Wyoming 2004 Mineral and Energy Yearbook. 

Available from website on the Internet as of March 2005: 

<http://www.wyomingbusiness.org/pdf/energy/2004_yearbook.pdf>. 

Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (Wyoming CREG), 2007, 

Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast, Fiscal year 2008- Fiscal 

2012, October 2007. Available from website on the Internet as of 

January 2008: <http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

, 2008, Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast, Fiscal year 2008-

Fiscal 2012, January 2008. Available from website on the Internet as of 

March 2008: <http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, 2006, Economic 

Analysis Division. Wyoming population, cost of living, economic, and 

demographic data. Available from website on the Internet as of 

December 2006: <http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

, 2007, Equality State Almanac. Population economic and demographic 

information. Available from website on Internet as of December 2007: 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

, 2007, Wyoming Cost of Living Index for Second Quarter of 2007. 

Available from website on Internet as of December 2007: 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

Wyoming Department of Education, 2006, Statistical Report Series, Report No. 

1, 2 and 3. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.k12.wy.us/statistics/index.html>. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-23 
6.0 References Cited 

, 2007, Economic Analysis Division. Wyoming population, cost of living, 

economic, and demographic data. Available from website on the Internet 

as of June 2007: <http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

Wyoming Department of Employment, 1990, Office of the State Inspector of 

Mines, Annual Report for the Year Ending December 31, 1990. 

, 1995, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 1995. 

, 1998, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 1998. 

, 2000, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2000. 

, 2001, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2001. 

, 2002, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2002. 

, 2003, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2003. 

, 2004, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2004. 

, 2005, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2005. 

, 2006, Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year 

Ending December 31, 2006. 

, 2007, Labor Market Information – Quarterly Census of Employment 

and Earnings, 2003 through 2006. Available from website on the 

Internet: <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi>. 

, 2008, Labor Market Information Fourth Quarter 2007. Available on 

website on the Internet as of March 2008: <http://www.doe.state.wy.us/ 

lmi/07Q4_QCEW/07q4t65.htm>. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division 

(WDEQ/AQD), 2004, Letter from Dan Olson, AQD Administrator and 

John Corra, WDEQ Director, to Kimberly Wolf, CMC Environmental 

Engineer, approving Cordero Rojo Mine’s modified dust control system, 

dated September 17, 2004. 

6-24 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2005, Emissions monitoring data available from website on the Internet 

as of December 2005: <http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/downloads/ 

AirMonitor>. 

, 2005b, Wyoming Visibility Monitoring Network. Available from website 

on the Internet as of February 2005: <http://www.wyvisnet.com/ 

all.html>. 

, 2006a, Natural Events Action Plan for the Coal Mines of the Powder 

River Basin of Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming. October. 

, 2007, Natural Events Action Plan For The Coal Mines Of The Powder 

River Basin Of Campbell & Converse Counties, Wyoming. Available from 

website on the Internet as of January 2008: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/AQD/NEAP%20Files/1-23-07NEAP.pdf>. 

, 2006, “Basin Electric Awarded Permit,” News release dated June 22, 

2006. 

, 1988, Letter from Rick Engelmann, WDEQ/LQD Technical Support to 

Mickey Steward, AMAX Coal Co., stating that the portions of Caballo, 

Duck Nest, and Bone Pile Creeks located in the Duck Nest Amendment 

Area are not significant to farming, dated July 14, 1988. On file with 

WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming offices. 

, 1996, Cordero Mine State Decision Document, Permit No. 237-T5, 

Change No. 13, Amendment No. 1, Item No. 2(f), p. 5. January 12, 1996. 

On file with WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. 

, 2004, Cordero Mine State Decision Document, Permit No. 237-T7. 

Permit Renewal, September 16, 2004. On file with WDEQ/LQD in 

Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming offices. 

, 2005, Thunder Basin Coal Company, Coal Creek Mine State Decision 

Document, Permit No. 483-T5, Signed, September 7, 2005. On file with 

WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming offices. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 

(WDEQ/WQD), 2001, Wyoming Surface Water Stream Classification List. 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2008: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/surfacestandards/Downloads/ 

Standards/2-3648-doc.pdf>. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 

(WDEQ/WQD), 2005, Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapters 1 

and 8 (Wyoming Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Standards, 

respectively). Available from website on the Internet as of December 

2005: <http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/WQDrules/>. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-25 
 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2007, Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1. Quality 

Standards for Wyoming Surface Waters, adapted February 16, 2007. 

Available from website on the Internet as of December 2007: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/WQDrules/>. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2004, Excise Tax Division, Sales and Use 

Tax Distribution Reports for Fiscal Year 2004. Available from website on 

the Internet as of March 2005: <http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS 

/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=10>. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2006, Annual Report 2006, Available from 

website on the Internet: <http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/ 

DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=10>. 

, 2006, Annual Report 2006. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault. 

aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=10>. 

, 2007, Annual Report 2007, Available on website on the internet as of 

March 2008: <http://www.revenue.state.wy.us>. 

Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), 2005, Letter from Timothy 

Stark, WYDOT Environmental Service Engineer to Nancy Doelger, BLM 

Casper Field Office, May 23, 2005. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 2003, Wyoming Greater SageGrouse Conservation Plan, June 24, 2003. Available from website on the 

Internet: <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sage 

grouse.asp>. 

, 2004, Casper and Sheridan Region 2004 Annual Big Game Herd Unit 

Report. 

, 2007, Casper and Sheridan Region 2007 Annual Big Game Herd Unit 

Report. 

Wyoming Geological Survey, 2008, Wyoming Mineral Update: Coal June – 

December 2006. Available from website on the Internet as of March 

2008: <http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu>. 

Wyoming Housing Database Partnership, 2007, The 2007 Wyoming Housing 

Needs Forecast – Final Report. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://www.wyomingcda.com/Homebuyer/Home_Demographics.html>. 

Wyoming Mining Association (WMA), 2006, Wyoming Bentonite Page from 

website on the Internet: <http://www.wma-minelife.com/bent/ 

bentmine.htm>. 

6-26 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), 2004, Wyoming 

Statistics. Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://WOGCC.state.wy.us/cfdocs/2002stats.html>. 

, 2005, Rules and Statues. Available from website on the Internet as of 

March 2005: <http://wogcc.state.wy.us>. 

, 2005b, Personal communication with W. Berg, ENSR, regarding 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD) approvals, April 14, 2005. 

, 2007a, Oil and gas well information downloaded from website on the 

Internet as of December 2007: <http://wogc.state.wy.us>. 

, 2007b, Presentation by Don Likwartz, Oil and Gas Supervisor, Wyoming 

Natural Gas Fair, September 20, 2007, Available from website on the 

Internet: <http://wogcc.state.wy.us/2007Gasfair/Presentations.htm>. 

