FINAL 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II 

Coal Lease Application 

WYW-172684 

Pronghorn grazing on completed reclamation at Buckskin Mine. July 2011 

BLM

Wyoming High Plains District 
 

MISSION STATEMENT 

The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the 

public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. 

The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, 

livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by 

conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands. 

BLM/WY/PL-11/045+1320

Cover photo: Buckskin Mine 2007. 
United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Wyoming High Plains District 

2987 Prospector Drive 

TAKE PRIDE 

INAMERICA 

Casper, Wyoming 82604-2968 

In Reply Refer to: 

3425 (LBA)(WYPOO) 

WYW172684 JUL 1 9 2011 

Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II Coal EIS 

Dear Reader: 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) to document and disclose the results ofthe environmental analyses of an 

application received by BLM to lease a maintenance tract ofFederal coal approximately 12 miles 

north ofthe city of Gillette in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. The tract is referred to as the 

Hay Creek II LBA tract. A copy ofthe EIS document is provided for your review. The final EIS 

may also be reviewed at the following website: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/wy/eniinfoINEP AldocumentslhpdlHayCreekII.html 

Copies ofthe Final EIS are also available for public inspection at the following BLM Offices: 

Bureau ofLand Management Bureau ofLand Management 

Wyoming State Office Wyoming High Plains District Office 

5353 Yellowstone Road 2987 Prospector Drive 

Cheyenne, WY 82009 Casper, Wyoming 82604 

The Draft EIS was published in March 2010, and the 60-day comment period on the draft 

docunlent ended on May 10,2010. A formal public hearing on the application to lease Federal 

coal was held in Gillette, Wyoming, on April 22, 2010. The purpose ofthe hearing was to 

receive comments on the proposed coal lease, on the fair market value, and on the maximum 

economic recovery ofthe Federal coal resources included in the tract. There were no statements 

presented at the formal hearing. Written comments were received from 10 individuals, agencies, 

businesses, and organizations, during the 60-day public review period. The comment letters 

received on the Draft EIS during the 60-day public review period have been published as part of 

the Final EIS in appendix D. 

A 30-day review period on this Final EIS will commence on the date the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a Notice ofAvailability in the Federal Register. The BLM 

will also publish a Notice ofAvailability in the Federal Register. The BLM will accept public 

comments on this Final EIS for thirty (30) days commencing on the date the EPA publishes its 

Notice ofAvailability in the Federal Register. 

If you wish to comment on the Final EIS, your comments should relate directly to the document. 

Comments should be as specific as possible, and the locations in the document to which you are 

commenting on should be cited. The BLM is required to respond in the record ofdecision 
2 

(ROD) to all substantive comments submitted. Substantive comments should: (l) give any new 

infonnation that could alter conclusions; (2) show why or how analysis or assumptions in the 

Final EIS are flawed; (3) show errors in data, sources, or methods; or (4) request clarifications 

that bear on conclusions. Opinions or preferences will not receive a fonnal response. However, 

they will be considered and included as part ofthe BLM decision-making process. 

This Final EIS was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and applicable 

regulations, and other applicable statutes, to address possible environmental and socioeconomic 

impacts that could result from the Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II coal lease application. This 

Final EIS is not a decision document. Its purpose is to infonn the public and agency decisionmakers ofthe impacts associated with leasing some or all ofthe Hay Creek II Federal coal tract 

study area to an existing mine in the Wyoming Powder River Basin and to evaluate alternatives 

to leasing the Federal coal included in the tract as applied for. 

Comments, including names, street addresses, and email addresses ofrespondents, will be on file 

and open for public review at the Wyoming High Plains District Office during regular business 

hours, and will be included as part ofthe ROD posted at the above listed website. Individual 

respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address 

from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom ofInfonnation Act, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Though we cannot guarantee anonymity, 

such requests will be honored to the extent allowable by law. All submissions from 

organizations, businesses, and individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials 

of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. 

Please send written comments to the Bureau ofLand Management, High Plains District Office, 

Attn: Teresa 10hnson, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, WY 82604. Written comments may also 

be emailed to the attention of Teresa 10hnson at: hay_creek_II_WYMail@blm.gov. Email 

comments must include the name and mailing address ofthe commentor to receive 

consideration. Written comments may also be faxed to the attention ofTeresa 10hnson at (307) 

261-7587. 

If you have any questions or would like to obtain a copy ofthis Final EIS, please contact Lesley 

Collins at (307) 261-7603, or at the above BLM Wyoming High Plains District Office address. 

Sincerely, 

£%/~ ~ Stephanie Connolly Fe.. District Manager 
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

HAY CREEK II COAL LEASE APPLICATION 

CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING 

ABSTRACT 

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

Office, Casper, Wyoming 

Cooperating Agencies: USDI, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, Denver, Colorado 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (all 

divisions), Cheyenne, Wyoming 

For Further Information Teresa Johnson, Bureau of Land Management, 2987 

Contact: Prospector Drive, Casper, WY 82604; (307) 261-7600 

This final environmental impact statement (EIS) assesses the environmental consequences of a 

decision by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and 

issue a lease for a federal coal maintenance tract in Campbell County, Wyoming, as a result of a 

coal lease application submitted by Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. (Kiewit). As applied for, the 

Hay Creek II coal lease-by-application (LBA) tract includes approximately 419 acres containing 

approximately 77.2 million tons of federal coal. If a lease sale is held and the applicant acquires 

the lease, Kiewit proposes to mine the tract as a maintenance lease for the existing, adjacent 

Buckskin Mine. 

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

in and around the LBA tract. The alternatives in the final EIS consider the impacts of leasing the 

tract as applied for, leasing an alternative tract configuration, and not leasing a tract. Impact 

analyses focused on resource issues and concerns identified during public scoping conducted for 

the Hay Creek II LBA and during previous analyses conducted for coal leasing actions 

associated with Buckskin and other local coal mines. Recent concerns related to leasing coal and 

its subsequent development include: impacts on groundwater, air quality, wildlife, cultural 

resources, paleontological resources, socioeconomics, loss of livestock grazing areas, conflicts 

with oil and gas development, cumulative impacts related to ongoing surface coal mining and 

other proposed development in the Wyoming Powder River Basin, greenhouse gas emissions, 

ozone, and global climate change. 

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

identifies any endangered or threatened species likely to be affected by the Proposed Action and 

alternatives. 

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

Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. 

1 
Comments postmarked or received on or before the end of the 30-day review period will be 

considered during preparation of the Record of Decision (ROD). If the BLM decides to hold a 

sale for the Hay Creek II lease, the final tract configuration will be defined in the ROD. 

2 

 


 

HAY CREEK II COAL LEASE APPLICATION 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Prepared by 

ICF International 

Gillette, 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 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

All Divisions 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

July 2011 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... ES-1
 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. ES-1
 

Background ................................................................................................................................ ES-1
 

Evaluation and Environmental Review Process ......................................................................... ES-4
 

Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................... ES-5
 

Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................................................... ES-6
 

Resources Addressed in this Environmental Impact Statement ............................................... ES-12
 

Summary of General Setting and Environmental Consequences ............................................. ES-17
 

General Setting .................................................................................................................. ES-17
 

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) .................................................................................. ES-18
 

Proposed Action and Alternative 2 ..................................................................................... ES-18
 

Mitigation .................................................................................................................................. ES-37
 

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. ES-37
 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1-1
 

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-2
 

1.1.1 Buckskin Mine Application ......................................................................................... 1-2
 

1.1.2 BLM Coal Leasing Process ........................................................................................ 1-3
 

1.1.3 Existing Buckskin Mine ............................................................................................ 1-10
 

1.1.3.1 General Description ......................................................................................... 1-10
 

1.1.3.2 Mine Facilities and Employees......................................................................... 1-11
 

1.1.3.3 Mining Methods and Activities ......................................................................... 1-11
 

1.1.3.4 Reclamation Activities ...................................................................................... 1-13
 

1.1.3.5 Hazardous and Solid Waste ............................................................................ 1-16
 

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................... 1-18
 

1.3 Regulatory Authority and Responsibility ......................................................................... 1-19
 

1.4 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs ....................................................... 1-21
 

1.5 Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans ................................................................... 1-21
 

1.6 Consultation and Coordination ....................................................................................... 1-23
 

1.6.1 Initial Involvement .................................................................................................... 1-23
 

1.6.1.1 Issues and Concerns ....................................................................................... 1-24
 

1.6.1.2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................ 1-25
 

1.6.1.3 Final Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................ 1-25
 

1.6.2 Future Involvement .................................................................................................. 1-26
 

1.6.2.1 Record of Decision ........................................................................................... 1-26
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application i 
	 
 

	 
 


 


 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 
 

	 


 

	 


 


 

	 
 

	 
 


 

	 
 

	 
 


 


 


 

	 
 

	 
 


 

	 
 

Table of Contents 

1.6.2.2	 U.S. Department of Justice Consultation ......................................................... 1-26
 

2.0	 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES........................................2-1
 

2.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 2-1
 

2.2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................ 2-2
 

2.2.1	 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 2-4
 

2.2.1.1	 Description of the Proposed Tract ...................................................................... 2-4
 

2.2.1.2	 Mine Facilities and Employees........................................................................... 2-6
 

2.2.1.3	 Mining Methods and Activities ........................................................................... 2-6
 

2.2.1.4	 Reclamation Activities ........................................................................................ 2-7
 

2.2.2	 Alternative 1 (No Action) ............................................................................................ 2-7
 

2.2.3	 Alternative 2 (BLM Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 2-8
 

2.2.3.1 Description of the BLM Study Area and Tract under Consideration by the 

BLM .............................................................................................................. 2-8 

2.2.3.2	 Mine Facilities and Employees......................................................................... 2-11
 

2.2.3.3	 Mining Methods and Activities ......................................................................... 2-11
 

2.2.3.4	 Reclamation Activities ...................................................................................... 2-11
 

2.3	 Eliminated Alternatives ................................................................................................... 2-12
 

2.3.1	 Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................. 2-12
 

2.3.2	 Alternative 4 ............................................................................................................. 2-13
 

2.4	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ....................................................... 2-15
 

2.5	 Summary of Coal Production and Disturbance under the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 2-20
 

3.0	 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES..................................................................................3-1
 

3.1. General Setting ............................................................................................................... 3-20
 

3.1.1.	 General Location and Characteristics ...................................................................... 3-20
 

3.1.2.	 Climate and Meteorology in the General Analysis Area ........................................... 3-21
 

3.2. Topography .................................................................................................................... 3-25
 

3.2.1.	 Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 3-25
 

3.2.2.	 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 3-26
 

3.2.2.1. Proposed Action............................................................................................... 3-26
 

3.2.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action).................................................................................. 3-27
 

3.2.2.3. Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................... 3-27
 

3.2.3.	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ................................................. 3-27
 

3.2.4.	 Residual Impacts ..................................................................................................... 3-28
 

3.3. Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology ............................................................. 3-28
 

3.3.1.	 General Geology and Coal Resources ..................................................................... 3-28
 

ii Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

3.3.1.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-28
 

3.3.1.2. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-32
 

3.3.1.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring .......................................... 3-33
 

3.3.1.4. Residual Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-33
 

3.3.2. Other Mineral Resources ......................................................................................... 3-33
 

3.3.2.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-33
 

3.3.2.2. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-36
 

3.3.2.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ......................................... 3-37
 

3.3.2.4. Residual Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-38
 

3.3.3. Paleontology ............................................................................................................ 3-39
 

3.3.3.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-39
 

3.3.3.2. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-41
 

3.3.3.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ......................................... 3-42
 

3.3.3.4. Residual Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-42
 

3.4. Air Quality....................................................................................................................... 3-42
 

3.4.1. Background.............................................................................................................. 3-42
 

3.4.1.1. Air Quality Determinants .................................................................................. 3-42
 

3.4.1.2. Applicable Air Quality Standards and Regulations ........................................... 3-43
 

3.4.1.3. Emissions Sources in the General Analysis Area ............................................ 3-44
 

3.4.2. Particulate Emissions ............................................................................................... 3-46
 

3.4.2.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-46
 

3.4.2.2. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-57
 

3.4.2.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ......................................... 3-60
 

3.4.3. Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone ................................................................ 3-63
 

3.4.3.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-63
 

3.4.3.2. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-68
 

3.4.3.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ......................................... 3-69
 

3.4.4. Visibility .................................................................................................................... 3-73 

3.4.4.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-73
 

3.4.4.2. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-75
 

3.4.4.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ......................................... 3-77
 

3.4.5. Acidification of Lakes ............................................................................................... 3-78
 

3.4.5.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-79
 

3.4.5.2. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-79
 

3.4.6. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ................................................. 3-81
 

3.4.7. Residual Impacts on Air Quality ............................................................................... 3-81
 

3.5. Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-81
 

3.5.1. Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 3-81
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application iii 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

3.5.1.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-81
 

3.5.1.2. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-85
 

3.5.1.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ......................................... 3-87
 

3.5.2. Surface Water .......................................................................................................... 3-88
 

3.5.2.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-88
 

3.5.2.2. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-90
 

3.5.2.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ......................................... 3-92
 

3.5.3. Water Rights ............................................................................................................ 3-92
 

3.5.3.1. Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-92
 

3.5.3.2. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-93
 

3.5.3.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ......................................... 3-95
 

3.5.4. Residual Impacts ..................................................................................................... 3-95
 

3.6. Alluvial Valley Floors ...................................................................................................... 3-95
 

3.6.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 3-96
 

3.6.1.1. Studies Conducted to Determine Presence of Alluvial Valley Floors ............... 3-96
 

3.6.2. Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 3-98
 

3.6.2.1. Proposed Action............................................................................................... 3-98
 

3.6.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action).................................................................................. 3-99
 

3.6.2.3. Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................... 3-99
 

3.6.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ............................................... 3-100
 

3.6.4. Residual Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-100
 

3.7. Wetlands ...................................................................................................................... 3-100
 

3.7.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-100
 

3.7.2. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 3-105
 

3.7.2.1. Proposed Action............................................................................................. 3-105
 

3.7.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................................ 3-106
 

3.7.2.3. Alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 3-106
 

3.7.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ............................................... 3-106
 

3.7.4. Residual Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-107
 

3.8. Soils.............................................................................................................................. 3-107
 

3.8.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-107
 

3.8.2. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 3-108
 

3.8.2.1. Proposed Action............................................................................................. 3-108
 

3.8.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................................ 3-109
 

3.8.2.3. Alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 3-109
 

3.8.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ............................................... 3-109
 

3.8.4. Residual Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-110
 

3.9. Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 3-110
 

iv Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

3.9.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-110
 

3.9.1.1. Agricultural Cropland ..................................................................................... 3-111
 

3.9.1.2. Agricultural Pasture ........................................................................................ 3-111
 

3.9.1.3. Bunchgrass Prairie Grassland ....................................................................... 3-112
 

3.9.1.4. Lowland Prairie Grassland ............................................................................. 3-112
 

3.9.1.5. Mixed-Grass Prairie Grassland...................................................................... 3-113
 

3.9.1.6. Sandy Prairie Grassland ................................................................................ 3-113
 

3.9.1.7. Riparian Bottomland ...................................................................................... 3-113
 

3.9.1.8. Big Sagebrush Shrubland .............................................................................. 3-114
 

3.9.1.9. Disturbed Areas ............................................................................................. 3-114
 

3.9.1.10. Tree Shelterbelt ............................................................................................. 3-114
 

3.9.1.11. Rough Breaks ................................................................................................ 3-115
 

3.9.1.12. Open Water ................................................................................................... 3-115
 

3.9.2. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 3-115
 

3.9.2.1. Proposed Action............................................................................................. 3-115
 

3.9.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................................ 3-116
 

3.9.2.3. Alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 3-116
 

3.9.3.	 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species, and 

BLM Sensitive Species ....................................................................................... 3-117
 

3.9.4. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ............................................... 3-117
 

3.9.5. Residual Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-119
 

3.10. Wildlife.......................................................................................................................... 3-119
 

3.10.1. General Setting ...................................................................................................... 3-119
 

3.10.2. Survey Requirements and History .......................................................................... 3-120
 

3.10.3. Big Game............................................................................................................... 3-123
 

3.10.3.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-123
 

3.10.3.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-124
 

3.10.4. Other Mammals ..................................................................................................... 3-126
 

3.10.4.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-126
 

3.10.4.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-126
 

3.10.5. Raptors .................................................................................................................. 3-128
 

3.10.5.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-128
 

3.10.5.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-129
 

3.10.6. Upland Game Birds ................................................................................................ 3-133
 

3.10.6.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-133
 

3.10.6.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-144
 

3.10.7. Other Birds............................................................................................................. 3-148
 

3.10.7.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-148
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application v 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

3.10.7.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-153
 

3.10.8. Amphibians, Reptiles, and Aquatic Species ........................................................... 3-157
 

3.10.8.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-157
 

3.10.8.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-157
 

3.10.9. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Animal Species, and 

BLM Sensitive Species ....................................................................................... 3-158
 

3.10.10.Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring ................................................ 3-159
 

3.10.11.Residual Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-161
 

3.11. Land Use and Recreation ............................................................................................. 3-162
 

3.11.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-162
 

3.11.1.1. Oil and Gas Production .................................................................................. 3-165
 

3.11.1.2. Coal Mining .................................................................................................... 3-167
 

3.11.1.3. Recreation ..................................................................................................... 3-167
 

3.11.2. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 3-169
 

3.11.2.1. Proposed Action............................................................................................. 3-169
 

3.11.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................................ 3-169
 

3.11.2.3. Alternative 2................................................................................................... 3-170
 

3.11.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ............................................... 3-170
 

3.11.4. Residual Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-170
 

3.12. Cultural Resources and Native American Consultation ................................................ 3-171
 

3.12.1. Cultural Resources................................................................................................. 3-171
 

3.12.1.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-171
 

3.12.1.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-176
 

3.12.1.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ....................................... 3-177
 

3.12.1.4. Residual Impacts ........................................................................................... 3-177
 

3.12.2. Native American Consultation ................................................................................ 3-177
 

3.12.2.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-177
 

3.12.2.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-178
 

3.12.2.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ....................................... 3-178
 

3.12.2.4. Residual Impacts ........................................................................................... 3-179
 

3.13. Visual Resources .......................................................................................................... 3-179
 

3.13.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-179
 

3.13.2. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 3-180
 

3.13.2.1. Proposed Action............................................................................................. 3-180
 

3.13.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................................ 3-181
 

3.13.2.3. Alternative 2................................................................................................... 3-181
 

3.13.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ............................................... 3-182
 

3.13.4. Residual Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-182
 

vi Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

3.14. Noise ............................................................................................................................ 3-182
 

3.14.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-182
 

3.14.1.1. Noise Terminology ......................................................................................... 3-182
 

3.14.1.2. Noise-Sensitive Areas .................................................................................... 3-182
 

3.14.1.3. Existing Noise Sources and Existing Noise Levels ........................................ 3-184
 

3.14.2. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 3-185
 

3.14.2.1. Proposed Action............................................................................................. 3-185
 

3.14.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................................ 3-187
 

3.14.2.3. Alternative 2................................................................................................... 3-187
 

3.14.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ............................................... 3-188
 

3.14.4. Residual Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-189
 

3.15. Transportation .............................................................................................................. 3-189
 

3.15.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-189
 

3.15.1.1. Roadways ...................................................................................................... 3-189
 

3.15.1.2. Railways ........................................................................................................ 3-189
 

3.15.1.3. Oil and Gas Pipelines and Electric Corridors ................................................. 3-192
 

3.15.2. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 3-192
 

3.15.2.1. Proposed Action............................................................................................. 3-192
 

3.15.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................................ 3-193
 

3.15.2.3. Alternative 2................................................................................................... 3-193
 

3.15.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ............................................... 3-194
 

3.15.4. Residual Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-194
 

3.16. Hazardous and Solid Waste ......................................................................................... 3-196
 

3.16.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................. 3-196
 

3.16.2. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 3-196
 

3.16.2.1. Proposed Action............................................................................................. 3-196
 

3.16.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................................ 3-197
 

3.16.2.3. Alternative 2................................................................................................... 3-197
 

3.16.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ............................................... 3-197
 

3.16.4. Residual Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-197
 

3.17. Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................... 3-198
 

3.17.1. Local Economy ...................................................................................................... 3-198
 

3.17.1.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-198
 

3.17.1.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-201
 

3.17.2. Population .............................................................................................................. 3-203
 

3.17.2.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-203
 

3.17.2.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-204
 

3.17.3. Employment ........................................................................................................... 3-205
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application vii 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

	 
 

	 
 


 

	 
 


 


 

Table of Contents 

3.17.3.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-205
 

3.17.3.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-207
 

3.17.4. Housing.................................................................................................................. 3-207
 

3.17.4.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-207
 

3.17.4.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-209
 

3.17.5. Local Government Facilities and Services ............................................................. 3-209
 

3.17.5.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-209
 

3.17.5.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-211
 

3.17.6. Social Setting ......................................................................................................... 3-212
 

3.17.6.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-212
 

3.17.6.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-212
 

3.17.7. Environmental Justice ............................................................................................ 3-213
 

3.17.7.1. Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 3-214
 

3.17.7.2. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-214
 

3.17.8. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ............................................... 3-215
 

3.17.9. Residual Effects ..................................................................................................... 3-215
 

3.17.9.1. Human Health Impact Assessment................................................................ 3-215
 

3.18.	 The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Human Environment 

and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ............................ 3-216
 

3.18.1. Local Area.............................................................................................................. 3-216
 

3.18.1.1. Topography.................................................................................................... 3-216
 

3.18.1.2. Coal Bed Natural Gas .................................................................................... 3-216
 

3.18.1.3. Air Quality and Visual Resources ................................................................... 3-217
 

3.18.1.4. Water Resources ........................................................................................... 3-217
 

3.18.1.5. Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 3-217
 

3.18.1.6. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ........................................................................... 3-217
 

3.18.1.7. Recreational Resources ................................................................................. 3-218
 

3.18.1.8. Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................ 3-218
 

3.18.2. Human Health Impact Assessment........................................................................ 3-218
 

3.18.3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 3-220
 

3.18.4. Carbon Sequestration ............................................................................................ 3-224
 

3.18.5. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring ............................................... 3-224
 

3.19.	 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ............................................ 3-225
 

4.0	 CUMULATIVE ANALYSES ....................................................................4-1
 

4.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Development ............................................. 4-4
 

4.1.1	 Coal Development ..................................................................................................... 4-4
 

4.1.1.1 Coal Mine Development ..................................................................................... 4-4
 

4.1.1.2 Coal-Related Development .............................................................................. 4-13
 

viii Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

4.1.2 Oil and Gas Development ........................................................................................ 4-20
 

4.1.2.1 Conventional Oil and Gas ................................................................................ 4-20
 

4.1.2.2 CBNG Development ........................................................................................ 4-21
 

4.1.2.3 Oil- and Gas-Related Development ................................................................. 4-22
 

4.1.3 Other Development Activity...................................................................................... 4-26
 

4.1.3.1 Other Mining .................................................................................................... 4-26
 

4.1.3.2 Industrial Manufacturing ................................................................................... 4-28
 

4.1.3.3 Wind Power ..................................................................................................... 4-29
 

4.1.3.4 Solar Power ..................................................................................................... 4-30
 

4.1.3.5 Reservoirs........................................................................................................ 4-31
 

4.1.3.6 Other Non-Energy Development...................................................................... 4-31
 

4.2 Affected Environment and Cumulative Environmental Consequences ........................... 4-34
 

4.2.1 Topography and Physiography ................................................................................ 4-37
 

4.2.2 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology ...................................................... 4-38
 

4.2.2.1 Geology ........................................................................................................... 4-38
 

4.2.2.2 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................... 4-38
 

4.2.2.3 Paleontology .................................................................................................... 4-39
 

4.2.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 4-41
 

4.2.4 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 4-53
 

4.2.4.1 Groundwater .................................................................................................... 4-53
 

4.2.4.2 Surface Water .................................................................................................. 4-67
 

4.2.5 Channel Stability ...................................................................................................... 4-75
 

4.2.6 Alluvial Valley Floors ................................................................................................ 4-77
 

4.2.7 Soils ......................................................................................................................... 4-77
 

4.2.8 Vegetation, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas .............................................................. 4-78
 

4.2.8.1 Vegetation ........................................................................................................ 4-78
 

4.2.8.2 Special-Status Plant Species ........................................................................... 4-79
 

4.2.8.3 Noxious and Invasive Weed Species ............................................................... 4-79
 

4.2.8.4 Wetland and Riparian Species ......................................................................... 4-81
 

4.2.9 Wildlife and Fisheries ............................................................................................... 4-81
 

4.2.9.1 Game Species ................................................................................................. 4-82
 

4.2.9.2 Non-game Species .......................................................................................... 4-85
 

4.2.9.3 Fisheries .......................................................................................................... 4-86
 

4.2.9.4 Special-Status Species .................................................................................... 4-88
 

4.2.10 Land Use and Recreation ........................................................................................ 4-92
 

4.2.10.1 Grazing and Agriculture ................................................................................... 4-93
 

4.2.10.2 Urban Use........................................................................................................ 4-94
 

4.2.10.3 Recreation ....................................................................................................... 4-94
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ix 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

4.2.11 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns ................................................ 4-96
 

4.2.11.1 Prehistoric Sites ............................................................................................... 4-96
 

4.2.11.2 Historic Sites .................................................................................................... 4-98
 

4.2.11.3 Native American Traditional Cultural Places .................................................... 4-98
 

4.2.11.4 Site Protection ................................................................................................. 4-98
 

4.2.12 Transportation and Utilities ...................................................................................... 4-99
 

4.2.13 Socioeconomics..................................................................................................... 4-101
 

4.2.13.1 Employment and the Economic Base ............................................................ 4-102
 

4.2.13.2 Labor Market Conditions ................................................................................ 4-103
 

4.2.13.3 Personal Income ............................................................................................ 4-104
 

4.2.13.4 Population and Demographics ....................................................................... 4-105
 

4.2.13.5 Housing.......................................................................................................... 4-108
 

4.2.13.6 Public Education ............................................................................................ 4-112
 

4.2.13.7 Facilities and Services ................................................................................... 4-114
 

4.2.13.8 Fiscal Conditions ............................................................................................ 4-115
 

4.2.13.9 Social Setting ................................................................................................. 4-118
 

4.2.14 Emissions and By-Products of Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Plants ............. 4-119
 

4.2.14.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Global Warming, and Climate Change ............ 4-120
 

4.2.14.2 Cumulative Effects of Combustion of PRB Coal by Power Plants .................. 4-126 

4.2.14.3 U.S. Actions and Strategies to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............ 4-132
 

4.2.14.4 Current and Future Energy Sources and Emissions of Greenhouse 

Gases in the U.S. ...................................................................................... 4-134
 

4.2.14.5 Mercury, Coal Combustion Residues, and Other By-Products ...................... 4-138
 

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..............................................5-1
 

5.1. Regional Coal Team Consultation .................................................................................... 5-1
 

5.2. Governor’s Consultation ................................................................................................... 5-1
 

5.3. Public Notice ..................................................................................................................... 5-1
 

5.4. Department of Justice Consultation .................................................................................. 5-2
 

5.5. Other Consultations .......................................................................................................... 5-2
 

5.6. List of Contributors, Reviewers, and Preparers ................................................................ 5-3
 

5.7 Distribution List ................................................................................................................. 5-6
 

6.0 REFERENCES CITED............................................................................6-1
 

6.1. Printed References ........................................................................................................... 6-1
 

6.2. Personal Communication................................................................................................ 6-26
 

x Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 

 


 

Table of Contents 

7.0 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................ 7-1
 

8.0 INDEX OF KEY WORDS ........................................................................ 8-1
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application xi 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table ES-1. Comparison of Coal Reserves, Lease and Permit Areas, Production, Mine Life, and 

Revenues .................................................................................................................................. ES-11
 

Table ES-2. Projected Maximum Potential Near-Field Impacts (μg/m3) .......................................................ES-40
 

Table ES-3. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas ..........................ES-41
 

Table ES-4. Recent and Projected PRB Population ......................................................................................ES-44
 

Table 1-1. Coal Leases Issued and Exchanges Completed Since Decertification of the Federal Coal 

Region in 1990, Powder River Basin, Wyoming .............................................................................1-6
 

Table 1-2. Pending Coal Leases by Application, Powder River Basin, Wyoming ............................................1-9
 

Table 1-3. Summary of Land Status Acreage at the Buckskin Mine through December 2008 ......................1-16
 

Table 2-1. Legal Description of the Proposed Tract ........................................................................................ 2-4
 

Table 2-2. Legal Description of the BLM Study Area .....................................................................................2-10
 

Table 2-3. Legal Description of the Tract Under Consideration by the BLM ..................................................2-10
 

Table 2-4. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal Mining
 

Operations Legally Required for All Alternatives ..........................................................................2-16
 

Table 2-5. Comparison of Coal Reserves, Lease and Permit Areas, Production, Mine Life, and 

Revenues by Alternative............................................................................................................... 2-21
 

Table 3.2-1. Overburden/Coal Thickness and Postmining Elevation Change ..................................................3-27
 

Table 3.3-1. Stratigraphic Relationships and Hydrologic Characteristics, Powder River Basin, Wyoming .......3-29
 

Table 3.4-1. Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations, Applicable AAQS, and PSD 

Increment Values (in μg/m3).........................................................................................................3-45
 

Table 3.4-2. Buckskin Mine Annual PM10 Monitoring Results and Production (μg/m3) ....................................3-49
 

Table 3.4-3. Northern PRB Mines: 24-Hour PM10 Monitoring Results by Year (μg/m3)....................................3-52
 

Table 3.4-4. Thunder Basin National Grassland Average Ozone Monitoring Results (Parts per Billion) 

for Last Five Years ....................................................................................................................... 3-67
 

Table 3.4-5. Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data (μg/m3)........................................................................3-71
 

Table 3.4-6. 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (parts per billion) ...............................................................................3-72
 

Table 3.4-7. 1-hour SO2 Concentrations (parts per billion) Black Hills Power (Wyodak site) ...........................3-73
 

Table 3.4-8. Distances and Directions from the General Analysis Area to Sensitive Air Quality Areas ............3-74
 

Table 3.4-9. Existing Acid-Neutralizing Capacity in Sensitive Lakes ................................................................3-79
 

Table 3.7-1. NWI-Identified Wetlands in the General Analysis Area ..............................................................3-103
 

Table 3.7-2. NWI-Identified Wetlands Confirmed to be Non-Wetlands in the General Analysis Area ............3-104
 

xii Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

Table 3.7-3. Potential Wetland Impacts under the Proposed Action and Alternativesa ..................................3-105
 

Table 3.9-1. Vegetation Communities in the General Analysis Area ..............................................................3-111
 

Table 3.10-1. Potential Impacts on Raptor Nest Sitesa (Intact and Former) in the General Analysis Area
 

(through 2009) Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives .....................................................3-129
 

Table 3.10-2. Peak Grouse Attendance at Leks in the Vicinity of Buckskin Mine (1984–2009) .......................3-141
 

Table 3.10-3. Forty Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern for Wyoming Coal Mines: Historical
 

Occurrence and Status in or within 0.5 Mile of the Buckskin Mine Permit Areaa (2007– 

2009) .......................................................................................................................................... 3-148
 

Table 3.11-1. Distribution of Oil and Gas Ownership in the Proposed Tract and BLM Study Area ..................3-165
 

Table 3.11-2. Current Federal Oil and Gas Leases in the General Analysis Area............................................3-165
 

Table 3.12-1. Cultural Sites Previously Identified in the General Analysis Area ...............................................3-175
 

Table 3.17-1. Contribution of Coal Mining to 2008 Assessed Valuation of Campbell County ..........................3-201
 

Table 3.17-2. Projected Major Revenue Increases under the Proposed Action and Alternativesa ...................3-202
 

Table 3.17-3. Population Change, 2000 to 2008 ..............................................................................................3-203
 

Table 3.17-4. Demographic Characteristics, 2000 ...........................................................................................3-204
 

Table 3.17-5. Campbell County Housing Inventory, 2000 and 2007 ................................................................3-208
 

Table 3.18-1. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Conversion Factors .........................................................................3-222
 

Table 3.18-2. Estimated Annual Equivalent Carbon Dioxide Emissions at the Buckskin Mine .........................3-222
 

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

Baseline Year, and for 2007 ........................................................................................................... 4-7
 

Table 4-2. Actual and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Lower Coal Production
 

Scenario ....................................................................................................................................... 4-11
 

Table 4-3. Actual and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Upper Coal Production
 

Scenario ....................................................................................................................................... 4-12
 

Table 4-4. Actual and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal-Related Development (acres) ....................................4-13
 

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

Scenario ....................................................................................................................................... 4-19
 

Table 4-6. Actual Wyoming PRB Conventional Oil and Gas Development Scenario ....................................4-21
 

Table 4-7. Actual Wyoming PRB CBNG Development Scenario ...................................................................4-22
 

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

and Water Production................................................................................................................... 4-23
 

Table 4-9. In-Situ Recovery Uranium Projects Currently Proposed in the Task 2 Study Area for the 

Wyoming portion of the PRB ........................................................................................................ 4-27
 

Table 4-10. Actual and Projected Wyoming PRB Total Development Scenario, Task 3 Study Area ..............4-35
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application xiii 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

Table 4-11. Projected Maximum Potential Near-Field Impacts (μg/m3) ..........................................................4-44
 

Table 4-12. Maximum Predicted PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Area Impacts (μg/m3)...........................4-46
 

Table 4-13. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas .............................4-49
 

Table 4-14. Predicted Total Cumulative Change in Acid-Neutralizing Capacity of Sensitive Lakes ................4-51
 

Table 4-15. Recoverable Groundwater in the Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System in the PRB.....................4-54
 

Table 4-16. Water Use as of 2002 in the Powder/Tongue River Basin (acre-feet per year) ............................4-68
 

Table 4-17. Surface Water Availability in the Powder/Tongue River Basin (acre-feet per year) ......................4-69
 

Table 4-18. Water Use as of 2002 in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins....................................................4-69
 

Table 4-19. Surface Water Availability in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins .............................................4-70
 

Table 4-20. Summary of Proposed Limits for Sodium Absorption Ratios and Electrical Conductivity .............4-72
 

Table 4-21. Impact of CBNG Production Water on Perennial Streams ...........................................................4-76
 

Table 4-22. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Pronghorn Ranges from Development Activities—
 

Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios ...............................................................................4-83
 

Table 4-23. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to White-tailed Deer Ranges from Development 

Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios .............................................................4-83
 

Table 4-24. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Mule Deer Ranges from Development Activities—
 

Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios ...............................................................................4-84
 

Table 4-25. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Elk Ranges from Development Activities—Lower and
 

Upper Coal Production Scenarios ................................................................................................ 4-84
 

Table 4-26. Potential Cumulative Impacts on Greater Sage-grouse Leks from Coal Mine 

Development—Upper and Lower Coal Production Scenarios......................................................4-91
 

Table 4-27. PRB Land Use by Surface Ownership .........................................................................................4-92
 

Table 4-28. Animal Unit Months and Acres of Cropland Estimated Unavailable on Lands Disturbed 

and Not Yet Reclaimed as a Result of Development Activities ....................................................4-94
 

Table 4-29. Square Miles of Projected Cumulative Disturbance and Number of Potentially Affected
 

Cultural Resource Sites in the Task 3 Study Area—Lower and Upper Coal Production 

Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................... 4-97
 

Table 4-30. PRB Rail Lines Coal Hauling Capacity and Projected Use ........................................................4-100
 

Table 4-31. Recent and Projected PRB Population .......................................................................................4-106
 

Table 4-32. Rental Housing Vacancy Rates ..................................................................................................4-108
 

Table 4-33. Total Housing Stock in 2000 and 2005 .......................................................................................4-109
 

Table 4-34. Monthly Housing Rents in 2006a in the PRB Study Area and Percent Change from 2004 .........4-109
 

Table 4-35. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated with Energy Resource 

Production under the Lower Coal Production Scenario (million $) .............................................4-116
 

xiv Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

Table 4-36. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated with Energy Resource 

Production under the Upper Coal Production Scenario (million $) .............................................4-117
 

Table 4-37. Estimated Annual CO2 Emissions from Projected PRB Coal Production Levels According 

to Task 2 Report ......................................................................................................................... 4-128
 

Table 4-38. Estimated Annual CO2 Equivalent Emissionsa from Coal Production at PRB Mines with 

Pending LBAs............................................................................................................................. 4-129
 

Table 4-39. Estimated Annual CO2 Emissions Produced from Combustion of Coal Produced from the 

Proposed Tract or BLM Study Area ............................................................................................4-130
 

Table 4-40. 2004 Percent Contribution to Worldwide Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions .............................4-140
 

Table 4-41. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impactsa,b .............................4-144
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application xv 
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 3.1-1. Average Diurnal Temperature by Season at Buckskin Mine ........................................................3-22
 

Figure 3.1-2. Wind Rose for the Buckskin Mine ................................................................................................. 3-23
 

Figure 3.1-3. Average Diurnal Wind Speed by Season at the Buckskin Mine ...................................................3-24
 

Figure 3.3-1. North-South and East-West Geologic Cross Sections .................................................................3-31
 

Figure 3.4-1. Buckskin PM10 Monitoring History ................................................................................................3-51
 

Figure 3.4-2. Visibility in the Badlands National Park and Bridger Wilderness Area ..........................................3-76
 

Figure 3.10-1. Average Male Sage-grouse Lek Attendance within the Northeast Wyoming Local Working 

Group Area (1967–2008)............................................................................................................ 3-138
 

Figure 3.10-2. Average Number of Males per Lek Counted in Wyoming (1960–2008) with a Minimum of 

100 Leks Checked Each Year ....................................................................................................3-139
 

Figure 3.14-1. Relationship Between A-Weighted Decibel Readings and Sounds of Daily Life ........................3-183
 

Figure 4-1. Recoverable Tons of Federal Coal Leased Versus Tons of Coal Mined Since 1990 in
 

Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming .................................................................................4-5
 

Figure 4-2. Projected and Actual Total Coal Production from Campbell and Converse Counties under
 

the Lower and Upper Production Scenarios.................................................................................4-10
 

Figure 4-3. Projected Campbell County Population and Employment to 2020 .............................................4-107
 

Figure 4-4. Projected Housing Demand in the PRB Study Area under the Lower Coal Production
 

Scenario ..................................................................................................................................... 4-111
 

Figure 4-5. Projected School Enrollment Trends to 2020 under the Lower Coal Production Scenario .........4-113
 

Figure 4-6. Current and Forecast Mix of Electric Generation Sources .........................................................4-137
 

xvi Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

LIST OF MAPS 

Map ES-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts ..............................................ES-2
 

Map ES-2. Applicant Proposed Tract and Applicant Original (March 2006) Tract.........................................ES-3
 

Map ES-3. Applicant Proposed Tract and BLM Study Area ..........................................................................ES-7
 

Map ES-4. BLM Tract under Consideration and Applicant Original (March 2006) Tract ...............................ES-8
 

Map ES-5. Areas of Disturbance under the Proposed Action ......................................................................ES-14
 

Map ES-6. Areas of Disturbance under Alternative 1 (No Action) ...............................................................ES-15
 

Map ES-7. Areas of Disturbance under Alternative 2 ..................................................................................ES-16
 

Map ES-8A. 2011 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2 Concentrations for Buckskin Mine Ambient Air
 

Boundary ................................................................................................................................... ES-22
 

Map ES-8B. 2012 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2 Concentrations for Buckskin Mine Ambient Air
 

Boundary ................................................................................................................................... ES-23
 

Map ES-9A. Roads, Highways, Occupied Dwellings, Businesses, and School Bus Stops in the Vicinity 

of the General Analysis Area ..................................................................................................... ES-25
 

Map ES-9B. Enlargement—Roads, Highways, Occupied Dwellings, Businesses, and School Bus Stops
 

in the Vicinity of the General Analysis Area ...............................................................................ES-26
 

Map ES-10. Extent of Drawdown under the Proposed Action .......................................................................ES-28
 

Map 1-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts .................................................1-4
 

Map 1-2. Applicant Proposed and Original (March 2006) Tracts ...................................................................1-5
 

Map 1-3. Buckskin Mine’s Existing Federal Coal Leases and Applicant Proposed Tract ............................1-12
 

Map 2-1. Applicant Proposed Tract and BLM Study Area .............................................................................2-3
 

Map 2-2. BLM Tract under Consideration and Applicant Original (March 2006) Tract ..................................2-9
 

Map 3.0-1. Areas of Disturbance under the Proposed Action ........................................................................... 3-4 

Map 3.0-2. Areas of Disturbance under Alternative 1 (No Action) .................................................................... 3-5 

Map 3.0-3. Areas of Disturbance under Alternative 2 ....................................................................................... 3-6 

Map 3.4-1. Buckskin Mine Ambient Air Monitoring Network ...........................................................................3-48
 

Map 3.4-2. 2011 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2 Concentrations for Buckskin Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary ...................................................................................................................................... 3-55
 

Map 3.4-3. 2012 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2 Concentrations for Buckskin Mine Ambient Air 

Boundary ...................................................................................................................................... 3-56
 

Map 3.4-4A. Roads, Highways, Occupied Dwellings, Businesses, and School Bus Stops in the Vicinity 

of the General Analysis Area ........................................................................................................ 3-58
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application xvii 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Table of Contents 

Map 3.4-4B. Enlargement - Roads, Highways, Occupied Dwellings, Businesses, and School Bus Stops 

in the Vicinity of the General Analysis Area ..................................................................................3-59 

Map 3.5-1. Currently Active Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply Wells at the Buckskin Mine............3-82
 

Map 3.5-2. Extent of Drawdown under Proposed Action................................................................................3-86
 

Map 3.5-3. Surface Water Features in the General Analysis Area .................................................................3-89
 

Map 3.7-1. Wetlands and Other Waters in the General Analysis Area .........................................................3-102
 

Map 3.10-1. Raptor Nests, Prairie Dog Colonies, and Grouse Leks in the Wildlife Survey Area ...................3-122
 

Map 3.11-1. Surface Ownership in the General Analysis Area .......................................................................3-163
 

Map 3.11-2. Oil and Gas Ownership, Leases, and Facilities in the General Analysis Area ............................3-164
 

Map 3.15-1. Transportation Facilities in the Vicinity of the General Analysis Area .........................................3-190
 

Map 3.15-2. Oil and Gas Pipelines in the General Analysis Area ...................................................................3-191
 

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

Levels of Development................................................................................................................... 4-3
 

Map 4-2. Task 3 Study Area Evaluating Projected Environmental Consequences .....................................4-36
 

Map 4-3. Coal Mine Groundwater Model, Upper Fort Union Formation, Subregion 1—North Gillette, 

1990–2010 Coal-Mine-Related Groundwater Level Drawdown....................................................4-59
 

Map 4-4. Coal Mine Groundwater Model, Upper Fort Union Formation, Subregion 1—North Gillette, 

1990–2020 Coal-Mine-Related Groundwater Level Drawdown....................................................4-60
 

Map 4-5. Coal Mine Groundwater Model, Upper Fort Union Formation, Subregion 1—North Gillette, 

1990–2010 CBNG-Related Groundwater Level Drawdown .........................................................4-62
 

Map 4-6. Coal Mine Groundwater Model, Upper Fort Union Formation, Subregion 1—North Gillette, 

1990–2020 CBNG-Related Groundwater Level Drawdown .........................................................4-63
 

xviii Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

Table of Contents 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Federal and State Agencies and Permitting Requirements 

Appendix B. Unsuitability Criteria 

Appendix C. Coal Lease-by-Application Flow Chart 

Appendix D. Comments on Draft EIS and BLM Responses 

Appendix E. Bureau of Land Management Special Coal Lease Stipulations and Form 3400-12 Coal Lease 

Appendix F. CBNG and Conventional Oil and Gas Wells Capable of Production in the General 

Analysis Area 

Appendix G. Air Quality Technical Support Document 

Appendix H. Non-Mine Groundwater and Surface Water Rights 

Appendix I. Environmental Quality Council Ruling Respective of Hay Creek Tract as an Alluvial Valley Floor 

Appendix J. Biological Assessment for Federally Listed Species Under The Endangered Species Act 

Appendix K. Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species Evaluation 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application xix 
 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report 

μeq/L microequivalents per liter 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

AQRVs air quality related values 

AVF alluvial valley floor 

B.P. before present 

BACT best available control technology 

BAM Belle Ayr Mine 

BHP Black Hills Power 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

Btu British thermal units 

C Celsius 

C2P2 Coal Combustion Products Partnership 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBNG coal bed natural gas 

CCPs coal combustion products 

CCSD Campbell County School District 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CMGM coal mine groundwater model 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e equivalent CO2 

Collins Road Campbell County Road 23 

xx Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CP Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. 

dB decibel 

dBA A-weighted decibel 

DM&E Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad Corporation 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

dv deciview 

EC electrical conductivity 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EOR enhanced oil recovery 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

F Fahrenheit 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act 

FMR federal mineral royalties 

GAGMO Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GSP gross state product 

HFCs hydrofluorocarbons 

I-90 Interstate 90 

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

Kiewit Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. 

kV kilovolt 

LBA lease by application 

LDN day-night noise levels 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application xxi 
 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Leq equivalent noise level 

LRPL least restrictive proposed limit 

MAAQS Montana Ambient Air Quality Standard 

McGee Road Campbell County Road 73 

mph miles per hour 

MRPL most restrictive proposed limit 

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration 

MW megawatts 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEAP natural events action plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NO nitrogen oxide 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

NWLSWG Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

P&M Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company 

PFCs perfluorocarbons 

PM10 particulate matter measuring 10 micrometers or less in diameter 

PM2.5 particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter 

PRB Powder River Basin 

xxii Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

Table of Contents 

PRRCT Powder River Regional Coal Team 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

REMI REMI Policy Insight 

RMP resource management plan 

ROD record of decision 

RV recreational vehicle 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act 

scf/ton cubic feet of methane per ton of coal mined 

SEO Wyoming 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 

TBNG Thunder Basin National Grassland 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TEOM monitor Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance monitor 

TSP total suspended particles 

UP Union Pacific 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USGS CHIA Cumulative Potential Hydrologic Impacts of Surface Coal Mining in the Eastern Powder 

River Structural Basin, Northeastern Wyoming 

VOCs volatile organic compounds 

VRM visual resource management 

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application xxiii 
 

Table of Contents 

WIA Wyoming Infrastructure Authority 

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

WSO-RMG The BLM Wyoming State Office–Reservoir Management Group 

Wyoming PRB Oil and Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the PRB Oil 

Gas EIS and Gas Project, referred to as the 

xxiv Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Executive Summary 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a final environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for the Hay Creek II coal lease application (Proposed Action). The final EIS 

was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its 

associated rules and guidelines, and presents the BLM’s analysis of environmental impacts from 

the Proposed Action and alternatives. The BLM will use this impact analysis to make a leasing 

decision for federal coal reserves adjacent to the Buckskin Mine. A federal coal lease does not 

authorize mining to occur, but is the first step in that process. The lease merely grants the lessee 

the exclusive right to pursue a mining permit for the coal tract subject to the terms of the lease, 

the mining permit itself, and all applicable state and federal laws. Permits to mine are issued by 

authorized federal and/or state agencies only after a lease has been secured and all appropriate 

agencies have reviewed and approved an extensive permit application. That application 

document provides information describing a wide range of baseline resources, as well as detailed 

mining, mitigation, and reclamation plans. 