Wyoming School Facilities Commission (WSFC), 2005, Five Year Plan 

Information. Available from website on the Internet: <http://sfc.state. 

wy.us/ DMPInfo.aspx>. 

, 2007, 2007-2008 Biennium Budget Request and Approved Five Year 

Plans, Available from website on the Internet: 

<http://sfc.state.wy.us/DMPInfo.aspx>. 

Wyoming State BLM Office-Reservoir Management Group (WSO-RMG), 2005, 

Review of Coalbed Natural Gas and Conventional Oil and Gas Reservoirs, 

Production and Economy, Eagle Butte LBA EIS, Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming, unpublished report, September 2005. 

, 2006, Review of Coalbed Natural Gas and Conventional Oil and Gas 

Resources, Production, and Economics for the Eagle Butte LBA Final 

EIS, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. 

Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS), 2002, Wyoming Geo-notes, No. 73, 

April 2002, 44 pp. 

, 2003, Wyoming Geo-Notes No. 78, November 2003, 47 pp. 

Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS), 2004a, Wyoming Geo-notes, No. 81, 

November 2004, 38 pp. 

, 2004b, Digital Industrial Minerals and Construction Materials Map of 

Wyoming, by R.E. Harris. WSGS Map Series MS-47. 

, 2005, Industrial Minerals and Uranium Section, Uranium Page. 

Available from website on the Internet as of November 2005: 

<http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/minerals/uranium.aspx>. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 6-27 
 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

, 2005, Industrial Minerals and Uranium Section, Uranium Page. 

Available from website on the Internet as of November 2005: 

<http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/minerals/uranium.aspx>. 

, 2006, Wyoming Minerals Update: Coal. July to December, 2005, by 

Nick Jones. Available from website on the Internet as of November 2006: 

<http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/djvu/default.aspx>. 

, 2008, Wyoming State Geological Survey, “Wyoming Mineral Update: 

Coal,” Available from website on the Internet as of February 2008: 

<http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/djvufirsthalf2006/Coal%20first% 

20half%202006.pdf>. 

6-28 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

7.0 GLOSSARY 

aboriginal - Related to early or primitive cultures in a region. Being the first or 

earliest known of its kind in a specific region. 

ad valorem tax - A tax paid as a percentage of the assessed value of property. 

adverse impact - An apparent direct or indirect detrimental effect. 

aliquot - An exact portion. 

alkalinity - The degree to which the pH of a substance is greater than 7. 

alluvial deposit - Deposits of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and/or other materials 

carried by moving surface water, such as streams, and deposited at points of 

weak water flow; alluvium. 

alluvial valley floor (AVF) - An area of unconsolidated stream-laid deposits 

holding streams with water availability sufficient for subirrigation or flood 

irrigation agricultural activities (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

alluvium - Sorted or semi-sorted sediment consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel, 

or other unconsolidated rock material deposited in comparatively recent 

geologic time by a stream or other body of running water in the bed of that 

stream or on its flood plain or delta. 

alternative - In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, one of several 

substitute or alternate proposals that a federal agency is considering in an 

environmental analysis. 

ambient - Surrounding conditions (or environment) in a given place and time. 

annual precipitation - The quantity of water that falls yearly in the form of 

rain, hail, sleet, and snow. 

approximate original contour - Post-mining surface configuration achieved 

by backfilling and grading of mined-out areas so that the reclaimed land 

surface resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining 

(see 30 CFR 701.5). 

aquatic - Living or growing in or on the water. 

aquifer - A layer of permeable rock, sand, or gravel that stores and transmits 

water in sufficient quantities for a specific use. In hydrology, a rock layer or 

sequence that contains water and releases it in appreciable amounts. The 

rocks contain water-filled pores that, when connected, allow water to flow 

through their matrix. A confined aquifer is overlain by a rock layer that does 

not transmit water in any appreciable amount or that is impermeable. There 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-1 
7.0 Glossary 

probably are few truly confined aquifers. In an unconfined aquifer the upper 

surface (water table) is open to the atmosphere through permeable overlying 

material. An aquifer also may be called a water-bearing stratum, lens, or zone. 

aquitard - A confining bed that retards but does not totally prevent the flow of 

water to or from an adjacent aquifer; a leaky confining bed. 

area source – A plant site that does not emit any single HAP (Hazardous Air 

Pollutants) at a rate of 10 tons or greater per year, or any combination of HAPs 

at a rate of 25 tons or greater per year. 

arithmetic mean - The sum of the values of n numbers divided by n. It is 

usually referred to as simply the “mean” or “average”. 

ash - The residual non-combustible matter in coal that comes from included 

silt, clay, silica, or other substances. The lower the ash content, the better the 

quality of the coal. 

avian - Of, relating to, or derived from birds. 

backfill - The operation of refilling an excavation. Also, the material placed in 

an excavation when it is refilled. 

baseline - Conditions, including trends, existing in the human environment 

before a proposed action is begun; a benchmark state from which the 

environmental consequences of an action are forecast; the no-action 

alternative. 

beneficial impact - An apparent direct or indirect advantageous effect. 

bentonite – An absorptive and colloidal clay used especially as a sealing agent 

or suspending agent formed by the decomposition of volcanic ash which has 

the ability to absorb large amounts of water and to expand to several times its 

normal volume; used in adhesives, cements and ceramic fillers. 

bonus - That value in excess of the rentals and royalties that is paid to the 

United States as part of the consideration for receiving a lease for publicly 

owned minerals [see 43 CFR 3400.0-5(c)]. 

braided stream - A stream flowing in several dividing and reuniting channels 

resembling the strands of a braid. 

buffer zone - An area between two different land uses that is intended to 

resist, absorb, or otherwise preclude development or intrusion between the two 

use areas. 