Background 

On March 24, 2006, Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. (Kiewit), filed the Hay Creek II coal lease 

application with the BLM for federal coal reserves included in a tract located northwest of and 

immediately adjacent to the existing Buckskin Mine permit area, approximately 12 miles north 

of Gillette, Campbell County, Wyoming (map ES-1). The mine is operated by the Buckskin 

Mining Company, a directly held subsidiary of Kiewit. The Hay Creek II lease by application 

(LBA) was assigned BLM case file number WYW-172684. The federal coal reserves were 

applied for as a maintenance tract for the Buckskin Mine, which means the coal tract is adjacent 

to, and can be recovered by, the existing active coal mine. The intent of the proposed tract is to 

extend the life of existing operations rather than to expand the mine. Since submitting its 

original application in 2006 (see “applicant original [March 2006] tract” on map ES-2), Kiewit 

modified its lease application due to changing needs. The applicant proposed tract (proposed 

tract) from November 2008 was analyzed in the draft EIS. Unforeseen LBA processing delays 

caused Buckskin to lose the mechanical advantage provided by the November 2008 

modification. Consequently, on September 3, 2010, Kiewit requested that the BLM consider a 

tract configuration under Alternative 2 (see chapter 2) based on the original tract configuration 

applied for in March 2006. Because the analyses in the draft EIS encompassed all configurations 

of Kiewit’s proposed tract, they are still valid for the final EIS. Therefore, for the purposes of 

this analysis, the proposed tract remains unchanged from the draft EIS. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-1 
0 10 20

miles

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map ES-1

General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts
0 2,500 5,000

feet

Existing permit boundary 

Applicant proposed tract 

Applicant original (March 2006) tract 

Existing Buckskin Mine coal leases 

Buckskin Mine rail spur 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map ES-2 

Applicant Proposed and Original (March 2006) Tracts 
Executive Summary 

The BLM, Wyoming State Office, Division of Minerals and Lands, has reviewed Kiewit’s 

application for the proposed tract. That office determined that the lease application and lands 

involved meet the regulatory requirements for an LBA under 43 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 3425. The Powder River Regional Coal Team reviewed Kiewit’s application at a public 

meeting held on April 19, 2006, in Casper, Wyoming, and subsequently recommended that the 

BLM process it. 

Evaluation and Environmental Review Process 

To process an LBA, the BLM must evaluate the quantity, quality, maximum economic recovery, 

and fair market value of the federal coal. The BLM also must fulfill the requirements of NEPA 

by evaluating the environmental impacts of leasing that coal. NEPA requires the BLM to 

consider and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action, including a “no action” 

alternative. This EIS has been prepared to evaluate the site-specific and cumulative 

environmental impacts of leasing and recovering the federal coal reserves in the proposed tract or 

an alternative tract configuration, as determined by the BLM. In keeping with the purpose of an 

EIS, the analyses presented in this document are based primarily on existing information. 

As stated, the BLM leasing process does not authorize mining of federal coal reserves; applicants 

must obtain permits from appropriate federal and/or state agencies to mine the coal. However, 

because mining is a logical consequence of issuing a maintenance lease to an existing operation, 

the impacts of mining the coal are considered in this EIS. 

The BLM will use the analyses in this EIS to decide whether to hold a competitive sale and issue 

a lease for the federal coal reserves in the proposed tract or an alternative tract configuration. 

The LBA process by law and regulation is an open, public, competitive sealed-bid process. If a 

sale is held for a tract, the bidding would be open to any qualified bidder; it would not be limited 

to the applicant. A coal lease is issued to the highest bidder at the sale, if a federal sale panel 

determines that the high bid meets or exceeds the fair market value of the coal as determined by 

the BLM’s economic evaluation, and if the Department of Justice determines that no antitrust 

violations would result from assigning the lease to the high bidder. A decision to lease these 

federal coal reserves would be in conformance with the BLM Resource Management Plan for the 

Buffalo and Casper field offices. 

Regardless of whether the successful bidder is the applicant or a new operator, the lessee would 

be required to submit a permit application, including detailed mining, monitoring, mitigation, 

and reclamation plans to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) for 

review. The operator would also be required to submit a Resource Recovery and Protection Plan 

to the BLM for review. Before mining operations could begin in the new tract, the mining 

permit must be approved by the WDEQ, the Resource Recovery and Protection Plan must be 

approved by the BLM, and a Mineral Leasing Act mining plan must be approved by the 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior. 

ES-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

Executive Summary 

Other agencies will also use this EIS analysis to make decisions related to leasing and mining the 

federal coal in the proposed tract or an alternative tract configuration. The Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and all divisions of the WDEQ are cooperating agencies 

on this EIS. Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the BLM will publish a 

notice of availability of the final EIS in the Federal Register. After a 30-day availability period, 

the BLM will make a decision to hold or not to hold a competitive lease sale for the federal coal 

reserves in the final tract configuration. The record of decision (ROD) for the tract is mailed to 

all parties on the mailing list and others who commented on the draft EIS during the comment 

period. Members of 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 the final tract configuration. The BLM decision 

must be appealed within 30 days from the date that the notice of availability for the ROD is 

published in the Federal Register. The decision can be implemented at that time if no appeal is 

received. If a competitive lease sale is held, it will follow the procedures set forth in 

43 CFR 3422, 43 CFR 3425, and BLM Handbook H-3420-1 (Competitive Coal Leasing). 

After a competitive coal lease sale is held, but before the lease is issued, the 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 has 30 days to make 

this determination. If the Department of Justice has not responded in writing within the 30 days, 

the BLM can issue the lease. 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to extend the life of existing operations at the Buckskin 

Mine. The Proposed Action would not expand operations at the Buckskin Mine, but would 

extend the life of the mine by approximately two years1. 

More broadly, the Proposed Action responds to the continued demand for coal in the United 

States, primarily for the purpose of generating electricity. According to the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration (2008a), the United States has the world’s largest known coal 

reserves. Demand for this coal is driven by the electric power sector, which accounts for about 

92% of coal consumption (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2008a, 2008b). 

Approximately half of the electricity currently generated in the United States comes from coal 

(U.S. Department of Energy 2009a). Wyoming coal is used to generate electricity in 37 other 

states (Wyoming Mining Association 2009). 

The BLM recognizes that the continued extraction of coal is essential to meet the nation’s future 

energy needs and goals. Consequently, private development of federal coal reserves is integral 

to the BLM coal leasing program under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as well 

as the Federal Land Policy Management Act and the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 

1976. Under the Federal Land Policy Management Act, the BLM is mandated to manage public 

Assuming that coal production would continue at the most recent (2008) annual coal production rate of 25 million tons per year. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-5 

1 
 

Executive Summary 

lands for multiple-use so that the lands are utilized in the combination that will best meet the 

present and future needs of the American people. 

Management of federal coal resources—leasing, mining, and selling—in the Power River Basin 

(PRB) contributes to a reliable supply of low-sulfur compliance coal for electric power 

generation in the United States. This domestic supply enables coal-fired power plants to meet 

current 

Clean Air Act requirements and increasing demand without potentially significant increases in 

power costs while new technologies are developed to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. 

Management of federal coal resources in the PRB also generates revenue—in the form of bonus, 

annual rental, and royalty payments—that is used to fund numerous infrastructure and social 

projects in Wyoming. 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The Proposed Action and two alternatives are analyzed in detail in this final EIS. No new lifeof-mine facilities would be built under any of the alternatives; federal coal reserves would be 

mined as an extension of the existing mine. 

 Proposed Action—Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would hold a competitive, 

sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the federal coal reserves included in the proposed tract, 

which is a contiguous block of federal coal reserves adjacent to the existing Buckskin Mine 

permit area. The proposed tract includes approximately 419 acres (map ES-3) and 77.2 

million tons of in-place coal reserves. 

 Alternative 1—Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application 

would be rejected and no new federal coal reserves would be offered for sale at this time. 

The existing leases at the Buckskin Mine would be developed according to the current 

approved mining plan. Rejection of the lease application would not preclude an application 

to lease a tract in that area in the future. The current coal leases at the mine include 

approximately 6,438 acres and 460.9 million tons of in-place coal reserves. 

 Alternative 2 (BLM Preferred Alternative)— The BLM has identified Alternative 2 as its 

Preferred Alternative for the final EIS. Under that alternative, the BLM would hold a 

competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the federal coal reserves included in an 

alternative tract configuration within the BLM study area (map ES-3), as determined by the 

BLM. The entire BLM study area (maximum potential lease area) includes up to 

approximately 1,883 acres and 269.7 million tons of in-place coal reserves. The BLM is 

considering an alternative tract configuration that is larger than both Kiewit’s proposed tract 

and original (2006) tract, but smaller than the BLM study area (map ES-4). However, the 

BLM will not identify the final tract configuration until it issues the ROD for this leasing 

action. 

ES-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
0 2,500

feet

5,000

Existing permit boundary 

Applicant proposed tract 

BLM study area 

Existing Buckskin Mine coal leases 

Buckskin Mine rail spur 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map ES-3 

Applicant Proposed Tract and BLM Study Area 
Existing permit boundary 

BLM tract under consideration 

BLM study area 

Applicant original (March 2006) tract 

0 2,500

feet

5,000 Existing Buckskin Mine coal leases 

Buckskin Mine rail spur 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map ES-4 

BLM Tract under Consideration and Applicant Original (March 2006) Tract 
Executive Summary 

Not all of the federal coal reserves in the proposed tract and BLM study area are considered 

mineable at present. Campbell County Road 23 (the Collins Road) and Campbell County 

Road 73 (the McGee Road) cross the BLM study area from its southern to northern boundaries; 

much of the western boundary of the proposed tract is adjacent to the Collins Road. The Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) prohibits mining under a public road, in 

its right-of-way, or within 100 feet on either side of the right-of-way, as specified under 

unsuitability criterion 3 (43 CFR 3461.5[c][2][iii]). An exception to this prohibition is included 

in the SMCRA regulations at section 522(e)(4) and 30 CFR 761.11(d)(2), which can be applied 

if the appropriate 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. 

Under the same unsuitability criterion, the land underlying the only occupied residence in the 

BLM study area is also considered unsuitable for mining. Surface disturbance at the residence 

and a 300-foot buffer around it would be prohibited unless Kiewit were to purchase the surface 

rights associated with the home and its buffer zone. 

Kiewit does not currently plan to pursue efforts to close or relocate either county road, or acquire 

the surface rights to the land associated with the occupied residence; therefore, the company 

considers the lands around those features inaccessible and operationally limited. Nevertheless, 

the coal underlying these structures and their buffers is still considered for leasing because those 

reserves could be mined if the authorized agency determines that one or both roads can be closed 

or moved, or if Kiewit acquires the surface rights to the occupied residence. Including the coal 

underlying those features in the lease would also allow for maximum recovery of all the 

mineable coal adjacent to, but outside of, their respective buffer zones, even if no action is taken 

to seek an exception to unsuitability criterion 3. If a lease is issued for a tract, the BLM will 

attach a stipulation stating that no mining activity may be conducted in the portion of the lease 

underlying the county roads, their rights-of-way, and buffer zones and occupied residence and 

buffer zone unless approval is obtained from the appropriate authority to move or close the roads 

or acquire surface rights associated with the occupied residence, respectively. 

In addition to existing mine operations, the BLM study area and immediate vicinity include 

agricultural lands (crops, hayfields, and pastures), several overhead electric power lines, gas 

(coal bed natural gas) pipelines and infrastructure, and two unoccupied residences. No 

permitted, operating conventional oil wells are located in the general area. Before any surface 

disturbance or additional mine-related activities could begin, support infrastructure such as 

power lines, gas pipelines, and flood- and sediment-control features would be built or relocated, 

as needed. 

The analyses presented in this final EIS assume that Kiewit would be the successful bidder under 

both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 (action alternatives). Kiewit would add the tract as 

an integral extension of existing operations at the Buckskin Mine. Facilities and infrastructure 

would be the same as those currently identified in the WDEQ Mine Permit 500 Term T7, 

approved May 22, 2006, and the BLM Resource Recovery and Protection Plan, approved 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-9 
Executive Summary 

June 16, 2006. Kiewit would submit an application to the WDEQ to amend its existing surface 

mining permit and mining plan to incorporate the final tract configuration; that application would 

include detailed amendments to the current monitoring, reclamation, and mitigation plans to 

include a new lease area. 

Table ES-1 describes projected coal production, surface disturbance, mine life, and projected 

federal and state revenues for the Buckskin Mine under each of the alternatives analyzed in this 

EIS. These figures are based on the current and projected average annual coal production rate of 

25 million tons per year, and the assumption that coal reserves under the public roads and 

occupied residence would not be mined. 

ES-10 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

	 


 

	 

	 

	 

c 

Executive Summary 

Table ES-1. Comparison of Coal Reserves, Lease and Permit Areas, Production, Mine Life, 

and Revenues 

Existing 

Buckskin Mine Alternative 1 

Additional Under 

Item Permit Area (No Action) Proposed Action Alternative 2 

In-Place Coal (as of 12-31-08) 460.9 mmt 0 77.2 mmta 269.7 mmtb 

Accessible Mineable Coal (as of 12-31-08)c 361.9 mmt 0 60.1 mmta 166.3 mmtb 

Recoverable Coal (as of 12-31-08)d 344.3 mmt 0 54.1 mmta 149.7 mmtb 

% Increase in Estimated Recoverable Coal — 0 15.7% 43.5% 

(as of 12/31/08)d 

Coal Lease Area 6,438.2 acrese 0 419.0 acres 1,883.1 acres 

Permit Area 8,011.5 acres 0 478.0 acres 2,191.6 acres 

Average Annual Post-2008 Coal Production 25 mmt 0 0 0 

Remaining Life of Mine (Post-2008)7 14 years 0 2 years up to 6 years 

Average Number of Employees 350 0 0 0 

Total Projected State and Local Revenues 

(Post-2008)f 

$563.6 million 0 $90.6–$108.8 million $250.2–$300.4 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (Post-2008)g $417.0 million 0 $69.2–$87.3 million $191.0–$241.1 million 

mmt = million tons 

a Based on the entire proposed tract, including its overlap with the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. 

b	 Based on the entire BLM study area, including its overlap with the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. 

Maximum estimate; does not include coal reserves that are inaccessible because of criteria 3 (i.e., reserves beneath the occupied residence and 

associated 300-foot buffer zone; or the public road rights-of-way [Collins and McGee roads], their associated 100-foot buffer zones, and other 

operationally limited lands between the two roads).
 

d	 Assumes a recovery rate of 95% for coal in the Canyon seam and a 90% for all other coal reserves; does not include coal left behind as support pillars 

and similar structures, or unavoidably lost through spillage and spontaneous natural fires during normal mining operations. 

e Includes federal and state coal leases currently held by the Buckskin Mining Company. 

f	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming and local governments include severance taxes; property and production taxes (ad valorem); sales and use taxes; and 

Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, bonus bids, annual rental payments, and Abandoned Mine Land fees. State revenues are based on an 

assumed price of $7.85 per ton of “recoverable coal,” federal royalty of 12.5% of the value less 51% federal share, plus $0.315 per ton for Abandoned 

Mine Land fees on assumed 25% state share, plus bonus payments of between $0.30 and $0.97 per ton of LBA leased coal per ton (based on average of 

six LBAs in 2004 and 2005) times the tonnage of recoverable coal times a 50% state share, plus $0.07 per ton estimated sales and use taxes, plus $0.33 

per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes, plus $0.415 per ton in severance taxes. Only the sales and use taxes paid directly by the mine are considered (i.e., 

taxes generated by vendors and suppliers and by consumer expenditure supported directly and indirectly by the mine are not included. These figures 

could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percentage of distribution to states. 

g Federal revenues are based on an assumed price of $7.85 per ton, federal royalty of 12.5% times 51% share, plus $0.315 per ton for Abandoned Mine 

Land fees times an assumed 75% federal share, plus black lung tax of $0.00261 per ton, plus bonus payments of between $0.30 and $0.97 per ton of LBA 

leased coal (based on the range of the six LBA sales in 2004 and 2005) times tonnage of recoverable coal minus a 50% federal share. These figures 

could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percentage of distribution to states. 

Other alternatives that were considered but eliminated from further analysis in this EIS include: 

 Alternative 3—Under Alternative 3, the BLM would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and 

issue a lease for a coal tract to a successful bidder other than the applicant for the purpose of 

developing a new stand-alone mine. 

 Alternative 4—Under Alternative 4, the BLM would delay the sale of a new coal tract with 

the goal of increasing the public benefit should higher coal prices be in place at a later date 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application	 ES-11 
Executive Summary 

and/or to allow more complete recovery of the potential coal bed natural gas (CBNG) 

resource prior to mining. 

The current economies of mining in the Powder River Federal Coal Region appear to make 

construction of a new mine economically unfeasible using estimated in-place coal reserves in the 

proposed tract or alternative tract configuration. The BLM currently estimates that a tract would 

need to include as much as 500 to 600 million tons of in-place coal to attract a buyer interested in 

opening a new mine in the Wyoming PRB. Neither the proposed tract (approximately 77 million 

tons) nor the BLM study area (about 270 million tons) includes sufficient in-place coal resources 

to justify the costs of opening a new mine. Given these limitations and other assumptions 

associated with a new mine start, such as the necessary annual production and competition for 

market share, Alternative 3 is not analyzed further in this EIS. Alternative 4 was not analyzed in 

detail because it would not produce substantially different impacts from the alternatives analyzed 

in this EIS; only the timing and possibly the economic return of the sale would differ. 

Resources Addressed in this Environmental Impact Statement 

The general analysis area represents the maximum surface area that could be disturbed by mining 

operations (coal extraction and support activities) analyzed in this EIS; it encompasses 

approximately 2,847.3 acres (map ES-5). The BLM requires that certain elements are analyzed 

when present in the affected environment. Maps ES-5 through ES-7 show the Proposed Action 

and two alternatives analyzed in this EIS for most resources, as well as the maximum potential 

surface disturbance within the general analysis area associated with each alternative. 

Required elements present in the general analysis area and addressed in this EIS include: 

 air quality (section 3.4); 

 water quality (section 3.5); 

 wetlands/riparian zones (section 3.7); 

 invasive non-native species (section 3.9); 

 threatened and endangered species (sections 3.9 and 3.10); 

 cultural resources (section 3.12); 

 hazardous or solid wastes (section 3.16); 

 Native American religious concerns (section 3.17); and 

 environmental justice (section 3.17). 

The following additional resources also are present in the general analysis area and are addressed 

in this EIS: 

 topography and physiography (section 3.2); 

 geology, mineral, and paleontological resources (section 3.3); 

ES-12 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
	 

Executive Summary 

 other water resources (section 3.5); 

 alluvial valley floors (section 3.6); 

 soils (section 3.8); 

 vegetation (section 3.9); 

 wildlife (section 3.10); 

 land use and recreation (section 3.11); 

 visual resources (section 3.13); 

 noise (section 3.14); 

 transportation resources (section 3.15); and 

 socioeconomics (section 3.17). 

Five additional aspects considered in this chapter are: 

 regulatory compliance; 

 mitigation and monitoring; 

 residual impacts; 

 the relationship between local short-term uses of the human environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity (3.18); and 

 any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be associated with the 

action alternatives (42 United States Code § 4332[C]) (3.19). 

The following elements, which are required by the BLM when present in the affected 

environment, are not present in the general analysis area and are not addressed in this EIS: 

 areas of critical environmental concern; 

 prime or unique farmlands; 

 floodplains; 

 wild and scenic rivers; and 

 wilderness. 

Individual data reports were prepared for each resource; those reports include the information 

used to prepare the EIS. Copies of those reports can be viewed at the BLM Wyoming High 

Plains District Office in Casper, Wyoming. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application	 ES-13 
Applicant proposed tract—

Support area—activities retract (241.0 acres) Overlap area—activities rel(474.0 acres) General analysis area Existing permit boundary 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Areas of Disturbance und
Overla

mining GeneraExistin

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Areas of Disturbance under A
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

BLM study area—mextraction* (1883.1 Support area—actientire BLM study arOverlap area—activexisting coal leases General analysis arExisting permit bou

* 	County roads and occupied re

considered unsuitable for minCriteria 3. Figure represents mdisturbance if roads and occuor vacated, respectively. 

Areas of Disturba
 

Executive Summary 

Summary of General Setting and Environmental Consequences 

The areas where mining and mine-related activities would occur under each alternative are 

provided below. 

 Under the Proposed Action (map ES-5), coal extraction would occur in the entire proposed 

tract (approximately 419 acres). Activities related to mining2 the proposed tract would occur 

in the support area, a 0.25-mile-wide area north and west of the proposed tract 

(approximately 241 acres); activities related to mining existing coal leases would continue in 

the remainder of the overlap area3 (approximately 474 acres). 

 Under Alternative 1 (map ES-6), activities related to mining existing coal leases would 

continue in the overlap area3 (approximately 656 acres). 

 Under Alternative 2 (map ES-7), coal extraction would occur in an alternative tract 

configuration within the BLM study area (up to approximately 1,883 acres). Activities 

related to mining an alternative tract configuration would occur in the support area, a 

0.25-mile-wide area north and west of the alternative tract configuration (up to 

approximately 926 acres); activities related to mining existing coal leases would continue in 

the remainder of the overlap area3 (approximately 38 acres). 

General Setting 

The general analysis area is adjacent to one of the northern-most operating mines in the PRB, in 

the part of the Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. The climate 

there is typical of a semi-arid, high plains environment with relatively large seasonal and diurnal 

variations in temperature. Precipitation occurs predominantly during the spring and fall, with 

approximately 10% in the form of snow. Surface wind speeds average 10.5 miles per hour 

throughout the year, with prevailing winds from the north-northwest and south-southeast, 

depending on the season. 

The general analysis area is characterized by gently rolling uplands and relatively level 

agricultural fields; many hills are dissected by drainages that create moderate variations in local 

relief. Topographic elevations in the general analysis area range from approximately 4,080 feet 

above mean sea level along Hay Creek in the northern tier to about 4,380 feet above mean sea 

level in the southwestern portion of the area. The vegetation in the general analysis area consists 

of species common to eastern Wyoming and is consistent with vegetative communities in the 

adjacent Buckskin Mine permit area. The proposed tract is dominated (approximately 71%) by 

2 Mining and mine-related activities include, but are not limited to, topsoil stripping, stockpile storage, highwall back-sloping (including catch 

benches), highwall reduction after mining to match undisturbed topography, and construction of flood- and sediment-control structures. 

These activities are described in section 1.1.3.3. 

3 The area of overlap between the general analysis area and the existing permit area. Disturbance in this area would be a result of ongoing 

mine-related activities associated with existing coal leases. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application	 ES-17 
Executive Summary 

various upland grasslands. The general analysis area is comprised primarily of upland grasslands 

(approximately 40%) and agricultural lands (croplands and pastures, 31%). 

Summary of Impacts 

Impacts were identified in this EIS based on criteria set forth by the Council on Environmental 

Quality (40 CFR 1508.27), BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1, and the professional judgment of 

the specialists completing the analyses. Impacts can be beneficial or adverse, and can be a 

primary result (direct) of an action, a secondary result (indirect), or cumulative; cumulative 

impacts are discussed in chapter 4. They can be short-term (operational, persisting during active 

mining and reclamation); long-term (persisting through the time the reclamation bond is 

released—minimum of 10 years beyond active reclamation), or permanent. Impacts also vary in 

terms of significance. Significance can range from no impact or negligible impacts to substantial 

or significant impacts. Impacts can also be substantial during mining but reduced to no impact 

or negligible following completion of reclamation. In this EIS, impacts are considered to be 

adverse unless specifically identified as beneficial. 

As described above, the general analysis area represents the maximum surface area that could be 

disturbed by mining activities analyzed in this EIS. Surface disturbance occurs outside of a coal 

lease area as a result of activities necessary to support mining including, but not limited to, 

topsoil stripping, stockpile storage, highwall back-sloping (including catch benches), highwall 

reduction after mining to match undisturbed topography, and construction of flood- and 

sediment-control structures. 

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. However, a decision to reject the coal 

lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in 

the future. Under this alternative, impacts in the general analysis area would be limited to its 

overlap with the existing Buckskin Mine permit area (approximately 656 acres), and would 

consist of short-term surface disturbance from activities necessary to support mining on existing 

leases. In most cases, impacts under the No Action Alternative are the same or similar to those 

for the action alternatives, but would occur in the limited overlap area and would most often be 

short-term. 

Proposed Action and Alternative 2 

The following summary focuses on the expected impacts of the two action alternatives analyzed 

in this EIS. 

Topography 

Under both action alternatives, surface coal mining would have a moderate, permanent impact on 

the topography of the proposed tract or BLM study area through blasting, hauling, and 

stockpiling of overburden and interburden, and from coal extraction. Postmining topography 

ES-18 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Executive Summary 

would be recontoured under either scenario to resemble the premining topography and the basic 

drainage system would be retained, but the reclaimed lands would be approximately 60 feet 

lower and somewhat gentler and more uniform in appearance. 

These changes in the landscape would result in minor to moderate, long-term reductions in 

microhabitats and habitat diversity in the affected area. As discussed under the Wildlife 

Resources heading below, effects on wildlife would be minor to moderate, depending on the 

species, and long-term. Long-term beneficial impacts of the lower and flatter terrain would be 

reduced water runoff, which would increase infiltration rates for precipitation and reduce 

erosion, and may also increase vegetative productivity and potentially accelerate recharge of 

groundwater. These topographic changes would not conflict with regional land use, and the 

postmining topography would be designed to adequately support the anticipated future land use 

of the mined area. 

Geology and Coal Resources 

The Paleocene Fort Union Formation is the stratigraphic unit (i.e., geological layer) which 

contains the coal seams that would be mined under the action alternatives. This formation is 

divided into the Tongue River, Lebo, and Tullock members. The Anderson and Canyon coal 

seams of the Tongue River Member are targeted for mining in the BLM study area (the 

maximum extent of leasable coal in the general analysis area). 

Under both action alternatives, removal of overburden, interburden, and coal reserves would 

have a significant, permanent impact on the geology and coal resources on up to 419 acres in the 

proposed tract and 1,883 acres in the BLM study area, with the area of impact depending on the 

final tract configuration. An average of about 250 feet of overburden and interburden, 30 feet of 

Anderson coal, and 70 feet of Canyon coal would be removed under either action alternative. 

Approximately 54 million tons of coal would be recovered from the proposed tract, and up to 

149.7 million tons from the BLM study area. 

Overburden removed during mining would be replaced with a relatively homogenous mixture of 

partially compacted rock and soil that would be significantly and permanently altered from the 

original distinct layers. Activities related to mining and reclamation would cause short-term 

surface disturbance in the support area for the final tract configuration. 

Other Minerals 

The Anderson and Canyon coal seams tapped for CBNG development are the same seams that 

are being mined at the Buckskin Mine. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

records indicate that as of May 2008, 30 CBNG wells have been completed in the general 

analysis area. Half of those wells are producing and the rest have been shut in, are no longer 

producing, have been permanently abandoned, or have expired permits. Commission records 

indicate that no CBNG wells have been completed below the Anderson and Canyon seams 

within the general analysis area. No conventional oil and gas wells are located in the general 

analysis area. Additionally, no bentonite or uranium reserves have been identified in the general 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-19 
Executive Summary 

analysis area. Clinker (known locally as scoria or red dog) breaks are absent from the proposed 

tract, but do occur on limited hillsides along the northern edge of the general analysis area. 

Under the action alternatives, development of other minerals present in the general analysis area 

could not occur during mining, but could resume after mining. Surface coal mining would have 

permanent impacts on unrecovered oil and gas (conventional and CBNG) resources located in 

and above the mined coal seams. Resources that are not recovered prior to mining would be 

irretrievably lost when the coal is removed. Dewatering wells and active mining would combine 

with ongoing CBNG production to deplete the hydrostatic pressures and gas resources adjacent 

to mining areas a short time after mining would begin. 

The action alternatives would have no impact on bentonite or uranium resources because they are 

not present in the general analysis area. Mining would remove or reduce limited clinker 

resources along the northern portion of the general analysis area, resulting in a permanent loss of 

those resources and a change in topographic relief. 

Paleontological Resources 

Two formations exposed on the surface of the general analysis area could contain 

paleontological resources: the Paleocene Fort Union Formation and the Paleocene and Eocene 

Wasatch Formation (Breckenridge 1974; Love and Christiansen 1985). Both of these 

sedimentary formations are known to yield vertebrate fossils in Wyoming (Estes 1975; Roehler 

1991; Secord 1998; Robinson et al. 2004). 

No significant or unique paleontological resources have been reported by the Buckskin Mine and 

none were recorded on the surface in the general analysis area during surveys conducted for the 

EIS. No specific mitigation was recommended for the action alternatives and no further 

paleontological work was recommended or required. Additional surveys for paleontological 

resources may be required if discoveries are made during mining operations. Undiscovered 

resources not exposed on the surface or detected during mining would be permanently lost. 

Air Quality 

Particulate and gaseous emissions are the two primary types of air pollutants directly associated 

with surface coal mining in the PRB; both are associated with a variety of health and 

environmental impacts. In general, PM10 particulate matter is the major significant pollutant 

from coal mine point (stationary) and fugitive (non-point) sources; PM10 is coarse particulate 

with mean aerodynamic diameters less than 10 microns. The major sources of particulate 

emissions (solid particles and liquid droplets that can be suspended in air) at surface coal mines 

are fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions from large mining equipment. Activities such as 

blasting, excavating, loading, and hauling of overburden and coal, and wind erosion of disturbed 

land all produce fugitive dust. The most common point sources of particulate matter are 

associated with coal crushing, storage, and handling facilities. 

ES-20 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Executive Summary 

Gases that contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts are referred to as nitrogen oxides, or 

NOx. These are the primary fugitive gaseous emissions produced during surface coal mining 

operations. Nitrogen oxides are generated from tailpipe emissions from mining equipment and 

other vehicle traffic inside the mine permit area. Blasting to remove overburden can result in 

emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), because of the incomplete combustion of explosives used 

in the blasting process. The Buckskin Mine does not use cast blasting to move overburden, 

which is the most common source of blasting emissions. No NOx point sources occur at the 

Buckskin Mine. 

Non-mining air pollutant emission sources are also present within the region, though most (i.e., 

fugitive dust and tailpipe and exhaust emissions) are similar to those at the coal mines. Nitrogen 

oxides and sulfur dioxide are also generated at power-plants. The closest coal-fired power plants 

are the Wyodak, WYGEN, and Neil Simpson plants, located about 15 miles southeast of the 

general analysis area. The Dry Fork Station, a 420-megawatt, coal-fired power plant currently 

under construction, is located approximately 10 miles southeast of the area. The Buckskin Mine 

does not provide coal to any power plants in the PRB, and does not dispose of coal combustion 

by-products from local power plants in its backfill. 

The current (since December 2006) EPA 24-hour air quality standard for PM2.5 (particulate 

matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less) is 35 micrograms per cubic 

meter (μg/m3), a reduction from the previous level of 65 μg/m3. The current annual PM2.5 

standard is 15 μg/m3. PM10 particulates have been monitored at the PRB mines since 1989. The 

current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 24-hour standard for PM10 

particulates is 150 μg/m3. The former Wyoming annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3 was revoked 

during the EPA revisions of air quality standards in 2006. The NAAQS for annual NO2 is 100 

μg/m3. This gas is not currently regulated at surface coal mines by either national or state 

ambient air quality standards, though the WDEQ does require an assessment of annual NOx 

impacts as part of an air quality permitting analysis for new surface coal mines and existing mine 

plan revisions. 

Moderate, short-term impacts on air quality are currently present at the Buckskin Mine because 

of existing mine operations. Long-term modeling for the current Buckskin Mine permit did not 

forecast any exceedances of the annual PM10 particulate NAAQS at the permitted production rate 

of 42 million tons per year; Buckskin’s current and anticipated average annual production rate is 

25 million tons per year. Results from the Buckskin Mine 24-hour PM10 monitors surpassed the 

24-hour national annual average standard (150 μg/m3) on only three occasions since monitoring 

began in 1989. Two of the three exceedances were deemed an “exceptional event” associated 

with strong winds by the WDEQ. In all three cases, the Buckskin Mine followed all mitigation 

and documentation procedures as required by the Natural Events Action Policy, including 

submitting detailed reports of the exceedance and accompanying meteorological conditions to 

the WDEQ. The dispersion model for the lands necessary to conduct mining at Buckskin (map 

ES-8A) showed a maximum PM10 concentration of 32.9 μg/m3

 in 2011, one of the two projected 

“worst-case” years used for the model. Map ES-8B shows the same modeling information for 

2012. Both maps also depict the area sources used to model fugitive emissions. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-21 
0 2,500 5,000

feet

NO2 = 35.6 

14 

16 

Applicant Proposed Tract 

BLM Study Area 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Map ES-8A 

2011 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2

 Concentrations for Buckskin Mine Ambient Air Boundary 
0 2,500 5,000

feet

NO2 = 35.6 

14 

16 

Applicant Proposed Tract 

BLM Study Area 

PM10 = 31.0 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Map ES-8B 

2012 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2 Concentrations for Buckskin Mine Ambient Air Boundary 
Executive Summary 

Adjacent landowners to the north of the Buckskin Mine have contacted and met with mine 

personnel on various occasions regarding their concerns about smoke from coal fires at the mine, 

NO2, and dust. The landowners and mine representatives are actively working to resolve these 

issues. The landowners have indicated that they expressed similar concerns to the WDEQ. 

Nevertheless, the agency has not required the Buckskin Mine to implement any specific 

measures to control or limit public exposure to NO2 from blasting, such as restrictions regarding 

blasting size, setbacks, or other parameters. Maximum annual NO2 impacts of 1.6 μg/m3 in 2011 

and 1.8 μg/m3 in 2012 were predicted during modeling for the Buckskin Mine; predictions for 

regional sources and background concentrations were 38.0 μg/m3 and 37.8 μg/m3 for these 

respective years. All four values were considerably lower than the annual NO2 NAAQS of 100 

μg/m3. 

Public exposure to emissions caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along 

public roads and highways that pass by or through the area of mining operations. One occupied 

dwelling is located within the general analysis area (map ES-9A and map ES-9B) that could also 

be affected. The residence is less than 0.25 mile north of the overlap area, west of the McGee 

Road and within the general analysis area; the home is approximately 1 mile north of the 

northern-most extent of disturbance that would be associated with the proposed tract. With one 

exception, all other occupied dwellings in the vicinity of the general analysis area are at least 

0.5 mile from the general analysis area (map ES-9A and map ES-9B). Most homes are on the far 

side of ridges that provide visual and audio buffers from existing and future mine operations. 

Two school bus stops are located on U.S. Highway 14-16, approximately 0.5 mile west of the 

general analysis area (map ES-9A). Three other school bus stops are located more than 1.5 miles 

west and north of the area. 

Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents as well 

as natural sources emit NOx and volatile organic compounds that help form ozone. In March 

2008, the EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone (75 FR 11). The ozone standard was 

lowered from 80 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion based on the fourth highest 8-hour 

average value per year at a site, averaged over three years. On January 6, 2010, the EPA 

proposed to strengthen the ozone standard by lowering the primary 8-hour standard to 

somewhere between 60 and 70 parts per billion (75 FR 11). The final standard is expected in 

mid-2011. The WDEQ does not require ozone monitoring at the Buckskin Mine; however, 

levels have been monitored at WDEQ operated and maintained ambient air quality monitor sites 

elsewhere in the PRB since 2001. The northern PRB is still considered an ozone attainment 

area, though ozone readings have occasionally exceeded the current standard of 75 parts per 

billion at the Thunder Basin air monitoring site in northern Campbell County. On June 2, 2010, 

the EPA issued a new 1-hour ambient standard for sulfur dioxide (SO2) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007­

0352, RIN 2060-A048). The new standard is 75 parts per billion, applied to the three-year 

average of the fourth highest of the annual distribution of hourly averages. SO2 monitors have 

been placed in the PRB explicitly to measure impacts from major sources; the nearest monitor is 

approximately 15 miles southeast of the Buckskin Mine. Neither site has violated the new 1­

hour standard of 75 parts per billion. 

ES-24 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
0 3,100 6,200

feet

Applicant Proposed Tract 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map ES-9A 

Roads, Highways, Occupied Dwellings, Businesses, and School Bus Stops 

in the Vicinity of the General Analysis Area 
14
 

16
 

Map ES-9B 

Enlargement—Roads, Highways, Occupied Dwellings, Businesses, and School Bus Stops 

in the Vicinity of the General Analysis Area 
Executive Summary 

Impacts of coal mining on lake acidification are expected to remain extremely low because of the 

distance from the Buckskin Mine to sensitive lakes in the region, the absence of NOx point 

sources at the mine, the lack of predicted exceedances for NOx under “worst-case” conditions at 

the permitted coal production rate of 42 million tons per year, and the continuation of the current 

average annual production rate of 25 million tons per year under any of the alternatives 

considered in this EIS. 

Water Resources 

Under either action alternative, the coal aquifer and any water-bearing strata in the overburden 

and interburden would be permanently removed and replaced with unconsolidated backfill in the 

area to be mined. Mining would also cause a moderate, short-term reduction in groundwater in 

aquifers beyond the final tract configuration as a result of seepage into and dewatering from 

mine excavations (i.e., drawdown). The extent of drawdown would depend on how long the 

mine excavations are open, the distance of the aquifers from the mined tract, and the extent of 

dewatering. Map ES-10 shows the predicted extent of worst-case drawdown in the lowest coal 

seam (Canyon coal) over the life of the mine within the general analysis area. The area of 

drawdown in the overburden aquifers would be smaller than in that of the coal aquifers. CBNG 

development, where present, would continue to have substantial contributions to drawdown, 

especially in the coal seams. In the absence of CBNG development, drawdown typically is 

greatest near the mine, and decreases substantially away from the mine. 

Groundwater is expected to rise to similar levels as observed prior to mining, but it would not 

have all of the same characteristics because of the more homogeneous nature of the backfill. 

Due to its proximity to the existing Buckskin Mine, groundwater quality in the backfill aquifer 

after mining is expected to be similar to that measured in wells completed in the existing backfill 

at the mine. It is likely that recharged groundwater would be adequate for postmining land uses 

such as water sources for livestock and wildlife. Mining would not disturb the aquifers below 

the coal. Two water supply wells from the underburden aquifer are currently used by the 

Buckskin Mine. Based on monitoring results to date, these wells currently could remain viable 

through the life of the mine. 

Coal mining would have substantial, short-term effects on surface drainage systems and water 

runoff characteristics under either action alternative. Erosion and sediment discharge would 

likely increase in disturbed areas because of vegetation removal, but infiltration rates would 

likely improve after reclamation because of changes in soil structure and the presence of 

vegetation and more moderate topography to reduce runoff. Water flow and direction in that 

area would be altered by the removal and reconstruction of drainage channels prior to mining 

and from redirected flow through the use of erosion- and sediment-control structures to manage 

surface water runoff from disturbed areas. The most prominent surface water feature in the 

general analysis area is Hay Creek, which is ephemeral (i.e., responds only to rainfall or snowmelt events) in nature. The creek has been or will soon be mined out in the overlap area, and has 

already been diverted to rejoin the undisturbed creek east of the general analysis area. 

Additional segments of Hay Creek and several tributaries could be diverted and restored during 

reclamation under Alternative 2. However, Kiewit does not anticipate implementing any 

additional channel diversions under either action alternative. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-27 
Clinker (locally called scoria or red dog) 

2,500 5,000

feet

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map ES-10 

Extent of Drawdown under Proposed Action 

0
Executive Summary 

Both action alternatives would result in moderate, long-term impacts on groundwater rights for 

wells in coal or overburden aquifers until recharge. Effects would be similar for surface water 

rights. One surface water right on a disconnected drainage would be affected under the Proposed 

Action, while up to two surface water rights would be affected on disconnected drainages under 

Alternative 2. 

Alluvial Valley Floors 

The action alternatives considered in this EIS would not affect alluvial valley floors. Multiple 

investigations conducted within the general analysis area have concluded that the Hay Creek 

valley bottom is not an alluvial valley floor as defined by the WDEQ rules and regulations. No 

stream-laid deposits are present in the general analysis area. Runoff volume from 24-hour storm 

events in the vicinity of the Buckskin Mine is typically small relative to the cumulative storage 

capacity of reservoirs in the valley bottom and would not be sufficient to support any reliable 

flood irrigation practices. 

Wetlands 

Wetland inventories were based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland 

Inventory (NWI) mapping (USFWS 2007) and a reconnaissance-level field visit throughout the 

general analysis area. Based on the NWI maps, approximately 64.44 acres of wetlands have 

been identified in the general analysis area. Of these, 30.7 acres were considered potentially 

jurisdictional wetlands based on field observations; the remaining 33.74 acres were confirmed to 

be nonjurisdictional non-wetlands (e.g., borrow pits, old impoundments) or were not found to be 

present during the field visit. Only the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the authorization to 

determine which wetlands are jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional. 

Since the 2007 NWI-based wetland determination was completed, a portion of the general 

analysis area was formally delineated by wetland biologists. The results of this study are 

currently being reviewed by the Corps and the issuance of an approved jurisdictional 

determination is pending. 

The specific functions (e.g., agriculture, livestock, and wildlife) of each identified wetland will 

be determined during the delineation associated with the permitting process for the final tract 

configuration, should a lease be issued, and are, therefore, not addressed in detail as part of the 

EIS analysis. 

Under the Proposed Action, surface mining in the proposed tract and related activities in the 

support area and overlap area (associated with existing coal leases) would have a moderate, 

permanent impact on four small, potentially jurisdictional NWI-inventoried wetlands (1.21 total 

acres). Under Alternative 2, surface mining in the BLM study area and related activities in the 

support area and overlap area could have a moderate, permanent impact on five small, potentially 

jurisdictional NWI-inventoried wetlands (1.89 total acres). The greatest single acreage of a 

potentially jurisdictional NWI-inventoried wetland is west of one or both county roads in the 

area considered operationally limited by Kiewit; Kiewit does not anticipate relocating either road 

to access coal reserves. All wetland functions at affected sites would be lost during mining and 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-29 
Executive Summary 

support activities. Any impacts would be mitigated during reclamation by creating equivalent 

acreages of wetlands elsewhere in the Buckskin Mine permit area to ensure no net loss of 

wetland function in the general analysis area. No additional reaches of Hay Creek would be 

diverted under either action alternative. 

Soil Resources 

Five soil formation processes causing different soil types were described in the general analysis 

area. Soil types and depths in that area are similar to soils currently being salvaged and used for 

reclamation at the Buckskin Mine and other nearby mines in northern Campbell County. 

Surface mining would have a moderate, long-term effect on soil resources in 1,134 acres under 

the Proposed Action and up to 2,847 acres under Alternative 2. Mining in the general analysis 

area would have a moderate, short- to long-term impact on the physical, biological, and chemical 

properties of stockpiled soils prior to reclamation. Following reclamation, the action alternatives 

would have a moderate, beneficial, long-term effect on replaced soils. Such soils would be more 

uniform in type, thickness, and texture, and would have a more uniform soil chemistry and soil 

nutrient distribution. Runoff would be decreased and infiltration rates would gradually return to 

premining levels. Sediment-control measures would be implemented where runoff does occur to 

preserve reclaimed materials. Average topsoil quality would be improved because soil material 

that is not suitable to support plant growth would not be salvaged for use in reclamation. The 

replaced soil would support a stable and productive vegetation community adequate in quality 

and quantity to support the planned postmining land uses (i.e., wildlife habitat and livestock 

grazing). 

Vegetation Resources 

Eight distinct vegetation communities and four additional categories were identified and mapped 

in the general analysis area. The proposed tract is dominated (71%) by a variety of common 

species of upland grasslands; the general analysis area is dominated (71%) by upland grasslands 

(approximately 40%, combined) and agricultural lands (crops, hay fields, and pastures; 

approximately 31%). Sagebrush comprises less than 11% of both the proposed tract and the 

general analysis area. 

Under either action alternative, active mining and support activities would have a moderate, 

short-term impact on vegetation. Vegetation would be incrementally removed to accommodate 

mining. Effects would be greatest on upland grasslands and agricultural lands. Under the 

Proposed Action, approximately 126 non-contiguous acres of sagebrush would be affected in the 

proposed tract, support area, and remainder of the overlap area. Under Alternative 2, up to 302 

non-contiguous acres of sagebrush would be affected in the BLM study area, support area, and 

remainder of the overlap area. Average patch size for sagebrush in those areas is 4.9 acres. 

Impacts associated with the removal of vegetation could include increased soil erosion and 

differences between premining and postmining vegetative communities. Reclamation, including 

revegetation, will immediately follow as mining progresses through the area. Estimates of the 

time elapsed from topsoil stripping through reseeding of any given area range from two to 

ES-30 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Executive Summary 

five years; that time-frame would be considerably longer for areas occupied by mine-related 

facilities and infrastructure. 

Reestablished vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in the reclamation seed 

mixtures, which are approved by the WDEQ. The majority of these species would be native to 

the general analysis area. Erosion will be monitored to determine if corrective action is needed 

during establishment of vegetation. Controlled grazing will be used during revegetation as a 

management tool and to determine the suitability of the reclaimed land for postmining land uses. 

Any decrease in plant diversity would not seriously affect the potential productivity of the 

reclaimed areas, and the proposed postmining land use (wildlife habitat and rangeland) should be 

achieved even with the changes in vegetation composition and diversity. 

Wildlife Resources 

Both action alternatives would have a minor to moderate, short-term impact on most wildlife 

species present in the general analysis area, with longer effects to wildlife habitats. Impacts 

could include: injuries or mortalities causes by mine-related traffic; direct losses of less mobile 

wildlife species; restrictions on wildlife movement created by fences, spoil piles and pits; 

displacement of wildlife from existing habitat in areas of active mining (including abandonment 

of nests or nesting and breeding habitat for birds); loss of nesting and foraging habitat; increased 

competition between animals in areas adjacent to mining operations; and increased noise, dust, 

and human presence. Habitat disturbance would be incremental through the general analysis 

area, with reclamation progressing as new disturbance occurs. 

The Hay Creek II general analysis area is not included in or within several miles of either a state 

sage-grouse core breeding area or connectivity area, as defined by the Governor of Wyoming’s 

Sage-Grouse Implementation Team (Office of the Governor of Wyoming 2008), or BLM sagegrouse focus area. No greater sage-grouse leks would be physically affected by either action 

alternative. The nearest sage-grouse lek (Hay Creek) is within the existing permit area 

approximately 0.5 mile to the southeast of the general analysis area and, thus, is already subject 

to disturbance from previously permitted activities. The McGee sage-grouse lek is on private 

surface approximately 1.25 miles north of the general analysis area. That site is on the far side of 

multiple ridges that provide a visual and audio buffer, and it is not likely to be affected by mine 

operations. The Daly sage-grouse lek is approximately 1.75 miles southwest of the general 

analysis area. That lek has been inactive for the last 17 consecutive years, though two adult 

males were seen approximately 1,000 feet from the lek on one occasion in 2002; the Daly lek has 

been classified as abandoned by the WGFD (2006). Sage-grouse were last observed at the Hay 

Creek lek in 2001 and the McGee lek in 2004; both are considered occupied by the WGFD 

(2006). 

Two occupied sharp-tailed grouse leks occur within the general analysis area. The McGee II lek 

is in the overlap area with the current permit area and the McGee III lek is immediately north of 

the overlap area (Alternative 2). Due to their locations, those leks have been or would be 

disturbed by previously permitted mining of existing leases. The McGee I sharp-tailed grouse 

lek is approximately 0.25 mile north of the general analysis area. It would not be in view of the 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-31 
Executive Summary 

general analysis area because of the ridgeline that separates the two sites, but it could be affected 

by noise from within the general analysis area. The Stickel lek is approximately 0.75 mile 

southeast of the general analysis area and within the existing permit area; this site has been or 

would be disturbed by previously permitted activities on existing leases. Sharp-tailed grouse 

were last recorded at the McGee II lek in 2004 and the McGee III lek in 2005. The McGee I lek 

was last active in 2001, and the Stickel lek in 2002. 

As described previously, the prevalence of upland grasslands and the limited presence of surface 

water reduce the area’s value to sagebrush obligates such as the sage-grouse. No grouse nests or 

broods for either species have been recorded in the general analysis area during targeted surveys 

or incidental to surveys for other species. No sage-grouse have been observed during winter, 

though site visits occur less often at that time of year. No sharp-tailed grouse have ever been 

observed on the proposed tract during any season, though flocks of as many as a dozen birds 

have infrequently been recorded in the general analysis area, feeding in fallow agricultural fields 

and perched in the tree shelterbelt near the junction of the Collins and McGee roads in winter. 

No sharp-tailed grouse have been seen in those locations since at least 2003. 

The general analysis area does not include any unique or crucial big game habitat, and no elk or 

white-tailed deer are present there. No bald eagle nests or winter roosts have ever been 

documented in the general analysis area or surrounding lands; sightings of this species in the 

vicinity of the general analysis area have averaged less than one bird per winter over the last 26 

years (1984–2009). 

Little (less than 1% of the total area) aquatic habitat is present in the general analysis area, so 

few aquatic species would be lost during mining operations. Indirect impacts are longer-term 

and include alterations in topography and vegetative cover following mining and reclamation, 

which may decrease wildlife carrying capacity and habitat diversity. Because the general 

analysis area is dominated (71% combined) by upland grassland communities and agricultural 

lands, the establishment of reclaimed grassland communities after mining has been completed 

would represent similar or somewhat improved habitats for most wildlife species compared to 

those in the premining landscape. 

No mountain plovers have ever been documented in the vicinity of the general analysis area 

during that period. Additionally, typical suitable habitat (short and sparse vegetation) for this 

species is not present in the area. None of the 18 migratory bird species of management concern 

for Wyoming coal mines that have historically been observed in the vicinity are regularly seen in 

the general analysis area. The upland grasslands and agricultural lands that dominate the area 

lack the specific characteristics (shrubs, wetlands, prairie dog colonies, or shorter, less dense 

grasses) typically associated with the species of greatest concern. 

Up to three intact raptor nests could be affected in the general analysis area. Due to their 

respective locations and histories, only one of the three intact nests is likely to be affected by 

future mining operations under either action alternative. That nest is in a tree grove in the 

overlap area and, thus, is already subject to disturbance from previously permitted mine 

operations. All appropriate mitigation measures will be taken for that nest, in keeping with the 

ES-32 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Executive Summary 

current USFWS-approved monitoring and mitigation plan; the plan would be updated prior to the 

permitting process and before any new surface associated with either alternative is disturbed. 

In the long term, following reclamation, wildlife habitat diversity may be somewhat reduced 

because of gentler topography, less diverse vegetative cover, and reduction in sagebrush density. 

However, sagebrush comprises less than 11% of the general analysis area, so impacts on 

sagebrush-obligates would be reduced. Efforts have been initiated in recent years by mining 

companies to increase the diversity of postmine topography and to increase the amount of 

sagebrush in the reclamation, as appropriate. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The action alternatives discussed in this EIS will have no effect on threatened and endangered 

plant and animal species. Two federally listed plant species occur in Campbell County: the Ute 

ladies’-tresses (threatened) and blow-out penstemon (endangered). Areas of suitable habitat for 

the Ute ladies’-tresses within the general analysis area were surveyed during the appropriate 

survey window in August 2004 and annually from 2006 through 2009; no individuals were 

located. Surveys conducted for potential blowout penstemon habitat in the general analysis area 

in 2008 and 2009 confirmed that no suitable habitat for this species is present in the area. In 

addition, the general analysis area is not located within the documented historical range of the 

blowout penstemon in Wyoming, which is located approximately 170 miles northwest of the 

known Nebraska sites and approximately 225 miles northeast of the Wyoming occurrences. 

On March 5, 2010, the USFWS issued a determination that listing the greater sage-grouse under 

the Endangered Species Act was “warranted, but precluded” by other higher priorities. Although 

the sage-grouse continues to be managed by the WGFD, its current status as a candidate species 

under the Endangered Species Act gives further impetus to ongoing annual monitoring efforts. 

On May 11, 2011, after a thorough review of all available scientific and commercial information, 

the USFWS determined that the mountain plover is not threatened or endangered throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, including the Hay Creek II general analysis area and the rest 

of Campbell County, Wyoming (76 FR 92). The black-footed ferret has been removed from the 

list of threatened and endangered species for Campbell County, but remains on the national list 

for such species. The ferret is a nocturnal mammal that depends almost entirely upon the prairie 

dog for its survival. No black-footed ferrets have ever been documented at the Buckskin Mine or 

in the surrounding region, and no black-tailed prairie dog colonies (potential ferret habitat) are 

present within the general analysis area. 

Land Use and Recreation 

The entire surface of the existing Buckskin Mine permit area and general analysis area is 

privately owned by individuals or companies. All of the coal reserves in the proposed tract and 

BLM study area are federally owned, whereas the remaining subsurface minerals (i.e., oil and 

gas reserves) are under a mixture of private and federal ownership. Wildlife habitat and 

livestock grazing are the primary present and historical land uses in the general analysis area. 

Secondary land uses include pastureland (ranching), dryland cropland, transportation, and CBNG 

development. Coal mining at the Buckskin Mine is and has been the dominant land use to the 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-33 
Executive Summary 

east and south of the general analysis area since the mid 1980s. No conventional oil and gas 

wells are located in the general analysis area. 

Under both action alternatives, active mining would have a moderate, short-term impact on most 

other land uses, with a long-term impact on some wildlife habitats. Grazing uses of the general 

analysis area would be more limited in disturbance areas during mining, though grazing is used 

as a management tool in reclaimed areas. 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. 

Due to the lack of public lands, opportunities for recreational use and public grazing would not 

be affected. Existing coal and transportation activities, infrastructure, and facilities would 

remain in the area; coal production and transportation would continue at their current rates. 

Kiewit does not anticipate relocating any roads or securing occupied residences to access new 

federal coal reserves. Livestock and wildlife use is expected to increase once mined areas are 

fully reclaimed. 

Cultural Resources 

The entire general analysis area has been reviewed for previous cultural surveys through a files 

search and inventoried for cultural resources at a Class III level in the field. Of the 14 sites 

identified in that area, 6 are prehistoric and 8 are historic (Newberry 2008). Historic site 

categories documented in the general analysis area fall under the context of rural settlement. 

Specifically, the historic sites in the general analysis area are associated with homesteading and 

stock-raising circa the 1910s to the 1940s. All prehistoric and historic sites are determined not 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. No further protection is 

afforded these sites and no further work is required. 

No sites of Native American religious or cultural importance have been identified in the general 

analysis area. Appropriate action must be taken to address concerns related to any cultural or 

Native American sites identified at a later date. 

Visual Resources 

Mining would affect landscapes classified by the BLM as visual resource management Class IV; 

the overall natural scenic quality of that class rating is considered relatively low. Impacts of coal 

mining on visibility in the general analysis area would be minor and short-term. Mining 

activities would be visible from U.S. Highway 14-16 and two county roads (the Collins and 

McGee roads), though the extent and duration of visibility would vary under each action 

alternative. No unique visual resources have been identified in or near the general analysis area, 

and the landscape character would not be significantly changed following reclamation. Current 

mining activities (blasting procedures and sizes, coal haul rates and distances, dust suppression, 

etc.) at the Buckskin Mine would not change if the proposed tract or an alternative configuration 

is leased. Current best available control technology measures for particulates that could 

contribute to impaired visibility would continue to be employed. 

ES-34 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Executive Summary 

Noise 

One occupied residence is located within the general analysis area, less than 0.25 mile north of 

the overlap area. This residence is in direct line-of-sight of the current mine pit and associated 

support activities. Mine-related noise under the action alternatives would have a minor to 

substantial, short-term impact on this residence, depending on the final tract configuration. Most 

occupied dwellings are located in one of three housing developments west of the existing permit 

area and on the far side of Highway 14-16. Those residences are currently closer to the existing 

permit area than they would be to new mining under either action alternative. The high rolling 

terrain between most residences and the general analysis area provides a visual and audio buffer 

from current and future mine operations. Additionally, the increase in noise levels would not be 

considered a significant noise impact because the rate of mining would not change and the 

western limit of expansion of the mine would be constrained because of the required setbacks at 

the Collins Road and U.S. Highway 14-16. 

Noise levels in wildlife habitat adjacent to the expansion area might increase, but anecdotal 

observations indicate wildlife can adapt to mine noise, especially since similar mining operations 

have been conducted in the area for many years. No increase in average daily railroad traffic or 

railroad noise would occur under any of the alternatives analyzed. 

Transportation 

Transportation facilities in and near the general analysis area include a federal highway, a state 

highway, two gravel county roads, various unimproved local and access roads; the improved 

Buckskin Mine access road; the Buckskin Mine rail spur; oil and gas pipelines; electric corridors; 

and associated rights-of-way. 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract could impact one public 

roadway, three overhead power lines, four existing oil and gas pipelines, and one potential new 

oil and gas easement; impacts would be minor to moderate, and short-term. Under Alternative 2, 

mining could have similar impacts on two public roadways, eight overhead power lines, six 

existing oil and gas pipelines, and one potential new oil and gas easement. Most of the power 

lines in the vicinity are associated with on-going mine operations. No rail lines would be 

affected under either action alternative. Temporary surface disturbance from mine support 

activities (e.g., topsoil stripping, soil stockpiling) in the combined buffer area could affect one 

additional power line and three additional pipelines. 

Existing road and rail infrastructure would remain in place, though the rate of road and rail use is 

not expected to increase during that period. Two public roads (the Collins and McGee roads) are 

located within the general analysis area. Lands within 100 feet of the outside edge of the rightof-way of a public road are considered unsuitable for mining; however, they could be included in 

the final tract configuration to allow for maximum recovery of all the minable coal adjacent to 

the 100-foot buffer zones. Active pipelines and utility/power lines would have to be relocated in 

accordance with previous agreements, or agreements would have to be negotiated for their 

removal or relocation. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-35 
Executive Summary 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Potential sources of hazardous or solid waste could include spilled, leaked, or dumped 

substances, petroleum products, and solid waste associated with coal and oil and gas exploration, 

oil and gas development, utility line installation and maintenance, or agricultural activities. No 

such hazardous or solid wastes are known to be present in the general analysis area. 

Impacts associated with hazardous waste would be negligible and short-term. Hazardous and 

solid wastes generated in the course of mining the proposed tract would be similar to those 

currently being created by existing mining operations,. Wastes generated by mining the 

proposed tract 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 Buckskin 

Mine 

Socioeconomics 

Both action alternatives would have negligible, beneficial, short-term impacts on local 

employment. The Buckskin Mine anticipates hiring a few additional employees to meet existing 

staffing needs, but no new hires are expected to occur as a result of a new coal leasing action. 

Impacts on federal and state revenues would be substantial and beneficial under both action 

alternatives. The potential additional federal revenue from the general analysis area would range 

from approximately $69 to $241 million, depending on the alternative selected and the bonus 

price when the coal is leased. The potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming from the 

general analysis area would range from $91 to $300 million, depending on the alternative 

selected, the bonus price when the coal is leased, and the selling price of the coal. Because 

average annual coal production rates would not increase, no new employees would be hired as a 

direct result of a leasing action and therefore no new impacts on the local housing market or 

increased demands on the existing community facilities or services in the county would occur 

though existing demands on infrastructure could be extended by up to six years. 

Environmental Justice 

Economic and demographic data indicate that neither minority populations nor people living at 

or below the poverty level comprise a “meaningfully greater increment” of the total population in 

Gillette or Campbell County than they do in the state as a whole. Also, the Native American 

population is smaller than in the state as a whole and no known Native American sacred sites are 

present in or near the general analysis area. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

The annual equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) emissions at the Buckskin Mine are not expected 

to increase under either action alternative. The maximum annual coal production would not be 

affected; average strip ratios and haul distances would be substantially equivalent to those 

already encountered at the mine. Conversely, projected CO2e emissions over the life of the mine 

would increase under either action alternative. Although annual average production is not 

expected to increase, the additional federal coal reserves would extend the mine life by 

approximately two years under the Proposed Action and up to six years under Alternative 2, 

ES-36 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Executive Summary 

which would also extend the period for associated CO2e emissions. Methane emissions from 

Wyoming’s coal mines in 2010 are projected to be 2.3 million metric tons of CO2e (Center for 

Climate Strategies 2007), of which the Buckskin Mine’s 2008 methane emissions represent 

3.4%. 

Carbon Sequestration 

Carbon sequestration, the process of carbon capture, separation, and storage or reuse, is being 

researched as a means to stabilize and reduce concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), a 

greenhouse gas. Direct options for carbon sequestration would involve means to capture CO2 at 

the source (e.g., power plant) before it enters the atmosphere coupled with “value-added” 

sequestration (e.g., use of captured CO2 in enhanced oil recovery operations). Indirect 

sequestration would involve means of integrating fossil fuel production and use with terrestrial 

sequestration and enhanced ocean storage of carbon (U.S. Department of Energy 2007). The 

PRB has geologic formations and producing oil and gas reservoirs that are potential target 

candidates for both enhanced oil recovery and/or deep geologic sequestration. The current 

limiting factor is the lack of pipeline infrastructure and economic feasibility for CO2 

transmission and use. No geologic carbon sequestration projects currently exist or are currently 

planned in the PRB at this time. 

Mitigation 

The Buckskin Mine’s currently approved mining permit includes extensive baseline information, 

ongoing monitoring information and commitments, and mitigation measures that are required by 

the SMCRA and Wyoming State Law. Compliance, mitigation, and monitoring measures that 

are required by regulation are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 

considered in this EIS. These regulatory requirements, mitigation measures, and monitoring 

commitments are in place for the No Action Alternative as part of the currently approved mining 

and reclamation plan for the mine and would be updated prior to the permitting process that 

would be required to mine the final tract configuration. 

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

mitigation measures, the 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 the BLM where additional or increased monitoring measures are recommended to 

be added to the BLM leases are included in appendix D of the EIS. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impacts of an action added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who is responsible for such actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions 

occurring over time. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-37 
 

Executive Summary 

Since decertification of the Powder River Federal Coal Region in 1990, 22 federal coal leases 

containing more than 6.1 billion tons of federal coal have been issued following competitive 

sealed-bid sales. Three exchanges of federal coal in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River 

Federal Coal Region have also been completed. Eleven additional coal lease applications, 

including the Hay Creek II coal lease application, are currently pending. The pending LBA 

applications contain over 3.3 billion tons of coal. 

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 

study evaluates current conditions as of a baseline year (2002, 2003, or 2004) 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 Buckskin Mine 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. Results for those PRB Coal Review 

studies that have been completed are summarized in chapter 4.0 of the EIS. The remaining 

studies will be incorporated into the final report as they become available. 

Cumulative impacts vary by resource, with potential impacts on air quality, groundwater 

quantity, wildlife habitat, and socioeconomics generally representing the greatest concerns. 

The original PRB Coal Review air quality study documented the modeled air quality impact of 

existing operations during a baseline year, 2002, and of projected development activities in 2010. 

The BLM updated the model in 2008 and conducted the cumulative air quality impact analysis 

using a revised baseline year of 2004 with development levels projected for year 2015; that 

analysis was included in the draft EIS. After the draft EIS was issued, modeling of cumulative 

air quality effects for 2020 was completed; data and analyses for both model years are reflected 

in this final EIS. The EPA guideline CALPUFF model system version 5.8 (Scire et al. 1999a) 

was used for the modeling analysis. The revised baseline year emissions inventory was 

developed using 2004 actual emissions data or emissions estimates and has incorporated the 

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

modeling study was done. The impacts for the baseline year (2004) and for 2015 and 2020 lower 

and upper coal production scenarios were directly modeled. 

The PRB Coal Review generally considers existing regional air quality conditions in the targeted 

study areas to be very good. 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 complies 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. 

Table ES-2 presents the maximum modeled impacts on ambient air quality at the near-field 

ES-38 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Executive Summary 

receptors in Wyoming and Montana. Results shown represent the maximum impact at any point 

in each receptor group; data are provided for the baseline year (2004) analysis and for both coal 

production scenarios for 2015 and 2020. Peak impacts occur at isolated receptors and are likely 

due to unique source-receptor relationships. The model results should not be construed as 

predicting an actual exceedance of any standard, but are at best indicators of potential impacts. 

Table ES-3 lists provides a detailed listing of visibility impacts 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 projected impacts were greater than 1.0 deciview (10% change in light 

extinction) for each site in each modeled year. 

The PRB Coal Review provides an assessment of the cumulative impact on surface and 

groundwater resources associated with future projected levels of coal mining, coal mine 

dewatering, CBNG groundwater withdrawal and surface disposal, and coal mine and 

conventional oil and gas surface disposal of groundwater. Updated Coal Review studies describe 

the baseline year (2002) ground and surface water resource conditions in the study area, which 

includes the Hay Creek II area and the rest of Campbell County. The reports present potential 

future cumulative groundwater impacts in the area of CBNG development and coal mine 

expansion in the eastern PRB. They also provide a cumulative impact assessment of modeled 

changes in surface water quality as a result of CBNG, conventional oil and gas, and surface coal 

mining development projected for 2010, 2015, and 2020 (base year of 2003) in the eastern PRB 

within approximately 25 miles of the coal mines. A stream channel stability analysis was also 

conducted to evaluate the potential effects to stream channels because of projected CBNG 

production water discharge. 

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. Extending the life of 

the Buckskin Mine by issuing a new lease would result in additional water being withdrawn from 

the subcoal Fort Union Formation, but no new subcoal water supply wells would be required. 

The additional water withdrawal would not be expected to extend the area of water level 

drawdown over a substantially larger area because of the discontinuous nature of the sands in the 

Tullock Member and the fact that drawdown and yield reach equilibrium in a well because of 

recharge effects. Because of 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. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-39 
Executive Summary 

Table ES-2. Projected Maximum Potential Near-Field Impacts (μg/m3) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Base Year 

(2004) 

Impacts 

2015 Lower Coal 

Development

Scenario 

Impacts 

2015 Upper Coal 

Development

Scenario 

Impacts 

2020 Lower Coal 

Development

Scenario 

Impacts 

2020 Upper Coal 

Development

Scenario 

Impacts 

National 

AAQS 

Wyomi

AAQS 

Wyoming Near-Field NO2 Annual 31.3 46.7 47.4 30.5 30.6 100 100 

SO2 Annual 15.3 16.2 16.2 16.4 16.5 80 60 

24-hour 112.3 119.6 119.6 143.3 143.3 365 260 

3-hour 462.0 814.1 814.1 936.7 936.7 1,300 1,300 

PM2.5 Annual 13.4 18.7 21.4 16.3 16.3 15 15 

 24-hour 87.6 179.5 179.5 218.4 218.4 35 35 PM10 Annual 38.4 53.5 61.0 46.6 46.6 — 50

 24-hour 250.4 512.8 512.9 624.1 624.3 150 150 

Montana Near-Field NO2 Annual 3.3 6.5 6.5 2.5 2.6 100 — 

 1-hour 409.0 826.3 826.4 440.1 442.7 188.1 — 

SO2 Annual 1.6 1.7 1.7 3.0 3.1 80 — 

24-hour 16.1 16.5 16.6 24.7 27.1 365 — 

 3-hour 65.0 66.5 66.5 138.9 138.9 1,300 — 

1-hour 162.9 166.6 166.6 237.0 259.1 — — 

PM2.5 Annual 1.0 1.8 1.9 0.9 0.9 15 — 

24-hour 10.2 15.4 20.6 10.2 10.2 35 — 

PM10 Annual 2.8 5.2 5.3 2.5 2.6 — — 

24-hour 29.1 44.0 58.5 29.3 29.3 150 — 

μg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter; AAQS = Ambient Air Quality Standards; PSD = prevention of significant deterioration; NO = nitrogen oxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate m

less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter 

a No standard or increment. b The EPA has revoked the NAAQS annual PM 10 standard of 50 μg/m3, but that standard is still effective for Wyoming until it enters into rulemaking to revise the state AAQS. 

Bold values indicate projected exceedance of national and/or state ambient air quality standards. 

Source: 2009 update to the Task 3A Report (BLM 2009c). 

ES-40 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Table ES-3. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas 

Coal Development Scenario 

Base Year (2004) 2015 Lower 2015 Upper 2020 Lowe

Location 

No. of Days >10% Change 

in Visibility Change in No. of Days >10% in visib

Class I Areasa Badlands National Park 218 26 26 44 Bob Marshall Wilderness Area 8 0 0 0 Bridger Wilderness Area 144 2 2 5 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 91 2 2 6 Fort Peck Indian Reservation 105 10 10 20 

Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area 55 0 0 4 

Grand Teton National Park 70 2 2 6 

North Absaroka Wilderness Area 61 3 3 8 

North Cheyenne Indian Reservation 243 32 47 59 

Red Rock Lakes 42 2 2 3 

Scapegoat Wilderness Area 27 1 1 2 Teton Wilderness Area 57 4 4 8 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park 178 5 9 24 

UL Bend Wilderness Area 77 8 10 18 

Washakie Wilderness Area 83 5 5 8 

Wind Cave National Park 262 18 19 28 

Yellowstone National Park 84 2 2 5 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Executive Summary 

Coal Development Scenario 

Base Year (2004) 2015 Lower 2015 Upper 2020 Lowe

Location 

No. of Days >10% Change 

in Visibility Change in No. of Days >10% in visib

Sensitive Class II Areasb Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness Area 101 2 3 10 

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 251 20 20 26 

Big Horn Canyon National Rec. Area 331 1 3 1 Black Elk Wilderness Area 236 34 36 47 

Cloud Peak Wilderness Area 126 18 18 29 

Crow Indian Reservation 360 4 4 3 

Devils Tower National Monument 274 25 25 31 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 66 6 7 14 

Fort Laramie National Historic Site 260 10 10 15 

Jedediah Smith Wilderness Area 79 1 1 3 

Jewel Cave National Monument 261 19 21 36 

Lee Metcalf Wilderness Area 97 2 2 2 

Mount Naomi Wilderness Area 51 1 1 1 

Mount Rushmore National Monument 222 36 36 49 

Popo Agie Wilderness Area 139 4 4 6 

Soldier Creek Wilderness Area 268 18 18 19 

Wellsville Mountain Wilderness Area 130 10 10 17 

Wind River Indian Reservation 217 2 5 9 

a Pristine attainment area. b Certain federal assets with Class II status for which air quality and/or visibility are valued resources. 

Source: 2009 update to the Task 3A Report (BLM 2009c). 

ES-42 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Executive Summary 

Projected cumulative surface water impacts primarily include the impacts of CBNG production 

water discharge to ephemeral drainages and the surface disturbance and subsequent reclamation 

of drainages that result from coal mine expansion. Future coal mining in the PRB could remove 

intermittent or ephemeral streams and stockponds in various watershed. Coal mine permits 

provide for removal of first- through fourth-order drainages. During reclamation, third- and 

fourth-order drainages must be restored; first- and second-order drainages often are not replaced 

(Martin et al. 1988). Coal-mining-related surface water would be discharged into intermittent 

and ephemeral streams. Based on current trends, it is assumed that most, if not all, of the coalmine-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. Monitoring data from 

the mines indicate that water from the backfill will generally be acceptable for premining uses 

(primarily livestock watering). Modeling and monitoring indicate that the groundwater 

drawdown impacts of coal mining and CBNG development are overlapping. 

The updated PRB Coal Review studies discuss potential cumulative impacts on wildlife from 

projected development activities in that study area. The area of habitat disturbance and 

reclamation for 2003 and 2007and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation 

for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in tables 4-2 and 4-3. As discussed above, impacts on 

wildlife and fisheries can be classified as no impact (threatened and endangered species), shortterm, 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) 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). Habitat fragmentation can result from 

activities such as roads, well pads, mines, pipelines, and overhead electrical power lines, as well 

as increased noise, elevated human presence, dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species, 

and dust from unpaved road traffic. 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). Potential 

cumulative effects on fisheries from of development activities would be closely related to 

impacts on ground and surface water resources. 

The PRB Coal Review used the 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-4 presents the recent 

and projected population levels for the counties included in the PRB Coal Review 

socioeconomic analysis. The Hay Creek II LBA would have no impact on local or regional 

populations. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application ES-43 
 

Executive Summary 

Table ES-4. Recent and Projected PRB Population 

Year 

Campbell

County 

Converse 

County 

Crook 

County 

Johnson 

County 

Sheridan 

County 

Weston 

County 

Six County

PRB Total 

Census 

2000 33,698 12,104 5,895 7,108 26,606 6,642 92,053 

2003a 36,381 12,326 5,971 7,530 27,116 6,665 95,989 

2006a 38,934 12,866 6,255 8,014 27,673 6,762 100,504 

2009a 43,967 13,578 6,653 8,531 29,163 7,009 108,901 

Projected 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 

Projected 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 

a Projected by U.S. Census Bureau based on 2000 data. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2006a) and 2005 Task 3C Report (BLM 2005a). 

ES-44 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

1.0 Introduction 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This environmental impact statement (EIS1) presents the analysis of impacts that would result 

from leasing federal coal reserves in the Hay Creek II lease by application (LBA) tract (Proposed 

Action). The EIS also analyzes alternatives to the Proposed Action. 

This EIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

associated rules and guidelines. As administrator of the federal coal leasing program for surface 

and underground mining under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) is considered the lead agency, under NEPA, responsible for the 

preparation of this EIS. 

The BLM will use this impact analysis to make a decision regarding unleased federal coal 

reserves within and adjacent to the Buckskin Mine, an operating surface coal mine in the Powder 

River Basin (PRB) of northeast Wyoming. Issuing a federal coal lease does not authorize mining 

to occur, but is the first step in that process. The lease merely grants the lessee the exclusive 

right to pursue a mining permit for the coal tract subject to the terms of the lease, the mining 

permit itself, and all applicable state and federal laws. Permits to mine are issued by authorized 

federal and/or state agencies only after a lease has been secured and all appropriate agencies 

have reviewed and approved an extensive permit application. That application document 

provides information describing a wide range of baseline resources, as well as detailed mining, 

mitigation, and reclamation plans. 

A minimum of 12 other state and federal agencies will also use this EIS analysis to make 

decisions related to leasing and mining the federal coal reserves in the proposed tract. The 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) and all divisions of the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) are cooperating agencies on this EIS. 

The OSM is primarily responsible for administering federal programs that regulate surface coal 

mining operations. If a tract is leased, that agency will use this EIS to determine whether 

approval of the mining plan for the tract complies with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The 

WDEQ has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to regulate 

surface coal mining operations on federal and nonfederal lands in Wyoming. During the 

permitting process, the WDEQ incorporates input from numerous internal departments as well as 

various state and federal agencies. 

The WDEQ has also been delegated authority by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to implement federal programs of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990. The 

WDEQ implements the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations and CAA 

Amendments through various air permitting programs. Input from the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is used to ensure that 

adequate monitoring, mitigation, and reclamation plans are in place for wildlife and fisheries 

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

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-1 
 

1.0 Introduction 

resources and habitats. The Wyoming Department of Transportation may review the EIS if road 

construction or relocation projects are considered in the analyses. 

The public has several opportunities to comment throughout the coal leasing and permitting 

processes. For leasing decisions, the public may participate during the initial scoping of the 

project, as well as through public hearings and comment periods that are held for the draft and 

final EIS. Once the coal is leased by the BLM, the public has several additional opportunities to 

comment on the actual permit to mine issued by the WDEQ and OSM, including the original 

permitting process, every major change to the permit after its initial approval, and every five 

years during the standard permit renewal process for surface coal mines in Wyoming. 

1.1 Background 

The Buckskin Mine is one of several mines currently operating in the PRB, where the coal seams 

are notably thick and the overburden is relatively thin throughout the region. The mine is 

operated by the Buckskin Mining Company, a directly held subsidiary of Kiewit Mining 

Properties, Inc. (Kiewit).

1.1.1 Buckskin Mine Application 

On March 24, 2006, Kiewit filed an application to lease the federal coal reserves included in the 

Hay Creek II maintenance LBA tract under the regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 3425 (Leasing on Application). A maintenance coal tract is an area of federal coal 

reserves that is adjacent to an existing coal lease and can be excavated by an active coal mine. 

The maintenance tract is located approximately 12 miles north of Gillette, Campbell County, 

Wyoming (map 1-1), northwest of and immediately adjacent to existing federal coal leases for 

the Buckskin Mine. The tract would maintain current average levels of production rather than 

expand mine operations. 

Kiewit initially applied for the Hay Creek II maintenance tract to extend the life of existing 

operations at the Buckskin Mine. Since submitting its original application in 2006 (see 

“applicant original (March 2006) tract” on map 1-2), Kiewit modified its lease application due to 

changing needs (see “applicant proposed tract” on map 1-2). The applicant proposed tract 

(proposed tract) from November 28, 2008, was analyzed in the draft EIS. That proposed tract 

was the bare minimum needed to provide a technically and economically feasible method for the 

Buckskin Mine to pass through a geologic irregularity known as the Sand Channel Basin to reach 

low-sulfur compliance coal in the existing Spring Draw lease (WYW-78634). 

Unforeseen LBA processing delays caused Buckskin to lose the mechanical advantage needed to 

mine past the sand channel. Consequently, on September 3, 2010, Kiewit requested that the 

BLM consider a tract configuration under Alternative 2 (see chapter 2) based on the original tract 

configuration applied for in March 2006. Buckskin no longer needs the coal immediately and, 

therefore, prefers to pursue a tract with a longer-term application for its existing mining 

operations. 

1-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

1.0 Introduction 

For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed tract remains unchanged from the draft EIS. 

Because both the BLM study area and the general analysis area, as defined in chapter 3, 

encompassed all configurations of Kiewit’s proposed tract, the analyses performed for the draft 

EIS are still valid for the final EIS. Therefore, because the tract as originally applied for has 

been fully covered, it will not be analyzed separately in this document. 

The BLM, Wyoming State Office, Division of Minerals and Lands, has reviewed Kiewit’s 

application for the proposed tract. That office determined that the lease application meets the 

regulatory requirements for an LBA. Map 1-1 shows the proposed tract, other currently pending 

LBA tracts, and the existing federal leases, including previously leased LBA tracts, in the PRB. 

The proposed tract was assigned BLM case file number WYW-172684. The 2006 application 

was subsequently modified in May and November of 2008. The November tract modification is 

evaluated in this EIS. 

1.1.2 BLM Coal Leasing Process 

The proposed tract is located in the Powder River Federal Coal Region. That area was 

decertified2

 for coal leasing in 1990 at the recommendation of the Powder River Regional Coal 

Team (PRRCT). The recommendation was made in response to the declining coal market and 

reduced interest in leasing sufficient quantities of coal to warrant a regional sale process during 

the previous eight years. The PRRCT is an independent advisory board of the BLM established 

to provide advice and guidance regarding the federal coal management program in the PRB. The 

board is comprised of various federal and state agencies, with voting members limited to the 

BLM and the state governments of Wyoming and Montana. In a region that is decertified, the 

BLM can consider leasing individual coal tracts by application to continue or extend the life of 

an existing mine under the rules of 43 CFR 3425. As part of the 1990 decertification decision, 

the PRRCT has continued to meet regularly to review the BLM’s leasing activity in the PRB and 

to offer recommendations based on a regional perspective. That board reviewed the Hay Creek 

II application at a public meeting held on April 19, 2006, in Casper, Wyoming, and 

recommended that the BLM process the application. 

As noted, the BLM leasing process does not authorize mining of federal coal reserves; applicants 

must first obtain permits to retrieve the coal from appropriate federal and/or state agencies. 

However, because mining is a logical consequence of issuing a maintenance lease to an existing 

operation, the impacts of mining the coal are considered in this EIS. All impacts identified in 

this analysis are addressed as part of the permitting process administered by authorized state 

and/or federal agencies to insure that they are adequately mitigated. 

A detailed description of the decertification process is provided in the glossary in chapter 7. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-3 

2 
0 10 20
 

miles
 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 1-1
 

General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts
 
0 2,500

feet

5,000

Existing permit boundary 

Applicant proposed tract 

Applicant original (March 2006) tract 

Existing Buckskin Mine coal leases 

Buckskin Mine rail spur 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 1-2 

Applicant Proposed and Original (March 2006) Tracts 
1.0 Introduction 

The LBA process by law and regulation is open, public, and competitive. A coal lease is issued 

to the highest bidder at the sale, if a federal sale panel determines that the high bid meets or 

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

if the U.S. Department of Justice determines that no antitrust violations would result from issuing 

the lease to the high bidder. In return for receiving a lease, a lessee must make the following 

payments to the federal government: 1) a bonus equal to the amount it bid at the time the lease 

sale was held (the bonus can be paid in five yearly installments); 2) annual rental payments; and 

3) royalty payments when the coal is mined. Federal bonus, rental, and royalty payments are 

currently divided between the state in which the lease is located and the U.S. Treasury at a 49% 

and 51% ratio, respectively. 

Since the Powder River Federal Coal Region was decertified in 1990, 22 federal coal leases have 

been sold at competitive sealed-bid sales and 3 exchanges of federal coal in the Wyoming 

portion of that region have been completed (table 1-1). This is the second application for a 

maintenance coal tract submitted by the Buckskin Mine since decertification (table 1-1 and 

map 1-1). Table 1-2 summarizes the 11 lease applications that are currently pending. 

Table 1-1. Coal Leases Issued and Exchanges Completed Since Decertification of the 

Federal Coal Region in 1990, Powder River Basin, Wyoming 

LBA Name (Lease Number) 

Applicant Mine 

Current Lessee Acres Mineable Tons Successful Bid 

Effective Date Leaseda of Coala (in dollars) 

LEASES ISSUED 

Jacobs Ranch LBA (WYW-117924) 

Jacobs Ranch Mine 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. 

10/1/1992 

1,708.620 147,423,560 20,114,930.00 

West Black Thunder LBA (WYW-118907) 

Black Thunder Mine 

Thunder Basin Coal Co. 

10/1/1992 

3,492.495 429,048,216 71,909,282.69 

North Antelope Rochelle LBA (WYW-119554) 

North Antelope and Rochelle Mines 

Powder River Coal Co.b 

10/1/1992 

3,064.040 403,500,000 86,987,765.00 

West Rocky Butte LBA (WYW-122586) 

No Existing Minec 

Caballo Coal Co. 

1/1/1993 

463.205 56,700,000 16,500,000.00 

Eagle Butte LBA (WYW-124783) 

Eagle Butte Mine 

Foundation Wyoming Land Co.d 

8/1/1995 

1,059.180 166,400,000 18,470,400.00 

Antelope LBA (WYW-128322) 

Antelope Mine 

Antelope Coal Co.e 

2/1/1997 

617.200 60,364,000 9,054,600.00 

1-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
1.0 Introduction 

Table 1-1. Continued 

LBA Name (Lease Number) 

Applicant Mine

Current Lessee Acres Mineable Tons Successful Bid 

Effective Date Leaseda of Coala (in dollars) 

North Rochelle LBA (WYW-127221) 

North Rochelle Mine 

1,481.930 157,610,000 30,576,340.00 

Ark Land Co. 