7-2 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

bypass coal - An isolated part of a coal deposit that is not leased and that can 

only be economically mined in an environmentally sound manner as a part of 

continued mining by an existing adjacent operation [see 43 CFR 3400.0.5(d)]. 

clinker (scoria) - Baked and fused rock resulting from in-place burning of coal 

deposits. 

coal bed natural gas (CBNG) - Natural gas (methane) that is generated during 

the coal-forming process. 

colluvium - Rock fragments, sand, or soil material that accumulates at the 

base of slopes; slope wash. 

confluence - The point at which two or more streams meet. 

conglomerate - A rock that contains rounded rock fragments or pebbles 

cemented together by another mineral substance. 

contiguous - Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary, lands 

having only a common corner are not contiguous. 

cooperating agency - An agency which has jurisdiction by law in an action 

being analyzed in an environmental document and who is requested to 

participate in the NEPA process by the agency that is responsible for preparing 

the environmental document [see 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5]. 

crucial wildlife habitat - Parts of the habitat necessary to sustain a wildlife 

population during periods of their life cycle. It may be a limiting factor on the 

population, such as nesting habitat or winter habitat. 

cultural resources - The remains of human activity, occupation, or endeavor 

reflected in districts, sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, 

works of art, architecture, and natural features that reveal the nature of 

historic and prehistoric human events. These resources consist of (1) physical 

remains, (2) areas where significant human events occurred, and (3) the 

environment immediately surrounding the resource. 

cumulative impact - The impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can 

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). 

decibel - A unit of sound measurement. In general, a sound doubles in 

loudness for every increase of 10 decibels. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-3 
7.0 Glossary 

deciview (dv) - A general measure of view impairment (13 deciview equals a 

view of approximately 60 miles) caused by pollution. A 10 percent change in 

extinction corresponds to 1.0 dv. 

dip - The angle at which a rock layer is inclined from the horizontal. 

direct (or primary) impact - An impact caused by an action that occurs at the 

same time and place as the action (see 40 CFR 1508.8). 

discharge - Any of the ways that ground water comes out of the surface, 

including through springs, creeks, or being pumped from a well. 

dissected upland - An upland or high area in which a large part of the original 

surface has been deeply cut into by streams. 

dragline - A type of excavating crane that casts a rope- or cable-hung bucket a 

considerable distance, collects the dug material by pulling the bucket toward 

itself on the ground with a second rope or cable, elevates the bucket, and 

dumps the material on a backfill bank or pile. 

eolian deposit - Sediment carried, formed, or deposited by the wind, as sand 

dunes. 

ephemeral stream - A stream that flows occasionally because of surface 

runoff, and is not influenced by permanent ground water. 

erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice or 

other geologic agents. 

evapotranspiration - The sum total of water lost from the land by evaporation 

and plant transpiration. 

excavation (archeological) - The scientifically controlled recovery of 

subsurface materials and information from a cultural site. Recovery 

techniques are relevant to research problems and are designed to produce 

maximum knowledge about the site's use, its relation to other sites and the 

natural environment, and its significance in the maintenance of the cultural 

system. 

fair market value (FMV)- The amount in cash, or in terms reasonably 

equivalent to cash, for which in all probability a coal deposit would be sold or 

leased by a knowledgeable owner willing but not obligated to sell or lease to a 

knowledgeable purchaser who desires but is not obligated to buy or lease. 

fixed carbon - In coal, the solid combustible material remaining after removal 

of moisture, ash, and volatile matter. It is expressed as a percentage. 

7-4 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

floodplain - The relatively flat area or lowland adjoining a body of flowing 

water, such as a river or stream, that is covered with water when the river or 

stream overflows its banks. 

forage - Vegetation used for food by wildlife, particularly big game wildlife, and 

domestic livestock. 

formation (geologic) - A rock body distinguishable from other rock bodies and 

useful for mapping or description. Formations may be combined into groups or 

subdivided into members. 

fossil - The remains or traces of an organism or assemblage of organisms that 

have been preserved by natural processes in the earth's crust. Many minerals 

that may be of biologic origin are not considered to be fossils (e.g. oil, gas, 

asphalt, limestone). 

geometric mean - The nth root of the product of the values of n positive 

numbers. 

ground water - Subsurface water that fills available openings in rock or soil 

materials to the extent that they are considered water saturated. 

habitat - A place where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and 

grows. 

habituation - The process of becoming accustomed to, or used to, something; 

acclimation. 

hazardous materials - Substance which, because of its potential for 

corrosivity, toxicity, ignitability, chemical reactivity, or explosiveness, may 

cause injury to persons or damage to property. 

hazardous waste - Those materials defined in Section 101 (14) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 

1980, and listed in 40 CFR § 261. A used or discarded material that can 

damage the environment and be harmful to health. Hazardous wastes include 

heavy metals and toxic chemicals used in industrial products and processes as 

well as infectious medical wastes and radioactive materials such as spent 

nuclear fuel rods. 

heterogenous - Made up of dissimilar constituents. 

human environment - The natural and physical environment in which 

humans preside or have an impact and the relationship of people with the 

surrounding environment (see 30 CFR 1508.14). 

hydraulic conductivity - The capacity of a medium to transmit water; 

permeability coefficient. Expressed as the volume of water at the prevailing 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-5 
 

7.0 Glossary 

temperature that will move in unit time under a unit hydraulic gradient 

through a unit area. Units include gallons per day per square foot, centimeters 

per second. 

hydraulic - Pertaining to fluid in motion, or to movement or action caused by 

water. 

hydric soil - A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during 

the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and 

regeneration of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation. Hydric soils that occur in 

areas having positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 

hydrology are wetland soils. 

hydrocarbon - Any organic compound, gaseous, liquid, or solid, consisting 

solely of carbon and hydrogen. 

hydrogeology - The science that deals with subsurface waters and with related 

geologic aspects of surface waters. 

hydrology - The science dealing with the behavior of water as it occurs in the 

atmosphere, on the surface of the ground, and underground. 

hydrophytic vegetation - The plant life growing in water or on a substrate 

that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water 

content. When hydrophytic vegetation comprises a community where 

indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology also occur, the area has 

wetland vegetation. 

impermeable - Not capable of transmitting fluids or gasses in appreciable 

quantities. 

incised - Having a margin that is deeply and sharply notched. 

indirect (or secondary) impact - A reasonably foreseeable impact resulting 

from an action but occurring later in time than or removed in distance from 

that action (see 40 CFR 1508.8). 

in-place coal reserves - The estimated volume of all of the coal reserves in a 

lease without considering economic or technological factors that might restrict 

mining. 

in-situ leach mining (ISL) - Removal of the valuable components of a mineral 

deposit through chemical leaching without physical extraction of the rock. 

(ISL), also called in-situ recovery (ISR) or solution mining, is a process of 

recovering minerals such as copper and uranium through boreholes drilled into 

the deposit. The process initially involves drilling of holes into the ore deposit. 