1/1/1998 

Powder River LBA (WYW-136142) 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

Powder River Coal Co.b 

4,224.225 532,000,000 109,596,500.00 

9/1/1998 

Thundercloud LBA (WYW-136458) 

Jacobs Ranch Mine 

3,545.503 412,000,000 158,000,008.50 

Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC 

1/1/1999 

Horse Creek LBA (WYW-141435) 

Antelope Mine 

Antelope Coal Co.e 

12/1/2000 

2,818.695 275,577,000 91,220,120.70 

North Jacobs Ranch LBA (WYW-146744) 

Jacobs Ranch Mine 

4,982.240 537,542,000 379,504,652.00 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. 

5/1/2002 

NARO South LBA (WYW-154001) 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

BTU Western Resources, Inc. 

9/1/2004 

2,956.725 297,469,000 274,117,684.00 

West Hay Creek LBA (WYW-151634) 

Buckskin Mine 

921.158 142,698,000 42,809,400.00 

Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. 

1/1/2005 

Little Thunder LBA (WYW-150318) 

Black Thunder Mine 

5,083.500 718,719,000 610,999,949.80 

Ark Land LT Co. 

3/1/2005 

West Antelope LBA (WYW-151643) 

Antelope Mine 

Antelope Coal Co.e 

3/1/2005 

2,809.130 194,961,000 146,311,000.00 

NARO North LBA (WYW-150210) 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

BTU Western Resources, Inc. 

3/1/2005 

2,369.380 324,627,000 299,143,785.00 

West Roundup LBA (WYW-151134) 

North Rochelle Mine 

2,812.510 327,186,000 317,697,610.00 

West Roundup Resources, Inc. 

5/1/2005 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-7 
 

 

 

1.0 Introduction 

Table 1-1. Continued 

LBA Name (Lease Number) 

Applicant Mine

Current Lessee 

Effective Date 

Acres 

Leaseda 

Mineable Tons 

of Coala 

Successful Bid 

(in dollars) 

Eagle Butte West LBA (WYW-155132) 

Eagle Butte Mine 

Foundation Wyoming Land Co.d 

2/20/2008f 

1,427.770 255,000,000 180,540,000.00 

South Maysdorf (Mt. Logan) (WYW-174407)g 

Cordero Rojo 

Cordero Mining Co. 

4/22/2008 

2,900.240 288,081,000 250,800,000.00 

North Maysdorf (Mt. Logan) (WYW-154432)g 

Cordero Rojo 

Cordero Mining Co. 

1/29/2009 

445.890 54,657,000 48,098,424.00 

West Antelope II North (WYW-163340)h 

Antelope Mine 

Antelope Coal, LLC 

Coal Lease Sale 5/11/2011 

2,837.630 350,263,000 297,723,228.00 

West Antelope II South (WYW-177903)h 

Antelope Mine 

Antelope Coal, LLC 

Coal Lease Sale 6/15/2011 

1,908.600 56,356,000 49,311,500.00 

Total Leases Issued 53,929.870 6,188,181,776 3,509,478,179.69 

EXCHANGES COMPLETED 

EOG (Belco) I-90 Lease Exchange (WYW-150152) 

EOG Resources (formerly Belco)i 

I-90 Lease Exchanged for New Lease 

4/1/2000 

599.170 106,000,000 Lease rights to Belco I-90 

Lease (WYW0322794) 

Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Exchange (WYW-148816) Pittsburgh & 

Midway Coal Mining Co. 

Private Land Exchanged for Federal Coal 

1/27/2005 

2,045.530 84,200,000 6,065.77 acres of land and 

some minerals in Lincoln, 

Carbon, and Sheridan 

Counties, Wyoming 

Powder River Coal Company Gold Mine Draw (WYW-003397 and 

WYW-83394)Powder River Coal Co.b 

AVF Coal Lease 

6/30/2006 

623.000 47,700,000 Lease rights to 921.6 acres of 

leased federal coal underlying 

an AVF exchanged for 

adjacent bypass coal 

Total Exchanges Completed 3,267.70 237,900,000 

1-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.0 Introduction 

Table 1-1. Continued 

LBA = lease by application AVF = alluvial valley floor 

a Information from sale notice. 

b Name changed to Powder River Coal, LLC in August 2006 and Peabody Powder River Mining, LLC in 2011. 

c The West Rocky Butte LBA was originally leased to Northwestern Resources Company. The lease has been assigned and incorporated into the Caballo 

Mine. 

d	 Ownership of the Eagle Butte Mine and Belle Ayr Mine changed from Foundation Coal West, Inc., to Alpha Coal West, Inc. as of July 31, 2009. Notification 

of new ownership was submitted to the BLM in August 2009. 

e Notification of a name change to Antelope Coal, LLC was submitted to the WDEQ in August 2008. 

f

 Sale date. 

g The applied-for LBA (original and modified) was classified under one serial number (WYW-154432) until a later determination was made to split it into 

North and South. 

h	 The applied-for LBA (original and modified) was classified under one serial number (WYW-163340) until a later determination was made to split it into 

North and South. 

i	 The EOG Resources Belco Exchange lease is now owned by the Buckskin Mine. 

Source: BLM Lease by Application Data Sheets (BLM 2009a). 

Table 1-2. Pending Coal Leases by Application, Powder River Basin, Wyoming 

LBA Name 

(Lease Number) 

Applicant Mine Application Date 

Acres as 

Applied for 

Estimated Coala as 

Applied for 

(million tons) Status 

Belle Ayr North 

(WYW-161248) 

Belle Ayr Mine 

7/6/2004 1,578.74 191.90 Final EIS available 8/20/2009 

Record of Decision available 

7/30/2010 

North Hilight Field 

(WYW-164812) 

Black Thunder Mine 

10/7/2005 2,613.50 263.40 Final EIS available 7/30/2010 

Record of Decision in preparation 

South Hilight Field 

(WYW-174596) 

Black Thunder Mine 

10/7/2005 1,976.69 213.60 Final EIS available 7/30/2010 

Record of Decision available 

3/4/2011 

West Hilight Field 

(WYW-172388) 

Black Thunder Mine 

1/17/2006 2,370.52 377.90 Final EIS available 7/30/2010 

Record of Decision in preparation 

West Coal Creek 

(WYW- 172585) 

Coal Creek Mine 

2/10/2006 1,151.26 57.00 Final EIS available 8/20/2009 

Record of Decision available 

6/10/2011 

Caballo West 

(WYW-172657) 

Caballo Mine 

3/15/2006 777.49 81.80 Final EIS available 8/20/2009 

Record of Decision available 

8/6/2010 

West Jacobs Ranch 

(WYW-172685) 

Jacobs Ranch Mine 

3/24/2006 5,944.37 669.60 Final EIS available 7/30/2010 

Record of Decision in preparation 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

1.0 Introduction 

Table 1-2. Continued 

LBA Name 

(Lease Number) 

Applicant Mine Application Date 

Acres as 

Applied for 

Estimated Coala as 

Applied for 

(million tons) Status 

Hay Creek II 

(WYW-172684) 

Buckskin Mine 

3/24/2006; 

Modified 5/19/2008, 

11/28/2008, and 

9/3/2010 

419.04 77.2 Draft EIS available 3/12/2010 

Public hearing 4/22/2010 

Final EIS available 7/29/2011 

Maysdorf II 

(WYW-173360) 

Cordero Rojo Mine 

9/1/2006 4,653.84 474.50 Final EIS available 8/20/2009 

Record of Decision in preparation 

North Porcupine 

(WYW-173408) 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

9/27/2006; 

Modified 

10/12/2007 

5,795.78 601.20 Final EIS available 7/30/2010 

Record of Decision in preparation 

South Porcupine 

(WYW-176095) 

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

9/29/2006; 

Modified 

10/12/2007 

3,185.96 309.70 Final EIS available 7/30/2010 

Record of Decision in preparation 

Total LBAs Pending 30,467.19 3,317.80 

LBA = lease by application; EIS = environmental impact statement 

a Estimated tons of in-place or mineable coal, as reported in the lease application, or of recoverable coal as reported by the applicant, depending on the 

mine. 

Source: BLM Lease by Application Data Sheets (BLM 2009a). 

1.1.3 Existing Buckskin Mine 

1.1.3.1 General Description 

The WDEQ approved the current Buckskin Mine permit (Permit 500 Term T7) on 

May 22, 2006. The existing Buckskin Mine permit area is approximately 8,011.5 acres and 

encompasses previously permitted federal and state coal leases (5,877.9 and 659.5 acres, 

respectively). Map 1-3 shows the proposed tract in relation to the existing mine permit area and 

leases. 

Approximately 6,727.8 acres is expected to be disturbed by activities related to extracting 

existing coal reserves. The total anticipated disturbance area exceeds the leased area because of 

the need for mine support activities, described below in section 1.1.3.3. The permit area is larger 

than the leased or disturbed area to ensure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary 

and to allow for an easily defined legal land description. 

As of December 2008, Kiewit estimates the in-place coal reserves in the existing Buckskin Mine 

leases to be 460.9 million tons, of which 344.3 million tons are recoverable. Through December 

2008, the mine had produced a total of 339.8 million tons of coal. Annual production averaged 

20.6 million tons over the previous seven years, with a maximum of 25.3 million tons in any 

single year (Buckskin Mining Company 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009). 

The Buckskin Mine’s current air quality permit, as approved by the WDEQ, allows mining of as 

much as 42 million tons of coal per year. Kiewit estimates that the average annual production at 

1-10 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
1.0 Introduction 

the mine after January 1, 2009, will be 25 million tons per year. If production continues at that 

rate, Kiewit estimates that the post-2008 recoverable reserves at the Buckskin Mine would be 

depleted within approximately 14 years. 

Surface ownership within the existing permit area is private. Existing land uses in the proposed 

tract include rangeland livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, pastureland, dryland cropland, and 

coal bed natural gas (CBNG) development. All oil and gas production facilities located in the 

proposed tract are also privately owned. Surface ownership is discussed further in section 1.5 

and section 3.11; ownership of oil and gas estates is discussed in section 3.11. 

1.1.3.2 Mine Facilities and Employees 

The Buckskin Mine uses one coal crushing facility, which is located at the coal preparation plant. 

Five active coal storage silos are currently in use at the mine. These facilities provide the 

capacity to produce, store, and distribute coal at the permitted tonnage. All coal transfer location 

points and crushing operations are controlled by baghouse-type dust collectors or passive 

enclosure control systems. The truck dumping operation uses a stilling shed to control fugitive 

dust. While sufficient production and storage capacity currently exist at the Buckskin Mine, 

future modifications to those facilities may be implemented to improve operating efficiency and 

air quality protection. 

The Buckskin Mine work force currently totals 338 employees. Kiewit is seeking 10 additional 

employees to meet staffing needs for existing operations. 

1.1.3.3 Mining Methods and Activities 

Prior to disturbance and in advance of mining, mine support structures such as roads, power 

lines, substations, and flood- and sediment-control measures are built as needed, and any public 

utility lines and oil and gas pipelines are relocated, as necessary. During mining, disturbance 

typically occurs beyond the lease as a result of mine support activities including, but not limited 

to, highwall reduction, topsoil stripping, stockpile storage, matching reclaimed topography to 

premining contours, and constructing flood- and sediment-control structures. 

The first step of the mining process is soil salvage with suitable heavy equipment such as 

rubber-tired scrapers. Topsoil—the upper portion of soil that is usually darkly colored and rich 

in organic material—is removed during initial pit development. Whenever possible, topsoil is 

hauled from salvage areas and placed directly on recontoured lands, but some topsoil is 

temporarily stockpiled due to scheduling for later use in pit closure and reclamation. If 

stockpiling is necessary, topsoil is immediately seeded with a temporary plant mix approved by 

the WDEQ to provide vegetative cover and prevent wind and water erosion. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-11 
Applicant

2,500 5,000

feet

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 1-3 

Buckskin Mine’s Existing Federal Coal Leases and Applicant Proposed Tract 

0
1.0 Introduction 

 After soil salvage operations are complete, overburden removal is conducted primarily with 

truck/shovel fleets. Other equipment used during this phase includes dozers, scrapers, 

excavators, front-end loaders, graders, and water trucks. When necessary, blasting is used to 

loosen the overburden; however, the Buckskin Mine does not use cast blasting to move 

overburden. Blast holes are drilled down through the overburden—the rock and soil above the 

coal seam, excluding topsoil—to the top of the upper-most mineable coal seam. The drill holes 

are then loaded with explosives—a mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil—and detonated to 

fragment the overburden to facilitate efficient excavation. Overburden is placed directly into 

already mined pits or stockpiled for later use as backfill. The perimeter of the open pit consists 

of sheer highwalls with vertical heights equal to the combined depth of the overburden, the coal 

seam, and interburden—the layer of sedimentary rock that separates two mineable coal beds—if 

present. If necessary, streams are diverted into temporary channels around active mining areas 

or contained in temporary reservoirs to prevent pits from being flooded. 

Coal is currently produced at the Buckskin Mine from two coal seams, the Anderson (averaging 

45 feet thick) and the Canyon (averaging 70 feet thick). The blasting and shovel/truck fleet 

methods used to remove overburden are also used to recover the coal. Coal is mined at several 

working pit faces at the same time to enable blending of the coal to meet customer quality 

requirements, to comply with the BLM lease requirements for maximum economic recovery of 

the coal resource, and to optimize coal removal efficiency with available equipment. Exposed 

coal seams are cleaned with a dozer, drilled, and blasted to facilitate efficient excavation. Coal is 

loaded with electric-powered shovels or hydraulic excavators into off-highway haul trucks for 

transport to the coal preparation plant. Coal haul roads are temporary structures constructed in 

the mine areas. Haul roads are watered and sprayed with dust suppressant to protect air quality. 

Coal from the Buckskin Mine is sold to a variety of domestic power utilities in an open market 

and is shipped by commercial rail to the purchasing utilities; none of the coal from the mine is 

used in power plants currently located in the PRB or sold to international markets. 

1.1.3.4 Reclamation Activities 

Reclamation activities follow mining activities according to the WDEQ-approved reclamation 

plan. A direct permanent impact of coal mining is topographic moderation. Mined-out areas 

must be reclaimed to the original contours or other topographic configurations approved by the 

WDEQ to the extent possible. All topographic features such as upland draws, channel bottoms, 

and elevations are reconstructed to closely mimic premining conditions and ensure proper 

drainage of water across the reclaimed backfill. While the postmining topography is similar to 

the premining topography, it is typically gentler and more uniform in appearance. The removal 

of the coal is temporarily and partially offset by the swelling that occurs when overburden and 

interburden are blasted, excavated, and backfilled; the influence of swelling is diminished or lost 

once the backfill has settled. Any disturbed drainages are reclaimed to follow premining 

patterns. In-channel stockponds and playas (shallow topographic depressions) are replaced to 

provide livestock and wildlife watering sources. As indicated, all postmining topography, 

including reconstructed drainages, must be approved by the WDEQ. After mining, the land is 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-13
1.0 Introduction 

reclaimed to support the premining uses described in section 1.1.3.1. Oil and gas wells, 

pipelines, and utility easements are reestablished as required. 

Most overburden is placed directly into areas where coal has already been removed. Replaced 

overburden is graded to reflect an approved postmine surface contour, as required by WDEQ and 

OSM rules. Elevations consistent with an approved postmining topography plan are established 

as quickly as possible. Once the overburden has been replaced and recontoured, it is sampled 

and analyzed to verify its suitability as subsoil. Material found to be unsuitable for use in 

reestablishing vegetation or that could affect groundwater quality due to high concentrations of 

certain parameters, such as selenium or adverse pH levels, is either removed and treated or 

adequately covered with suitable overburden material prior to depositing topsoil. Under certain 

conditions, the postmining topography is not immediately achievable. This occurs when an 

excess material requires temporary stockpiling, when insufficient material is available from 

current overburden removal operations, or when future mining could redisturb an area already 

mined. 

Once the postmining topography has been completed, the regraded backfill is ripped to relieve 

soil compaction. Topsoil is then redistributed using rubber-tired scrapers or haul trucks, dozers, 

and blades and a seedbed is established by ripping or plowing the soil. Once topsoil preparation 

is completed, it is immediately seeded using native grasses, forbs, and shrubs that are consistent 

with the postmining land use. Permanent reclamation must be seeded with WDEQ-approved 

seed mixes. Reseeded areas are monitored for a minimum of 10 years to evaluate the success of 

vegetation growth and the establishment of a variety of plant species prior to the final (Phase III) 

release of the reclamation bond. Other parameters, such as successful use of reclaimed areas by 

livestock and wildlife, also must be demonstrated before Phase III bond release is achieved. All 

reclamation goes through rigorous monitoring and a process of success verifications dictated by 

the WDEQ before any bonds are released on reclaimed lands. 

Chapter 4, Section 2(b)(i) of the WDEQ Coal Rules and Regulations requires that rough 

backfilling and grading follow coal removal as closely as possible based on the mining 

conditions. According to a recent OSM evaluation of the Wyoming coal mining industry, the 

2007 reclamation-to-disturbance ratio was approximately 80% (12,258 total acres reclaimed 

versus 15,321 total acres disturbed) (OSM 2008). The remaining 20% of disturbance consists of 

long-term facilities and infrastructure such as coal storage silos and processing plants, roads, and 

rail lines. Those lands will be reclaimed when mine operations cease and all infrastructure has 

been removed from the site. The WDEQ also requires that mining companies post a reclamation 

bond on all acres disturbed by their activities within their own permit boundary. The bond must 

be large enough to cover the cost of completing reclamation, should the company default on its 

obligations. One major condition for receiving Phase III bond release is to document that the 

reclaimed area has achieved the vegetative cover and production, and plant species diversity 

equal to a predetermined native comparison area, the reference area. For example, if shrubs were 

present during baseline vegetative inventories, the reclaimed area must also have a shrub density 

of one plant per square meter over 20% of the area. The Buckskin Mine has a vigorous annual 

1-14 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
1.0 Introduction 

program of vegetation monitoring to ensure that reclamation efforts are proceeding in a positive 

manner to achieve final bond release. 

Land Status categories are calculated on an annual basis and reported in the Annual Report to the 

WDEQ. The parameters of each phase of bond release are described in detail in WDEQ 

Guideline 20, available on the agency’s website at http://deq.state.wy.us/lqd/guidelines. 

Table 1-3 provides a general summary of reclaimed acreages at the Buckskin Mine and their 

respective stages of bond release. As of December 31, 2008, Buckskin had disturbed 

approximately 3,815 acres over the life of the mine, of which about 1,035 (27.3%) are associated 

with long-term mining facilities that will not be reclaimed until all mining operations have 

ceased. Approximately 1,256 (33%) of the 3,815 disturbed acres had been permanently 

reclaimed through that year. Approximately 4,018 acres and 1,271 acres were disturbed and 

reclaimed, respectively, through 2009. Because the analyses for the draft EIS were performed 

using data collected through 2008, data from 2009 is not included in further discussions in this 

document with the exception of certain specific resources in response to public comments on the 

draft EIS. 

Permanently reclaimed areas refer to all affected lands that have been backfilled, graded, retopsoiled, and permanently seeded according to approved practices specified in the WDEQ 

approved Reclamation Plan for the mine. Permanently reclaimed lands must then meet various 

benchmarks associated with vegetative conditions as well as wildlife and livestock grazing 

before they achieve Phase III bond release. 

Reclaimed lands often fall into multiple bond release categories at the same time due to two 

primary factors: the overlap between activities in a given reclamation area; and the time-lag 

between reclamation actions, such as reseeding with permanent seed mixes, and responses to 

those actions (e.g., vegetation growth and production) necessary to receive Phase III bond 

release. Consequently, the reclaimed acreages shown in table 1-3 for three phases of bond 

release do not add up to the total 1,256 acres of reclaimed land through 2008. 

To achieve Phase III Bond Release, reclaimed lands must also support the postmining land use 

(i.e., domestic livestock grazing and wildlife use), as determined through grazing trials and by 

monitoring wildlife use during the reclamation period. At the Buckskin Mine, reclamation is 

typically grazed by fencing multiple fields together to create a larger pasture; multiple pastures 

are sometimes also combined. The mine first began grazing cattle in 1998 and continued grazing 

efforts in 9 of the 10 subsequent years (1999 through 2008). The number of cattle grazed during 

a given period ranged from 107 to 200 during that period, with an average grazing time of 

34 days (range 12 to 63 days) in a given pasture. Grazing cattle consisted primarily of cow-calf 

pairs, with a few bulls included in some years. Annual wildlife monitoring efforts at the 

Buckskin Mine are described in section 3.10, and have included reclaimed lands as they became 

established. The WGFD reviews the annual wildlife report each year to ensure that proper 

survey protocols have been followed and to monitor impacts to wildlife populations in the 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-15 
 

 

 

 

 

1.0 Introduction 

vicinity of the surface coal mines in the PRB. That agency has not identified any deficiencies in 

the Buckskin Mine annual wildlife reports. 

Table 1-3. Summary of Land Status Acreage at the Buckskin Mine through December 2008 

Land Status	 Acres Approximate Percentages 

Undisturbed areas	 4,196 52% of 8,011 total acres in permit area 

Disturbed areas 3,815 48% of 8,011 total acres in permit area 

Long-term facilitiesa 1,035 27% of disturbance 

Active mining and reclamation 1,525 40% of disturbance 

Reclaimed landb 1,256 33% of disturbance 

Phase Ic

 bond release 1,212 96% of reclamation 

Phase IId bond release 250 20% of reclamation 

Phase IIIe final bond release 250 20% of reclamation 

a Long-term facilities includes stockpiles, hydrologic control structures, mine buildings, coal-loading facilities, the main access road, electrical substations, 

vehicle parking areas, the railroad loop, environmental monitoring areas, and other similar structures and features that will not be reclaimed until all mining 

operations have ceased. 

b	 Reclaimed land refers to previously disturbed areas that have been planted with permanent seed mixes. 

c Phase I refers to areas where backfilling, re-grading, topsoil replacement, contouring, and drainage control have been completed in a bonded area in 

accordance with the mine’s approved reclamation plan. 

d Phase II refers to areas that have achieved Phase I release, and also have vegetation species composition commensurate with that of the seed mix(es) 

and species composition required by the WDEQ-approved Reclamation Plan. Mines often go directly from Phase I to Phase III due to the overlap between 

Phase II and Phase III. 

e Phase III refers to lands that have been reclaimed to the approved postmine land use and with successful restoration of wildlife habitat; where revegetation 

performance standards, shrub establishment goals, and tree replacement requirements have been met; the postmining groundwater, and surface water 

quality and quantity support land uses; any approved postmining road types and corridors on evaluated acreage are in place and functional; and any 

temporary structures present on lands being evaluated have been removed. 

1.1.3.5 Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Wastes produced by current mining activities at Buckskin are handled according to the 

procedures described in WDEQ Mine Permit 500 Term T7, approved May 22, 2006. Solid waste 

produced at the existing Buckskin Mine consists of floor sweepings, shop rags, lubricant 

containers, welding rod ends, metal shavings, worn tires, packing material, used filters, and 

office and food wastes. A small portion (< 5%) of the solid wastes produced at the mine is 

disposed of within the Buckskin Mine permit boundary in accordance with WDEQ approved 

solid waste disposal plans. Solid waste is also disposed of at the Campbell County landfill. 

Sewage is handled by WDEQ-permitted sewage systems present within the existing mine 

facilities. 

Maintenance and lubrication of most of the equipment takes place at existing shop facilities at 

the Buckskin Mine. Major lubrication, oil changes, and other maintenance operations for most 

equipment are performed inside the service building bays. Used oil and grease are contained and 

deposited in storage tanks in that building. All collected used oils and grease are then 

beneficially recycled off site or used for energy recovery. 

1-16 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
1.0 Introduction 

The Buckskin Mine has reviewed the EPA’s “Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to 

Reporting Under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act (SARA) of 

1986 (as amended)” and the EPA’s “List of Extremely Hazardous Substances,” as defined in 

40 CFR 355 (as amended), for hazardous substances used at the mine. Hazardous substances are 

designated under Section 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended; extremely hazardous substances are listed in Section 

302 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. The mine maintains files 

containing Material Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals, compounds, and/or substances that are 

or would be used during the course of mining. 

The Buckskin Mine is responsible for ensuring that all production, use, storage, transport, and 

disposal of hazardous and extremely hazardous materials that occur as a result of mining 

activities are in accordance with all applicable existing or future 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 to minimize potential environmental impacts. 

The mine must also comply with emergency reporting requirements for releases 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 CERCLA, as 

amended. The materials for which such notification must be given are listed in Section 302 of 

the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act and Section 102 of CERCLA, as 

described above. If a reportable quantity of a hazardous or extremely hazardous substance is 

released, immediate notice is given to the WDEQ and all other appropriate federal and state 

agencies. 

Each mining company is expected to prepare and implement several plans and 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. 

In addition, all mining operations must comply 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, and the CAA. 

In addition, mining operations must comply with all attendant state rules and regulations relating 

to hazardous material reporting, transportation, management, and disposal. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-17 
 

1.0 Introduction 

Compliance with these regulations is the current practice at the Buckskin Mine. Kiewit’s 

acquisition of the proposed tract or alternative tract configuration would not change these 

practices, nor the type and quantity of any wastes generated and disposed of by the mine. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action 

As described in section 1.1.1, the purpose of the Proposed Action is to extend the life of existing 

operations at the Buckskin Mine. The Proposed Action would not expand operations at the 

Buckskin Mine, but would maintain current levels of production and extend the life of the mine 

by approximately two years3. The permitting process that follows the lease sale takes 

approximately five years to complete. Kiewit is applying for the federal coal reserves in the 

proposed tract now so that it can secure coal resources to market, enter into new contracts, and 

complete the permitting process in time to mine the new lease in a logical progression. 

More broadly, the Proposed Action responds to the continued demand for coal in the United 

States, primarily for the purpose of generating electricity. According to the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration (2008a), the United States has the world’s largest known coal 

reserves. Demand for this coal is driven by the electric power sector, which accounts for about 

92% of coal consumption (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2008a, 2008b). 

Approximately half of the electricity currently generated in the United States comes from coal 

(U.S. Department of Energy 2009a). Wyoming coal is used to generate electricity in 37 other 

states (Wyoming Mining Association 2009). 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs federal agencies to undertake efforts to ensure energy 

efficiency and the production of secure, affordable, and reliable domestic energy. A primary 

goal of the National Energy Policy is to increase domestic energy supplies from diverse sources 

such as oil, gas, coal, hydropower, wind, solar, and nuclear power in a long-term effort to reduce 

the United States’ dependence on foreign energy sources. The BLM recognizes that the 

continued extraction of coal is essential to meet the nation’s future energy needs and goals. 

Consequently, private development of federal coal reserves is integral to the BLM’s coal leasing 

program under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as well as the Federal Land 

Policy Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976. 

Under FLPMA, the BLM is mandated to manage public lands for multiple-use so that the lands 

are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American 

people. FLPMA authorizes the BLM to manage the use, occupancy, and development of public 

lands through leases and permits (43 CFR 2710). 

Management—leasing, mining, and selling—of federal coal resources in the PRB contributes to 

a reliable supply of coal for electric power generation in the United States. The low-sulfur 

compliance coal from the PRB enables coal-fired power plants to meet current CAA 

requirements and increasing demand without potentially significant increases in power costs 

3 Assuming that coal production would continue at the most recent (2008) average annual coal production rate of 25 million tons per year. 

1-18 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
1.0 Introduction 

while new technologies are developed to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. Management 

of federal coal resources in the PRB also generates revenue—in the form of bonus, annual rental, 

and royalty payments—that is used to fund numerous infrastructure and social projects in 

Wyoming. 

1.3 Regulatory Authority and Responsibility 

The authorities and responsibilities of the BLM and other concerned regulatory agencies are 

described in this section, including a detailed description of the permitting process that follows 

BLM leasing of federal coal reserves. 

The Hay Creek II application was submitted and will be processed and evaluated under the 

following federal authorities: 

 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended; 

 Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960; 

 National Environmental Policy Act; 

 Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976; 

 Federal Land Policy Management Act; and 

 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). 

As described previously, the BLM is the lead agency responsible for leasing federal coal reserves 

under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments 

Act in 1976. The BLM is also responsible for preparing this EIS to evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts of issuing a coal lease and the subsequent mining of that coal, which 

would be the logical outcome of any leasing action. As part of the EIS and leasing processes, the 

BLM also has a responsibility to consult with and obtain the comments and assistance of 

cooperating agencies, such as the OSM and WDEQ, as well as other state and federal agencies 

that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to potential environmental impacts. 

After a federal coal lease is issued, the SMCRA gives the OSM primary responsibility to 

administer programs that regulate surface coal mining operations, as well as the surface effects 

of underground coal mining operations. Pursuant to Section 503 of the SMCRA, the WDEQ 

developed a permanent program authorizing that agency to regulate surface coal mining 

operations and surface effects of underground mining on nonfederal lands within Wyoming. In 

November 1980, the Secretary of the Interior approved that program. In January 1987, pursuant 

to Section 523(c) of the SMCRA, the WDEQ entered into another cooperative agreement with 

the Secretary of the Interior authorizing the WDEQ to regulate surface coal mining operations 

and surface effects of underground mining on federal lands within the state; no federal surface is 

included in any of the analysis areas for the Hay Creek II EIS. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-19 
1.0 Introduction 

The net result of those actions was to give the WDEQ the authority to serve as an agent of the 

OSM to issue permits to mine coal in Wyoming. Before a newly leased area can be disturbed, 

the lessee must submit an extensive permit application package to the WDEQ to amend the 

current permit document to include any proposed coal mining and reclamation operations 

associated with the newly leased coal reserves. That agency acts as the conduit for distributing 

the package to other divisions within the WDEQ, as well as other state and federal agencies with 

a vested interest or cooperator status in the permitting process and future impacts of mining. 

The WDEQ carefully reviews the permit application package to ensure that it complies with the 

permitting requirements, and that the coal mining operation will meet the performance standards 

of the approved Wyoming program. The BLM and other state and federal agencies also review 

the application package to ensure that it complies with the terms of the coal lease, applicable 

state requirements, the Mineral Leasing Act, NEPA, and other state and federal laws and their 

associated regulations. 

If the permit application package complies, the WDEQ issues a permit to the applicant to 

conduct coal mining operations. The final permit application document and the actual permit are 

then submitted to OSM, which recommends approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval 

of the Mineral Leasing Act mining plan to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and 

Minerals Management. Before the mining plan can be approved, the BLM must approve the 

Resource Recovery Protection Plan for mining the tract. 

If a proposed LBA tract is leased to an existing mine, the lessee is required to revise its coal 

mining permit before the coal can be extracted, following the processes outlined above. As a 

part of that process, a detailed new plan must be developed showing how the newly leased lands 

would be mined, mitigated, and/or reclaimed. The total disturbance area typically exceeds the 

leased area because of the need for mine support activities, described in section 1.1.3.3. As 

noted, the mining, mitigation, and reclamation plans must all be approved by appropriate state 

and federal agencies before mining can proceed in newly leased coal tracts. All special 

provisions within the existing permit document, such as species-specific protective measures for 

plant and animal species of concern, also apply to additional lands within new coal tracts. 

The WDEQ enforces the performance standards and permit requirements for reclamation during 

a mine’s operation and has primary authority in environmental emergencies. The OSM retains 

oversight responsibility over the WDEQ for this enforcement. Appendix A presents other 

federal and state permitting requirements that must be satisfied to mine the proposed tract. 

1-20 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
1.0 Introduction 

1.4 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 

In addition to the federal acts listed under section 1.3, guidance and regulations for managing 

and administering public lands—including the federal coal reserves in the Kiewit application— 

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 follows 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 2008b) has been followed in developing this EIS. 

1.5 Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans 

The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 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 (RMP) for Public Lands Administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office (BLM 2001), governs and addresses the 

leasing of federal coal in Campbell County. The 2001 document is an update of the previous 

Buffalo Resource Area RMP (BLM 1985), and will be referred to as the 2001 RMP update 

throughout this EIS. 

The major land use planning decision that the BLM must make concerning federal coal resources 

is a determination of which coal reserves are acceptable for further consideration for leasing. 

The BLM uses four screening procedures to identify these coal reserves. These screening 

procedures require the BLM to: 

 estimate the development potential of the federal coal reserves; 

 apply the unsuitability criteria listed in the regulations at 43 CFR 3461; 

 make decisions related to multiple land uses that eliminate federal coal deposits from 

consideration for leasing to protect other resource values; and 

 consult with surface owners who meet the criteria defined in the regulations at 

43 CFR 3400.0-5(gg)(1) and (2). 

Only those federal coal reserves that pass these screens receive further consideration for leasing. 

The BLM has applied these coal screens to federal coal reserves in Campbell County several 

times, beginning in the early 1980s. In 1993, the BLM began the most recent process of 

reapplying these screens in Campbell, Converse, and Sheridan counties in eastern Wyoming. 

This screening analysis process, which includes the portion of Campbell County where the 

proposed tract is located, was adopted in the 2001 RMP update, and the results were included as 

Appendix D of that update. That document can be viewed in the 2001 documents section on the 

Wyoming BLM website at: http://www.blm.gov/rmp/WY/application/index.cfm/rmpid=101. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-21 
1.0 Introduction 

Under the first coal screening procedure, a coal tract must be located within an area that has been 

determined to have coal development potential in order to be acceptable for further consideration 

for leasing (43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(1)). In the coal screening analyses published in its 2001 RMP 

update, the BLM identified the proposed tract as being in an area with this coal development 

potential. 

The second screening procedure requires the application of coal mining unsuitability criteria 

listed in the federal coal management regulations (43 CFR 3461). The coal mining unsuitability 

criteria were applied to lands in the PRB with high to moderate coal development potential, 

including the proposed tract and adjacent coal reserves identified by the BLM, during the coal 

screening conducted for the 2001 RMP update. Appendix B of this EIS summarizes the 

unsuitability criteria, describes the general findings for the 2001 RMP update, and presents a 

validation of these findings for the proposed tract, as well as adjacent unleased federal coal 

reserves. Chapter 2 provides detailed descriptions of the proposed tract and those adjacent coal 

reserves, as well as the result of the review of the unsuitability criteria specific to both areas. As 

indicated in appendix B, several criteria will be further evaluated during the leasing process. 

The third coal screening procedure consists of a conflict analysis for multiple-use activities on 

the lands associated with the coal reserves that are under consideration for leasing. In 

accordance with 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(3), that 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.” The 

2001 RMP update addresses two types of multiple land-use conflicts: municipal/residential 

conflicts and multiple mineral development (coal versus oil and gas) conflicts. The proposed 

tract does not lie within or near an identified buffer zone surrounding an existing community; 

therefore, no federal coal reserves within that tract configuration have been eliminated from 

further consideration for leasing due to municipal/residential conflicts. 

The 2001 RMP update 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, it determined 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 would 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 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. 

The BLM’s evaluation of the potential for conflict with the development of oil and gas resources 

within the proposed tract is discussed in section 3.3. The BLM’s policy and guidance on 

conflicts between surface coal mining and CBNG development is to optimize the recovery of 

both resources and to ensure that the public receives a reasonable return, as explained in BLM 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153 (BLM 2006a). 

1-22 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

1.0 Introduction 

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)4. Surface owner 

consultation was conducted as part of the coal screening analyses published in the 2001 RMP 

update. Private surface owners in the Gillette coal development potential area (including 

Campbell County and northern Converse County) 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. 

Appendix D of the 2001 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 reserves within the proposed tract have been eliminated from further consideration 

for leasing due to qualified surface owner conflicts at this time. 

Private surface owners who are found to be qualified must consent to leasing before the BLM 

can offer the underlying federal coal reserves for lease. The BLM will review the current surface 

ownership in the final tract configuration. Prior to offering any tract for lease, consent to leasing 

must be provided for any lands held by any qualified surface owner. 

In summary, the proposed tract has been subjected to the four coal planning screens and 

determined acceptable for further consideration for leasing. Thus, a decision to lease the federal 

coal reserves in this application would be in conformance with the 2001 RMP update. 

1.6 Consultation and Coordination 

1.6.1 Initial Involvement 

The BLM received the Hay Creek II coal lease application on March 24, 2006. The BLM, 

Wyoming State Office, Division of Minerals and Lands, initially reviewed the application and 

ruled that the application and lands involved met the requirements of regulations governing coal 

leasing on application (43 CFR 3425). 

On September 18, 2006, the BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming 

that Kiewit had filed a lease application with the BLM for the proposed tract. The PRRCT 

reviewed this lease application at a public meeting held in Casper, Wyoming, on April 19, 2006, 

following Kiewit’s presentation about the existing Buckskin Mine and the pending lease 

application for the proposed tract. The PRRCT recommended that the BLM continue to process 

this application. The major steps in processing a coal LBA, including permitting steps once the 

lease is issued, are shown in appendix C. 

The BLM published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and a notice of public meeting in the 

Federal Register on Friday, December 21, 2007. The publication announced the time and 

location of a public scoping meeting and requested public comment on the application. Letters 

4 Chapter 7 includes a definition of the term “qualified surface owner,” based on these regulations. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-23 
1.0 Introduction 

requesting public comment and announcing the time and location of the public scoping meeting 

were mailed to all parties on the distribution list. 

The BLM published a notice of public scoping meeting in the Federal Register and Gillette 

News-Record newspaper. A BLM news release announcing preparation of the Hay Creek II coal 

lease application EIS was issued on January 17, 2008. The public scoping meeting was held on 

January 31, 2008, in Gillette, Wyoming. At the public meeting, the BLM presented information 

and accepted public comments about the application. 

Chapter 5 provides a list of all federal, state, and local governmental agencies that were 

consulted in preparation of this EIS, all contributors to and reviewers of the information provided 

in this document, and the distribution list for this EIS. 

1.6.1.1 Issues and Concerns 

Issues and concerns expressed by the public and government agencies relating to the potential 

impacts of leasing the proposed tract, specifically, and/or to previous coal lease applications in 

general include: 

 potential conflicts between coal mining and both existing and proposed conventional oil and 

gas development and CBNG development; 

 potential cumulative impacts of coal leasing decisions combined with other existing and 

proposed development in the PRB; 

 validity and currency of resource data; 

 potential impacts on public access; 

 potential impacts on cultural and paleontological resources; 

 potential impacts on greater sage-grouse and other wildlife; 

 potential impacts on threatened and endangered species and other species of concern; 

 potential impacts on wetland resources; 

 potential impacts related to coal loss during transport; 

 potential impacts on air quality (including cumulative impacts on visibility); 

 potential impacts on surface and groundwater quality and quantity; 

 potential impacts of and possible mitigation for nitrogen oxide emissions resulting from 

blasting of coal and overburden; 

 potential impacts on human health; 

 the need to include reasonably foreseeable actions such as the construction and operation of 

the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad and power plants in the cumulative analysis; 

 the need to address coal combustion residues and other byproducts from coal-fired power 

plants; 

1-24 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
1.0 Introduction 

 the need to address increasing coal production in the PRB in the cumulative analysis; 

 the need to lease enough coal that the revenues generated are sufficient for use in the local 

community; 

 the need to address site-specific greenhouse gas emissions; and 

 climate change. 

1.6.1.2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Copies of the draft EIS were sent to all parties on the distribution list and copies were made 

available for review at the BLM offices in Casper, Buffalo, and Cheyenne, Wyoming. The 

document was also made available for review on the BLM Wyoming website at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/cfodocs/HayCreekII.html. 

The EPA published a notice in the Federal Register on March 12, 2010, announcing the 

availability of the draft EIS. A 60-day comment period on the draft EIS commenced with 

publication of that notice. The BLM also published a notice of availability/notice of public 

hearing in the Federal Register on March 12, 2010. That notice announced the date and time of 

a public hearing to be held during the 60-day comment period. The purpose of the hearing, held 

in Gillette, Wyoming on April 22, 2010, was to solicit public comments on the draft EIS and on 

the fair market value, maximum economic recovery, and proposed competitive sale of federal 

coal from the proposed tract. The BLM also published a notice of public hearing in the Gillette 

News-Record and other local newspapers. 

1.6.1.3 Final Environmental Impact Statement 

All substantive written comments received on the draft EIS have been included, with 

corresponding responses from the BLM, in appendix D of this final EIS. Both the BLM and the 

EPA will publish a notice of availability of the final EIS in the Federal Register. After a 30-day 

availability period, the BLM will make a decision to hold or not to hold a competitive lease sale 

for the federal coal reserves within the LBA area. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 1-25 
1.0 Introduction 

1.6.2 Future Involvement 

1.6.2.1 Record of Decision 

The record of decision (ROD) for the tract is mailed to all parties on the mailing list and others 

who commented on the draft EIS during the comment period. Members of 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 the final tract configuration. An appeal of the BLM’s decision must be filed within 30 days 

from the date that the notice of availability for the ROD is published in the Federal Register. 

The decision can be implemented at the end of the 30-day appeal period, if no appeal is received. 

If a competitive lease sale is held, it will follow the procedures set forth in 43 CFR 3422, 

43 CFR 3425, and BLM Handbook H-3420-1 (Competitive Coal Leasing). 

1.6.2.2 U.S. Department of Justice Consultation 

After a competitive coal lease sale is held, but before the lease is issued, the BLM must solicit 

the opinion of the U.S. Department of Justice on whether the planned lease issuance creates a 

situation inconsistent with federal antitrust laws. The Department of Justice has 30 days to make 

this determination. If the Department of Justice has not responded in writing within the 30 days, 

the BLM can issue the lease. 

1-26 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

		

		

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes the regulations and documents that guide the identification of alternatives 

to the Proposed Action, explains how the alternatives were developed and how a final tract 

configuration will be determined, and, finally, provides detailed descriptions of the Proposed 

Action, alternatives, and tract configurations considered in this EIS1. 

This final EIS analyzes three alternatives: the Proposed Action, Alternative 1 (No Action), and 

Alternative 2 (additional lands added by the BLM). Two additional alternatives were considered 

but were not analyzed further in this EIS because they were either not logistically feasible 

(Alternative 3—new mine start) or substantially different (Alternative 4—delay the lease sale) 

than analyzed alternatives. Supporting information for excluding these alternatives is provided 

in section 2.3. 

The BLM selected Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative after considering all of the input 

received on the draft EIS from individuals, agencies, and other interested parties during the 

public comment period. The comment period began upon the BLM’s issuance of a notice of 

availability of the draft EIS on March 12, 2010, and lasted for 60 days. This process offered the 

public sector an opportunity to submit written input during the comment period and oral 

comments at a public hearing that occurred on April 22, 2010. In addition to comments on the 

environmental effects described in the draft EIS, the BLM considered fair market value and 

maximum economic recovery factors, geologic data, and coal data when identifying the 

Preferred Alternative presented in this final EIS. Following a 30-day public comment period on 

the final EIS, the BLM will issue a ROD. The ROD will define the final delineation of the Hay 

Creek II tract. Based on federal regulations (43 CFR 3425.1-9)2, the final coal lease tract can be 

any configuration that is within the area analyzed for this EIS, as described in section 2.2.3 and 

chapter 3. If the BLM decides to offer the tract for lease, then a sale will be held. If a sale is 

held, the bidding would be open to any qualified bidder. 