Explosive or hydraulic fracturing may be used to create open pathways in the 

deposit for solution to penetrate. Leaching solution is pumped into the deposit 

7-6 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

where it makes contact with the ore. The solution bearing the dissolved ore 

content is then pumped to the surface and processed. This process allows the 

extraction of metals and salts from an ore body without the need for 

conventional mining involving drill-and-blast, open-cut or underground 

mining. 

interbedded - Layers of one type of rock, typically thin, that are laid between 

or that alternate with layers of another type of rock. 

interburden - A layer of sedimentary rock that separates two mineable coal 

beds. 

interdisciplinary - Characterized by participation or cooperation among two or 

more disciplines or fields of study. 

intermittent stream - A stream that does not flow year-round but has some 

association with ground water for surface or subsurface flow. 

laminated - Consolidated or unconsolidated sediment that is characterized by 

thin (less than 1 cm thick) layers. 

land and resource management plan (LRMP) - A land use plan that directs 

the use and allocation of U.S. Forest Service lands and resources. 

lead agency - The agency or agencies preparing or having taken primary 

responsibility for preparing an environmental document (see 40 CFR 1508.16). 

lease (mineral) - A legal document executed between a mineral owner or lessor 

and another party or lessee which grants the lessee the right to extract 

minerals from the tract of land for which the lease has been obtained [see 43 

CFR 3400.0-5(r)]. 

lek - A traditional breeding area for grouse species where territorial males 

display and establish dominance. 

lenticular - Term describing a body of rock or earth that thins out in all 

directions from the center like a double convex optical lens. 

limb (geologic) - One side of a fold (syncline or anticline). 

limestone - A sedimentary rock consisting chiefly of calcium carbonate. 

lineament - A linear topographic feature of regional extent that is believed to 

reflect crustal structure. 

loadout facilities - The mine facilities used to load the mined coal for 

transport out of the mine. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-7 
7.0 Glossary 

loam - A rich, permeable soil composed of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, and 

organic matter. 

maintenance tract - A federal coal tract that would continue or extend the life 

of an existing coal mine. 

major federal action - An action with effects that may be major and which is 

potentially subject to federal control and responsibility (see 40 CFR 1508.18). 

major sources – Those sources that emit more than 10 tons per year of any 

single hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons of all hazardous air pollutants 

combined. The determination of major is based on all sources of hazardous air 

pollutants at the site, and not just the equipment affected by the MACT 

standard. 

maximum economic recovery (MER) - The requirement that, based on 

standard industry operating practices, all profitable portions of a leased federal 

coal deposit must be mined. MER determinations will consider existing proven 

technology; commercially available and economically feasible equipment; coal 

quality, quantity, and marketability; safety, exploration, operating, processing, 

and transportation costs; and compliance with applicable laws and regulations 

[see 43 CFR 3480.0-5(a)(24)]. 

meteorological - Related to the science dealing with the atmosphere and its 

phenomena, especially as relating to weather. 

methane - A colorless, odorless, and flammable gaseous hydrocarbon; the 

simplest hydrocarbon; chemical formula = CH4. It is the product of 

decomposition of organic matter and of the carbonization of coal, is used as a 

fuel and as a starting material in chemical synthesis, and is the simplest of the 

alkanes, constituent of natural gas and is also found associated with crude oil 

and coal. 

mineable coal - Coal that can be economically mined using present day 

mining technology. 

mineral rights - The rights of one who owns the mineral estate (subsurface). 

mining permit - A permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations issued by the state regulatory authority pursuant to a state program 

or by the Secretary pursuant to a federal program (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

mitigation - An action to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, replace, or rectify 

the impact of a management practice. 

mudstone - A hardened sedimentary rock consisting of clay. It is similar to 

shale but lacks distinct layers. 

7-8 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 

7.0 Glossary 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) - A list of districts, sites, 

buildings, structures and objects significant in American history, architecture, 

archeology and culture maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. Expanded 

as authorized by Section 2(b) of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 462) 

and Section 101(a)(1) (A) of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

native species – Native species refer to wild animals and plants that have 

evolved in a particular region and environment. Native species are the most 

adapted to the area and are more disease and drought resistant than nonnative species. Native plants provide the greatest benefits to wildlife because 

the native wildlife evolved with native plants. Often the food provided by native 

plants is the most nutritious to our native wildlife. 

natural gas - Combustible gases (such as hydrocarbons) or mixtures of 

combustible gases and non-combustible gases (such as helium) that are in a 

gaseous phase at atmospheric conditions of temperature and pressure. 

NEPA process - All measures necessary for compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (see 40 CFR 1508.21). 

No Action Alternative - An alternative where no activity would occur. The 

development of a no action alternative is required by regulations implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1502.14). The No Action 

Alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives. 

outcrop - A rock formation that appears at or near the surface; the intersection 

of a rock formation with the surface. 

overburden - Overburden is the term used in mining to describe material that 

lies above (excluding topsoil) the area of economic interest, e.g., the rock and 

soil that lies above the coal seam. Also known as 'waste'. Overburden is distinct 

from tailings, the material that remains after economically valuable 

components have been extracted from the generally finely milled ore. 

Overburden is removed during surface mining, but is typically not 

contaminated with toxic components and may be used to restore a mining site 

to a semblance of its appearance before mining began. Overburden may also be 

used as a term to describe all soil and ancillary material above the bedrock 

horizon in a given area. 

paleontological resource - A site containing evidence of plant or non-human 

animal life of past geological periods, usually in the form of fossil remains. 

peak discharge or flow - The highest discharge of water recorded over a 

specified period of time at a given stream location; also called maximum flow. 

Often thought of in terms of spring snowmelt, summer, fall or winter rainy 

season flows. 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-9 
 

7.0 Glossary 

perennial species (vegetation) - Vegetation that lives over from season to 

season. 

perennial stream - A stream or part of a stream that flows continuously 

during the calendar year as a result of groundwater discharge or surface 

runoff. 

permeability - The ability of rock or soil to transmit a fluid. 

permit application package - A proposal to conduct surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on federal lands, including an application for a permit, 

permit revision, or permit renewal and all the information required by SMCRA, 

the applicable state program, any applicable cooperative agreement, and all 

other applicable laws and regulations including, with respect to federal leased 

coal, the Mineral Leasing Act and its implementing regulations. 

permit area - The area of land, indicated on the approved map submitted by 

the operator with his or her application, required to be covered by the 

operator’s performance bond under the regulations at 30 CFR Part 800 and 

which shall include the area of land upon which the operator proposes to 

conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations under the permit, 

including all disturbed areas (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

physiography - Physical geography. 

piezometer - A well, generally of small diameter, that is used to measure the 

elevation of the water table. 

playa - The sandy, salty, or mud-caked flat floor of a basin with interior 

drainage, usually occupied by a shallow ephemeral lake during or after rain or 

snow storms. 

point source (pollution) - A point at which pollution is added to a system, 

either instantaneously or continuously. An example is a smokestack. 

pore volume - The amount of fluid necessary to fill the void space in an 

unsaturated porus medium (i.e., mine backfill). 

porosity - The percentage of the bulk volume of rock, sediment or soil that is 

not occupied by sediment or soil particles; the void space in rock or sediment. 

It may be isolated or connected. 

postmining topography - The relief and contour of the land that remains after 

mining has been completed. 

potentiometric surface - The surface that coincides with the static level of 

water in an aquifer. The surface is represented by the levels to which water 

from a given aquifer will rise under its full hydraulic head. 

7-10 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

predator - An animal that obtains food by killing and consuming other 

animals. 

prime or unique farmland - Those lands which are defined by the Secretary of 

Agriculture in 7 CFR part 657 (Federal Register Vol. 4 No. 21) and which have 

historically been used for cropland (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

proposed action - In terms of National Environmental Policy Act, the project, 

activity, or action that a federal agency proposes to implement or undertake 

and which is the subject of an environmental analysis. 

qualified surface owner - The natural person or persons (or corporation, the 

majority stock of which is held by a person or persons otherwise meeting the 

requirements of this section) who: 

(1) hold legal or equitable title to the surface of split estate lands; 

(2) have their principal place of residence on the land, or	 personally 

conduct farming or ranching operations upon a farm or ranch unit to 

be affected by surface mining operations; or received directly a 

significant portion of their income, if any, from such farming and 

ranching operations; and 

(3) have met the conditions of (1) and (2) above for a period of at least 

three years, except for persons who gave written consent less than 

three years after they met the requirements of both (1) and (2) above 

[see 43 CFR 3400.0-5(gg)]. 

raptor - Bird of prey, such as an eagle, falcon, hawk, owl, or vulture. 

recharge - The processes by which groundwater is absorbed into a zone of 

saturation. 

reclamation - Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it acceptable for 

designated uses. This normally involves regrading, replacement of topsoil, 

revegetation (with native plant life) and other work necessary to restore the 

disturbed area for post-mining use. In general where viable an attempt to put 

the terrain back to the pre-mining contours is also of paramount importance. 

record of decision (ROD) - A document separate from, but associated with, an 

environmental impact statement that publicly and officially discloses the 

responsible official's decision on the proposed action (see 40 CFR 1505.2). 

recoverable coal - The amount of coal that (is economically feasible to recover) 

can actually be recovered for sale from the demonstrated coal reserve base. 

rental payment - Annual payment from a lessee to a lessor to maintain the 

lessee’s mineral lease rights. 

resource management plan (RMP) - A land use plan, as prescribed by FLPMA, 

that directs the use and allocation of public lands and resources managed by 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-11 
7.0 Glossary 

BLM. Prior to selection of the RMP, different alternative management plans are 

compared and evaluated in an environmental impact statement (EIS) to 

determine which plan will best direct the management of the public lands and 

resources. 

revegetation - The reestablishment and development of self-sustaining plant 

cover following land disturbance. This may occur through natural processes, 

or the natural processes may be enhanced by human assistance through 

seedbed preparation, reseeding, and mulching. 

right of way (ROW) - The right to pass over property owned by another. The 

strip of land over which facilities such as roadways, railroads, or power lines 

are built. 

riparian - The area adjacent to rivers and streams that lies between the stream 

channel and upland terrain and that supports specific vegetation influenced by 

perennial and/or intermittent water. 

royalty (mineral) - A share of production that is free of the expense of 

production. It is generally paid by a lessee to a lessor of a mineral lease as part 

of the terms of the lease. 

runoff - That portion of rainfall that is not absorbed; it may be used by 

vegetation, lost by evaporation, or it may find its way into streams as surface 

flow. 

salinity - Refers to the solids, such as sodium chloride (table salt) and alkali 

metals, that are dissolved in water. Often in non-saltwater areas, total 

dissolved solids is used as an equivalent term. 

sandstone - A common sedimentary rock primarily composed of sand grains, 

mainly quartz, that are cemented together by other mineral material. 

scoping - A public informational process required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act to determine private and public concerns, scope of 

issues, and/or questions regarding a proposed action to be evaluated in an 

environmental impact analysis. 

scoria (clinker) - Baked and fused rock resulting from in-place burning of coal 

deposits. 

sedimentation pond - An impoundment used to remove solids from water in 

order to meet water quality standards or effluent limitations before the water 

leaves the permit area (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

semi-arid - A climate or region characterized by little yearly rainfall and by the 

growth of a number of short grasses and shrubs. 

7-12 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

severance tax - A tax on the removal of minerals from the ground. 

shale - A very fine-grained clastic rock or sediment consisting predominately of 

clay-sized particles that is laminated; lithified, layered mud. 

significant impact - A qualitative term used to describe the anticipated 

importance of impacts to the human and or the environment as a result of an 

action(s) either direct or indirect. 

siltstone - A fine-grained clastic rock consisting predominately of silt-sized 

particles. 

socioeconomics - The social and economic situation that might be affected by 

a proposed action. 

soil survey - The systematic examination, description, classification, and 

mapping of soils in an area, usually a county. Soil surveys are classified 

according to the level of detail of field examination. Order I is the most detailed 

and Order V is the least detailed. 

spontaneous combustion – The heating and slow combustion (self-ignition) of 

coal and coaly material initiated through chemical action (as oxidation 

(absorption of oxygen)). 

stipulations - Requirements that are part of the terms of a mineral lease. 

Some stipulations are standard on all Federal leases. Other stipulations may 

be applied to specific leases at the discretion of the surface management 

agency to protect valuable surface resources or uses existing on those leases. 

storage coefficient - The volume of water that can be released from storage 

per unit surface area of a saturated confined aquifer, per unit decline in the 

component of hydraulic head normal to the surface. It is calculated by taking 

the product of the specific storage and the aquifer thickness. 

stratigraphic - Of, relating to, or determined by stratigraphy, which is the 

branch of geology dealing with the study of the nature, distribution, and 

relations of layered rocks in the earth’s crust. 

stripping ratio - The unit amount of overburden that must be removed to gain 

access to a similar unit amount of coal. 

subirrigation - In alluvial valley floors, the supplying of water to plants from 

underneath, or from a semi-saturated or saturated subsurface zone where 

water is available for use by vegetation (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

subbituminous - A lower rank of coal (35-45 percent carbon) with a heating 

value between that of bituminous and lignite, usually 8,300-11,500 Btu per 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-13 
7.0 Glossary 

pound. Sub bituminous coal contains a high percentage of volatile matter and 

moisture. 

surface disturbance - Any disturbance by direct or indirect actions that alters 

the soil surface. 

surface rights - Rights to the surface of the land, does not include rights to oil, 

gas, or other subsurface minerals or subsurface rights. 

suspended solids - The very fine soil particles that remain in suspension in 

water for a considerable period of time without contact with the stream or river 

channel bottom. 

tectonic fracture - Fractures caused by deformation of the earth’s crust. 

threatened and endangered (T&E) species - These species of plants or 

animals classified as threatened or endangered pursuant to Section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act. Any species which is in danger of extinction, or is 

likely to become so within the foreseeable future. 