2.1 Background 

To process an LBA, the BLM must evaluate the quantity, quality, maximum economic recovery, 

and fair market value of the federal coal, and fulfill the requirements of NEPA by evaluating the 

environmental impacts of leasing that coal. NEPA also requires that the BLM consider and 

evaluate “reasonable alternatives” to meet the objectives of the Proposed Action while avoiding 

or minimizing environmental impacts. Reasonable alternatives are defined by NEPA as those 

that are technically, economically, and environmentally practical and feasible to satisfy the stated 

purpose and need for the proposed federal action. NEPA also requires the analysis of a “no 

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

2		 “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.” 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 2-1 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

action” alternative (i.e., the consequence of continuing ongoing activities without a new leasing 

action). 

In addition to NEPA requirements, the BLM must meet the requirements contained in the 

Competitive Coal Leasing Manual (BLM 1989) and follow the regulations for federal coal 

leasing by application under 43 CFR 3425. Like NEPA, the Competitive Coal Leasing Manual 

requires that the BLM evaluate other potential boundaries for federal coal tracts that include 

and/or are near the proposed tract. 

In its consideration of alternative tract boundaries, the BLM must meet the following goals: 

1) achieve maximum economic recovery of the coal resource; 2) maintain or increase the 

potential for competition; and 3) avoid future bypass or captive tract situations (i.e., stranding an 

isolated tract and hindering future recovery of those coal resources). In accordance with these 

goals, the BLM has identified an area encompassing the proposed tract and adjacent unleased 

federal coal reserves. This area is referred to as the BLM study area (map 2-1). As described 

under section 2.0, the BLM could decrease the size of the proposed tract or increase it to include 

some or all of the federal coal reserves in the BLM study area. 

2.2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would hold a competitive sale and issue a lease for the 

federal coal reserves included in the proposed tract, which is a contiguous block of federal coal 

reserves adjacent to existing coal leases at the Buckskin Mine (map 2-1). Two alternatives to the 

Proposed Action are analyzed in this EIS: 

1.	 Alternative 1 (No Action): Reject the application to lease federal coal reserves in the 

proposed tract and not offer a tract for sale at this time. 

2.	 Alternative 2 (the BLM Preferred Alternative): Hold a competitive sale and issue a lease for 

the federal coal reserves included in an alternative tract configuration that would be 

delineated from some or all of the BLM study area. 

See section 2.3 for a discussion of other alternatives considered but eliminated from further 

analysis in this EIS. 

Under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, the Buckskin Mine permit area would be enlarged 

to include the newly leased tract before mining activities could begin. To do this, Kiewit would 

submit an application to the WDEQ to amend its existing surface mining permit and mining plan, 

including corresponding monitoring, reclamation, and mitigation plans, to include the new lease 

area. 

2-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
0 2,500

feet

5,000

Existing permit boundary 

Applicant proposed tract 

BLM study area 

Existing Buckskin Mine coal leases 

Buckskin Mine rail spur 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 2-1 

Applicant Proposed Tract and BLM Study Area 
 

 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.2.1 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would hold a competitive sale, as described under 

section 1.1.2, and would issue a lease for the federal coal reserves included in the proposed tract. 

The Proposed Action assumes that Kiewit would be the successful bidder and would incorporate 

the proposed tract into its existing mine operations. The Proposed Action would not expand 

operations at the Buckskin Mine, but would maintain current levels of production for an 

additional two years beyond the current life-of-mine estimate. 

2.2.1.1 Description of the Proposed Tract 

The proposed tract is adjacent to existing Buckskin Mine federal coal leases (map 2-1). It 

encompasses approximately 419 surface acres; approximately 182 acres (43%) overlap the 

existing Buckskin Mine permit area. The proposed tract is the area from which coal would be 

mined under the Proposed Action; the area within approximately 0.25 mile north and west of the 

tract would be used for activities to support mining in the tract. The legal description of the 

proposed tract is provided in table 2-1. The land description and acreage are based on the BLM 

Status of Public Domain Mineral Titles (BLM 2007a and 2008c). The entire surface of the 

proposed tract is privately owned by individuals or companies, while most of the subsurface 

minerals (all of the coal and the majority of oil and gas reserves) are federally owned. This 

results in a split estate situation. The BLM has developed a policy to address the split estate 

issue, which applies to situations where the surface rights are in private ownership and the rights 

to development of the mineral resources are publicly held and managed by the federal 

government. 

Table 2-1. Legal Description of the Proposed Tract 

Campbell County, Wyoming, Sixth Principal Meridian Township 52 North, Range 72 West Acres 

Section 19: Lot 5 (W 1⁄2) 20.71 

Lot 6 41.42 

Lot 7 42.45 

Lot 10 42.31 

Lot 11 41.68 

Lot 12 (W 1⁄2) 20.84 

Lot 13 (W 1⁄2) 20.93 

Lot 14 41.75 

Lot 15 41.90 

Lot 18 41.97 

Lot 19 42.01 

Lot 20 (W 1⁄2) 21.07 

Total Acres 419.04 

Source: BLM Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles (2007a and 2008c). 

2-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Kiewit estimates that the tract contains approximately 77.2 million tons of in-place federal coal 

reserves; however, not all of those coal reserves are currently considered mineable. According to 

43 CFR 3480.0-5(23), the BLM defines minable coal as the reserve base that is commercially 

mineable. In other words, mineable coal includes all reserves that are legally and physically 

accessible, including the coal that would be left in place during the mining process, such as 

support pillars, fenders (i.e., catch benches), property barriers, or coal underlying public roads 

(because they could be relocated). 

Much of the western boundary of the proposed tract is adjacent to Campbell County Road 23 

(Collins Road). In accordance with SMCRA, and as specified under unsuitability criterion 3 

(43 CFR 3461) (appendix B), lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the right-of-way of a 

public road are considered unsuitable for surface coal mining. Consequently, the coal reserves 

underlying the Collins Road, its right-of-way, and an associated 100-foot buffer zone cannot be 

accessed under current conditions. 

An exception to this prohibition is included in the SMCRA regulations at Section 522(e)(4) and 

30 CFR 761.11(d)(2). This exception can be applied if the Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners allows the public road to be relocated or closed after the following have 

occurred: a public notice has been issued, an opportunity for a public hearing has been provided, 

and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected has been 

issued (30 CFR 761.11[d]). If Kiewit were to obtain approval from the commissioners to move 

the Collins Road, the exception to the prohibition on mining within its right-of-way and buffer 

zone could be applied and the unsuitability determination could be reconsidered. In that case, 

Kiewit would be able to recover the coal underlying the county road and its associated buffer 

zones. If Kiewit were to not seek or obtain approval to move or close the road, a stipulation 

would be attached to any new lease stating that no mine-related surface disturbance may be 

conducted in the portions of the lease within the road right-of-way and 100-foot buffer zone 

without proper authorization, and the associated federal coal reserves would remain unsuitable 

for mining and would not be recovered. Neither the applicant nor the Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners has submitted a proposal to move this road, and Kiewit does not anticipate 

pursuing that option. 

Kiewit estimates that approximately 17.1 million tons of mineable coal underlies the Collins 

Road and its 100-foot buffer zone within the proposed tract. Therefore, of the 77.2 million tons 

of in-place federal coal reserves in the proposed tract, Kiewit estimates that approximately 

60.1 million tons of mineable coal are currently accessible under criteria 3. Although it may not 

be recovered as part of the Proposed Action, the coal underlying the road and its buffer area is 

still considered for leasing because those reserves could be mined under the exception described 

above. Including this coal in the lease would also allow for maximum recovery of all the 

mineable coal adjacent to, but outside of, the 100-foot buffer zone, even if the road is not 

relocated. 

Kiewit estimates that approximately 54.1 million tons (70%) of the total in-place coal reserves in 

the proposed tract would be “recoverable” under normal mining practices. Recoverable coal 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 2-5 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

reserves are defined in 43 CFR 3480.0-5(32) as the minable reserve base excluding all coal that 

would be left in place during the mining process, even though they might be physically 

accessible (i.e., mineable). Recoverable coal represents reserves that can be mined economically 

and excludes areas defined as unsuitable for mining (e.g., in road rights-of-way that are not 

relocated) as well as the coal that is left behind as support pillars and similar structures, or 

unavoidably lost through cleaning, loading, and hauling (e.g., spillage), and spontaneous natural 

fires. 

The BLM independently evaluates the volume and average quality of the coal resources included 

in proposed LBA tracts as part of the fair market value determination process. The agency’s 

estimate of the mineable federal coal reserves included in the proposed tract may not agree 

precisely with the mineable coal reserve and coal quality estimates provided by the applicant. 

However, the BLM estimate would be published in the official notice if the tract is offered for 

sale. 

Under its currently approved mining plan, the Buckskin Mine would retrieve its remaining 

344.3 million tons of recoverable coal reserves in approximately 14 years, beginning in January 

2009. The mine’s current air quality permit as approved by the WDEQ allows mining of as 

much as 42 million tons of coal per year. Annual production averaged 20.6 million tons from 

2001 through 2008, with a maximum of 25.3 million tons in any single year (Buckskin Mining 

Company 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009). Under the Proposed Action, 

Kiewit estimates that the life of the mine would be extended by an additional two years, with a 

continued average production rate of 25 million tons per year. Additional details about existing 

coal reserves and tons mined to date are provided in section 1.1.3.1. 

2.2.1.2 Mine Facilities and Employees 

Under the Proposed Action, the recovery of additional federal coal reserves would use the 

existing mine facilities and employees described under section 1.1.3.2. The Proposed Action 

would not require additional facilities or employees. 

2.2.1.3 Mining Methods and Activities 

Under the Proposed Action, coal would continue to be produced at the Buckskin Mine from the 

Anderson and Canyon coal seams, and current production methods would be the same as those 

described under section 1.1.3.3. 

The design of the Buckskin Mine seeks to confine disturbance to the active mine blocks. Before 

any surface disturbance or other mine-related activities would begin in the proposed tract, 

support infrastructure such as roads, power lines, gas pipelines, and flood- and sediment-control 

features would be built or relocated, as needed; no public roads are currently being considered 

for construction or relocation. Topsoil and overburden removal is accomplished using a variety 

of suitable heavy equipment. Whenever possible, topsoil would be hauled directly to a 

reclamation area and overburden to open pits; however, if scheduling conflicts arise, they would 

be temporarily stockpiled in separate areas and topsoil piles would be seeded immediately to 

2-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

prevent erosion. Overburden and coal removal have been and would continue to be conducted 

using blasting and truck/shovel fleets to facilitate efficient excavation. 

2.2.1.4 Reclamation Activities 

Reclamation activities under the Proposed Action would be consistent with those currently in use 

at the Buckskin Mine, described in section 1.1.3.4. 

Mined-out areas would be reclaimed according to an approved postmine plan. Any affected 

streams would be reclaimed to follow premine drainage patterns (section 3.5). In-channel 

stockponds and playas (shallow topographic depressions) would be replaced to provide livestock 

and wildlife watering sources. All postmining topography, including reconstructed drainages, 

must be approved by the WDEQ. After mining, the land is reclaimed to support the premining 

uses described in section 1.1.3.1. Oil and gas wells, pipelines, and utility easements are 

reestablished as required. 

All reclaimed areas are monitored for a minimum of 10 years to evaluate the success of 

vegetation growth and the establishment of a variety of native plant species prior to the final 

(Phase III) release of the reclamation bond. Other parameters, such as successful use of 

reclaimed areas by domestic livestock and wildlife, also must be demonstrated before Phase III 

bond release is achieved, as described in section 1.1.3.4. 

2.2.2 Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, Kiewit’s application to lease the coal included in 

the proposed tract would be rejected: federal coal reserves adjacent to the existing Buckskin 

Mine would not be offered for competitive sale, and the additional coal would not be mined. 

For the purposes of this EIS, Alternative 1 assumes that the federal coal reserves in the proposed 

tract adjacent to the Buckskin Mine would not be mined in the foreseeable future. However, 

selection of this alternative would not preclude Kiewit or another company from submitting a 

future lease application for these coal reserves. These coal reserves could be leased as a 

maintenance tract while the Buckskin Mine is in operation. If it is not leased while the mine is 

active, it may or may not be leased in the future. The proposed tract evaluated in this EIS does 

not include enough coal reserves to justify starting a new mine (section 2.3.1); however, they 

could be combined with unleased federal coal reserves to the west and north to create a larger 

tract, which could be mined by a new operation in the future. 

Under Alternative 1, average annual production would continue as described under 

section 1.3.1.1; 

 mine facilities and employees would be the same as described under section 1.1.3.2; 

 mining methods and activities would continue as described under section 1.1.3.3; and 

 reclamation activities would continue as described under section 1.1.3.4. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 2-7 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.2.3	 Alternative 2 (BLM Preferred Alternative) 

The BLM has identified Alternative 2 as its Preferred Alternative for the final EIS. Under that 

alternative, the BLM is considering a tract configuration that is larger than both Kiewit’s 

proposed tract and original (2006) tract, but smaller than the BLM study area (map 2-2). The 

legal descriptions of the BLM study area and the tract under consideration by the BLM are 

provided in table 2-2 and table 2-3, respectively. As described in section 2.0, the BLM will 

define the final tract delineation in the ROD based on lands within the BLM study area. The 

final tract configuration could be smaller or larger than the proposed tract. The final tract 

configuration could include part or all of the BLM study area. The tract will be considered to be 

technically, environmentally and economically in the public’s best interest. Because the final 

tract configuration will be within the BLM study area, and the entire study area was analyzed in 

this EIS, no further discussion of Kiewit’s original (2006) tract or the tract under consideration 

by the BLM will be included in this EIS beyond table 2-3. 

Alternative 2 also assumes that Kiewit would be the successful bidder, and would incorporate a 

tract configuration other than Kiewit’s proposal into its existing mine operations. Alternative 2 

would not expand operations at the Buckskin Mine, but would maintain current levels of 

production, described in section 1.1.3.1, for up to six years beyond the current life-of-mine 

estimate. 

2.2.3.1	 Description of the BLM Study Area and Tract under Consideration by the 

BLM 

The BLM study area extends north and west of the proposed tract to encompass approximately 

1,883 acres (map 2-1). Approximately 618 acres (33%) of the BLM study area overlap the 

existing mine permit area. The legal description of the BLM study area is provided in table 2-2. 

Under this alternative, mining would occur in an alternative tract configuration within the BLM 

study area; the area within approximately 0.25 mile north and west of the alternative tract 

configuration would be used for activities to support mining in the tract. 

The tract under consideration by the BLM extends north and west of the proposed tract, and 

encompasses approximately 1,568 acres. The legal description of this tract is provided in table 

2-3. As with other configurations, the area within approximately 0.25 mile north and west of the 

tract under consideration by the BLM would be used for activities to support mining in that tract. 

The tract under consideration by the BLM was analyzed in the final EIS as part of the larger 

BLM study area; therefore, that tract is not discussed separately beyond table 2-3. 

2-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Existing permit boundary 

BLM tract under consideration 

BLM study area 

Applicant original (March 2006) tract 

0 2,500

feet

5,000 Existing Buckskin Mine coal leases 

Buckskin Mine rail spur 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 2-2 

BLM Tract under Consideration and Applicant Original (March 2006) Tract 
 

 

 

 

 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-2. Legal Description of the BLM Study Area 

Campbell County, Wyoming, Sixth Principal Meridian Township 52 North, Range 72 West Acres 

Section 7: Lots 17 through 20 166.91 

Section 8: Lots 13 through 16 162.00 

Section 9: Lots 13 through 15 120.58 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 4, 5 (N. 1⁄2), 6 (N. 1⁄2), 7 (N. 1⁄2), and 8 (N. 1⁄2) 247.39 

Section 18: Lots 5 through 11, 12 (N. 1⁄2, SW. 1⁄4), 13 (W. 1⁄2), 14 through19, and 20 (W. 1⁄2) 612.95 

Section 19: Lots 5 (W. 1⁄2), 6 through 11, 12 (W. 1⁄2), 13 (W. 1⁄2), 14 through 19, and 20 (W. 1⁄2) 573.27 

Total Acres 1,883.10 

BLM = U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Source: BLM Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles (2007a and 2008c). 

Table 2-3. Legal Description of the Tract Under Consideration by the BLM 

Campbell County, Wyoming, Sixth Principal Meridian Township 52 North, Range 72 West Acres 

Section 7: Lots 18 through 20 127.36 

Section 8: Lots 13 through 16 162.00 

Section 9: Lots 13 and 14 80.57 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 4, 5 (N. 1⁄2), 6 (N. 1⁄2), 7 (N. 1⁄2), and 8 (N. 1⁄2) 247.39 

Section 18: Lots 5 through 7, 10, 11, 12 (W. 1⁄2 & NE. 1⁄4), 13 (W. 1⁄2), 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 (W. 1⁄2) 455.33 

Section 19: Lots 5 (W. 1⁄2), 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 (W. 1⁄2), 13 (W. 1⁄2), 14 through 19, and 20 (W. 1⁄2) 494.90 

Total Acres 1,567.55 

BLM = U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Source: BLM Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles (2007a and 2008c). 

The land descriptions and acreages shown in table 2-2 and table 2-3 are based on the same BLM 

master title plats and coal plats as those listed under section 2.2.1.1 for the Proposed Action. 

Surface ownership and ownership of oil and gas estates within the BLM study area are discussed 

in section 3.11. In addition to existing surface disturbance associated with the Buckskin Mine, 

the BLM study area includes small crop areas, two Campbell County roads (the Collins Road 

and Campbell County Road 73 [McGee Road]), several overhead electric transmission lines, oil 

and gas pipelines, and three residences. Only one of the three residences is currently occupied. 

The coal underlying the Collins and McGee roads and their rights-of-way and associated 

100-foot buffer zones have been determined unsuitable for surface coal mining in accordance 

with SMCRA and as specified under unsuitability criterion 3 (43 CFR 3461), unless the 

applicant pursues an exception to this prohibition by obtaining authorization to close or relocate 

one or both roads. Under the same unsuitability criterion, the land underlying the occupied 

residence, discussed above, is also considered unsuitable for mining. Surface disturbance on this 

land and a 300-foot buffer around it would be prohibited, unless Kiewit were to purchase the 

surface rights associated with the residence and its buffer zone. 

2-10 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Kiewit does not currently plan to pursue efforts to relocate either county road or acquire the 

surface rights to the land associated with the occupied residence; therefore, the company 

considers the lands west of both roads and around the occupied residence as inaccessible and 

operationally limited. Nevertheless, the coal underlying these features and their respective buffer 

areas must be considered for leasing by the BLM because those reserves could be mined under 

the exceptions for unsuitability criterion 3 described in section 2.2.1.1. Including these 

operationally limited coal reserves in the lease would also allow for maximum recovery of all 

adjacent mineable coal. Although the coal itself may not be recovered, topsoil stripping and 

other disturbance activities necessary to access previously permitted adjacent reserves would 

occur up to the edge of buffers associated with the county roads or occupied residence. If a lease 

is issued for lands under Alternative 2, a stipulation will be attached to the lease stating that no 

mining activity may be conducted within the areas currently identified as unsuitable for mining 

without proper authorization or acquisition of surface rights, as applicable. 

Kiewit estimates that the BLM study area contains approximately 269.7 million tons of in-place 

coal, and considers approximately 149.7 million tons (56%) of it recoverable. Approximately 

103.4 million tons (38%) of coal within the BLM study area would not be accessible (according 

to Kiewit’s estimates) because of limitations associated with the occupied residence and public 

road rights-of-way and buffer zones discussed above. Kiewit estimates that the remaining 16.6 

million tons (6%) of coal would be left in place as support pillars and similar structures, or 

unavoidably lost through spillage and spontaneous natural fires. As with the Proposed Action, 

the BLM would independently evaluate the volume and average quality of the coal resources 

included under Alternative 2 as part of the fair market value determination process. This 

estimate may not agree with the estimates provided by the applicant. Nevertheless, the BLM 

estimate would be published in the public notice if a tract is offered for sale. 

2.2.3.2 Mine Facilities and Employees 

Under Alternative 2, Kiewit estimates the life of the mine would be extended by up to six years 

with an average annual production rate of 25 million tons. Mine facilities and employees would 

be the same as those described in section 1.1.3.2 and under the Proposed Action. 

2.2.3.3 Mining Methods and Activities 

Mining methods and activities would be the same as those described in section 1.1.3.3 and under 

the Proposed Action. 

2.2.3.4 Reclamation Activities 

Reclamation activities would be the same as those described in section 1.1.3.4 and under the 

Proposed Action. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 2-11 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

2.3 Eliminated Alternatives 

The following alternatives were considered in the initial phase of this EIS, but were eliminated 

from further analysis. 

2.3.1 Alternative 3 

Under this alternative, the BLM would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale for the federal coal 

reserves included in the proposed tract or an alternative tract configuration. Alternative 3 

assumes, however, that the successful bidder would be someone other than the applicant, and 

that this bidder would plan to open a new mine to develop these coal resources. 

The environmental impacts of developing a new mine to recover the coal resources within the 

proposed tract or an alternative tract configuration would be greater than under either action 

alternative or the No Action Alternative due to the need for construction of new facilities and rail 

lines, increased employment requirements and their associated effects on the local 

socioeconomics, and the creation of additional sources of particulates (dust). 

The BLM currently estimates that a tract would need to include as much as 500 to 600 million 

tons of in-place coal to attract a buyer interested in opening a new mine in the Wyoming PRB. 

This estimate is based on two primary assumptions. First, an operator would need to construct 

facilities capable of producing 30 million tons of coal per year to take advantage of the 

economies of scale offered by the coal deposits in the PRB. Second, 20 to 30 years of coal 

reserves would be needed to justify the expense of building those facilities. Given these 

assumptions, neither the proposed tract (approximately 77 million tons) nor the BLM study area 

(about 270 million tons) includes sufficient in-place coal resources to justify the costs of opening 

a new mine, though the coal reserves included in this EIS could be combined with unleased 

federal coal to the west and north to create a larger tract, which could be mined by a new future 

operation. 

A company or companies acquiring this coal for a new stand-alone mine would require 

considerable initial capital investments, including the construction of new surface facilities 

(e.g., offices, shops, warehouses, processing facilities, loadout facilities, and rail spur), extensive 

baseline data collection, and development of new, detailed mining and reclamation plans (rather 

than simply amending existing plans). A new mine start would also require a large number of 

new employees, which may not be available from the mining sector workforce (which includes 

the oil and gas industry) considering the current strong demand for labor and low unemployment 

in Campbell County and surrounding counties in the PRB. In addition, a company or companies 

acquiring this coal for a new mine would have to compete for customers with established mines 

in a competitive market. Based on demand forecasting for the Wyoming PRB mines, existing 

mine capacity is sufficient to provide for expected coal demand through 2020 (BLM 2005b). 

While these factors do not mean that no new mines would open, it would be difficult for them to 

produce coal at a price competitive with the existing operations while also incurring the high 

capital and start-up costs associated with new facilities and operations. 

2-12 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The potential difficulty in obtaining an air quality permit is another factor that could discourage 

new mine starts in the Wyoming PRB. A new mine would constitute a new source of air 

pollutants. Under the WDEQ permitting program, anyone planning to construct, modify, or use 

a facility capable of emitting designated pollutants into the atmosphere must obtain an air quality 

permit prior to construction. Surface coal mines fall into this category. Air quality is discussed 

in detail in section 3.4. 

To obtain a construction permit, an operator may be required to demonstrate that the proposed 

activities would not increase air pollutant levels above the state’s 24-hour average annual 

standards for particulate matter measuring 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10). These 

standards were established by Chapter 6 of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, 

and can be found on the Internet at http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/standards.asp. The PRB did not 

experience any exceedances of these PM10 standards through 2000, but recorded an average of 

five per year from 2001 through 2007; additional details regarding exceedances at the Buckskin 

Mine are provided in section 3.4. Although many of the previous exceedances were attributed to 

high winds, concerns about future potential exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) may make it more difficult for a company planning to open a new mine to 

demonstrate that those operations would not result in additional air pollution levels that are 

above annual Wyoming standards. 

If a lease sale is held and the successful bidder is not the original applicant, the new operator 

would be required to submit a new permit application, including detailed mining, monitoring, 

mitigation, and reclamation plans (versus a simple amendment of current plans) to the WDEQ 

for review. The new operator would also be required to submit a Resource Recovery and 

Protection Plan to the BLM for review. Before a new mining operation could begin, this plan 

must be approved by the BLM, a mining permit must be approved by the WDEQ, and a Mineral 

Leasing Act mining plan must be approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior. 

In view of these issues, the current economies of mining in the Powder River Federal Coal 

Region appear to make construction of a new mine economically unfeasible using coal reserves 

in the proposed tract or BLM study area. Therefore, this alternative is not analyzed further in 

this EIS. 

2.3.2 Alternative 4 

Under Alternative 4, the BLM would delay the sale of federal coal reserves in the proposed tract 

and BLM study area. Under this alternative, it is assumed that a tract could be developed later as 

either a maintenance tract for an existing mine or a new mine start, depending on how long the 

sale was delayed. Alternative 4 was not analyzed in detail because it would not produce 

substantially different impacts from other alternatives that were analyzed in more detail. The 

environmental impacts of mining the coal later as part of an existing mine would be expected to 

be similar in nature and essentially equal in magnitude to the action alternatives discussed 

previously (section 2.2.1 and section 2.2.3). As discussed in section 2.3.1, the environmental 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 2-13 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

impacts from a new mine start would be expected to be greater than if the coal reserves were 

mined as an extension of an existing mine. 

Delaying the lease sale would not guarantee that the BLM would receive a higher price during 

the initial bidding process, or a higher bonus bid or royalties and taxes once the lease is issued 

due to other reasons that may or may not be related to the quality and/or location of the coal 

reserves themselves. The price of coal and, thus, the rate of mining, is affected by various 

factors including, but not limited to, customer demand (sales) and transportation options. For 

example, coal prices were depressed in the early 2000s, which resulted in lower bid prices during 

that period. In other years, shipping constraints, combined with increased world energy demand 

and numerous natural disasters in other parts of the country, led to unusually large increases in 

coal prices. 

The prices received for coal from the PRB have generally been increasing in recent years. If that 

trend continues, the fair market value of federal coal reserves could increase and a delayed sale 

would result in a higher lease bid, as well as higher bonus bid and royalty payments to the 

government when the lease is issued and coal is mined, respectively. This approach also would 

allow CBNG resources to be more completely recovered prior to mining. Likewise, if the fair 

market value of the coal reserves were to decrease, a delayed sale would bring lower initial and 

bonus bids as well as lower royalty, tax, and annual rental payments. 

Royalty and tax payments are the largest revenue sources from new leases, but cannot be 

collected until the coal is permitted and mined; this process requires several years after the lease 

is issued. Therefore, the price of coal when it is mined (and essentially sold to the customer) 

affects royalty and tax payments. Higher coal prices result in greater royalty and tax payments, 

regardless of whether coal lessees have short- or long-term contracts with their customers. The 

reverse is true when coal prices decrease. 

Other considerations include the value of making low-sulfur coal available now versus leaving 

mineable coal in place for future development, in anticipation of cleaner fuel sources being 

developed in the future. Continued leasing of low-sulfur coal from the PRB enables existing 

coal-fired power plants to more easily meet current CAA requirements until new technologies 

are developed to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. This approach provides a stable 

supply of power to meet increasing demand without a potentially significant increase in power 

costs for individuals and businesses, and meets current energy requirements while the new 

technologies are developed. If cleaner fuel sources are developed in the future, they could be 

phased in with less economic impact on the public. An economic analysis could be conducted to 

estimate the range of potential future economic benefits that would result from delaying the lease 

sale until coal prices rise. However, because it is impossible to predict with any certainty when 

or if those rates would increase, any projected benefits from delaying the lease sale would be 

speculation. 

CBNG resources are currently being recovered from leases in and near the proposed tract and 

BLM study area. As of May 2008, 30 wells had been completed in the BLM study area and 

immediate vicinity (appendix E). Of those, 15 wells are currently producing and 3 have been 

shut in and may be re-instated for production in the future. Twelve other wells are no longer 

2-14 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

producing, have been permanently abandoned, or have expired permits (Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission 2009). Additional information relative to conventional oil and gas 

and CBNG development in the proposed tract and immediately adjacent area is provided in 

section 3.3.2. 

Several existing mechanisms can facilitate the continued recovery of these oil and gas resources 

prior to mining if the federal coal in the proposed tract or an alternative tract configuration is 

leased under the current timeline, as described below. 

 The BLM can attach a Multiple Mineral Development stipulation to the lease. Such a 

stipulation would state that the 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. 

 Mining the proposed tract or alternative tract configuration cannot occur until the coal lessee 

has a permit to mine the tract as approved by the WDEQ and a Mineral Leasing Act mining 

plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Before that mining plan can be approved, the 

BLM must approve the Resource Recovery and Protection Plan for mining the tract. Prior to 

approving the plan, the BLM can review the status of CBNG development in the final tract 

configuration and the mining sequence proposed by the coal lessee. The WDEQ permit 

approval process generally takes several years to complete. This interval would allow 

additional time for CBNG resources to be recovered from the leased tract. 

 The BLM has a policy in place regarding conflicts between CBNG and coal recovery. This 

policy directs the BLM decision makers to optimize the recovery of both resources and to 

ensure that the public receives a reasonable return (BLM 2006a). 

As described previously, rental and royalty provisions from the proposed tract or an alternative 

tract configuration would benefit the United States, if coal prices increased by the time mining 

began. Given the mechanisms currently in place, a large portion of the economically recoverable 

CBNG resources in the area would be expected to be recovered after a lease is issued and before 

mining occurred. The environmental impacts of mining the coal later as part of an existing mine 

would be expected to be similar in nature and essentially equal in magnitude to the action 

alternatives discussed in section 2.2.1 and section 2.2.3. 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. 

2.4 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

In general, the levels of mitigation and monitoring required for surface coal mining by the 

SMCRA and Wyoming state law are more rigorous and extensive than those required for other 

surface disturbing activities. Those regulations and laws require surface coal mines to collect a 

wide range of detailed baseline information prior to mining, and implement extensive 

reclamation and/or mitigation measures and monitoring programs during and after mining. The 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 2-15 
 

 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

currently approved permit to conduct mining operations for the Buckskin Mine (i.e., the No 

Action Alternative) includes these requirements. 

Required mitigation and monitoring programs are also considered to be part of the action 

alternatives considered in this EIS. These data collection requirements, monitoring 

commitments, and mitigation plans would be amended to include mining operations in the 

proposed tract or alternative tract configuration if they are leased and permitted for mining. The 

major mitigation and monitoring measures that are required by state or federal regulation are 

summarized in table 2-4. Specific information about some of these measures (including their 

results at the Buckskin Mine) is included in chapter 3. If impacts are identified during the 

leasing process that are not addressed by existing required mitigation measures, the BLM can 

require additional measures in the form of stipulations on the new lease within the limits of its 

regulatory authority. The mining and reclamation plan would also have to be revised to address 

any new concerns that are not included under existing procedures; that revised plan would have 

to be approved for the final tract configuration before any mining operations could be conducted, 

regardless of who acquires the tract. 

Table 2-4. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring Measures for Surface Coal 

Mining Operations Legally Required for All Alternatives 

Resource 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required 

by Stipulations, State, or Federal Lawa Monitoringa 

Topography and 

Physiography 

 Reclaim to approximate original contour or other approved topographic 

configuration 

 WDEQ checks as-built vs. 

approved topography with 

each annual report 

Geology and 

Minerals 

 Identify and selectively place or mix chemically or physically unsuitable overburden 

materials to minimize adverse effects on vegetation or groundwater 

 WDEQ requires monitoring 

in advance of mining to 

detect unsuitable 

overburden 

Soil  Salvage soil suitable to support plant growth for use in reclamation 

 Protect soil stockpiles from disturbance and erosional influences 

 Selectively place at least 4 feet of suitable overburden on the graded backfill 

surface below replaced topsoil to meet guidelines for vegetation root zones 

 Monitoring vegetation 

growth in reclaimed areas 

to determine need for soil 

amendments 

 Sampling regraded 

overburden for compliance 

with root zone criteria 

Air Quality  Conduct dispersion modeling of mining plans for annual average particulate 

pollution impacts on ambient air 

 Implement particulate pollution control technologies 

 Implement work practices designed to minimize fugitive particulate emissions 

 Use EPA or state-mandated best available control technology, 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 

– Containing truck dumps and primary crushers 

– Covering conveyors 

 On-site air quality 

monitoring for PM10 and/or 

TSP 

 Off-site ambient monitoring 

for PM10 and/or TSP 

 On-site compliance 

inspections 

2-16 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-4. Continued 

Resource 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required 

by Stipulations, State, or Federal Lawa Monitoringa 

– Promptly revegetating exposed soils 

– High-efficiency baghouse dust collection systems or passive enclosure control 

systems 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 of 

exit volume 



– Watering active work areas 

– Reclamation planning to minimize surface disturbances subject to wind erosion 

– Paving access roads 

– Haul truck speed limits 

– Limited material drop heights for shovels and draglines 

 Follow voluntary and required measures to avoid exposing the public to NO2 from 

blasting clouds, including: 

– Phoning neighbors and workers to notify them 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  Build and maintain sediment-control ponds or other devices during mining 

 Reclaim drainages to approximate premining drainage patterns 

 Reclaim stockponds and playas to approximate premine characteristics 

 Monitoring storage 

capacity in sediment 

ponds 

 Monitoring quality of 

discharges 

 Monitoring streamflow and 

water quality 

Groundwater 

Quantity 

 Evaluate cumulative impacts on water quantity associated with proposed mining 

 Replace existing water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by 

mining with water of equivalent quantity 

 Monitoring wells 

 track water levels in 

overburden, coal, 

interburden, underburden, 

and backfill 

Groundwater 

Quality 

 Evaluate cumulative impacts on water quality associated with proposed mining 

 Replace existing water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by 

mining with water of equivalent quality 

 Monitoring wells 

 track water quality in 

overburden, coal, 

interburden, underburden, 

and backfill 

Alluvial Valley 

Floors 

 Identify all AVFs that would be affected by mining 

 Comply with WDEQ determination of significance to agriculture of all identified 

AVFs affected by mining 

 Protect downstream AVFs during mining 

 Restore essential hydrologic function of all AVFs affected by mining 

 Monitoring to determine 

restoration of essential 

hydrologic functions of any 

declared AVF 

Wetlands  Identify all wetlands that would be affected by mining 

 Comply with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identification of jurisdictional wetlands 

 Replace all jurisdictional wetlands that would be disturbed by mining 

 Replace functional wetlands as required by surface managing agency, surface 

landowner, or WDEQ 

 Monitoring reclaimed 

wetlands using same 

procedures used to identify 

premining jurisdictional 

wetlands 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 2-17 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-4. Continued 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required 

Resource by Stipulations, State, or Federal Lawa Monitoringa 

Vegetation  Revegetate reclaimed areas according to a comprehensive revegetation plan using

approved permanent reclamation seed mixtures consisting predominantly of 

species native to the area 

 Reclaim 20% of disturbed area with native shrubs at a density of one per square 

meter 

 Control erosion on reclaimed lands prior to seeding with final seed mixture using 

mulching, cover crops, or other approved measures 

 Chemically and mechanically control weed infestation 

 Use direct hauling for topsoil 

 Selectively plant shrubs in riparian areas 

 Plant sagebrush 

 Create depressions and rock piles 

 Use special planting procedures around rock piles 

 Post reclamation bond covering the cost of reclamation 

 Monitoring revegetation 

growth and diversity until 

release of final reclamation 

bond (minimum 10 years) 

 Monitoring erosion to 

determine need for 

corrective action during 

establishment of 

vegetation 

 Use of controlled grazing 

during revegetation 

evaluation to determine 

suitability for postmining 

land uses 

Wildlife and 

Sensitive 

Species 

Threatened, 

Endangered, 

Proposed, and 

Candidate 

Species 

Land Use 

 Reclaim to approximate premine topography to the maximum extent possible 

 Plant a diverse mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs in configurations beneficial to 

wildlife 

 Design fences to permit wildlife passage 

 Raptor-proof power transmission poles per current APLIC recommendations 

 Use raptor-safe power lines per current APLIC recommendations 

 Create artificial raptor nest sites 

 Increase habitat diversity by creating rock clusters and shallow depressions on 

reclaimed land 

 Plant cottonwoods along reclaimed drainages 

 Reclaim drainages, wetlands, and AVFs disturbed by mining 

 Reduce vehicle speed limits to minimize mortality 

 Instruct employees not to harass or disturb wildlife 

 Follow USFWS approved avian monitoring and mitigation plans 

 Avoid disturbance near bald eagle winter roost sites 

 Reclaim bald eagle perching and foraging areas disturbed by mining 

 Reclaim sage-grouse and mountain plover habitat disturbed by mining 

 Survey for sage-grouse, mountain plovers, and black-tailed prairie dogs 

 Survey for Ute ladies'-tresses and blowout penstemon 

 Comply with USFWS block clearance from black-footed ferret surveys in project 

area 

 Same as Wildlife and Sensitive Species above 

 Reclaim mined areas for historic uses (grazing and wildlife) 

 Baseline and annual 

wildlife monitoring surveys 

 Monitoring for Migratory 

Bird Species of 

Management Concern in 

Wyoming 

 Baseline and annual 

wildlife monitoring surveys 

 Monitoring of controlled 

grazing prior to bond 

release evaluation 

Cultural 

Resources 

 Conduct predisturbance Class I and III surveys to identify cultural properties on all 

state and federal lands, and on private lands affected by federal undertakings 

 Consult with SHPO to evaluate eligibility of cultural properties for the NRHP 

 Avoid or recover data from significant cultural properties identified by surveys,

according to an approved plan 

 Notify appropriate agency personnel if historic or prehistoric materials are 

uncovered during mining operations 

 Instruct employees of the importance of and regulatory obligations to protect 

cultural resources 

 Monitoring mining activities 

during topsoil stripping 

 Ceasing activities and 

notifying authorities if 

unidentified sites are 

encountered during topsoil 

removal 

2-18 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-4. Continued 

Resource 

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required 

by Stipulations, State, or Federal Lawa Monitoringa 

Native American 

Concerns 

 Notify Native American tribes with known interest in this area of leasing action and 

requesting help in identifying potentially significant religious or cultural sites 

 No specific monitoring 

program 

Paleontological 

Resources 

 Conduct predisturbance surveys to identify paleontological resources on all state 

and federal lands, and on private lands affected by federal undertakings 

 Notify appropriate agency personnel if potentially significant paleontological sites 

are discovered during mining 

 Instruct employees of the importance of and regulatory obligations to protect 

paleontological resources 

 Ceasing activities and 

notifying authorities if 

unidentified resources are 

encountered during topsoil 

removal 

Visual 

Resources 

 Reclaim postmining landscapes to approximate original contours and replanting 

with native species 

 No specific monitoring 

program; land contours 

and plant communities 

monitored as part of 

topography and vegetation 

requirements, respectively 

Noise  Protect employees from hearing loss  Mine Safety and Health 

Administration inspections 

Transportation 

Facilities 

Socioeconomics 

Hazardous and 

Solid Waste 

 Relocate existing pipelines, if necessary, in accordance with specific agreement 

between pipeline owner and coal lessee 

 Pay royalty and taxes as required by federal, state, and local regulations. 

No mitigation measures are proposed 

 Dispose of solid waste and sewage according to approved plans 

 Store and recycle waste oil 

 Maintain files containing Material Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals, compounds, 

and/or substances used during course of mining 

 Ensure that all production, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous 

materials are in accordance with applicable existing or hereafter promulgated

federal, state, and government requirements 

 Comply with emergency reporting requirements for releases of hazardous materials 

as established under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act, as amended 

 Prepare and implement spill prevention control and countermeasure plans, spill 

response plans, inventories of hazardous chemical categories pursuant to section

312 of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, as amended 

 Prepare emergency response plans. 

 Monitoring conducted by 

pipeline company per 

WDEQ requirements 

 Surveying and reporting to 

document volume of coal 

removed 

 No specific monitoring 

other than required by 

these other regulations 

and response plans 

WDEQ = Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality; PM10 = particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less in diameter; TSP = total suspended 

particulates; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; AVF = alluvial valley floors; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; SHPO = 

State Historic Preservation Office; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places. 

a These requirements, reclamation and mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and 

Wyoming state law. They are already in place for the existing Buckskin Mine in its current approved WDEQ mining and reclamation plan (the No Action 

Alternative). Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, these requirements, reclamation and mitigation plans, and monitoring plans would be 

addressed in a mining plan revision for the additional leased tract; they would be approved by appropriate state and federal agencies before mining could 

occur. 

Source: WDEQ Rules and Regulations. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 2-19 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

If impacts are identified during the leasing process that are not addressed by existing required 

mitigation measures, the BLM can require additional mitigation measures (stipulations) for the 

new lease within the limits of its regulatory authority. In general, the levels of mitigation and 

monitoring required by SMCRA and Wyoming state law for surface coal mining are more 

extensive than those required for other surface-disturbing activities; however, concerns are 

periodically identified that are not addressed under existing procedures. 

2.5	 Summary of Coal Production and Disturbance under the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The decision-making process for public lands and/or federal minerals in Wyoming is conducted 

in compliance with NEPA, which requires all federal agencies to: 

 involve the interested public in their decision-making process; 

 consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed actions; 

 develop measures to mitigate environmental impacts; and 

 prepare environmental documents that disclose the impacts of the proposed actions and 

alternatives. 

Table 2-5 compares coal reserves, lease and permit areas, production, mine life, and revenues for 

the Buckskin Mine and under existing conditions and under the Proposed Action and alternatives 

analyzed in this EIS. These figures were based on an average production rate of 25 million tons 

per year, which is the current projected life-of-mine rate. 

Detailed discussions of the direct and indirect environmental impacts under the Proposed Action 

and analyzed alternatives are provided in chapter 3; a summary of those impacts is provided in 

table 3.0-2. Cumulative environmental impacts, based on upper and lower estimates for future 

coal production in the region, are discussed in chapter 4, and a summary of those impacts is 

provided in table 4-41. The Proposed Action and alternatives for the Hay Creek II EIS fall 

within those projections. As described in section 2.3, Alternatives 3 and 4 were considered in 

the initial phase of this EIS, but were eliminated from further analysis because they were not 

feasible or were not substantially different from other analyzed alternatives, respectively. 

2-20 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

c 

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Table 2-5. Comparison of Coal Reserves, Lease and Permit Areas, Production, Mine Life, 

and Revenues by Alternative 

Existing 

Buckskin Mine Alternative 1 

Additional Under 

Item Permit Area (No Action) Proposed Action Alternative 2 

In-Place Coal (as of 12-31-08) 460.9 mmt 0 77.2 mmta 269.7 mmtb 

Accessible Mineable Coal (as of 12-31-08)c 361.9 mmt 0 60.1 mmta 166.3 mmtb 

Recoverable Coal (as of 12-31-08)d 344.3 mmt 0 54.1 mmta 149.7 mmtb 

% Increase in Estimated Recoverable Coal — 0 15.7% 43.5% 

(as of 12/31/08)d 

Coal Lease Area 6,438.2 acrese 0 419.0 acres 1,883.1 acres 

Permit Area (as of 12/31/08) 8,011.5 acres 0 478.0 acres 2,191.6 acres 

Average Annual Post-2008 Coal Production 25 mmt 0 0 0 

Remaining Life of Mine (Post-2008) 14 years 0 2 years up to 6 years 

Average Number of Employees 350 0 0 0 

Total Projected State and Local Revenues 

(Post-2008)f 

$563.6million 0 $90.6–$108.8 million $250.2–$300.4 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (Post-2008)g $417.0 million 0 $69.2–$87.3 million $191.0–$241.1 million 

mmt = million tons 

a Based on the entire proposed tract, including its overlap with the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. 

b	 Based on the entire BLM study area, including its overlap with the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. 