Category 1 - Substantial biological information on file to support the 

appropriateness of proposing to list as endangered or threatened. 

Category 2 - Current information indicates that proposing to list as 

endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but substantial 

biological information is not on file to support an immediate ruling (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service). 

topography - Physical shape of the ground surface; the configuration of land 

surface including its relief, elevation, and the position of its natural and 

manmade features. 

topsoil - The upper portion of a soil, usually dark colored and rich in organic 

material. It is more or less equivalent to the upper portion of an A horizon in an 

ABC soil. 

total dissolved solids (TDS) - The total quantity in milligrams per liter of 

dissolved materials in water. 

transmissivity - The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width 

of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient. Equals the hydraulic 

conductivity multiplied by the aquifer thickness. Values are given in units of 

gallons per day per foot. 

transpiration - The discharge of water vapor by plants. 

truck & shovel - A mining method used to remove overburden and coal in a 

strip mining operation. Truck and shovel operations use large bucketequipped digging and loading machines (shovels) and large dump trucks to 

remove overburden instead of using a dragline for overburden removal. 

7-14 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
7.0 Glossary 

typic - Typical. 

unconfined aquifer - An aquifer where the water table is exposed to the 

atmosphere through openings in the overlying materials. 

unsuitability criteria - The 20 criteria described in 43 CFR 3461, the 

application of which results in an assessment of federal coal lands as suitable 

or unsuitable for surface coal mining. 

uranium - A very hard, heavy, metallic element that is crucial to development 

of atomic energy. 

vegetation type - A kind of existing plant community with distinguishable 

characteristics described in terms of the present vegetation that dominates an 

area. 

vertebrate fossils - The fossilized remains of animals that possessed a 

backbone; examples are fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and 

mammals. 

vesicular - Rock containing many small cavities that were formed by the 

expansion of a bubble of gas or steam during the solidification of the rock. 

visual resources - The physical features of a landscape that can be seen (e.g., 

land, water, vegetation, structures, and other features). 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) - The systematic means to identify 

visual values, establish objectives which provide the standards for managing 

those values, and evaluate the visual impacts of proposed projects to ensure 

that objectives are met. 

volatile matter - In coal, those substances, other than moisture, that are 

given off as gas or vapor during combustion. 

waterfowl - A bird that frequents water, especially a swimming bird such as a 

duck or swan. 

wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground 

water at a frequency and duration sufficient, under normal circumstances, to 

support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or 

seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands 

include marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, river overflows, mud flats, wet 

meadows, seeps, and springs [see 33 CFR 328.3(a)(7)(b)]. 

wild and scenic river - Rivers or sections of rivers designated by 

Congressional actions under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as wild, 

scenic, or recreational by an act of the Legislature of the state or states through 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 7-15 
 

7.0 Glossary 

which they flow. Wild and scenic rivers may be classified and administered 

under one or more of the following categories: 

wild river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of 

impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with 

watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

scenic river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of 

impoundments, with watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines 

largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

recreational river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are readily 

accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along 

their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or 

diversion in the past. 

wilderness - An area of undeveloped Federal land designated wilderness by 

Congress, retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, protected and managed to preserve its 

natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of man's work substantially 

unnoticeable, (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation, (3) has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size to 

make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and (4) 

also may contain features that are of ecological, geological, scientific, 

educational, scenic, or historical value. These characteristics were identified 

by Congress in the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

7-16 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
8.0 Index 

8.0 INDEX 

agriculture .........................................	 2-50, 2-65, 2-71, 3-10, 3-122, 3-123, 

3-124, 3-125, 3-127, 3-128, 4-57, 4­

60, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 5-1, 5-9, 6-2, 6­

18, 7-10, E-21, E-26, F-19, F-27, G19, G-27, H-24, H-29 

alluvial valley floor or AVF ..................	 ES-10, ES-29, ES-31, ES-35, 1-7, 2­

50, 2-51, 2-65, 20-71, 3-1, 3-88, 3-97, 

3-107, 3-122, 3-123, 3-124, 3-125, 3­

126, 3-127, 3-128, 4-4, 4-60, 5-7, 7-1, 

7-12, B-3, B-6, B-9, B-12, F-24, G-11, 

G-24 

Belle Fourche River ............................	 ES-29, 2-33, 2-63, 2-65, 3-8, 3-9, 3­

11, 3-12, 3-25, 3-76, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 

3-89, 3-96, 3-102, 3-107, 3-109, 3­

110, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-118, 3­

124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-127, 3-134, 3­

135, 3-150, 3-151, 3-153, 3-179, 3­

181, 3-183, 3-184, 3-186, 3-202, 4­

28, 4-55, 4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 4-69, 4-70, 

4-71, 4-75, 4-80, 4-81, 6-7, E-12, G11, H-16, H-17, H-18, H-19 

Caballo Creek.....................................	 ES-29, 2-39, 2-63, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11, 3­

12, 3-76, 3-77, 3-89, 3-92, 3-96, 3-97, 

3-107, 3-109, 3-110, 3-112, 3-113, 3­

114, 3-115, 3-118, 3-122, 3-123, 3­

124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-134, 3-135, 3­

151, 3-170, 3-182, 3-183, 4-59, 4-70, 

E-11, E-12, G-11, G-12, H-16, H-17, 

H-19 

blasting..............................................	 ES-23, ES-34, 1-28, 2-18, 2-24, 2-33, 

2-50, 2-64, 3-28, 3-37, 3-56, 3-58, 3­

59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 

3-66, 3-67, 3-72, 3-75, 3-216, 3-218, 

3-218, 3-254, 4-31, 4-51, 4-118, 5-6, 

6-9, K-8, K-10, K-16, K-17 

bonus payment or bonus 

bid payment .......................................	 ES-11, ES-12, ES-13, ES-14, ES-15,
 