Maximum estimate; does not include coal reserves that are inaccessible due to criteria 3 (i.e., reserves beneath the occupied residence and 

associated 300-foot buffer zone; or the public road rights-of-way [Collins and McGee roads], their associated 100-foot buffer zones, and other 

operationally limited lands between the two roads). 

d	 Assumes a recovery rate of 95% for coal in the Canyon seam and a 90% for all other coal reserves; does not include coal left behind as support
 

pillars and similar structures, or unavoidably lost through spillage and spontaneous natural fires during normal mining operations..
 

e Includes federal and state coal leases currently held by the Buckskin Mining Company. 

f	 Revenues to the State of Wyoming and local governments include severance taxes; property and production taxes (ad valorem); sales and use taxes; 

and Wyoming’s share of federal royalty payments, bonus bids, annual rental payments, and Abandoned Mine Land fees. State revenues are based 

on an assumed price of $7.85 per ton of “recoverable coal,” federal royalty of 12.5% of the value less 51% federal share, plus $0.315 per ton for 

Abandoned Mine Land fees on assumed 25% state share, plus bonus payments of between $0.30 and $0.97 per ton of LBA leased coal per ton 

(based on average of six LBAs in 2004 and 2005) times the tonnage of recoverable coal times a 50% state share, plus $0.07 per ton estimated sales 

and use taxes, plus $0.33 per ton estimate for ad valorem taxes, plus $0.415 per ton in severance taxes. Only the sales and use taxes paid directly 

by the mine are considered (i.e., taxes generated by vendors and suppliers and by consumer expenditure supported directly and indirectly by the 

mine are not included. These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percentage of distribution to states. 

g Federal revenues are based on an assumed price of $7.85 per ton, federal royalty of 12.5% times 51% share, plus $0.315 per ton for Abandoned 

Mine Land fees times an assumed 75% federal share, plus black lung tax of $0.00261 per ton, plus bonus payments of between $0.30 and $0.97 per 

ton of LBA leased coal (based on the range of the six LBA sales in 2004 and 2005) times tonnage of recoverable coal minus a 50% federal share. 

These figures could change based on the outcome of recent legislation that changed the percentage of distribution to states. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 2-21 
 

	 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.0	 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter describes the affected environment (existing conditions) and analyzes the 

environmental consequences (potential direct and indirect impacts) on various resources 

resulting from the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

In keeping with the purpose of an EIS1, the analyses presented in this document are based 

primarily on existing information. The general analysis area is substantially similar to the 

adjacent existing Buckskin Mine permit area in its physical features and resources. Detailed sitespecific environmental data were collected and impact analyses prepared to secure the existing 

coal leases and necessary mining permits for the mine. The analysis area for many of these 

previous efforts encompassed most, if not all, of the general analysis area. Therefore, these 

previous surveys and impact analyses are relevant to the general analysis area in most cases. 

Impact Determinations 

Impacts were identified in this EIS based on criteria set forth by the Council on Environmental 

Quality (40 CFR 1508.27), BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1, and the professional judgment of 

the specialists completing the analyses. Impacts can be beneficial or adverse, and can be a 

primary result (direct) of an action, a secondary result (indirect), or cumulative; cumulative 

impacts are discussed in chapter 4. They can be short-term (operational, persisting during active 

mining and reclamation); long-term (persisting through the time the reclamation bond is 

released—minimum of 10 years beyond active reclamation), or permanent. Impacts also vary in 

terms of significance. Significance can range from no impact or negligible impacts to substantial 

or significant impacts. Impacts can also be substantial during mining but reduced to no impact 

or negligible following completion of reclamation. In this EIS, impacts are considered to be 

adverse unless specifically identified as beneficial. 

Resources Analyzed in this EIS 

Resources addressed in this chapter were identified during the scoping process or by an 

interdisciplinary team review as having the potential to be affected. The BLM requires that 

certain elements are analyzed when present in the affected environment. The following required 

elements are present in the general analysis area and are addressed in this EIS: 

 air quality (section 3.4); 

 water quality (section 3.5); 

 wetlands/riparian zones (section 3.7); 

 invasive nonnative species (section 3.9); 

 threatened and endangered species (sections 3.9 and 3.10); 

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

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-1 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

 cultural resources (section 3.12); 

 hazardous or solid wastes (section 3.16); 

 Native American religious concerns (section 3.17); and 

 environmental justice (section 3.17). 

The following additional resources also are present in the general analysis area and are addressed 

in this EIS: 

 topography and physiography (section 3.2); 

 geology, mineral, and paleontological resources (section 3.3); 

 other water resources (section 3.5); 

 alluvial valley floors (section 3.6); 

 soils (section 3.8); 

 vegetation (section 3.9); 

 wildlife (section 3.10); 

 land use and recreation (section 3.11); 

 visual resources (section 3.13); 

 noise (section 3.14); 

 transportation resources (section 3.15); and 

 socioeconomics (section 3.17). 

Five additional aspects considered in this chapter are: 

 regulatory compliance; 

 mitigation and monitoring; 

 residual impacts; 

 the relationship between local short-term uses of the human environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity (section 3.18); and 

 any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be associated with the 

action alternatives (section 3.19) (42 United States Code § 4332[C]). 

The following elements, which are required by the BLM when present in the affected 

environment, are not present in the general analysis area and are, therefore, not addressed in this 

EIS: 

 areas of critical environmental concern; 

 prime or unique farmlands; 

 floodplains; 

3-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

 wild and scenic rivers; and 

 wilderness. 

Individual data reports were prepared for each resource; those reports include the information 

used to prepare the EIS. Copies of those reports can be viewed at the BLM Wyoming High 

Plains District Office in Casper, Wyoming. 

As discussed in chapter 2, regulatory compliance, mitigation, and monitoring required by federal 

and/or state law are considered to be part of the action alternatives and are described for each 

resource area. 

Summary of Disturbance Areas and Impacts 

The general analysis area represents the maximum surface area that could be disturbed by mining 

activities analyzed in this EIS; it encompasses approximately 2,847.3 acres (map 3.0-1). The 

areas where mining and mine-related activities would occur under each alternative are provided 

below. 

 Under the Proposed Action (map 3.0-1), coal extraction would occur in the entire proposed 

tract (approximately 419 acres). Activities related to mining2

 the proposed tract would occur 

in the support area, a 0.25-mile-wide area north and west of the proposed tract 

(approximately 241 acres); activities related to mining existing coal leases would continue in 

the remainder of the overlap area3 (approximately 474 acres). 

 Under Alternative 1 (map 3.0-2), activities related to mining existing coal leases would 

continue in the overlap area (approximately 656 acres). 

 Under Alternative 2 (map 3.0-3), coal extraction would occur in an alternative tract 

configuration within the BLM study area (up to approximately 1,883 acres). Activities 

related to mining an alternative tract configuration would occur in the support area, a 

0.25-mile-wide area north and west of the alternative tract configuration (up to 

approximately 926 acres); activities related to mining existing coal leases would continue in 

the remainder of the overlap area (approximately 38 acres). 

Table 3.0-1 compares coal lease and disturbance acreages under the Proposed Action and 

alternatives. As described in section 3.0, additional disturbance beyond the respective lease 

boundaries is associated with overstripping and other mine-support activities necessary to 

recover the coal. The numbers presented in table 3.0-1 include the overlap between the general 

analysis area and the existing permit boundary (map 3.0-1). 

2	 Mining and mine-related activities include, but are not limited to, topsoil stripping, stockpile storage, highwall back-sloping (including catch 

benches), highwall reduction after mining to match undisturbed topography, and construction of flood- and sediment-control structures. 

These activities are described in section 1.1.3.3. 

3	 The area of overlap between the general analysis area and the existing permit area. Disturbance in this area would be a result of ongoing 

mine-related activities associated with existing coal leases. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-3 
Applicant proposed tract—

Support area—activities retract (241.0 acres) Overlap area—activities rel(474.0 acres) General analysis area Existing permit boundary 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Areas of Disturbance und
Overla

mining GeneraExistin

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Areas of Disturbance under A
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

BLM study area—mextraction* (1883.1 Support area—actientire BLM study arOverlap area—activexisting coal leases General analysis arExisting permit bou

* 	County roads and occupied re

considered unsuitable for minCriteria 3. Figure represents mdisturbance if roads and occuor vacated, respectively. 

Areas of Disturba
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.0-1. Comparison of Coal Lease and Disturbance Areasa in the General Analysis 

Area 

Alternative 1b Proposed

Item (No Action) Action Alternative 2 

Coal Lease Area 0 419.0 acres 1,883.1 acres 

Potential Additional Disturbance Areaa 0 478.0 acres 2,191.6 acres 

Potential Total Disturbance Areab 656.0 acres 1,134.0 acres 2,847.3 acres 

a Includes coal extraction and additional disturbance associated with mine-support activities; excludes overlap with existing permit area. 

b	 Includes overlap area between general analysis area and existing permit boundary. Disturbance in this area would result from activities related to mining 

existing coal leases. 

Table 3.0-2 presents a comparative summary of the direct and indirect environmental impacts 

under the Proposed Action and alternatives. Table 4-41 presents the same summary for the 

cumulative effects under each option. These impacts are analyzed in greater detail in chapter 3 

and chapter 4, respectively. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-7 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.0-2. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts in the Gener

under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource 

No Action Alternatived 

Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf

Action Alternativese 

 A

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY Lower surface elevation No impact Moderate, permanent on 419 acres Moderate, permPermanent topographic moderation, which could result in: 

 Microhabitat reduction Minor to moderate, long-term on Minor to moderate, long-term on 1,134 acres; Minor to modera

656 acres no impact on rough breaks 2,847 acres 

 Habitat diversity reduction Minor to moderate, long-term on Minor to moderate, long-term on 1,134 acres Minor to modera

656 acres 2,847 acres 

 Big game carrying capacity reduction Minor, long-term on 656 acres Minor, long-term on 1,134 acres Minor, long-term  Reduction in water runoff and peak Moderate, beneficial, long-term on Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, benef

flows 656 acres 2,847 acres 

 Increased precipitation infiltration Moderate, beneficial, long-term on Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, benef

656 acres 2,847 acres 

 Reduction in erosion Moderate, beneficial, long-term on Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, benef

656 acres 2,847 acres 

 Potential enhanced vegetative Moderate, beneficial, long-term on Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, benef

productivity 656 acres 2,847 acres 

 Potential acceleration of groundwater 

recharge 

Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 656 acres 

Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, benef

2,847 acres 

3.3 GEOLOGY, MINERAL RESOURCES, AND PALEONTOLOGY 

Removal of coal No impact Significant, permanent on 419 acres Significant, permRemoval and replacement of topsoil and No impact Significant, permanent on 419 acres Significant, permoverburden Physical characteristic alterations in No impact Significant, permanent on 419 acres Significant, permreplaced overburden 

3-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Table 3.0-2. Continued 

3.0 Affected Environment and Envir

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource 

No Action Alternatived 

Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf

Action Alternativese 

 A

Loss of unrecovered CBNG through venting and/or depletion of hydrostatic pressure 

No impact Moderate to substantial, permanent on 

419 acres 

Moderate to sub1,883 acres 

Loss of access for development of subcoal conventional oil and gas resources and other minerals/loss of resources 

Minor, short-term on access to 656 acres; minor, permanent on clinker resources; no impacts on uranium or bentonite resources 

Moderate, short-term on access to 419 acres; minor, short-term on access to 715 surface acres; no impacts on clinker, uranium, or bentonite resources 

Moderate, short1,883 acres; minto 964 surface aclinker resourcebentonite resour

Destruction of paleontological resources that are not exposed on the surface 

Moderate to substantial, permanent on 656 acres 

Moderate to substantial, permanent on 1,134 acres 

Moderate to sub2,847 acres 

3.4 AIR QUALITY Particulate emissions: 

 Elevated concentrations associated with Moderate, short-term; no projected Moderate, short-term; no projected increase or Moderate, short

projected average production rate of 25 increase or exceedances exceedances in currently approved mining exceedances in mmt per year in compliance with operations operations 

ambient standards 

 Potential for public exposure to Minor, short-term for most residences; Minor, short-term for most residences; highway Minor to modera

particulate emissions along U.S. highway and county roads average 0.5 is ≥1 mile away; county road adjacent for 0.6 mile away; two c

Highway 14-16, various county roads, mile away; moderate for one occupied mile stretch; moderate for one occupied area; moderate, and occupied dwellings in the area residence within 0.5 mile; moderate for residence within 0.25 mile of overlap area residence within 

one occupied residence within 0.25 mile term for one occ

analysis area 

 Potential for human health impacts as a Minor, short-term; no projected increase Minor, short-term; no projected increase or Minor to modera

result of exposure to particulate or exceedances exceedances in currently approved mining increase or exceemissions operations mining operation

NOx emissions from machinery: 

 Elevated concentrations associated with 

average production of 25 mmt per year in compliance with ambient standards 

Minor to moderate, short-term; no NOx 

point sources at Buckskin; no projected increase or exceedances 

Minor to moderate, short-term; no NOx point 

sources at Buckskin; no projected increase or exceedances in currently approved mining operations 

Minor to modera

sources at Buckexceedances in operations 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.0-2. Continued 

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource 

No Action Alternatived 

Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf

Action Alternativese 

 A

 Potential for public exposure along U.S. 

Highway 14-16, various county roads, and occupied dwellings in the area 

 Potential for human health impacts as a 

result of exposure 

Minor to substantial, short-term; no NOx 

point sources at Buckskin; highway and county roads average 0.5 mile away; moderate, short-term for one occupied residence within 0.5 mile; substantial, short-term for one occupied residence within 0.25 mile Minor, short-term; no NOx point sources 

at Buckskin; no projected increase or exceedances 

Minor to substantial, short-term; no NOx point 

sources at Buckskin; no projected increase or exceedances in currently approved mining operations; highway is ≥1 mile away; county road adjacent for 0.6 mile stretch; moderate for one occupied residence within 0.25 mile of overlap Minor, short-term; no NOx point sources at 

Buckskin; no projected increase or exceedances in currently approved mining operations 

Minor to substan

sources at Buckexceedances in operations; highcounty roads paone occupied resubstantial for ogeneral analysis Minor to modera

sources at Buckexceedances in operations 

NOx emissions from blasting (in compliance with Buckskin Mine permit blasting conditions): 

 Elevated concentrations associated with Minor, short-term 

average production of 25 mmt per year in compliance with ambient standards 

 Potential for public exposure along U.S. Minor, short-term 

Highway 14-16, various county roads, and occupied dwellings in the area 

 Potential for human health impacts as a Minor, short-term 

result of exposure 

Minor, short-term; no projected increase or 

exceedances in currently approved mining operations 

Minor, short-term; no projected increase or 

exceedances in currently approved mining operations highway is ≥1 mile away; county road adjacent for 0.6 mile stretch; nearest occupied home > 0.5 mile away 

Minor, short-term; no projected increase or 

exceedances in currently approved mining operations 

Minor, short-termexceedances in operations Minor, short-termexceedances in operations highwcounty roads paoccupied residewithin general aMinor, short-termexceedances in operations 

Visibility: 

 Elevated concentrations of fine Minor, short-term; no projected increase Minor, short-term; no projected increase or Minor, short-term

particulate matter associated with or exceedances; no changes in current exceedances in currently approved mining exceedances in average production rate of 25 mmt per VRM class; no visual resources unique to operations; no projected changes in current operations; no pyear area present VRM class; no visual resources unique to area VRM class; no v

present present 

3-10 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Table 3.0-2. Continued 

3.0 Affected Environment and Envir

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource 

No Action Alternatived 

Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf

Action Alternativese 

 A

Acidification of lakes: 

 NO2 emissions from mining coal at 

Buckskin 

Minor, short-term; no NO2 point sources 

at Buckskin; no sensitive lakes in vicinity 

Minor, short-term; no NO2 point sources at 

Buckskin; no sensitive lakes in vicinity 

Minor, short-term

Buckskin; no se

 SO2 emissions derived from burning 

Buckskin Mine coal to produce power 

Moderate, short-term in vicinity of power plants; no sensitive lakes in vicinity 

Moderate, short-term in vicinity of power plants; no sensitive lakes in vicinity 

Moderate, shortplants; no sensit

3.5 WATER RESOURCES 

Groundwater: 

 Removal of coal and overburden 

aquifers 

No impact Substantial, permanent on 419 acres Substantial, perm

 Replacement of existing coal and 

overburden with unconsolidated backfill 

No impact Substantial, permanent on 419 acres Substantial, perm

material 

 Depressed water levels in overburden 

and coal aquifers adjacent to mine 

No impact Moderate, short-term Moderate, short

 Change in hydraulic properties in 

backfilled areas 

No impact Moderate, long-term Moderate, long-t

 Increase in total dissolved solids 

concentrations in backfilled areas 

No impact Moderate, short-term Moderate, short

 Use of subcoal aquifers for water supply No impact Negligible, short-term Negligible, short

 Decrease in water supply for 

groundwater-right holders within the 5-foot drawdown area 

No impact Moderate, long-term Moderate, long-t

Surface water: 

 Diversion and/or disruption of surface Substantial, short-term on 656 acres; no Substantial, short-term on 1,134 acres; no Substantial, sho

drainage systems channel diversions channel diversions no channel dive

 Reconstruction of surface drainage Permanent on 656 acres Permanent on 1,134 acres Permanent on u

systems 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.0-2. Continued 

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource 

No Action Alternatived 

Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf

Action Alternativese 

 A

 Increased runoff and erosion rates on Minor to moderate, short-term on 656 Minor to moderate, short-term on 1,134 acres Minor to modera

disturbed lands due to vegetation acres with implementation of flood- and with implementation of flood- and erosion­ 2,847 acres with removal erosion-control structures and reseeding control structures and reseeding erosion-control s

 Increased infiltration on reclaimed lands Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 656 Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, benef

due to topographic moderation acres 2,847 acres 

 Increased runoff on reclaimed lands due Moderate, long-term on 656 acres Moderate, long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, long-t

to loss of soil structure 

 Potential for adverse downstream Minor to moderate, temporary due to Minor to moderate, temporary; no connected Minor to modera

effects as a result of sediment produced existing diversion drainages systems by large storms 

Water rights: 

 Disruption of water supply for water- No impact Moderate, long-term (until recharge) for Moderate, long-t

rights holders with wells completed in groundwater wells; minor long-term for one groundwater we

the coal or overburden aquifer within the surface water right; no connected drainages; no to two surface w

5-foot drawdown area or with surface new creek diversions drainages; no ne

water rights within the disturbance area 

3.6 ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS 

Removal and restoration of AVFs No impact; no AVFs No impact; no AVFs No impact; no ADisruptions to streamflows supplying downstream AVFs 

No impact; no AVFs; stream diversions constructed for existing approved mining operations maintain streamflow 

No impact; no AVFs; closed drainage prevents streamflow 

No impact; no Aconstructed to m

3.7 WETLANDS Removal of jurisdictional wetlands and loss of wetland function until reclamation occurs 

Moderate, permanent on 0.73 acre of potentially jurisdictional wetlands; no net loss 

Moderate, permanent on 1.21 acres of potentially jurisdictional wetlands; no net loss 

Moderate, permpotentially jurisd

Removal of nonjurisdictional wetlands No impact; all non-wetlands No impact; all non-wetlands No impact; all no

3-12 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Table 3.0-2. Continued 

3.0 Affected Environment and Envir

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

No Action Alternatived Action Alternativese Description of Potential Impact by 

Resource Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf A3.8 SOILS Changes in physical properties after reclamation would include: 

 Increased near surface bulk density and Moderate, long-term on 656 acres Moderate, long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, long-t

decreased soil infiltration rate resulting in increased potential for soil erosion 

 More uniformity in soil type, thickness, Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 656 Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, benef

and texture acres 2,847 acres 

 Decreased runoff due to topographic Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 656 Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, benef

modification acres 2,847 acres 

Changes in biological properties in soils that are stockpiled before reclamation would include: 

 Reduction in organic matter Moderate, short- to long-term on 656 Moderate, short- to long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short

acres 2,847 acres 

 Reduction in microorganism population Moderate, short- to long-term on 656 Moderate, short- to long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short- 

acres 2,847 acres 

 Reduction in seeds, bulbs, rhizomes, Moderate, short- to long-term on 656 Moderate, short- to long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short- 

and live plant parts acres 2,847 acres 

Changes in chemical properties would include: 

 More uniform soil nutrient distribution Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 656 Moderate, beneficial, long-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, benef

acres 2,847 acres 

3.9 VEGETATION 

During mining: 

 Progressive removal of existing Moderate, short-term on 656 acres Moderate, short-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short

vegetation 

 Increased erosion Moderate, short-term on 656 acres Moderate, short-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short-

 Wildlife habitat and livestock grazing Moderate, short-term on 656 acres Moderate, short-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short

loss 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.0-2. Continued 

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource 

No Action Alternatived 

Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf

Action Alternativese 

 A

After revegetation: 

 Changes in vegetation patterns Negligible, long-term on 656 acres Negligible, long-term on 1,134 acres Negligible, long-

 Reduction in vegetation diversity Negligible, long-term on 656 acres Negligible, long-term on 1,134 acres Negligible, long-

 Reduction in shrub density Minor, long-term on 86 noncontiguous 

acres; average patch size 4.9 acres 

Minor, long-term on 4,126 noncontiguous acres; average patch size 4.9 acres 

Minor, long-term average patch s

 Decreased big game habitat carrying 

capacity 

Minor, long-term on 656 acres Minor, long-term on 1,134 acres Minor, long-term 

 Decreased habitat for shrub-dependent 

species 

Minor, long-term on 86 noncontiguous acres; average patch size 4.9 acres 

Minor, long-term on 126 noncontiguous acres; average patch size 4.9 acres 

Minor, long-term average patch s

 Potential invasion of nonnative plant 

species 

Moderate, short-term on 656 acres Moderate, short-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short-

3.10 WILDLIFE 

Big game displacement from active mining areas 

Minor to moderate, short-term on 656 acres for pronghorn and mule deer; no elk or white-tailed deer present 

Minor to moderate, short-term on 1,134 acres for pronghorn and mule deer; no elk or whitetailed deer present 

Minor to modera2,847 acres for pelk or white-taile

Decreased big game habitat carrying capacity 

Minor, long-term on 656 acres for pronghorn and mule deer; no elk or white-tailed deer present 

Minor, long-term on 1,134 acres for pronghorn and mule deer; no elk or white-tailed deer present 

Minor, long-term pronghorn and mtailed deer prese

Increased competition on adjacent undisturbed or reclaimed lands, especially big game 

Minor to moderate for pronghorn and mule deer; no elk or white-tailed deer present 

Moderate, short-term for pronghorn and mule deer; no elk or white-tailed deer present 

Moderate, shortdeer; no elk or w

Restriction of wildlife movement, especially big game 

Moderate, short-term on 656 acres for pronghorn and mule deer; no elk or white-tailed deer present 

Moderate, short-term on 1,134 acres for pronghorn and mule deer; no elk or white-tailed deer present 

Moderate, shortdeer; no elk or w

Increased mortality of small mammals Moderate, short-term on 656 acres Moderate, short-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short-

Displacement of small- and medium-sized mammals 

Moderate, short-term on 656 acres Moderate, short-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short

3-14 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Table 3.0-2. Continued 

3.0 Affected Environment and Envir

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource 

No Action Alternatived 

Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf

Action Alternativese 

 A

Surface and noise disturbance of occupied sage-grouse leks 

No surface impact; minor, short-term noise impact; one sage-grouse lek within 0.5 mile; last active in 2001, confirmed inactive in 13 of last 14 years 

No surface impact; minor, short-term noise impact; one sage-grouse lek within 0.5 mile; last active in 2001, confirmed inactive in 13 of last 14 years 

No surface impaimpact; one saglast active in 200last 14 years 

Disturbance of potential sage-grouse nesting habitat during mining 

Minor, long-term on 86 noncontiguous acres; average patch size 4.9 acres 

Minor, long-term on 4,126 noncontiguous acres; average patch size 4.9 acres 

Minor, long-term average patch s

Loss of sage-grouse nesting habitat after reclamation 

Minor, long-term on 86 noncontiguous acres; average patch size 4.9 acres 

Minor, long-term on 126 noncontiguous acres; average patch size 4.9 acres 

Minor, long-term average patch s

Alteration of plant and animal communities after reclamation 

Minor, short-term on 656 acres Minor, short-term on 1,134 acres Minor, short-term 

Abandonment of raptor nests Minor, short-term; one intact nest present Minor, short-term; one intact nest present Minor, short-term

Loss of foraging habitat for raptors Minor, short-term on 656 acres Minor, short-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short

Loss of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern (including the bald eagle) 

Minor, short-term on 656 acres Minor, short-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short-

Reduction in waterfowl nesting and feeding habitat 

Negligible, short-term on 656 acres; few water bodies present, ephemeral or limited seasonal presence 

Negligible, short-term on 1,134 acres; few water bodies present, ephemeral or limited seasonal presence 

Negligible, shortfew water bodies seasonal presen

Loss of habitat for aquatic species during mining 

Negligible, short-term on 656 acres; few water bodies present, ephemeral or limited seasonal presence 

Negligible, short-term on 1,134 acres; few water bodies present, ephemeral or limited seasonal presence 

Negligible, shortfew water bodies seasonal presen

Road kills by mine-related traffic Minor, short-term Minor, short-term Minor, short-term 

Reduction in habitat carrying capacity and habitat diversity on reclaimed lands 

Minor, short-term on 656 acres Minor, short-term on 1,134 acres Minor, short-term 

Potential reduction in microhabitats on reclaimed lands 

Minor to moderate, long-term on 656 acres 

Minor to moderate, long-term on 1,134 acres Minor to modera

2,847 acres 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.0-2. Continued 

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

No Action Alternatived Action Alternativese Description of Potential Impact by 

Resource Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf AThreatened, Endangered, Proposed, And Candidate Species (Appendix J) Blowout penstemon No effect No effect No effect Ute ladies’-tresses No effect No effect No effect Greater sage-grouse Minor, long-term Minor, long-term Minor, long-term 3.11 LAND USE AND RECREATION Reduction of livestock grazing Moderate, short-term on 656 acres Moderate, short-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, shortLoss of wildlife habitat Negligible to moderate, short- to long- Negligible to moderate, short- to long-term on Negligible to mo

term on 656 acres 1,134 acres up to 2,847 acre

Loss of access for subcoal oil and gas Minor, short-term for access on 656 acres Moderate, short-term for access on 419 acres; Moderate, shortdevelopment minor, short-term for access on 715 1,883 acres; min

surface acres up to 964 surfac

Removal of oil and gas production facilities Moderate, short-term for CBNG access Moderate, short-term for CBNG access on Moderate, short

on 656 acres; no impact on conventional 1,134 acres; no impact on conventional oil and to 2,847 acres; noil and gas production gas production and gas product

Loss of access to public land available for No impact; entirely private surface No impact; entirely private surface No impact; entire

recreation and grazing 3.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION 

Cultural Resources 

 Sites that are not eligible for NRHP No impact; ineligible sites discovered 

during operations may be destroyedwithout protection or further work 

No impact; up to 14 known ineligible sites and additional ineligible sites discovered during operations may be destroyed without protectionor further work 

No impact; up to additional ineligioperations may protection or furt

 Sites that are eligible for NRHP No impact on known sites; impacts on 

eligible sites discovered duringoperations would be avoided or mitigatedthrough data recovery prior to mining 

No impact on known sites; impacts on eligible sites discovered during operations would beavoided or mitigated through data recoveryprior to mining 

No impact on knsites discovered avoided or mitigprior to mining 

3-16 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Table 3.0-2. Continued 

3.0 Affected Environment and Envir

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource 

No Action Alternatived 

Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf

Action Alternativese 

 A

 Sites that are unevaluated for NRHP 

eligibility 

No impact on known unevaluated sites; impacts on unevaluated sites are not permitted; unevaluated sites would be evaluated prior to mining 

No impact on known unevaluated sites; impacts on eligible sites discovered during operationswould be avoided or mitigated through datarecovery prior to mining 

No impact on knimpacts on eligiboperations woulthrough data rec

Native American heritage sites No impact on known sites No impact on known sites No impact on kn

3.13 VISUAL RESOURCES 

During mining: 

 Alteration of landscape by mining 

facilities and operations 

Moderate, short-term on 656 acres Moderate, short-term on 1,134 acres Moderate, short

 Visibility of mining operations from 

highway 

Moderate, short-term; highway is 0.5 to 2.5 miles away 

Moderate, short-term; highway is ≥1 mile away Moderate, short

away 

Following reclamation: 

 Smoother sloped terrain Minor to moderate, permanent on 656 

acres 

Minor to moderate, permanent on 1,134 acres Minor to modera

2,847 acres 

 Reduction in sagebrush density Minor, long-term on 86 noncontiguous 

acres 

Minor, long-term on 126 noncontiguous acres Minor, long-term 

3.14 NOISE 

Increased noise levels Minor to substantial, short-term; one 

occupied residence within 0.25 mile, most homes ≥1 mile away on far side of active 

roads or hills for audio buffer 

Minor to substantial, short-term; <0.25 mile to nearest occupied residence; most homes on far side of active roads or hills for audio buffer 

Minor to substanresidence in opegeneral analysis of active roads o

3.15 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 

Use of railroads to ship coal Moderate, short-term Moderate, short-term Moderate, short

Employee and service contractor use of highways to and from mine sites 

Moderate, short-term Moderate, short-term Moderate, short

Relocation of pipelines No impact; all lines already addressed Moderate, short-term; four existing pipelines 

and one potential new easement affected 

Moderate, shortand one potentia

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.0-2. Continued 

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource 

No Action Alternatived 

Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf

Action Alternativese 

 A

Relocation of utility lines Negligible, short-term; all or most lines 

already addressed 

Minor, short-term; three overhead power lines affected, both within existing permit area 

Minor, short-termaffected, seven 

Mining operations near Collins and McGee roads 

Minor , short-term; 0.25 mile along one county road; no roads expected to be closed or relocated 

Minor to substantial, short-term; 0.6 mile along one county road; no roads expected to be closed or relocated 

Minor to substan3 miles along twexpected to be c

3.16 HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE Waste generated by mining operations Negligible, short-term Negligible, short-term Negligible, short3.17 SOCIOECONOMICS Employment Negligible, beneficial, short-term; new 

hires expected for existing operations 

Negligible, beneficial, short-term; no new hires expected; current employment levels extended for 2 years 

Negligible, beneexpected; currenfor up to 6 years 

Revenues from royalties and taxes to the state and local government 

Substantial, beneficial short-term Substantial, beneficial, short-term Substantial, ben

Revenues from royalties and taxes to the federal government 

Substantial, beneficial short-term Substantial, beneficial, short-term Substantial, ben

Economic development Moderate, beneficial short-term Moderate, beneficial, short-term Moderate, benefAdditional housing and infrastructure needs 

No impact No impact No impact 

Population No impact No impact No impact 

Local government facilities and services No impact Negligible, short-term; no new demands; 

extends current demands by 2 years 

Negligible, shortextends current 

Social setting No impact Negligible, beneficial, short-term; extends 

current benefits by 2 years 

Negligible, benecurrent benefits 

Environmental justice No impact No impact No impact 

3-18 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
c 

Table 3.0-2. Continued 

3.0 Affected Environment and Envir

Magnitudea and Durationb of Impactc 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource 

No Action Alternatived 

Alternative 1 Proposed Actionf

Action Alternativese 

 A

CBNG = coal bed natural gas; mmt = million tons; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ; VRM = visual resource management; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; AVF = alluvial valley flo

NRHP = National Register of Historic Places 

a Refer to sections 3.2 through 3.17 for discussions on magnitude of impacts for each resource under each alternative. b Short-term impacts are operational impacts that persist during mining (life of mine) and reclamation. The current life-of-mine estimate (No Action Alternative) is 14 years; under the Pr

would extend two years beyond the current estimate; under Alternative 2, life-of-mine would be extended by up to six years beyond the current estimate. Long-term impacts persist thbond is released—a minimum of 10 years beyond active reclamation. Permanent impacts persist beyond reclamation. 

All impacts are assumed adverse unless noted otherwise. 

d Impacts under the No Action Alternative apply to the overlap area. These impacts would be limited to disturbance associated with mine support activities (e.g., topsoil stripping) and r

section 1.1.3.3 and section 1.1.3.4, respectively, for currently permitted mining in existing coal leases. 

e Kiewit has no plans to mine operationally limited lands. However, impacts presented in this table consider maximum potential disturbance under each alternative. f Under the Proposed Action, coal extraction would occur in the entire proposed tract (419 acres). Activities related to mining and reclaiming (described in section 1.1.3.3 and section 1

tract would occur in the support area, a 0.25-mile-wide area north and west of the proposed tract (241 acres); activities related to mining the existing coal lease would occur in the rem

(474 acres). 

g Under Alternative 2, coal extraction would occur in an alternative tract configuration within the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres). Act ivities related to mining in the BLM study area w

0.25-mile-wide area north and west of the BLM study area (up to 926 acres); activities related to mining existing coal leases would continue in the remainder of the overlap area (38 a

maximum potential disturbance analyzed in this EIS, referred to throughout as the general analysis area. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.1. General Setting 

This section provides an overview of the physical setting and climatic characteristics of the 

general analysis area and surrounding region. 

3.1.1. General Location and Characteristics 

The general analysis area is adjacent to one of the northern-most operating mines in the PRB, in 

the part of the Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. This region is 

also within the Great Plains Steppe and Shrub Province of the Dry Domain ecoregion of the 

continent (USDA Forest Service 2009). Ecoregions are comprised of large areas of similar 

climate where ecosystems are present in predictable patterns. The defining characteristic of a 

dry climate is that annual losses of water through evaporation at the earth’s surface exceed 

annual water gains from precipitation. As a result of that overall water deficiency, no permanent 

streams originate in dry climate zones. The Dry Domain ecoregion is the most extensive in the 

world, and occupies one-quarter or more of the earth’s land surface. 

Wyoming has a relatively cool climate due to its elevation. Away from the mountains, the mean 

maximum temperatures in July range between 85 and 95 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and the mean 

minimum temperatures that month range from 50 to 60 °F (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 1985). January is typically the coldest month, with minimum temperatures often 

ranging from 5 to 10 °F. Early freezes in the fall and late in the spring are characteristic of the 

state, and result in long winters and short (average 125 days) growing seasons. Sunshine 

dominates approximately 60% of winter days and about 75% of summer days. Spring and 

summer are the wettest months, though rainfall amounts are highly variable and can be 

somewhat localized. Relative humidity ranges from 5 to 75%, depending on the season, with an 

average of 25 to 30% on the warmer summer days. Wyoming is quite windy, with frequent 

periods of sustained wind speeds of 30 to 40 miles per hour (mph) and regular gusts exceeding 

60 mph. Snow typically falls from November through May, with periodic accumulations of 

more than 10 feet in the mountains and more moderate levels of snowfall and accumulation at 

lower elevations. The low relative humidity, high percentage of sunshine, and higher average 

winds all contribute to a high rate of evaporation across the state. 

The vegetation in the general analysis area consists of species common to eastern Wyoming and 

is consistent with vegetative communities in the adjacent Buckskin Mine permit area. The 

proposed tract is dominated (approximately 71%) by various upland grasslands. The general 

analysis area is comprised primarily of upland grasslands (approximately 40%) and agricultural 

lands (croplands and pastures, 31%). Section 3.9 provides a detailed discussion on vegetation 

resources. 

3-20 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.1.2. Climate and Meteorology in the General Analysis Area 

As indicated, the climate in the general analysis area is typical of a semi-arid, high plains 

environment with relatively large seasonal and diurnal variations in temperature (figure 3.1-1). 

Recurring periods of extended drought, sometimes lasting several years, are not unusual. 

Summers are relatively short and warm, while winters are longer and cold. The average daily 

mean temperature at the adjacent Buckskin Mine meteorological station from 1986 through 2007 

was 46o F. The highest recorded temperature at the mine during that period was 106o F and the 

lowest was minus 33o F. July is the warmest month, with a mean daily temperature of 72o F, and 

January is the coldest month, with a mean daily temperature of 26o F. The frost-free period for 

this area lasts between 100 and 130 days (Curtis 2004). 

Precipitation occurs predominantly during the spring and fall, with approximately 10% in the 

form of snow. The average annual precipitation measured at the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration meteorological station (Gillette 9ESE) located about 14 miles 

southeast of the Buckskin Mine was 15.67 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2008). 

May (2.67 inches) and June (2.69 inches) are the wettest, while January (0.57 inch) and February 

(0.56 inch) are the driest. Snowfall averages 56.4 inches per year at the Gillette 9ESE station, 

with the highest monthly averages occurring in March (10.4 inches) and April (8.4 inches). In 

keeping with the Dry Domain ecoregion, evapotranspiration, at approximately 31 inches of water 

per year, exceeds annual precipitation (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1969). 

Surface wind speeds at the Buckskin Mine meteorological station average 10.5 mph throughout 

the year. Prevailing winds are from the north-northwest and south-southeast directions 

(figure 3.1-2), depending on the season. The area experiences extreme wind gusts, especially 

during thunderstorm activity in June, July, and August. Distinct diurnal changes occur, with 

average wind velocities increasing during the day due to solar insulation, and decreasing during 

the night (figure 3.1-3). Local variations in wind speed and direction are primarily due to 

differences in topography. Wind speeds at the mine’s meteorological station are highest in the 

winter and spring. From May through September, winds are calmer and directions are more 

random, although winds from the north or southeast still occur slightly more often than from 

other directions. 

During periods of strong wind, dust from energy operations, agricultural fields, unpaved roads, 

construction areas, drought areas, and other human-made and natural sources may affect air 

quality across the region. Air quality can also be affected when air is trapped by poor ventilation 

due to persistent light or calm winds, and by the presence of inversions. Such episodes are 

referred to as air stagnation events (Wang and Angell 1999). An average of 15 air-stagnation 

events occurs annually in the PRB with an average duration of two days each (BLM 1974). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-21 
0

102030405060708090

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Hour of Day 

Temperature F

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Average Diurnal Temperature b
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Wind 
Wind Speed miles per hour (mph)

02468

10121416

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Hour of Day 

Wind Speed miles per hour (mph) 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Average Diurnal Wind Speed by S
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.2. Topography 

This section describes the topographic characteristics of the general analysis area and 

surrounding region, and identifies potential impacts on surface elevation and other topographic 

features in the general analysis area that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

3.2.1. Affected Environment 

The northern portion of the PRB is a high plains area within the unglaciated Missouri Plateau 

subregion of the Great Plains Province in northeast Wyoming. The PRB is both a topographic 

drainage and geologic structural basin. The structural basin is an elongated, asymmetrical 

syncline approximately 120 miles east to west and 200 miles north to south. It is bounded in 

Wyoming by the Black Hills on the east; the Big Horn Mountains on the west; and the Hartville 

Uplift, Casper Arch, and Laramie Mountains on the south. The northern extent of the structural 

basin is the Miles City Arch and the Yellowstone River in Montana. The axis of the structural 

basin trends from the southeast to the northwest near the western margin of the syncline. The 

PRB is located on the gently dipping eastern limb of the structural basin, with the geological 

stratain that area dipping gently to the west at 1 to 2 degrees toward the axis of the basin. 

The Powder River Basin is so named because it is drained by the Powder River, although it is 

also drained in part by other major rivers, including the Big Horn, Tongue, Little Missouri, Belle 

Fourche, and Cheyenne rivers. The general analysis area is within the Powder River drainage 

basin. Hay Creek and Little Powder River, tributaries of the Powder River, are the most 

prominent natural topographic features in the general analysis area, though Rawhide Creek, 

Little Rawhide Creek, and Calf Creek also drain the immediate area. 

Broad plains, rolling hills, and tablelands dominate the PRB landscape. Internally drained playas 

are common in the basin, as are buttes and plateaus capped by sandstone or clinker (baked and 

fused rock resulting from in-place burning of coal deposits during the prehistoric era). 

Elevations throughout the PRB range from less than 2,500 feet to more than 6,000 feet above 

mean sea level. The major river valleys have wide, flat floors and broad floodplains. The 

drainages dissecting the basin are incised and typically are intermittent (do not flow year-round) 

or ephemeral (respond only to rainfall or snowmelt events) and, thus, do not provide year-round 

water sources. 

The general analysis area is characterized by gently rolling uplands and relatively level 

agricultural fields. Many hills are dissected by drainages that create moderate variations in local 

relief. The overall topographic trend of hills is roughly northwest to southeast. Topography in 

the southern portion of the general analysis area exhibits a local southwest-to-northeast trend 

associated with an ephemeral drainage in sections 18 and 19. Map 3.0-1 identifies sections in the 

general analysis area. 

Slopes range from flat in the northwestern part of the general analysis area to greater than 30% in 

the northeast. Topographic elevations range from about 4,080 feet above mean sea level along 

Hay Creek in section 16 (northeast) to about 4,380 feet above mean sea level in the east-central 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-25 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

portion of section 19 (southwest). Local relief is greatest in sections 8 and 9 (north-northeast), 

where drainages deeply dissect the uplands and create relatively steep slopes and prominent 

bluffs of sandstone that are resistant to erosion. The flattest portion of the general analysis area 

is in the broad valley bottom of Hay Creek in the north-central portion of section 18. A 

topographic depression encompassing about 8.8 acres is located in the west-central portion of 

that section. 

3.2.2. Environmental Consequences 

3.2.2.1. Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) would have a 

moderate, permanent impact on surface elevation. Activities in the support area (241 acres) 

would have no impact on surface elevation. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 

acres) related to mining existing coal leases also would have no impact on surface elevation. 

Activities such as blasting, hauling, and stockpiling would remove overburden and interburden to 

a combined average depth of approximately 250 feet, and coal to a combined total depth of about 

100 additional feet in the proposed tract. The postmining topography would be recontoured to 

resemble the premining topography, but would be approximately 60 feet lower (table 3.2-1) and 

somewhat gentler and more uniform. 

In addition, activities related to mining the proposed tract and existing leases would result in 

indirect impacts, described below, in the support area and remainder of the overlap area, 

respectively. 

Impacts resulting from topographic moderation include minor to moderate, long-term reductions 

in microhabitats (e.g., cutbank slopes) and habitat diversity. These impacts would be greater in 

those areas characterized as rough breaks, though these areas constitute less than 0.5% of the 

general analysis area. Potential effects of topographic moderation on wildlife species are 

described in section 3.10. A beneficial, long-term impact of the lower and flatter terrain would 

be reduced water runoff, which would allow for moderate increases in infiltration and a moderate 

reduction in peak flows. This may help counteract the potential for increased erosion that could 

occur because of higher density of reclaimed soils near the surface (section 3.8.2.1). It may also 

increase vegetative productivity and potentially accelerate recharge of groundwater. In-channel 

stockponds and playas (i.e., shallow topographic depressions) 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 the 

anticipated future land use. All postmining topography and water features must meet the 

specifications outlined in the mining and reclamation plan approved by the WDEQ. 

3-26 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.2-1. Overburden/Coal Thickness and Postmining Elevation Change 

Average overburden thickness (including interburden) 250 feet 

Average coal thickness 100 feet 

Overburden swell factor 11% 

Coal recovery factor 90% 

Postmining elevation changea –61 feet 

a Reclaimed (postmining) elevation surface change is calculated as:
 

(overburden + unrecovered coal thicknesses) x (overburden swell) – (overburden + coal thicknesses).
 