ES-16, ES-17, ES-35, 2-56, 2-57, 2­

58, 2-59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 3-235, 3­

236, 3-238 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 8-1 
8.0 Index 

coal bed natural gas or CBNG ............	 ES-10, ES-18, ES-23, ES-29, ES-33, 

ES-39, 1-26, 2-7, 2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 2­

63, 2-71, 2-72, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 

3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-28, 3-57, 3-64, 3­

82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-88, 3-89, 

3-90, 3-93, 3-94, 3-98, 3-99, 3-103, 

3-104, 3-106, 3-109, 3-110, 3-114, 3­

115, 3-116, 3-117, 3-118, 3-119, 3­

120, 3-121, 3-132, 3-134, 3-135, 3­

144, 3-151, 3-179, 3-181, 3-182, 3­

183, 3-184, 3-193, 3-198, 3-199, 3­

201, 3-202, 3-203, 3-213, 3-216, 3­

244, 3-255, 4-1, 4-17, 4-19, 4-20, 4­

21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 

4-41, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-49, 4­

50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 

4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4­

64, 4-65, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 

4-74, 4-79, 4-84, 4-86, 4-88, 4-90, 4­

97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-102, 4-112, 4-113, 

5-5, 6-21, 7-2, E-16, E-21, F-12, F-15, 

F-16, F-19, F-20, G-14, G-15, G-19, 

G-20, H-16, H-17, H-19, H-20, H-24, 

H-25, J-1, J-2, K-15 

Environmental Protection Agency or 

EPA.................................................... ES-7, ES-19, ES-23, ES-36, 1-29, 2­

48, 2-49, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-36, 

3-37, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-60, 3-61, 3­

62, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-73, 3-74, 3­

129, 3-218, 3-251, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 

4-37, 4-103, 4-104, 4-106, 4-107, 4­

108, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4­

117, 4-118, 4-119, 5-2, 5-9, 6-18, 6­

19, 6-20, 6-21, K-1, K-3, K-4, K-5, K9, K-10, K-12, K-14, K-16, K-17 

fair market value................................	 ES-7, ES-8, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-29, 2-8,
 

2-10, 2-16, 2-17, 2-22, 2-23, 2-29, 2­

32, 2-39, 2-43, 2-46, 3-203, 5-2, 7-4 

fugitive dust .......................................	 ES-19, ES-23, 3-28, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 


3-45, 3-47, 3-51, 4-35, 4-83, K-8, K11 

8-2 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
8.0 Index 

grazing ...............................................	 ES-33, 1-10, 1-12, 1-14, 1-17, 2-51, 

2-52, 2-66, 2-68, 3-146, 3-149, 3-154, 

3-188, 3-202, 3-203, 3-204, 3-206, 3­

251, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, E-14, E-18, F14, F-15, G-14, G-16, H-18 

human health ....................................	 ES-23, 1-28, 2-63, 2-64, 3-110, 3­

249, 3-250, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4­

117, K-17 

hunting..............................................	 ES-34, 3-167, 3-200, 3-201, 3-203, 3­

205, 3-252, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 6­

7, 6-10 

migratory birds...................................	 ES-10, 2-67, 3-1, 3-167, 3-177, 3­

186, E-10, F-8, F-9, G-9, H-13 

mitigation...........................................	 ES-9, ES-35, 1-21, 1-28, 2-14, 2-21, 

2-27, 2-36, 2-39, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2­

50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 3-1, 3-11, 3-16, 

3-22, 3-25, 3-26, 3-54, 3-57, 3-65, 3­

72, 3-75, 3-106, 3-114, 3-121, 3-128, 

3-129, 3-136, 3-137, 3-142, 3-148, 3­

149, 3-162, 3-165, 3-179, 3-184, 3­

185, 3-187, 3-204, 3-207, 3-211, 3­

213, 3-215, 3-219, 3-230, 3-233, 3­

234, 3-250, 3-251, 4-33, 4-37, 4-43, 

4-53, 4-59, 4-64, 4-82, 4-105, 6-5, 6­

13, 7-8, D-1, D-2, E-10, E-11, E-16, 

E-19, E-20, E-22, E-23, F-8, F-9, F10, F-15, F-17, F-19, F-21, G-9, G-10, 

G-15, G-18, G-19, G-21, H-13, H-14, 

H-20, H-22, H-24, H-26, K-8, K-9, K10 

MLA mining plan................................	 1-4, 1-19, 1-20, 2-46, 3-23, 3-211, A1, E-19, F-18, G-18, H-23 

monitoring plan..................................	 2-46, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 3­

16 

nitrogen oxide or NO2 .........................	 ES-23, ES-37, 1-27, 2-49, 2-69, 3-28, 

3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3­

63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-73, 

3-249, 3-250, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 

4-39, 4-41, 4-104, 4-113, 6-12, 6-19, 

K-3, K-8, K-9, K-16, K-17 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 8-3 
8.0 Index 

PM10...................................................	 ES-19, ES-23, ES-37, 2-44, 2-48, 2­

69, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-36, 3-38, 3-41, 

3-45, 3-47, 3-51, 3-54, 3-56, 3-57, 3­

58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-250, 4-35, 4-36, 4­

37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-41, K-3, K-4, K-5, K7, K-8, K-9, K-10, K-12, K-14, K-15, 

K-16 

power plant(s).....................................	 1-18, 1-27, 2-45, 2-63, 2-28, 3-58, 3­

59, 3-84, 3-231, 3-251, 3-253, 4-8, 4­

14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-19, 4-24, 4-31, 

4-33, 4-34, 4-41, 4-43, 4-51, 4-62, 4­

63, 4-65, 4-76, 4-77, 4-83, 4-84, 4-86, 

4-87, 4-93, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4­

107, 4-109, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4­

116, 4-117, 4-119, 6-1, 6-10, E-21, E22, F-19, F-21, G-19, G-20, H-24, H25, K-8 

reclamation ........................................	 ES-8, ES-29, ES-32, ES-33, ES-39, 1­

4, 1-5, 1-16, 1-20, 1-21, 2-6, 2-9, 2­

11, 2-12, 2-15, 2-18, 2-19, 2-24, 2-25, 

2-28, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 2-34, 2-37, 2­

38, 2-41, 2-42, 2-44, 2-45, 2-47, 2-49, 

2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-65, 2-70, 2­

75, 3-2, 3-6, 3-7, 3-9, 3-11, 3-16, 3­

21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-54, 3-65, 3-72, 3-75, 

3-76, 3-84, 3-86, 3-87, 3-93, 3-97, 3­

105, 3-106, 3-111, 3-112, 3-113, 3­

114, 3-121, 3-122, 3-128, 3-132, 3­

133, 3-134, 3-135, 3-138, 3-139, 3­

140, 3-141, 3-142, 3-145, 3-146, 3­

147, 3-148, 3-149, 3-151, 3-161, 3­

164, 3-165, 3-176, 3-180, 3-181, 3­

184, 3-185, 3-186, 3-188, 3-203, 3­

204, 3-211, 3-212, 3-215, 3-219, 3­

230, 3-233, 3-234, 3-235, 3-252, 4­

10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-28, 4-31, 4-45, 4-49, 

4-55, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-64, 4-65, 4­

70, 4-71, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-79, 4-82, 

4-109, 5-1, 5-5, 6-5, 6-8, 6-14, 6-15, 

6-16, 6-17, 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, A-1, B-2, 

B-3, B-5, B-6, B-8, B-9, B-11, B-12, 

D-1, D-3, E-6, E-8, E-9, E-11, E-12, 

E-16, E-18, E-19, E-20, E-21, E-22, 

E-23, F-6, F-8, F-10, F-12, F-16, F-18, 

8-4 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
8.0 Index 

reclamation (Continued) ....................	 F-19, F-20, F-21, F-24, F-25, G-6, G8, G-9, G-10, G-12, G-15, G-17, G-18, 

G-19, G-20, G-23, G-24, H-7, H-10, 

H-13, H-17, H-20, H-22, H-23, H-24, 

H-25, H-26 

reclamation bond ...............................	 ES-32, 2-51, 2-75, 3-7, 3-147, 3-149, 

3-204 

recreation...........................................	 ES-10, ES-35, 1-12, 1-14, 1-26, 2-68, 

2-73, 3-1, 3-70, 3-110, 3-188, 3-204, 

3-252, 4-54, 4-55, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 

4-78, 4-79, 7-15, B-1, B-4, B-7, B-10, 

K-6 

royalty................................................	 ES-11, ES-12, ES-13, ES-14, ES-15, 

ES-16, ES-17, ES-35, 1-4, 1-20, 2-7, 

2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 2-52, 2-56, 2-57, 2­

58, 2-59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 3-23, 3­

235, 3-250, 4-98, 6-12, 7-11, D-4 

sage-grouse........................................	 ES-33, 1-28, 2-67, 3-147, 3-166, 3­

167, 3-169, 3-170, 3-171, 3-172, 3­

173, 3-174, 3-175, 3-176, 3-177, 3­

179, 3-180, 3-181, 3-185, 3-188, 3­

202, 3-203, 3-252, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 

4-78, 6-2, 6-7, 6-8, 6-13, 6-14, 6-26, 

B-12, E-10, E-23, F-9, F-22, G-9, G22, H-13, I-2, I-5, I-8, I-11 

T&E species .......................................	 ES-35, 3-1, 3-186, E-1, E-6, E-10, E11, E-13, E-18, E-19, E-23, F-1, F-6, 

F-8, F-9, F-10, F-11, F-13, F-17, F-18, 

F-21, G-1, G-6, G-9, G-10, G-12, G17, G-21, H-1, H-5, H-13, H-14, H-15, 

H-17, H-22, H-26 

total dissolved solids or TDS...............	 ES-29, 2-64, 3-13, 3-77, 3-78, 3-80, 

3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-87, 3-88, 3-92, 3­

93, 3-97, 3-101, 3-102, 3-105, 4-51, 

4-52, 4-56, 4-71, 7-11, 7-13 

total suspended solids or TSS.............	 3-109, 3-110 


U.S. Forest Service or USDA-FS..........	 3-74, 3-131, 3-156, 4-62, 4-72, 4-76, 

4-78, 5-1, 5-9, 6-16, 6-18, 6-21, 7-6, 

B-3, B-6, B-9, B-12, E-17, H-21 

Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 8-5 
8.0 Index 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 

USFWS............................................... ES-31, 1-27, 2-67, 3-132, 3-133, 3­

134, 3-135, 3-149, 3-155, 3-156, 3­

164, 3-165, 3-166, 3-167, 3-177, 3­

178, 3-179, 3-185, 3-187, 4-72, 5-1, 

6-9, 6-21, 6-22, 7-13, B-2, B-5, B-8, 

B-11, B-12, E-9, E-11, E-13, E-14, E15, E-16, E-17, E-18, E-20, E-25, E26, E-27, F-8, F-9, F-10, F-12, F-13, 

F-14, F-15, F-16, F-17, F-26, F-27, F28, G-9, G-10, G-12, G-13, G-14, G15, G-16, G-26, G-27, G-28, H-12, H13, H-14, H-16, H-17, H-18, H-19, H20, H-21, H-24, H-27, H-28, H-29, H30 

wetland(s)...........................................	 ES-10, ES-31, ES-32, ES-35, 1-28, 2­

50, 2-51, 2-65, 2-72, 3-1, 3-129, 3­

130, 3-131, 3-132, 3-133, 3-134, 3­

135, 3-136, 3-137, 3-138, 3-148, 3­

149, 3-181, 3-185, 4-61, 4-64, 4-68, 

4-75, 4-76, 5-7, 5-8, 6-13, 6-17, 6-20, 

7-5, 7-6, 7-14, A-1, E-10, E-12, E-13, 

E-14, E-15, E-16, F-9, F-12, F-13, F14, F-15, F-24, F-25, G-9, G-12, G-13, 

G-14, G-15, G-23, G-24, G-25, H-13, 

H-16, H-17, H-18, H-19, H-20, H-27, 

I-4, I-7, I-10, I-13 

Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality or 

WDEQ................................................ ES-8, ES-23, ES-31, ES-32, ES-39, 1­

4, 1-10, 1-12, 1-14, 1-17, 1-20, 1-21, 

1-22, 2-10, 2-11, 2-17, 2-18, 2-23, 2­

24, 2-32, 2-34, 2-44, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 

2-50, 2-54, 2-65, 3-2, 3-6, 3-7, 3-9, 3­

11, 3-23, 3-27, 3-29, 3-30, 3-36, 3-37, 

3-38, 3-41, 3-45, 3-47, 3-51, 3-54, 3­

56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 

3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3­

72, 3-73, 3-76, 3-77, 3-80, 3-82, 3-88, 

3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-96, 3-97, 3-98, 3­

99, 3-104, 3-106, 3-110, 3-112, 3­

113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-117, 3-122, 3­

123, 3-124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-127, 3­

128, 3-136, 3-137, 3-143, 3-146, 3­

147, 3-148, 3-149, 3-151, 3-155, 3­

165, 3-169, 3-176, 3-183, 3-184, 3­

204, 3-233, 3-251, 3-253, 4-6, 4-12, 

8-6 Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
8.0 Index 

Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality or 

WDEQ (Continued).............................	 4-13, 4-16, 4-34, 4-35, 4-37, 4-43, 4­

45, 4-47, 4-49, 4-50, 4-52, 4-60, 4-62,
 

4-63, 4-64, 4-72, 4-109, 5-3, 5-6, 5-9,
 

6-5, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-12, 6-14, 6-15, 6­

16, 6-17, 6-23, 6-24, 6-25, E-10, E11, E-16, E-18, E-19, E-20, E-22, E23, E-24, E-25, E-26, F-8, F-10, F-12, 


F-15, F-18, F-21, F-26, G-10, G-11,
 

G-15, G-17, G-18, G-21, G-26, H-14, 


H-20, H-22, H-23, H-26, H-27, H-28, 


K-1, K-3, K-4, K-7, K-8, K-9, K-10, K11, K-12, K-14, K-17 


Draft EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 8-7