3.2.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area (656 

acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have no impact on surface elevation. Impacts 

on other characteristics associated with topographic changes would be the same as described 

under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease 

application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the 

future. 

3.2.2.3. Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, surface coal mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) would have a 

moderate, permanent impact on surface elevation. Activities in the support area (926 acres) 

would have no impact on surface elevation. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area 

(38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases also would have no impact on surface elevation. 

Impacts on other characteristics associated with topographic changes would be the same as 

described under the Proposed Action. 

3.2.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Chapter 4 of the WDEQ Rules and Regulations requires that topography be restored as closely as 

possible to premining contour and that it blend into the existing, undisturbed topography as much 

as possible. Despite these efforts, some local relief would be reduced after coal removal. The 

amount of coal that would be removed and the degree to which the overburden spoils would 

change in volume due to excavation would be considered in the postmine topography design. 

These designs will be developed for approval as part of the required mining and reclamation plans. 

All topographic features such as upland draws, channel bottoms, and elevations will be 

reconstructed to closely mimic premining conditions and ensure proper drainage of water across 

the reclaimed spoils. The WDEQ monitors topographic restoration for at least 10 years postmining 

by regularly checking the as-built topography in the annual reports filed by the mines to see if it 

conforms to the approved topography. 

Under either of the action alternatives, Kiewit will reestablish vegetation in all reclaimed areas 

and implement sediment-control measures where runoff occurs to preserve reclaimed materials. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-27 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Kiewit will monitor success of revegetation and erosion-control measures routinely, per WDEQ 

guidelines, and will implement mitigation measures, as necessary, to correct any deficiencies. 

3.2.4. Residual Impacts 

Topographic moderation is a permanent consequence of mining. Reclaimed landforms are 

expected to mimic premining topography, but will have less topographic variation and will be 

slightly lower in elevation. Any indirect impacts of topographic moderation on wildlife habitat 

diversity would also be considered permanent. See section 3.10 for indirect impacts on wildlife 

as a result of topographic moderation. 

3.3. Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology 

This section discusses the topographic, geologic, and mineral resources in the general analysis 

area and adjacent Buckskin Mine permit area, including assessments of premine topography and 

pertinent information regarding geology, as well as coal, CBNG, and clinker resources, referred 

to locally as scoria or red dog. It also identifies potential impacts on these resources that would 

result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

3.3.1. General Geology and Coal Resources 

3.3.1.1. Affected Environment 

The general analysis area contains the following stratigraphic units (layers) (in descending order 

from the surface): Quaternary (recent) deposits, the Eocene Wasatch Formation, and the 

Paleocene Fort Union Formation. The Paleocene Fort Union Formation contains the coal seams 

that would be mined under the action alternatives. Table 3.3-1 shows the stratigraphic 

relationships of the geologic units in the general analysis area. These stratigraphic units are 

discussed below. 

Quaternary deposits in the general analysis area consist of unconsolidated stream-laid deposits, 

slope wash, wind-blown deposits, colluvium, residuum, and clinker. Stream-laid deposits occur 

in portions of the Hay Creek valley bottom and some associated upland draws beyond the 

general analysis area for this EIS. Those deposits consist of a loose mix of sand, gravel, and silt 

deposited by stream flow within Hay Creek and its tributaries. Slope wash occurs along the 

bottom slopes of hills and in channel bottoms, including the Hay Creek valley bottom in section 

18, and consists of reworked sediment deposited by flow over the ground surface (e.g., runoff). 

Some surface sands are concentrated into small areas comprised predominately of fine-grained 

sand. Residuum (residual material) deposits commonly cover and are derived in place from the 

underlying Wasatch deposits, and may occur on relatively steep terrain. Colluvium is comprised 

of material that has been transported downslope by rock falls, slides, and slumps, and occurs 

along steep hill sides. This material generally consists of large, angular clinker and rock 

fragments residing in an unsorted matrix of sand, silt, and clay. Materials above some of the 

shallow coal seams in the general analysis area have been altered by the natural combustion 

3-28 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

(burning) of underlying coal seams, producing clinker. These clinker areas exist on limited 

hillsides along the northern portion of the general analysis area. 

Table 3.3-1. Stratigraphic Relationships and Hydrologic Characteristics, Powder River 

Basin, Wyoming 

Geologic Unit Hydrologic Characteristics 

Recent Alluvium Typically fine grained and poorly sorted in intermittent drainages. Occasional very thin, 

(Holocene) clean, inter-bedded sand lenses. Low yields and excessive dissolved solids generally 

make these aquifers unsuitable for domestic, agricultural and livestock usage. Low 

infiltration capacity unless covered by sandy eolian blanket. 

Clinker Baked and fused bedrock above the coal seam resulting from burning coal which ignites on 

(Holocene to Pleistocene) the outcrop from lightning, manmade fires, or spontaneous combustion. The reddish 

clinker (locally called scoria or red dog) formed by melting and partial fusing of the layers 

above the coal from 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. 

Wasatch Formation Lenticular fine sands inter-bedded predominantly very fine grained siltstone and claystone 

(Eocene) 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 which does meet the Class I standard. 

Fort Union 

Formation 

(Paleocene) 

Tongue 

River 

Member 

Wyodak 

Formation 

Splits: 

Anderson/ 

Canyon Seams 

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. 

Lebo Member The Lebo Member, also referred to as “The Lebo Confining Layer,” has a mean thickness 

of 711 feet in the PRB and a thickness of about 400 feet 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. 

Tullock Member The Tullock Member has a mean thickness of 785 feet in the PRB and a mean sand 

content of 53% which indicates that the unit generally functions well as a regional aquifer. 

Yields of 15 gpm are common buy vary locally and may be as much as 40 gpm. Records 

from the State Engineer’s Office 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. 

Lance 

Formation 

(Upper 

Cretaceous) 

Upper Lance Sandstone and interbedded sandy shales and claystone provide yields generally of less 

than 20 gpm. Higher yields are sometimes achieved where sand thicknesses are greatest. 

Water quality is typically fair to good. 

Fox Hills Sandstone Sandstone and sandy shales yield up to 200 gpm, however, yields are frequently 

significantly less. The water quality of the Fox Hills is generally good with TDS 

concentrations commonly less than 1000 milligrams per liter. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-29 
 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.3-1. Continued 

Geologic Unit Hydrologic Characteristics 

Lewis 

Formation 

(Upper 

Cretaceous) 

Pierre Shale 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. 

gpm = gallons per minute 

Sources: Hodson et al. 1973; Lewis and Hotchkiss 1981.
 

The Wasatch Formation in the general analysis area consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, and 

thin coals that extend from the surface to the Anderson coal seam; that seam defines the top of 

the underlying Fort Union Formation. The Wasatch Formation is somewhat sandier than the 

underlying Fort Union Formation, especially near the surface, where sands can be traced laterally 

for considerable distances. The Rider coal seam occurs in the Wasatch Formation; it is present 

in much of the western portion of the general analysis area, but in the east the coal layer thins 

out, is eroded out, or is burned. The Rider seam is up to 15 feet thick in the general analysis 

area, but is not a target coal for mining. 

The Wasatch Formation, in combination with any overlying Quaternary deposits, is considered 

overburden relative to the shallowest (Anderson) coal seam that is targeted for mining in the 

general analysis area. The overburden thickness varies from about 30 to 200 feet. It is thinnest 

in low-lying draws in sections 8 and 9 and in the valley bottom of Hay Creek in section 18. 

The Fort Union Formation lies between the Anderson and Canyon coal seams, and consists 

primarily of sandstones, siltstones, shales, mudstones, and coal. The formation is divided into 

the Tongue River, Lebo, and Tullock members. Two coal seams are present in the Tongue River 

Member of the Fort Union Formation, both of which are targeted for mining in the BLM study 

area (the maximum extent of leasable coal in the general analysis area). Two geologic cross 

sections through the proposed tract are shown on figure 3.3-1. The Anderson seam resides at the 

top of the Fort Union Formation and defines the contact between the Fort Union and the 

overlying Wasatch formations. The Canyon coal seam is lower in the Tongue River member, 

typically 150 to 190 feet beneath the Anderson, but it is within 40 feet of the Anderson where the 

seams are present in the northeastern portion of the BLM study area. 

The Anderson coal seam is present in most of the western portion of the BLM study area 

(maximum coal lease boundary), but it is discontinuous and absent in most of the northern and 

eastern portions. Where present, it averages about 45 feet thick and ranges from about 30 to 

65 feet thick. The Canyon coal seam is present in most of the western portion of the BLM study 

area, but it is absent in most of the eastern portion. Where present, it averages about 70 feet 

thick and ranges from about 55 to 75 feet thick. 

3-30 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Elevation
 Elevation (feet above mean sea level)
 (feet above mean sea level) 

Figure 3.3-1

North-South and East-West Geologic Cross Sections 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Canyon and Anderson coal seams are sub-bituminous and are generally low-sulfur, low-ash 

coals. In the BLM study area, the heating value of the coal seams is expected to range from 

8,000 to 8,500 British thermal units (Btu) per pound. The ash content in the coal seams is 

expected to vary from 3.5 to 7.0%, the sulfur content from 0.2 to 0.5%, and the moisture content 

from 28 to 31%. 

3.3.1.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining would have a significant, permanent impact on 

the federal coal reserves and stratigraphic layers of the overburden and interburden within the 

proposed tract (419 acres). This action would have no impact on coal, overburden, and 

interburden in the support area (241 acres); activities in the remainder of the overlap area 

(474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases also would have no impact on these resources. 

Impacts would occur from the base of the lowest coal seam mined to the surface through 

blasting, hauling, and stockpiling of overburden and interburden, as well as coal extraction. An 

average of about 250 feet of overburden and interburden, 30 feet of Anderson coal, and 70 feet 

of Canyon coal would be removed over about 419 acres. Approximately 54.1 million tons of 

coal would be recovered from the 77.2 million tons of in-place reserves. Overburden removed 

during mining would be replaced with a mixture of partially compacted rock and soil that would 

be significantly altered from the original distinct layers. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have no impact on geology, because 

overburden and interburden would not be removed in that area. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a 

decision to reject the coal lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in 

the future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, surface coal mining would have a significant, permanent impact on the 

federal coal reserves and stratigraphic layers of the overburden and interburden within the BLM 

study area (up to 1,883 acres). This action would have no impact on coal, overburden, and 

interburden in the support area (926 acres). Activities in the remainder of the overlap area 

(38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases also would have no impact on these resources. 

Overburden, interburden, and coal would be removed in the same manner and to the same 

average depths as under the Proposed Action, with the same changes to premining stratigraphic 

layers and postmining backfill. Up to 149.7 million tons of coal would be recovered from 

269.7 million tons of in-place reserves. . 

3-32 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.3.1.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

Chapter 4 of the WDEQ Rules and Regulations requires that land be restored to conditions equal 

to or greater than the highest previous use. To accomplish this, the Buckskin Mine will continue 

the drilling and sampling programs conducted on existing leases to identify overburden material 

that may be unsuitable for reclamation (i.e., material that is unsuitable for revegetation in 

disturbed areas or that may affect groundwater quality due to high concentrations of certain 

elements). These plans are in place for the existing Buckskin Mine and will be revised under 

either action alternative. 

3.3.1.4. Residual Impacts 

The action alternatives would have permanent significant impacts on the coal resources and 

geology in the general analysis area extending vertically from the base of the Canyon coal seam 

to the surface. Coal would be removed from the area, and the current layered stratigraphy would 

be transformed into a mixture of unconsolidated backfill material. 

3.3.2. Other Mineral Resources 

3.3.2.1. Affected Environment 

The PRB contains large reserves of fossil fuels including oil, natural gas (from conventional 

reservoirs and from coal beds), and coal, all of which are currently being produced. In addition, 

uranium, bentonite, and clinker are mined in the PRB (Wyoming State Geological Survey 2003). 

Conventional Oil and Gas 

The Powder River structural basin is one of the richest petroleum provinces in the Rocky 

Mountain area. As of December 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated the mean 

levels of undiscovered oil and non-coal bed natural gas resources in the PRB as 639 million 

barrels of oil, 1.16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 131 million barrels of natural gas liquids 

(U.S. Geological Survey 2006). Conventional oil and natural gas (excluding CBNG) have been 

produced in the PRB for more than 100 years, with an estimated 500 fields producing oil or 

natural gas from oil-bearing strata during that period. Depths to conventional gas and oil-bearing 

strata generally range from 4,000 and 13,500 feet below grade, though some wells are as shallow 

as 250 feet. 

No conventional oil and gas wells are located in the general analysis area. 

Coal Bed Natural Gas 

PRB coal bed methane (also known as CBNG) is naturally occurring methane trapped by water 

pressure in the coal or by impermeable strata above it. In the PRB, this gas is primarily biogenic 

in origin and is generated by large, subsurface, naturally occurring microbial communities 

residing in the coal (Ulrich and Bower 2008). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-33 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The BLM has completed numerous environmental assessments and three EISs analyzing CBNG 

projects in Wyoming. The most recent of these analyses is the Final EIS and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for the PRB Oil and Gas Project, referred to as the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas EIS 

(BLM 2003). The EIS covers almost 12,500 square miles, encompasses almost the entire PRB 

and spans all or parts of Campbell, Converse, Johnson, and Sheridan counties, and covers 

private, state, and federal lands. It analyzes the standard suite of potential environmental impacts 

of CBNG development in the PRB, and assumes that approximately 39,400 new CBNG wells 

would be drilled, completed, and produced over the next 10 years, in addition to the more than 

12,000 CBNG wells that had been drilled or were permitted for drilling when the EIS was 

prepared. 

Under favorable geologic conditions, methane can be trapped at shallow depths in and above 

coal seams; this commonly occurs in the PRB. CBNG has been commercially produced in this 

region since 1989 when production began at the Rawhide Butte Field, approximately 5 miles 

southwest of the general analysis area (De Bruin and Lyman 1999). CBNG exploration and 

development are currently ongoing throughout the PRB. The predominant CBNG production to 

date in the general analysis area has occurred from the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone, which 

includes the Anderson and Canyon coal seams at and adjacent to the Buckskin Mine. The 

Wyodak-Anderson zone appears to be gas-bearing throughout the PRB and, as described above, 

the methane in the coal beds has been determined to be biogenic in origin. CBNG is also 

produced from deeper coal beds in the PRB, below the Anderson and Canyon seams. 

For CBNG to be collected, the hydrostatic pressure in the coal must be reduced to a level that 

can vary from seam to seam, which allows the gas to desorb (release) from the coal. This is 

accomplished by removing water from the coal bed. CBNG reservoirs can be affected by any 

nearby activities, including coal mining, that reduce the hydrostatic pressure in the coal bed or by 

the introduction of atmospheric oxygen or other substances which interfere with the metabolic 

processes of the methane producing bacteria which naturally occur there. The BLM Wyoming 

State Office–Reservoir Management Group (WSO-RMG) has recently prepared a variety of 

detailed analyses of CBNG resources in the lands near the existing surface coal mines in the 

Wyoming PRB for coal leasing and other actions. The WSO-RMG completed a report in 2006 

that describes the existing/affected environment of the coal mining areas and adjacent lands with 

respect to CBNG resources, and documents the observed and inferred resource depletion that has 

and will continue to occur (WSO-RMG 2006). 

WSO-RMG and the USGS have collected coal gas content data from coal cores near the mines 

and in other areas of the PRB. Measured gas content was minimal in all of the WyodakAnderson coal cores collected in 2000 at locations near the surface coal mines, indicating that the 

coal seams were already substantially depleted of CBNG in the vicinity of the mines at that time. 

Average total gas content from the core desorption analyses was approximately 6.8 standard 

cubic feet per ton near the coal mines in 2000, compared with an average measured gas content 

of 37.6 standard cubic feet per ton from coal cores taken outside the mining areas. Analyses 

performed by WSO-RMG, USGS, CBNG operators, and others have shown that dewatering of 

the coal beds, by both CBNG production and mine dewatering, reduces the hydrostatic pressure 

3-34 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

in the coals and allows the gas to desorb and escape from the coal, and decreases the anaerobic 

production of methane. These effects have been ongoing, and it is likely that desorption and 

decreased production has continued since 2000; as a result, coal gas content and the gas-in-place 

adjacent to the existing mines would currently be expected to be less than in 2000. 

The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) well data from the mining 

townships generally show that operator interest in the eastern PRB mining areas peaked prior to 

2000 and declined rapidly following 2001. Activity had declined to almost negligible levels 

during 2005 (WSO-RMG 2006). 

The Anderson and Canyon seams tapped for CBNG are the same seams that are being mined at 

Buckskin Mine. CBNG occurs in these seams within the general analysis area and is common in 

equivalent seams throughout the PRB. WOGCC records indicate that as of May 2008, 30 CBNG 

wells have been completed in the general analysis area (appendix F). Fifteen wells (13 in the 

Canyon seam and 2 in the Anderson seam) are producing and 3 wells (2 in the Canyon and 1 in 

the Anderson) have been shut in and may be reinstated for production in the future. Twelve 

other wells are no longer producing, have been permanently abandoned, or have expired permits 

(Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 2009). WOGCC records indicate that no 

CBNG wells have been completed below the Anderson and Canyon seams within the general 

analysis area. 

Manufactured Methane from Coal Beds 

A large percentage of the discovered natural gas (methane) reserves are believed to have been 

generated through the anaerobic microbial process of methanogenisis (Rice and Claypool 1981). 

Methane gas produced in this manner is often referred to as biogenetic methane. This process 

uses a group of predominantly anaerobic microorganisms that metabolizes the complex organic 

molecules in hydrocarbon deposits and produces the methane as a waste product. Biogenic 

methane has been detected in a wide variety of unconsolidated sediment and rock types around 

the world, including PRB coals (Law et al. 1991; Rice 1993). 

Luca Technologies Inc. has developed a method of enhancing biogenetic methane production 

from indigenous bacterial communities residing in the PRB coals. The company transforms 

uneconomically producing CBNG wells and uses the existing infrastructure for its coal 

conversion and methane production operations, which are handled by their directly owned 

subsidiary, Patriot Energy Resources. The company has completed a test project near Sheridan, 

Wyoming, and has begun operations using a mineral nutrient to feed the microbacteria currently 

residing in the PRB coal seams. These communities are currently capable of producing up to 

30 million cubic feet per day when provided nutrients (DeBruyn pers. comm.). Methane 

produced in this manner has been commercially produced since 2007. 

The amount of coal converted through methanogenisis is less than 1% at the current level of 

technology. The future rate of the technological development and production of methane using 

microbacteria is unknown at this time but it is expected that, with continued success and public 

demand for either methane, hydrogen, or other biological metabolic byproducts of the microbial 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-35 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

consortia, such operations could remain in place for the foreseeable future 

(DeBruyn pers. comm.). 

Other Minerals 

Bentonite, uranium, and clinker also are commercially produced in the PRB, though to a far 

lesser degree than the other resources discussed in this section. Layers of bentonite (decomposed 

volcanic ash) of varying thickness are present throughout the PRB. Some of the thicker layers 

are mined where they are near the surface, mostly around the edges of the basin. Bentonite has a 

large capacity to absorb water, making it usable in a number of common processes and products. 

Bentonite reserves have not been identified in the general analysis area. 

Substantial uranium resources are found in southwestern Campbell and northwestern Converse 

counties. Uranium exploration and mining were quite active in the 1950s, when numerous 

claims were filed in the PRB. A decreased demand combined with increased foreign supply 

reduced uranium mining activities in the early 1980s, although staking of mining claims is 

currently increasing. No known uranium reserves exist in the general analysis area. 

Clinker is present in the general analysis area and can be used for construction aggregate as well 

as a road treatment to provide traction in winter. These clinker resources exist on limited 

hillsides along the northern portion of the general analysis area. 

3.3.2.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) would have a 

moderate to substantial, permanent impact on CBNG resources not recovered prior to mining. 

This action would have a moderate, short-term impact on access to subcoal conventional oil and 

gas resources in the proposed tract. The Proposed Action would have no impact on clinker, 

uranium, and bentonite because they are not present in the proposed tract. Activities in the 

support area (241 acres) would have no impact on unrecovered CBNG reserves, a minor, 

short-erm impact on access to sub-coal conventional oil and gas reserves, and no impact on other 

mineral resources. Impacts in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) from mining existing 

coal leases would be the same as for the support area. 

Unrecovered CBNG resources in the overburden, interburden, and coal seam would be lost 

through venting and/or depletion of hydrostatic pressure during the mining process, but CBNG 

below the lowest mined coal seam would not be affected. Fifteen producing CBNG wells are 

present in the general analysis area. 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 Canyon and Anderson coal 

seams prior to mining would be lost when the coal is removed. Dewatering wells and active 

mining would combine with ongoing CBNG production to deplete the hydrostatic pressures and 

methane resources adjacent to mining areas. Mining would begin shortly after that process is 

completed. It is also likely that any undrilled spacing units in the proposed tract will have been 

3-36 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

drained by production from the existing wells and nearby mining activity prior to initiation of 

mining. Mining operations within the proposed tract would not begin until permitting is 

completed, which generally requires several years after a lease is acquired. By that time, it is 

likely that most of the economically recoverable CBNG resource would have been produced. 

No conventional oil and gas wells are present in the proposed tract. Oil and gas (conventional 

and CBNG) reservoirs located below the mineable Canyon and Anderson coal seams would not 

be directly disturbed by coal removal. Those resources could be plugged prior to mining. 

Following mining and reclamation, oil and gas lessees could drill new wells to recover those 

resources from any productive reservoirs below the lowest mined coal seam. Redeveloping deep 

oil, gas, and CBNG reservoirs would likely occur only if the lessee believes that the value of the 

reserves justifies the expense of recompleting or drilling wells. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Acton Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) would have no impact on unrecovered CBNG reserves and a minor, short-term 

impact on access to sub-coal conventional oil and gas reserves. This alternative would have a 

minor, permanent impact on limited clinker resource, but no impact on uranium or bentonite 

reserves. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the lease application would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, surface coal mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) would have a 

moderate to substantial, permanent impact on CBNG resources not recovered prior to mining. 

This action would have a moderate, short-term impact on access to sub-coal conventional oil and 

gas resources in the proposed tract. Alternative 2 would have a minor, permanent impact on 

clinker resources, but no impact on uranium or bentonite reserves because they are not present in 

the BLM study area. Activities in the support area (926 acres) would have no impact on 

unrecovered CBNG reserves, a minor, short-term impact on access to sub-coal conventional oil 

and gas reserves, a minor, permanent impact on clinker, and no impact on other mineral 

resources. Impacts in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) from mining existing coal 

leases would be the same as for the support area. 

As for the Proposed Action, gas reserves below the lowest mined coal seam would still be 

accessible to operators after mining and reclamation have been completed. Mine-related 

activities in the support area and remainder of the overlap area would affect up to 12.5 acres of 

the limited clinker reserves. 

3.3.2.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

The potential does exist for conflicts between coal operations and CBNG and conventional oil 

and gas wells completed, ongoing, or possible in formations and coal beds below the Canyon and 

Anderson seams. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-37 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

If the federal coal in the tracts is leased and conflicts do develop between the various industry 

operators under the action alternatives, several mechanisms are in place that can be used to 

facilitate recovery of the conventional oil and gas and CBNG resources prior to mining. These 

mechanisms include: 

 The BLM could attach a multiple mineral development stipulation to the federal coal lease, 

which states that the BLM will not approve operations that would unreasonably interfere 

with the development and/or production of existing mineral leases issued before the coal 

lease on the same lands (see appendix E). 

 Conventional oil and gas wells could be abandoned during mining and reclamation 

operations, then be recompleted or redrilled following mining. 

 The BLM could offer royalty incentives to CBNG operators to accelerate production, as 

provided for in the BLM Instruction Memorandum (2003-253), to recover the natural gas 

while simultaneously allowing uninterrupted coal mining operations. This memorandum 

also states that it is the policy of the BLM to encourage oil and gas and coal companies to 

resolve conflicts between themselves; when requested, the BLM will assist in facilitating 

agreements between the companies. 

 Mining the proposed tract or alternative tract configuration cannot occur until the coal lessee 

has a permit to mine the tract approved by the WDEQ and a Mineral Leasing Act mining 

plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Before the mining plan can be approved, the 

BLM must approve the Resource Recovery Protection Plan for mining the tract. Prior to 

approving the plan, the BLM can review the status of CBNG and conventional oil and gas 

development 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 reserves, Kiewit could negotiate an agreement with owners 

and operators of existing oil and gas and pipeline facilities, regarding removal and relocation 

of their infrastructure. 

Clinker is often removed during mining because its use in construction is deemed viable enough 

to segregate it from other overburden materials. It may be feasible to recover clinker from the 

overburden in some areas as part of the overburden removal process. Clinker not disturbed by 

mining under the action alternatives could also be removed after mining. 

3.3.2.4. Residual Impacts 

Clinker deposits excavated for construction or other uses would be permanently removed. 

CBNG resources not recovered before mining would be vented to the atmosphere and 

permanently lost. Oil and gas resources (conventional and CBNG) below the lowest coal seam 

to be mined could be recovered when mine operations are completed. 

3-38 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.3.3. Paleontology 

3.3.3.1. Affected Environment 

Two formations exposed on the surface of the proposed tract could contain paleontological 

resources: the Paleocene Fort Union Formation and the Paleocene and Eocene Wasatch 

Formation (Breckenridge 1974; Love and Christiansen 1985). Both of these sedimentary 

formations are known to yield vertebrate fossils in Wyoming (Estes 1975; Roehler 1991; 

Secord 1998; Robinson et al. 2004). 

The BLM’s Potential Fossil Yield Classification system ranks geologic formations based on their 

potential to yield significant paleontological resources. The five main classes in the system are: 

 class 1 – very low 

 class 2 – low 

 class 3 – moderate or unknown 

 class 4 – high 

 class 5 – very high 

Additional subcategories have been identified within some classes. Under this classification 

system, the Fort Union Formation in the PRB is considered to be class 4 and the Wasatch 

Formation in that region is a class 3a (Hanson pers. comm.). A more detailed description of the 

two classifications for the Fort Union and Wasatch formations is provided below. 

Class 3—Moderate or Unknown. Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil 

content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of 

unknown fossil potential. 

 terrestrial (continental) in origin with sporadic known occurrences of vertebrate fossils; 

 vertebrate fossils and scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils known to occur 

intermittently, predictability known to be low; or 

 poorly studied and/or poorly documented; potential yield cannot be assigned without ground 

reconnaissance. 

Class 3a—Moderate Potential. Units are known to contain vertebrate fossils or 

scientifically significant non-vertebrate fossils, but these occurrences are widely scattered. 

Common invertebrate or plant fossils may be found in the area, and opportunities may exist 

for hobby collecting. The potential for a project to be sited on or impact a significant fossil is 

low but is somewhat higher for common fossils. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-39 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Class 4—High. Geologic units containing a high occurrence of significant fossils. Vertebrate 

fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are known to occur and have been 

documented but may vary in occurrence and predictability. Surface-disturbing activities may 

adversely affect paleontological resources in many cases. 

Class 4a—Unit is exposed with little or no soil or vegetative cover. Outcrop areas are 

extensive with exposed bedrock areas often larger than 2 acres. Paleontological resources 

may be susceptible to adverse impacts from surface-disturbing actions. Illegal collecting 

activities may impact some areas. 

Class 4b—Areas underlain by geologic units with high potential but have lowered risks of 

human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation due to moderating 

circumstances. The bedrock unit has high potential, but a protective layer of soil, thin 

alluvial material, or other conditions may lessen or prevent potential impacts on the bedrock 

resulting from the activity. 

–	 Extensive soil or vegetative cover; bedrock exposures are limited or not expected to be 

impacted. 

–	 Areas of exposed outcrop are smaller than 2 contiguous acres. 

–	 Outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts are minimized by 

topographic conditions. 

–	 Other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability of both known and 

unidentified paleontological resources (BLM 2007b). 

As a result of the 2007 paleontological survey findings (described below), the classifications for 

the Fort Union and Wasatch formations in the PRB have changed. The Fort Union Formation 

was upgraded from a class 3 to a class 4 statewide average and the Wasatch Formation in the 

PRB was downgraded to class 3a, although outside the PRB the Wasatch is a class 5 statewide 

(Hanson pers. comm.). 

Fossils other than vertebrates that occur in the Fort Union Formation include gastropods 

(limpets, snails and slugs), bivalves (oysters, mussels, and clams) and plant fossils. Fossils that 

occur in the Wasatch Formation include mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles 

(Jones & Stokes 2007). 

A pedestrian reconnaissance survey for fossils was conducted in November 2007 for the general 

analysis area. All outcrops were closely inspected, including bare, sparsely vegetated, or thin 

soil areas; stream and drainage bank exposures; large colluvium, lag areas, and colluvium near 

outcrops. Several fossil types were found during the survey in four locations. None of the four 

localities was within the proposed tract. One locality was just within the northeastern tip of the 

BLM study area, and the remaining three were along the northern tier of the general analysis 

area. Fossils found in the Fort Union Formation include: crocodilian scutes (boney external 

plates or scales); a short segment of a limb bone from a large mammal; a small unidentifiable 

bone fragment (possibly crocodile); gastropod shell fragments; and small, highly weathered, and 

3-40 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

fossilized wood fragments. Invertebrate trace fossils and small root traces were found in the 

Wasatch Formation. 

No significant or unique paleontological resources or localities have been recorded within the 

general analysis area, including those found during field surveys for this EIS. While the 

occurrences of crocodilian scutes, the limb bone, and small bone fragments are notable because 

they are the only vertebrate fossils currently known to have been found in the PRB Fort Union 

Formation, they are not considered to be of high scientific value because they were solitary finds, 

and no sign of other vertebrate fossils was observed in the immediate area. In addition, the 

mammalian species to which the limb bone segment belongs could not be determined: neither the 

taxon nor element represented by the bone fragment could be identified (Jones & Stokes 2007). 

While these findings indicate other vertebrate fossils could be found in the general analysis area, 

the likelihood of such a find would be minimal. 

Based on these survey results, no specific mitigation was recommended by the paleontologist in 

the field report and no further paleontological work was recommended or required by the BLM 

regional paleontologist. 

3.3.3.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining and related activities would have no impact on 

significant or unique paleontological resources on the surface of the proposed tract (419 acres) or 

in the support area (241 acres). This action could have a moderate to substantial, permanent 

impact on paleontological resources beneath the surface of these areas, assuming such resources 

are present. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) associated with mining 

existing coal leases would have no impact on significant or unique paleontological resources on 

the surface, but could have a moderate to substantial, permanent impact on such resources 

beneath the surface. No significant fossils were found in the outcrops of the Fort Union and 

Wasatch formations exposed on the surface of the proposed tract; however, fossils with scientific 

significance could be present but not exposed at the surface. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) associated with mining existing coal leases would have no impact on significant or 

unique paleontological resources on the surface. However, such activities could have a moderate 

to substantial, permanent impact on paleontological resources beneath the surface of that area, 

assuming such resources are present. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the lease 

application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the 

future. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-41 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining and related activities would have no impact on significant or unique 

paleontological resources on the surface of the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) or support 

area (926 acres). Those activities could have a moderate to substantial, permanent impact on 

paleontological resources beneath the surface, assuming such resources are present. Activities in 

the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) associated with mining existing coal leases would 

have the same impacts on paleontological resources located on and beneath the surface as in the 

support area. 

3.3.3.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

If a tract is leased under one of the action alternatives, the BLM will attach a stipulation 

(appendix E) to the 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. 

3.3.3.4. Residual Impacts 

Paleontological resources not identified and removed prior to or during mining operations would 

be permanently lost. No such incidents have occurred within the existing Buckskin Mine lease, 

or elsewhere in the PRB coal region. 

3.4. Air Quality 

This section summarizes the affected environment in the general analysis area and the potential 

air quality impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives. Appendix G provides background 

information on the air quality regulatory framework, regional conditions, modeling efforts, and 

the best available control technology (BACT) process. That appendix also provides the history 

of monitoring for particulate matter in the PRB. The information presented in this section and in 

appendix G is based on data provided by the Buckskin, Eagle Butte, Rawhide, Dry Fork, and 

Wyodak mines and from various state and federal sources. Existing and projected cumulative air 

quality impacts are discussed in chapter 4. 

3.4.1. Background 

3.4.1.1. Air Quality Determinants 

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, winds (speed and direction), and precipitation. In 

the mountainous region of the 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. Local 

3-42 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

effects, however, are commonly superimposed on the general widespread weather regime and are 

only important during those periods when the large-scale wind flow is weak. 

Wyoming can be characterized as having a combination of both highland and mid-latitude 

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, temperatures 

decrease and precipitation increases with increasing elevation. Section 3.1.1 contains additional 

information about the meteorology and climate in the general analysis area. 

The general analysis area (map 3.0-1) is located in the northern portion of the PRB. The 

topography is primarily rolling plains and tablelands of moderate relief with occasional valleys 

and buttes. Elevations range from about 4,080 to 4,380 feet above mean sea level. The Big 

Horn Mountains lie approximately 60 miles to the west and the Black Hills lie approximately 

60 miles to the east. 

3.4.1.2. Applicable Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

The CAA requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to 

protect public health and welfare. These standards define the maximum level of air pollution 

allowed in the ambient air. The CAA established NAAQS for six pollutants, known as “criteria” 

pollutants, which “... cause or contribute to air pollution which may be reasonably anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare and the presence of which in the ambient air results from 

numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources.” The six present-day criteria pollutants are 

lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, and 

particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), where PM10 is coarse particulate with mean aerodynamic 

diameters less than 10 microns and PM2.5 is fine particulate with a diameter of 2.5 microns or 

less. Both particle sizes are small enough to penetrate into the lungs; PM2.5 in particular can 

cause serious health problems. 

Air quality regulations applicable to surface coal mining include the NAAQS, Wyoming 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS), prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), new 

source performance standards, and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Title V). These 

regulatory programs are described in appendix G. Air pollution impacts are limited by local, 

state, tribal, and federal air quality regulations and standards, and state implementation plans 

(SIPs) established under the CAA and the CAA Amendments of 1990. In Wyoming, air 

pollution impacts are managed by the WDEQ under the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations and the EPA-approved SIP. A memorandum of agreement dated January 24, 1994, 

between EPA and the State of Wyoming allows the WDEQ to use particulate monitoring in lieu 

of short-term modeling to assess 24-hour compliance and to predict short-term ambient impacts 

from mining. Annual impacts are predicted using the industrial source complex long-term 

model, version 3 (ISC3LT). Appendix G contains a more detailed discussion of compliance and 

BACT demonstration. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-43 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.1.3. Emissions Sources in the General Analysis Area 

Air quality conditions in rural areas are typically better than in large, urban, or heavily 

industrialized areas. The northern PRB is a semi-industrial area containing six surface coal 

mines, multiple power plants, numerous natural gas wells and conventional oil and gas wells, 

and supporting rail and road infrastructure. Occasional high concentrations of CO, ozone, and 

particulate matter may occur in this region as well as in the urban areas of Gillette, Sheridan, and 

Buffalo, especially under stable atmospheric conditions that occur during winter. 

The major types of emissions that come from surface coal mining activities are in the form of 

fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions from large mining equipment. Activities such as blasting, 

excavating, loading and hauling overburden and coal, and the large areas of disturbed land 

produce fugitive dust. Stationary or point sources are associated with coal crushing, storage, and 

handling facilities. In general, PM10 particulate matter is the major pollutant from coal mine 

point and fugitive sources. Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from blasting and mining 

equipment exhaust can also be present, particularly at the larger surface mines in the southern 

PRB. 

As discussed in appendix G, NO2 is a product of incomplete combustion at sources such as 

gasoline- and diesel-burning engines or from mine blasting activities. Generally, blasting-related 

NOx emissions are more prevalent at operations that use the technique referred to as cast blasting 

(Chancellor pers. comm.). This describes a type of direct blasting in which the explosion is 

designed to cast the overburden from on top of the coal into the previously mined area. The 

Buckskin mine does not use this technique and does not anticipate doing so in the future. The 

higher strip ratios (ratio of overburden to coal) at Buckskin do not lend themselves to dragline 

excavation, with which cast blasting is commonly associated. 

Concentrations of the six criteria pollutants in the PRB and applicable standards are shown in 

table 3.4-1. 

Non-mining air pollutant emission sources in the region include: 

 emissions exhaust (primarily CO and NOx) from existing natural-gas-fired compressor 

engines used in production of natural gas and CBNG; 

 gasoline and diesel vehicle tailpipe emissions of combustion pollutants, volatile organic 

compounds, carbon dioxide (CO2), NOx, PM10 particulate matter, PM2.5 particulate matter, 

and SO2; 

 dust (particulate matter) generated by vehicle travel on unpaved graded roads, windblown 

dust from neighboring areas, agricultural activities such as plowing, and paved road sanding 

during the winter months; 

 transport of air pollutants from emission sources located outside the region; 

 emissions from railroad locomotives used to haul coal (primarily NO2 and PM10); and 

 SO2 and NOx from power plants. 

3-44 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Envir

Table 3.4-1. Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations, Applicable AAQS, and PSD Increment Values 

Criteria Pollutant Averaging Timea 

Background

Concentration Primary NAAQSb 

Secondary

NAAQSb WAAQS 

PSD Clas

Incremen

Carbon monoxide 1-hour 

8-hour 

3,336d 

1,381 

40,000 10,000 

40,000 10,000 

40,000 10,000 

— — 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 

1-hour 

5e 

16e 

100 187 

100 

— 

100 

— 

2.5 

— 

Ozone 8-hour 134f 147 147 147 — 

Sulfur dioxide 1-hour 

3-hour 

24-hour 

Annual 

162g 

181g 

62g 13g 

200 

— 

365 

80 

— 

1,300 

— — 

— 

1,300 

260 

60 

— 

25 

5 2 

PM10h 24-hour 

Annual 

54i 

13i 

150 

— 

150 

— 

150 

50 

8 4 

PM2.5h 24-hour 

Annual 

13j 

4j 

35 15 

35 15 

65 15 

— — 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; WAAQS = Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

a Annual standards are not to be exceeded; short-term standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. b Primary standards are designed to protect public health; secondary standards are designed to protect public welfare. c All NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD increments are intended to evaluate a threshold of concern and do not represent a regulatory PSD Increment Consumd Data collected by Amoco at Ryckman Creek for an eight-month period during 1978-1979, summarized in Riley Ridge EIS (BLM 1983). e Data collected at Thunder Basin National Grassland, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2002. f Data collected at Thunder Basin National Grassland, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2005-2009 (fourth highest daily 8-hour high). g Data collected by Black Hills Power & Light at Wygen 2, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2002. h On October 17, 2006, EPA published final revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter that took effect on December 18, 2006. The revision strengthens the 24-h

 to 35 μg/m3 and revokes the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3. The State of Wyoming will enter into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS. 

i Data collected at the Eagle Butte Mine, Campbell County, Wyoming in 2002. j Data collected at the Buckskin Mine in 2002. 

Source: Task 1A Report (BLM 2005c); EPA AQS Database (2002a and b, 2005a, 2006a, 2007a, 2008a, 2009a). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.2. Particulate Emissions 

3.4.2.1. Affected Environment 

Particulates include solid particles and liquid droplets that can be suspended in air. Particulates, 

especially fine particulates such as PM2.5, have been linked to numerous respiratory related 

illnesses and can adversely affect individuals with pre-existing heart or lung diseases. 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. 

The current (since December 2006) EPA 24-hour air quality standard for PM2.5 is 35 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3), a reduction from the previous level of 65 μg/m3. The current annual 

PM2.5 standard is 15 μg/m3. The current 24-hour standard for PM10 particulates is 150 μg/m3. 

The annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3

 was revoked during the EPA revisions of air quality 

standards in 2006. In view of the December 2006 revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter, 

the State of Wyoming entered into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS for particulate matter so 

that they remain as stringent as or more stringent than the NAAQS. Current federal ambient air 

standards for all six criteria pollutants are shown in table 3.4-1, including those for current PM10 

and PM2.5 standards in Wyoming. Additional information on the history of this process is 

provided in appendix G. 

The PRB has one of the most extensive networks of monitoring sites for PM10 in the United 

States; most of these monitoring sites are funded and operated by the coal mines. The WDEQ 

requires that such information is collected to document the quality of the air resource at each of 

the PRB mines. According to EPA AirData, 36 PM10 monitors, 6 PM2.5 monitors, and 6 total 

suspended particulates (TSP) monitors were stationed in the Wyoming portion of the PRB in 

2007. Data for TSP and PM10 date back to 1980 and 1989, respectively. Approximately 

57,000 TSP samples were collected through 2004, and approximately 47,550 PM10 samples 

through 2007. Information about the regulatory framework, the monitoring network, and PM10 

concentration trends since monitoring began are included in appendix G. Existing site-specific 

air quality information is included in the Air Quality Data Report, which can be viewed at the 

BLM High Plains District Office in Casper, Wyoming. 

The Buckskin Mine ambient monitoring network consists of two low-volume Rupprecht & 

Patashnick Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) PM10 particulate continuous 

monitors. The monitors were installed in late October 2000 to replace two high-volume TSP 

monitors located at the same sites. The continuous monitors collect uninterrupted, hourly 

average concentrations for particulate matter. The TEOM monitors meet the EPA Automated 

Equivalency Method (EQSA-0495-100). The particulate and meteorological monitoring network 

is operated in accordance with the Buckskin Mine Quality Assurance Project Plan (Buckskin 

Mining Company 2001), which was updated in 2008. Although they are no longer used at the 

Buckskin Mine, TSP monitoring is still conducted in some PRB locations, in part to serve as an 

indication of overall atmospheric levels of particulate matter. 

3-46 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The former high-volume air quality monitors at Buckskin sampled TSP every six days for a 

24-hour cycle. The continuous TEOM monitors in use since 2000 are identified as west TEOM 

monitor (AQS ID: 0884) and north TEOM monitor (original AQS ID: 0899). In 2008, the north 

TEOM monitor was moved to a WDEQ approved location just outside the existing Buckskin 

Mine permit boundary (new AQS ID: 1899). The new site is more representative of ambient air 

and better positioned to measure both meteorological conditions and air quality impacts from 

mining. A meteorological station is also located at the new north TEOM monitor site. Current 

monitor locations are shown on map 3.4-1. 

Table 3.4-2 provides the annual average, maximum, and second-highest PM10 concentrations for 

each monitor. These data were collected from 2002 through 2009. Annual coal and overburden 

production are also presented for reference. Figure 3.4-1 shows coal and overburden production 

at the Buckskin Mine in relation to average PM10 concentrations over the last eight years. It can 

be seen that, while overburden production increased dramatically from 2007 through 2009, 

average PM10 concentrations at both monitoring sites dropped during the same period. This may 

be attributable to the easing of drought conditions and/or the increased emphasis on dust 

management at the mine. 

Results from the Buckskin Mine 24-hour PM10 monitors surpassed the 24-hour annual average 

standard (150 μg/m3) on only three occasions since monitoring began. On August 16, 2002, the 

north TEOM monitor recorded a maximum 24-hour PM10 concentration of 191.7 μg/m3. On 

December 27, 2003, the west TEOM monitor recorded a maximum 24-hour PM10 concentration 

of 202.4 μg/m3. On March 27, 2007, the north TEOM monitor measured a maximum 24-hour 

PM10 concentration of 244.0 μg/m3; the west TEOM monitor recorded a maximum of 

177.7 μg/m3 the same day. The 2002 and 2007 measurements correlated with strong winds 

(e.g., more than 33 mph with gusts of 42 mph) and were judged as “exceptional events” by the 

WDEQ, as provided for by the recently implemented Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP). 

Therefore, those two overages were not counted as official exceedances by the WDEQ. No 

extraordinary winds or other weather conditions occurred during the 2003 measurement, and the 

WDEQ considered that event as an exceedance. In all three cases, the Buckskin Mine followed 

all mitigation and documentation procedures as required by the NEAP, including submitting 

detailed reports of the exceedance and accompanying meteorological conditions to the WDEQ. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-47 
0 2,500 5,000

feet

North TEOM Monitor and 

Meteorological Station 

14 

16 

Applicant Proposed Tract 

BLM Study Area 

West TEOM Monitor 

TEOM (Tapered Element Oscillating 

Microbalance ) PM10 Continuous Monitor 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Map 3.4-1 

Buckskin Mine Ambient Air Monitoring Network 
3.0 Affected Environment and Envir

Table 3.4-2. Buckskin Mine Annual PM10 Monitoring Results and Production (μg/m3) 

North North 2nd West West 2nd MM 

Year Quarter Average North High High Average West High High 

2002 1 14.9 37.5 34.1 12.9 34.9 30.9 

2 20.0 95.7 73.4 18.3 60.9 43.4 

3 25.1 181.7 71.0 21.9 70.5 57.9 

4 11.1 29.3 22.6 11.5 25.7 23.3 

Annual 17.8 181.7 95.7 16.2 70.5 60.9 

2003 1 10.9 35.1 29.8 10.7 49.7 23.4 

2 15.6 56.3 42.7 14.2 41.3 39.2 

3 29.2 77.6 76.9 26.5 80.1 63.0 

4 15.1 47.6 40.3 18.0 202.4 139.1 

Annual 17.7 77.6 76.9 17.4 202.4 139.1 

2004 1 14.5 53.7 47.5 13.4 47.3 41.4 

2 18.7 116.3 41.1 16.8 74.9 33.3 

3 20.1 42.3 40.2 17.7 38.5 33.7 

4 13.6 40.1 33.8 11.7 27.7 25.6 

Annual 16.7 116.3 53.7 14.9 74.9 47.3 

2005 1 14.0 78.5 47.0 12.7 48.5 30.9 

2 16.4 68.8 58.7 14.9 48.5 46.6 

3 25.3 60.0 51.6 24.4 61.1 53.8 

4 13.1 42.2 41.3 12.3 57.1 32.8 

Annual 17.2 78.5 68.8 16.1 61.1 57.1 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.4-2. Continued 

North North 2nd West West 2nd MM 

Year Quarter Average North High High Average West High High 

2006 1 13.1 41.9 38.3 14.7 54.1 47.2 

2 21.7 72.1 60.7 19.0 58.6 49.6 

3 34.2 101.4 84.7 28.5 63.7 58.5 

4 16.9 63.6 58.2 14.1 39.0 34.5 

Annual 21.5 101.4 84.7 19.1 63.7 58.6 

2007 1 18.9 244.0 59.9 17.0 177.7 62.9 

2 20.2 102.5 59.0 19.6 75.3 54.5 

3 40.2 107.3 84.6 31.1 72.5 68.9 

4 18.4 75.6 65.9 13.6 53.7 42.8 

Annual 24.4 244.0 107.3 20.3 177.7 75.3 

2008 1 14.9 81.0 66.5 13.3 58.8 47.4 

2 17.7 53.0 46.9 15.8 46.1 28.6 

3 38.6 96.6 82.2 25.8 60.1 50.8 

4 26.3 91.7 78.7 16.2 77.5 55.7 

Annual 24.4 96.6 91.7 17.8 77.5 60.1 

2009 1 18.8 70.3 66.3 10.7 37.0 28.2 

2 19.2 67.5 62.4 13.4 30.6 30.1 

3 28.6 102.2 81.2 23.0 50.6 45.5 4 18.5 61.3 58.3 12.7 65.9 57.5 

Annual 21.3 102.2 81.2 15.0 65.9 57.5 

MM tons = million tons; MM BCY= million bank cubic yards 

3-50 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
0 

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 200

Year 

Million Tons or Million Bank Cubic Yards 

Coal removal (million tons) Overburden removal (million bank cubic yards) North TEOM Monitor West TEOM Monitor 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Bucks
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The northern group of mines consists of five mines in addition to Buckskin: Dry Fork, Eagle 

Butte, Fort Union, Rawhide, and Wyodak. All of the mines, with the exception of Fort Union, 

operate in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan specific to each mine. The Fort 

Union Mine has not been in operation for the last several years. Table 3.4-3 summarizes results 

from monitors in operation at these mines from 2002 through 2009. The maximum and second 

maximum annual PM10 results are also presented. 

Table 3.4-3. Northern PRB Mines: 24-Hour PM10 Monitoring Results by Year (μg/m3) 

Mine Dry Fork (DF) Eagle Butte (EB) Rawhide Wyodak 

Year Sampler 

DF-1 /

DF-2a 

DF-3N 

& 3M EB-2 EB-5 

EB-3N 

& 3S 

Hilltop

(TEOM) 

North 

(TEOM) Site 1 

Site 4 

(TEOM) 

2002

2003 

2004 

2005

2006 

2007

2008 

2009 

Maximum 24-hr 

2nd Highest 24-hr 

Maximum 24-hr 

2nd Highest 24-hr 

Maximum 24-hr 

2nd Highest 24-hr 

Maximum 24-hr 

2nd Highest 24-hr 

Maximum 24-hr 

2nd Highest 24-hr 

Maximum 24-hr 

2nd Highest 24-hr 

Maximum 24-hr 

2nd Highest 24-hr 

Maximum 24-hr 

2nd Highest 24-hr 

85 49 

79 34 

96 45

95 33 

73 25

70 24 

113 29 

107 27 

112 68

103 44 

109 44 

101 40 

31 28

27 28 

28 24

26 23 

143 54 74 

66 36 66 

65 47 76 

61 34 76 

62 40 66 

61 33 64 

60 49 115 

53 48 85 

73 47 99 

60 46 93 

168b 41 144 

65 39 139 

60 49 91 

67 41 82 

64 26 61 

49 22 58 

N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 

61 43 

39 42 

76 61 

70 59 

72 78 

72 75 

107 178b

101 84 

104 66 

91 65 

84 10 

72 69 

52 N/A 

48 N/A 

52 N/A 

50 N/A 

79 131 

62 92 

129 165b 

69 126 

96 143 

71 95 

143 129 

100 122 

91 123 

83 103 

101 96 

91 72 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; N/A = Sampler not installed; TEOM = Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance 

a TSP sampler DF-2 replaced PM10 sampler DF-1 in 2008. 

b Exceeded 24-hour standard of 150 μg/m3; WDEQ deemed all to be Exceptional Events due to high winds. 

3-52 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Collectively, the five other mines in the northern group exceeded the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 

annual average of 150 μg/m3 on only three occasions during the last eight years (2002 through 

2009). In 2005, the Wyodak Mine recorded a value of 165 μg/m3. In 2007, the Eagle Butte and 

Rawhide mines recorded 168 μg/m3 and 178 μg/m3, respectively. All three values were deemed 

“exceptional events” by the WDEQ due to high winds. 

The WDEQ requires that surface mine permits compile detailed emissions inventories and 

demonstrate compliance with NAAQS before permit amendments are granted. A BACT 

analysis is also required to demonstrate the use of “best available technology” in controlling 

point and fugitive PM10 emissions. In 2006, the Buckskin Mine submitted detailed PM10 

modeling analyses to the WDEQ in support of a request for a permit modification. The PM2.5 

standard was not enforced by Wyoming when this permit amendment application was submitted, 

nor is it currently applied to modeling of surface mine emissions. In addition, the old TSP 

standard has not been part of the state’s monitoring requirements for more than 10 years 

(appendix G). Therefore, any discussion of particulate modeling in Wyoming is confined to 

PM10 emissions. 

The permit revision request addressed the impacts associated with a proposed production 

increase to its current permitted level of 42 million tons per year and proposed improvements to 

mine facilities. These analyses considered all PM10 emission sources and included the 

neighboring Eagle Butte, Rawhide, Dry Fork, Wyodak, and Fort Union mines. The WDEQ 

approved the mine modification in Permit MD-1379, issued January 17, 2007. In its assessment 

of the modeling process, the agency noted that “...the applicant’s dispersion modeling analyses 

were conducted using EPA-approved models and methodologies, and the Division has reviewed 

and verified the source parameters, default settings, and related modeling inputs used in the 

applicant’s modeling analyses. Through the required dispersion modeling analyses, the applicant 

has successfully demonstrated to the Division that all applicable air quality standards will be 

attained if the proposed changes in the applicant’s mine plan and mining operations are 

approved” (WDEQ 2006). Based on WDEQ approval of this permit modification, Buckskin is 

not aware of any significant technical or modeling issues. 

The maximum modeled impact from Buckskin and neighboring mines (including background) is 

about 80% of the NAAQS. The modeling analysis demonstrated that emissions from the 

permitted production level of 42 million tons per year would not cause or significantly contribute 

to exceedances of the NAAQS annual average. Buckskin’s current average production level of 

25 million tons per year is expected to continue under the action alternatives considered in this 

EIS. A detailed description of the modeling process for this analysis is provided in appendix G. 

As indicated, the recent modeling analysis was conducted for a maximum coal production rate of 

42 million tons per year. Mining years 2011 and 2012 were selected as the projected 

“worst-case” based on Buckskin-specific and regional life-of-mine emission inventories for PM10 

and NOx. The highest model-predicted PM10 impact from Buckskin and neighboring mines 

during either year was 40.4 μg/m3 (including a background concentration of 12 μg/m3) compared 

to the annual WAAQS of 50 μg/m3. Moreover, at the model receptor with highest predicted 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-53 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

cumulative impact, Buckskin’s contribution was less than 1 μg/m3. The maximum predicted 

contribution from Buckskin at any receptor was 16 μg/m3. Given that the highest prediction for 

either worst-case year falls below the annual PM10 WAAQS, that standard is expected to be met 

throughout the life of the mine. Map 3.4-2 shows the modeled PM10 and NO2 impacts at 

receptors located along the permitted Buckskin Mine boundary for 2011. Map 3.4-3 shows the 

same parameters for 2012. Both maps also depict the area sources used to model fugitive 

emissions. 

In addition to these modeling analyses, the Buckskin Mine also prepared a demonstration of 

short-term compliance with the 24-hour PM10 standard based on results from a single monitoring 

cycle as part of the 2006 air quality permit modification request. According to WDEQ policy 

(appendix G), a modeling analysis for short-term data was not required or conducted because the 

model tends to significantly over-predict 24-hour impacts of surface coal mines, and the agency 

therefore considers it to be an inaccurate representation of those impacts. Instead, the short-term 

compliance analysis focused on historical monitoring data and continuing employment of BACT 

on mine-wide emissions. That analysis again concluded that the 24-hour PM10 WAAQS would 

be protected throughout the life of the mine. 

Fugitive emissions are the greatest emission source for surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB. 

Such sources do not count against the PSD major source applicability threshold for incremental 

increases in criteria pollutants. Therefore, Buckskin and the other Wyoming PRB coal mines 

have not been subject to permitting under the PSD regulations because the mine emissions that 

are subject to PSD applicability levels fall below the allowable thresholds. Additional 

information regarding PSD requirements is provided in appendix G. Based on permits in place 

in the baseline year of 1997, when the CAA Amendments were enacted, only some fraction of 

the mine emissions included in the WDEQ air quality permit analyses contributes to the 

allowable increase (increment) in criteria pollutants in the region. Therefore, the concentrations 

predicted by the WDEQ air quality permit analyses should not be compared to PSD increments. 

3-54 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
0 2,500 5,000

feet

14 

16 

NO2 = 35.6 

Maximum Concentration Model 

Receptors on LNCM Boundary 

Existing Buckskin Mine Permit Boundary 

2011 Model Area Sources 

Applicant Proposed Tract 

BLM Study Area 

General Analysis Area 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 3.4-2 

2011 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2

 Concentrations for Buckskin Mine Ambient Air Boundary 
Maximum Concentration Model 

Receptors on LNCM Boundary 

Existing Buckskin Mine Permit Boundary 

2011 Model Area Sources 

Applicant Proposed Tract 

BLM Study Area 

General Analysis Area 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Map 3.4-3 

2012 Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2 Concentrations for Buckskin Mine Ambient Air Boundary 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.2.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and support 

area (241 acres) would have a moderate, short-term impact on particulate emissions. This 

alternative would have a minor, short-term impact on exposure risks for travelers on public roads 

and occupied residences nearest the proposed tract and support area. The potential for human 

health impacts as a result of such exposure would be minor and short-term in these areas. 

Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases 

also would have a moderate, short-term impact on particulate emissions. Activities in the 

overlap area would have a minor, short-term impact on exposure risks for travelers on public 

roads and for most occupied residences and a moderate, short-term impact for one occupied 

residence; potential human health impacts would be minor and short-term. 

Under this action alternative, production would continue at the existing average annual rate of 

25 million tons. Because PM10 exceedances were not forecast under the existing permit for 

42 million tons per year, no exceedances are anticipated under this alternative at the lower 

production rate. As stated above, the PM2.5 standard is not currently applied to modeling of 

surface mine emissions. Ongoing sources of particulate emissions would continue as a result of 

mining the proposed tract, but would not be expected to increase on an annual basis 

Kiewit has no plans to change existing blasting procedures or sizes (section 1.1.3.3) when 

mining the proposed tract. Current BACT measures (section 3.4.2.3) for particulates would be 

employed. Coal haul rates and distances would not change significantly from current permitted 

levels, and all unpaved mine roads would continue to be treated for dust suppression. 

Currently, no occupied residences are located within the proposed tract or support area (maps 

3.4-4A and 3.4-4B).the highway is more than 1 mile away from these areas and the closest 

occupied dwelling is more than 0.5 mile from the proposed tract. The support area would be 

adjacent to approximately 0.6 mile of the Collins County Road. Activities in the overlap area 

would be within 0.25 mile of one occupied residence. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-57 
Map 3.4-4A 

Roads, Highways, Occupied Dwellings, Businesses, and School Bus Stops 

in the Vicinity of the General Analysis Area 
14
 

16
 

Map 3.4-4B 

Enlargement—Roads, Highways, Occupied Dwellings, Businesses, and School Bus Stops 

in the Vicinity of the General Analysis Area 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts on particulate 

emissions, risks of exposure, and human health as described for that area under the Proposed 

Action. As stated above, the PM2.5 standard is not currently applied to modeling of surface mine 

emissions. 

Production would continue at the existing average annual rate of 25 million tons. Because PM10 

exceedances were not forecast under the existing permit for 42 million tons per year, no 

exceedances are anticipated under this alternative. The highway and county roads average 

0.5 mile from the overlap area, though the McGee County Road parallels that area for a few 

hundred. Currently, no occupied residences are located in the overlap area; the nearest occupied 

dwelling is approximately 0.25 mile to the northwest and on the far side of the county road 

(maps 3.4-4A and 3.4-4B). 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, surface coal mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and support 

area (926 acres) would have a moderate, short-term impact on particulate emissions. This 

alternative would have a minor to moderate, short-term impact on exposure risks for travelers on 

public roads and occupied residences nearest the BLM study area and support area. Potential 

human health impacts from such exposure would be minor to moderate and short-term. 

Alternative 2 would have a substantial, short-term impact on one occupied residence within the 

general analysis area. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining 

existing coal leases also would have a moderate, short-term impact on particulate emissions. 

These activities would have a minor, short-term impact on exposure risks for travelers on public 

roads and for most occupied residences and a moderate, short-term impact for one occupied 

residence. 

Production rates, exceedance projections, and application of PM2.5 under this alternative would 

be the same as under the Proposed Action. Ongoing sources of particulate emissions would 

continue, but would not be expected to increase on an annual basis. Details provided under the 

Proposed Action regarding blasting procedures and sizes, BACT measures, coal haul rates and 

distances, dust suppression, and modeled impacts and exceedances would be the same for this 

alternative. Currently, one occupied residence is located in the general analysis area (maps 

3.4-4A and 3.4-4B). This residence is less than 0.25 mile from mining activities under existing 

mine operations. Therefore, this would not be a new impact under Alternative 2. 

3.4.2.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Before any mining could begin under the action alternatives, Buckskin would need an air quality 

permit modification from the WDEQ and would need to conduct new air quality modeling in 

support of that application demonstrating ongoing compliance with all applicable ambient 

standards. Control of point and fugitive sources of particulates and emissions at all PRB coal 

3-60 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mines is accomplished with a variety of measures described in section 1.1.3.3. For example, 

emissions at coal crushing, storage, and handling facilities (point sources) are controlled with 

baghouse dust collection systems, passive enclosure controls, or atomizers/foggers. These are all 

considered BACTs by the WDEQ. 

Fugitive emissions are also controlled with a variety of other BACT measures. For example, the 

mine access road has been paved and water trucks are used to apply water and chemical dust 

suppressants on all haul roads used by trucks and/or scrapers. Haul truck speed limits are 

imposed to further help reduce fugitive emissions from roads. Material drop heights for loaders 

(shovels, backhoes, front-end loaders) and draglines (bucket to truck bed or backfill) are limited 

to the minimum necessary to conduct the mining operations. Timely revegetation of disturbed 

areas is used to minimize wind erosion. Fugitive emissions from the coal truck dumps are 

controlled with stilling sheds. All of these control measures are employed at the Buckskin Mine, 

including the following additional mining practices and equipment. 

 Scoria is distributed on haul roads to further reduce fugitive dust; scoria is comprised of 

baked and fused rock resulting from natural in-place burning of coal deposits. 

 Operating baghouses are inspected daily and observed malfunctions are immediately 

corrected. 

 Storage silos and loadout silos are used to contain coal awaiting shipment from the Buckskin 

Mine coal preparation plant. 

 A retractable chute minimizes drop height when loading rail cars. 

 Windrows are bladed in pit advance areas that have been stripped of topsoil. 

 Topsoil stockpiles and sediment-control structures are seeded immediately. 

 Coal fires are promptly extinguished. 

The WDEQ is continually reviewing the data and considering regulatory options, such as 

increasing the frequency of monitoring. Continuous PM10 monitoring is now required at many 

PRB mines, including Buckskin. Other regulatory options may include enforcement actions such 

as notices of violation resulting in a consent decree and/or modified permit conditions. The 

WDEQ is also coordinating with the EPA to develop additional monitoring requirements in 

CBNG development areas, high PM10 mitigation action plans in permits, and additional 

mitigation measures under the SIP. 

In April 2006, the WDEQ in a joint effort with PRB mining stakeholders developed a detailed 

NEAP for the coal mines of Campbell and Converse counties, Wyoming. The NEAP was 

developed under the framework afforded by the EPA’s Natural Events Policy of May 30, 1996. 

Buckskin is complying with the NEAP developed jointly by the WDEQ and the PRB coal 

operators. 

The NEAP recognizes that certain NAAQS exceedances due to natural events are uncontrollable. 

While all practical mitigation measures need be implemented during those events, exceedances 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-61 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

attributable to natural events should not be considered against the NAAQS attainment 

designation for the region. Specific NEAP goals include: 

 Provide for the protection of public health. 

 Develop a public information program. 

 Provide a mechanism for “flagging” exceedances due to uncontrollable natural events. 

 Implement best available control measures and reasonably available control measures based 

on the severity of the event. 

 Provide a mechanism for excluding flagged data when they meet specific wind speed criteria 

and best available and reasonably available control measures are in place. 

The PRB mining operators had already implemented these measures for several years when 

formal approval of the NEAP was received from EPA Region VIII in 2007. 

While the basinwide NEAP was developed to address exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard 

that are attributable to high wind events, additional procedures have been formalized at each 

mine to address potential exceedances. Buckskin has in place mitigation procedures and an 

action plan to avoid exceedances of the 24-hour ambient air quality standard at the two 

continuous particulate (PM10) monitoring systems. The recording of high particulate readings 

automatically triggers an alarm, which invokes certain actions by Buckskin personnel to address 

the high readings. This procedure and the specific actions to be taken are detailed in Buckskin’s 

TEOM Action Plan, as approved by the WDEQ. That action plan is included in the Air Quality 

Data Report, which can be viewed at the High Plains District office of the BLM in Casper, 

Wyoming. 

Through the end of 2001, at minimum, each mine monitored air quality for a 24-hour period 

every six days at multiple monitoring sites. More recently, monitoring has occurred at active 

mines for a 24-hour period every three days, with some mines (including Buckskin) conducting 

continuous monitoring. 

Numerous monitors are also located in Sheridan, Gillette, Arvada, and Wright, Wyoming. The 

extensive air quality monitoring network currently in use enables the WDEQ to manage the air 

resource using monitoring data rather than modeled predictions. The agency also uses 

monitoring stations located elsewhere in the state to anticipate issues related to air quality 

throughout Wyoming. These monitoring stations are located to measure ambient air quality 

rather than impacts from a specific source. 

Monitors located to measure impacts from a specific source may be used to establish trends. 

These data are used to proactively arrest or reverse trends towards air quality problems. When 

the WDEQ became aware that particulate readings in the PRB were increasing due to increased 

CBNG activity and prolonged drought, the agency approached the counties, coal mines, and 

CBNG industry. A coalition involving those entities has made significant efforts towards 

minimizing dust from graded roads. Measures taken have ranged from implementing speed 

limits to paving heavily traveled roads. As a participant in this program, the Buckskin Mine has 

3-62 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

periodically applied magnesium chloride to two county roads (the Collins Road and the McGee 

Road) and a secondary access road. All of these measures are believed to have reduced the 

impacts of nearby, non-mining activity on Buckskin’s monitors. 

Monitoring is also used to measure compliance. When monitoring shows that any standard has 

been violated, the WDEQ can take a range of enforcement actions to remedy the situation. 

Where a standard is exceeded specific to an operation, the enforcement action is specific to the 

facility. For many facilities, neither the cause nor the solution is simple. The agency normally 

uses a negotiated settlement in those instances. 

3.4.3. Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone 

3.4.3.1. Affected Environment 

Gases that contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts are referred to as nitrogen oxides, or 

NOx. One type of NOx is NO2, a reddish-brown gas that is heavier than air and has a pungent 

odor. NO2 is by far the most toxic of this group and 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 gases, while the ambient 

standard is expressed in terms of NO2. 

NOx forms when fuel is burned at high temperatures either naturally or by human activities. The 

primary direct source of NOx emissions during coal mining operations is tailpipe emissions from 

mining equipment and other vehicle traffic inside the mine permit area. Blasting that is done to 

remove overburden can result in emissions of several products, including NO2, because of the 

incomplete combustion of explosives used in the blasting process. When this occurs, gaseous, 

orange-colored clouds may be formed, and they can drift or be blown off mine permit areas. The 

rate of release is not well known but is believed to depend on a wide number of factors which 

include, but are not necessarily limited to: downhole confinement; downhole moisture; 

type/blend of ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, and emulsion; and detonation velocity. 

Various compounds and derivatives in the NOx family, including NO2, nitric acid, nitrous oxide 

(N2O), nitrates, and nitric oxide, may cause a wide variety of health and environmental impacts. 

According to the EPA (2007b), the following are the main causes of concern with respect to 

NOx: 

 It is one of the main precursors 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; and affects air quality related values (AQRVs) of visibility and deposition. 

 It contributes to the formation of acid rain. 

 It contributes to nutrient overload that deteriorates water quality. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-63 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

 It contributes to atmospheric particles that cause visibility impairment, most noticeably in 

national parks. 

 It reacts to form toxic chemicals. 

 N2O is a greenhouse gas (GHG) that contributes to climate change. 

 It can be transported over long distances. 

That agency also associates the following severe health risks specifically with NO2 (EPA 2001a): 

 It may cause significant toxicity because of its ability to form nitric acid with water in the 

eye, lung, mucous membranes, and skin. 

 Acute exposure 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. 

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 2007c). Adjacent landowners to the north of the Buckskin Mine have 

contacted and met with mine personnel on various occasions regarding their concerns about 

smoke from coal fires at the mine, NO2, and dust. The landowners and mine representatives are 

actively working to resolve those issues. The landowners have expressed similar concerns to the 

WDEQ. Nevertheless, WDEQ the agency has not required Buckskin to implement any specific 

measures to control or limit public exposure to NO2 from blasting, such as restrictions regarding 

blasting size, setbacks, or other parameters. 

Although no NAAQS or WAAQS regulate short-term NO2 levels, concern does exist about the 

potential health risk associated with short-term exposure to NO2 from blasting emissions. The 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (NIOSH 2005), the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the EPA have identified the following short-term 

exposure criteria for NO2: 

 NIOSH’s recommended “immediately dangerous to life and health” level is 20.0 parts per 

million (37,600 μg/m3

). 

 EPA’s “significant harm” level, a 1-hour average, is 2.0 parts per million (3,760 μg/m3). 

 OSHA’s “short-term exposure limit,” a 15-minute time weighted average, which was 

developed for workers, is 5.0 parts per million (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 parts per million (1,880 μg/m3

) based 

on a 15-minute exposure that should not be exceeded at any time during the workday. 

 EPA recommends that concentrations not exceed 0.5 parts per million (940 μg/m3) for a 

10-minute exposure to protect sensitive members of the public (EPA 2003a). 

3-64 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

A study conducted by Dr. Edward Faeder for the Black Thunder Mine recommended a limit of 

5.0 parts per million (9,400 μg/m3) for a 10-minute exposure. 

According to the 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). 

Many mines in the PRB have implemented procedures aimed at reducing the amount of NOx, 

particularly NO2, released from the incomplete combustion of blasting agents; blasting NOx is 

most often associated with cast blasting, which is used at larger mines with dragline operations. 

Because blast clouds are of a short-term, transient nature, the level of short-term exposure 

deemed to be “safe” is unknown. While this issue remains the subject of great debate, it should 

be noted that neither the EPA nor WDEQ has established NAAQS for NO2 for averaging times 

shorter than one year. Despite extensive expert testimony provided to the Wyoming 

Environmental Quality Commission during hearings conducted in 2002 that argued for the 

establishment of a de facto “standard” ranging from 0.5 to 5.0 parts per million for a 10-minute 

exposure, the agency determined that insufficient evidence was available to establish a 

short-term exposure limit and concluded that additional study was required. 

On the order of the Director of the WDEQ, members of the mining industry in the PRB 

conducted a comprehensive, multi-year monitoring and modeling study of NO2 exposures from 

blast clouds. Based on results from that study (Thunder Basin Coal Company 2002) and 

supplemental data collected at the Buckskin Mine and elsewhere in the PRB, a series of “safe” 

setback curves for coal, overburden, and cast shots for various wind speed classes was derived 

from the sampled data, conservative projections of concentrations at greater/lesser distances than 

measured, and an assumed safe level (based on a comprehensive review of available health 

effects data) of 5.0 parts per million for 10 minutes. Appendix F provides additional details 

about this study and the data collection process. 

Thus, while disagreement still exists regarding acceptable exposure levels, a large amount of 

actual data is now available from which informed decisions can be made regarding blasting 

practices. Regardless of the outcome of the debate on the allowable exposure level, the data 

show clearly that reduction in blast size and increases in setback distances are effective methods 

for mitigating the frequency and extent of public exposures. 

Public exposure to emissions caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along 

public roads and highways that pass through the area of the mining operations. Occupants of 

dwellings in the area could also be affected. Sources of fugitive NOx emissions at the Buckskin 

Mine include the tailpipe emissions from the mining equipment, emissions from the trains used 

to haul the coal from the mine, and blasting the overburden and coal to facilitate excavation. As 

described in section 1.1.3.3, the Buckskin Mine does not use cast blasts to move overburden, 

though other blasting techniques are used in this process. Although all blasting methods have 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-65 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

some potential for NOx emissions, cast blasts are the most likely source. No NOx point sources 

occur at the mine. 

The WDEQ 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 plan revisions. 

The potential NOx emissions related to mining operations at the existing Buckskin Mine are 

described in the air quality permit application submitted to the WDEQ in June 2006; the purpose 

of the permit revision request was described in section 3.4.2.1. 

NOx modeling was conducted in support of that June 2006 air permit application. Mining 

sources of NOx were modeled as fugitive emissions from the areas where mining activities were 

projected to occur at Buckskin and the other five mines in the northern PRB. These included the 

overburden and coal blasting emissions, mobile emissions, and stationary emissions described in 

section 3.4.1.3. Regional sources of NOx were also modeled, including local power plants, gas 

compressor stations, railroads, highways, and the City of Gillette. Individual and combined 

impacts from Buckskin, the other northern mines, and regional sources were evaluated at all 

model receptors. These receptors were placed around the perimeter of the northern group of 

mines and outward in a rectangular grid with 500-meter spacing. The extent of the receptor grid 

was sufficient to encompass the area of significant NOx impact from the Buckskin Mine 

(1.0 μg/m3 or more). 

NO2 impacts were derived by multiplying modeled NOx concentrations by 75% and adding a 

background NO2 concentration of 14 μg/m3. This approach followed 40 CFR Part 51, section 

6.2.3, appendix W of the EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models. The background NO2 

concentration was based on WDEQ guidance and ambient NOx monitoring results at the 

Foundation Coal’s Belle Ayr Mine in 2001 and 2002; that mine is approximately 20 miles 

southeast of the Buckskin Mine. Additional descriptions of the modeling process for this 

analysis is provided in appendix G. 

Maximum annual NO2 impacts (including regional sources and background concentration) at any 

model receptor of 38.0 μg/m3 and 37.8 μg/m3 were predicted in 2011 and 2012 respectively. 

Both of those values were considerably lower than the annual NO2 NAAQS of 100 μg/m3. At 

the model receptor where these predicted maximum values were calculated, Buckskin’s 

contributions were estimated at 1.6 μg/m3

 in 2011 and 1.8 μg/m3 in 2012. This receptor is 

located in an area affected primarily by neighboring mines. A background NO2 concentration of 

14 μg/m3 was assumed based on WDEQ guidance and ambient NOx monitoring results at the 

Belle Ayr Mine in 2001 and 2002. Maps 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 show maximum modeled impacts at the 

Buckskin Mine boundary receptors of 35.6 μg/m3 and 35.7 μg/m3 in 2011 and 2012, 

respectively. Because modeled impacts from the worst-case years fall well below the NAAQS, 

the NO2 NAAQS will be protected throughout the life of the mine. 

Ozone is a regulated air pollutant that can cause respiratory health effects in people with chronic 

respiratory problems. Ozone develops in the atmosphere as a result of other pollutants, such as 

NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) – called precursors. In March 2008, the EPA 

promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone (75 FR 11). The ozone standard was lowered from 

3-66 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

80 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion based on the fourth highest 8-hour average value per 

year at a site, averaged over three years. On January 6, 2010, the EPA proposed to strengthen 

the ozone standard by lowering the primary 8-hour standard to somewhere between 60 and 

70 parts per billion (75 FR 11). The final standard is expected in mid-2011. Ozone readings 

have occasionally exceeded the current standard of 75 parts per billion at the Thunder Basin air 

monitoring site in Campbell County. Violations of the standard have occurred in the Upper 

Green River Basin (UGRB) of Wyoming where certain conditions promote ozone formation. As 

a result of the violations of the ozone standard in that region, former Governor Freudenthal 

submitted a recommendation to the EPA on March 12, 2009 that the agency should designate the 

UGRB as an ozone nonattainment area. 

The northern PRB is still considered an ozone attainment area. Table 3.4-4 shows maximum, 

mean, and fourth highest daily 8-hour high averages for the last five years at a monitor located 

20 miles northeast of the Buckskin Mine. While no violations occurred, it is apparent that 

ambient air in the project area is close to the ozone NAAQS, which applies to the fourth highest 

daily 8-hour high. This may reflect increased oil and gas activities in the area, increased coal 

mining in the PRB, ozone transport from other regions such as the UGRB, or a combination of 

these factors. 

Table 3.4-4. Thunder Basin National Grassland Average Ozone Monitoring Results (Parts 

per Billion) for Last Five Years 

Year Maximum Daily 8-Hour High Mean Daily 8-Hour High Fourth Highest Daily 8-Hour Higha NAAQSb 

2005 68 42 63 75 

2006 75 45 72 75 

2007 81 44 72 75 

2008 78 49 74 75 

2009 71 47 62 75 

NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

a Ambient air value used for comparisons with NAAQS 

b Based on 8-hour rolling average. 

Source: 75 FR 11. 

It is evident from Table 3.4-4 that such lowering of the standard as proposed by the EPA would 

potentially trigger non-attainment status for ozone in the northern PRB. The impact of nonattainment status on surface coal mines in the PRB is currently unclear. It would likely require 

any coal mine seeking a new or renewed air quality permit from the WDEQ to demonstrate that 

ozone precursor emissions (NOx and VOC) will not increase as a result. Because Kiewit has no 

plans to increase production levels at the Buckskin Mine under the Proposed Action, such a 

demonstration can be made. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-67 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.3.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and support 

area (241 acres) would have a minor to moderate, short-term impact on NOx emissions. This 

alternative would have a minor to substantial, short-term impact on exposure risks for travelers 

on public roads and occupied residences nearest the proposed tract and support area, depending 

on their distance from emissions sources. The potential for human health impacts from such 

exposure would be minor and short-term in these areas. Activities in the remainder of the 

overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases also would have a moderate, 

short-term impact on NOx emissions. Activities in the overlap area would have a minor, 

short-term impact on exposure risks for travelers on public roads and for most occupied 

residences and a moderate, short-term impact for one occupied residence; potential human health 

impacts would be minor and short-term. 

Production would continue at the existing average annual rate of 25 million tons. Because NOx 

exceedances were not forecast under the existing permit for 42 million tons per year, no 

exceedances are anticipated under this alternative. Ongoing sources of short-term NOx 

emissions would continue as a result of mining the proposed tract, but would not be expected to 

increase on an annual basis. Because the Buckskin Mine does not plan to increase production 

levels under the Proposed Action, a demonstration that ozone precursor emissions (NOx and 

VOC) will not exceed pending changes to the primary ozone standard cannot be made. Kiewit 

has no plans to change blasting procedures or sizes (section 1.1.3.3) when mining the proposed 

tract, but is committed to working with adjacent landowners to address concerns when they arise. 

Current control and notification measures for NOx emissions (section 3.4.3.3) would be modified 

to the extent possible to address concerns by adjacent landowners. 

Currently, no occupied residences are located within the proposed tract or support area (maps 

3.4-4A and 3.4-4B). The highway is more than 1 mile away from these areas and the closest 

dwelling is more than 0.5 mile from the proposed tract. The support area would be adjacent to 

approximately 0.6 mile of the Collins County Road. Activities in the overlap area would be 

within 0.25 mile of one occupied residence. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts on NOx 

emissions, risks of exposure, and human health as described for that area under the Proposed 

Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no 

new federal coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. 

Production would continue at the existing average annual rate of 25 million tons. Because NOx 

exceedances were not forecast under the existing permit for 42 million tons per year, no 

exceedances are anticipated under this alternative. Ongoing sources of NOx emissions (e.g., 

3-68 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

vehicles, blasting [not cast-blasting]) would be limited to the overlap area and would be 

associated with activities necessary to support mining on existing leases. Because the Buckskin 

Mine does not plan to increase production levels under the Proposed Action, a demonstration 

that ozone precursor emissions (NOx and VOC) will not exceed pending changes to the primary 

ozone standard cannot be made. The highway and county roads average 0.5 mile from the 

overlap area, though the McGee Road parallels that area for a few hundred feet. Currently, no 

occupied residences are located in the overlap area; the nearest occupied dwelling is 

approximately 0.25 mile to the northwest and on the far side of the county road (maps 3.4-4A 

and 3.4-4B). The Buckskin Mine works with adjacent landowners to address concerns when 

they arise. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, impacts associated with NOx emissions would be the same as those 

described under the Proposed Action for most circumstances. This alternative would have a 

substantial, short-term impact on one occupied residence within the general analysis area. 

Production would continue at the existing average annual rate of 25 million tons. Because NOx 

exceedances were not forecast under the existing permit for 42 million tons per year, no 

exceedances are anticipated under this action alternative. Ongoing sources of short-term NOx 

emissions would continue as a result of mining in up to 1,883 acres of the BLM study area, but 

would not be expected to increase on an annual basis. Because the Buckskin Mine does not plan 

to increase production levels under the Proposed Action, a demonstration that ozone precursor 

emissions (NOx and VOC) will not exceed pending changes to the primary ozone standard 

cannot be made. Details provided under the Proposed Action regarding blasting procedures and 

sizes, BACT measures, coal haul rates and distances, dust suppression, and modeled impacts and 

exceedances would be the same for this alternative. Kiewit has no plans to change its blasting 

procedures or scale associated with mining in the BLM study area, but is committed to working 

with adjacent landowners to address concerns when they arise. Current control and notification 

measures for NOx emissions would be modified to the extent possible to address concerns by 

adjacent landowners. 

Currently, one occupied residence is located in the general analysis area (maps 3.4-4A and 

3.4-4B). This residence is less than 0.25 mile from mining activities under existing mine 

operations. Therefore, this would not be a new impact under Alternative 2. 

3.4.3.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Before any mining of the proposed tract could begin, the Buckskin Mine would need an air 

quality permit modification from the WDEQ and would need to conduct new air quality 

modeling in support of that application demonstrating ongoing compliance with all applicable 

ambient standards. 

As described in section 3.4.3.2, the WDEQ has received no reports of public exposures to NO2 

from blasting activities conducted at the Buckskin Mine; therefore, the agency has not required 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-69 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

the mine to implement any specific measures to control or limit public exposure to mine 

emissions. Additionally, the mine does not use cast blasts to move overburden; that is the most 

common source of the NO2 clouds of greatest concern to local residents. Nevertheless, Buckskin 

has voluntarily committed to employ a variety of notification and control measures associated 

with blasting emissions in a good-faith effort to keep the public informed of blasting activities. 

Several other surface coal mines in the PRB use similar voluntary blasting notification and 

control measures to avoid NO2 impacts on the public. 

Voluntary measures that have been instituted at Buckskin (and other mines), particularly when 

large blasts are planned, include: 

 notifying neighbors by telephone (both private parties and other mining operations) in the 

general area of the mine prior to large blasts; 

 monitoring weather and atmospheric conditions prior to the decision to detonate a large blast; 

 minimizing blast size to the extent possible; 

 posting 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. 

The WDEQ has required several mines, including the neighboring Eagle Butte and Wyodak 

mines (map 1-1), to stop traffic on adjacent state and federal highways during blasting because of 

concerns with fly rock and the “startle factor.” The agency does not require the Buckskin Mine 

to stop traffic because the blasting area does not affect any major public roads. 

NO2 was monitored in Gillette from 1975 through 1983. Because of public concerns about NO2 

emissions from blasting (particularly cast blasts) and a general concern by the WDEQ about 

levels of NOx from all types of development in the PRB, the coal mining industry instituted a 

monitoring network in cooperation with the agency to gather data on those emissions beginning 

in 2001. Additional monitoring was conducted throughout the PRB from 2003 to 2006. Details 

regarding funding and ownership of the coal monitoring program are provided in appendix G. 

The results of the most recent NOx monitoring are summarized in table 3.4-5. The results 

indicate annual average NO2 concentrations at all sites are well below the NAAQS of 100 μg/m3. 

The WDEQ and respective mines maintain these monitoring stations, and the agency relies on 

the ongoing monitoring data and emission inventories in air quality permit applications to 

demonstrate compliance with the annual NO2 ambient air standard. 

3-70 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.4-5. Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data (μg/m3) 

Thunder Basin 

Year Antelope Mine Belle Ayr Mine National Grassland Campbell Co. Tracy Ranch 

2003 7.5 13.2 5.6 13.2 

2004 2.9 10.3 3.8 9.4 5.5 

2005 5.5 9.5 8.4 7.5 7.2 

2006 5.1 14.4 8.1 5.7 11.2 

2007 3.8 7.5 6.9 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

Source: EPA 2009b. 

On February 9, 2010, the EPA published a primary, 1-hour standard for NO2 (75 FR 26). 

Effective April 12, 2010, the standard is set at a level of 100 parts per billion, based on the 

three-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations. The rationale for this new standard is the protection of public health, based on 

the latest scientific knowledge. 

To date, the WDEQ air quality permitting process has not required the Buckskin Mine to 

perform short-term modeling of NO2 impacts. Therefore, no model outputs are currently 

available to assess the mine’s compliance with the 1-hour NAAQS standard for NO2. It is 

anticipated that short-term modeling will be required at a future date, pending incorporation of 

the new 1-hour NO2 standard in Wyoming’s SIP and WAQSR. 

In the Final Rule, the EPA acknowledged that the data from the current nationwide NO2 network 

is inadequate to fully assess compliance with the revised NAAQS. As a result, the EPA is in the 

process of promulgating new NO2 monitoring network design requirements (75 FR 26). 

Notwithstanding this deficiency, historical NO2 concentrations are available on an hourly basis at 

two monitoring sites in the northern PRB. These data afford a surrogate measure of compliance 

with the 1-hour standard in the general area of the Buckskin Mine. Both monitors record hourly 

average ambient NO2 concentrations. 

The first monitor is located on the Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG), 20 miles 

northeast of the Buckskin Mine. Located upwind from mining activity in the northern PRB, the 

TBNG monitor is believed to represent background concentrations. The data record at this site is 

continuous for the most recent five-year period (2005–2009), making it possible to calculate a 

2007-2009 three-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily 

maximum NO2 concentrations. 

The second monitor is located near the Belle Ayr Mine (BAM), approximately 20 miles 

southeast of Buckskin. This monitor lies in an area potentially affected by several nearby coal 

mines. The data record at this site is intermittent during the 2005 through 2009 period because 

of changes in ownership of the monitor. Thus, it is not possible to directly calculate a recent, 

three-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-71 
 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

concentrations for this location. However, data recovery for years 2005, 2006, and 2009 were 

sufficient to compute a non-consecutive, three-year average. 

Table 3.4-6 summarizes hourly NO2 monitoring results for the TBNG and BAM sites. The 

three-year averages for the two sites reflect the calculation methods discussed above. Based on 

the TBNG monitor, a background concentration of 11 parts per billion can be compared to the 

NAAQS of 100 parts per billion, where both apply to the three-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 concentrations. The BAM 

monitor shows a comparable three-year average of nearly 35 parts per billion (after omitting 

incomplete data years), roughly three times the background value but one-third of the NAAQS 

standard. 

Table 3.4-6. 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (parts per billion) 

Year 

Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) Belle Ayr Mine (BAM) 

Valid Days High 98th 

Percentile Average Valid Days High 98th 

Percentile Average 

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

 365 21.00 12.00 6.72 

365 32.00 12.00 4.49 

342 21.00 11.00 4.28 

278 14.00 11.00 4.27 

323 14.00 11.00 4.17 

3-Yr Avg 11.00 parts per billion 

287 38.09 33.66 

359 150.80 38.92 

72 46.42 46.42 

0 N/A N/A 

268 73.80 32.30 

34.96 parts per billion 

14.51 

22.51 

21.77 

N/A 

14.58 

N/A = Not applicable NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

Source: Argonne 2002. 

On June 2, 2010, the EPA issued a new 1-hour ambient standard for SO2 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007­

0352, RIN 2060-A048). The new standard is 75 parts per billion, applied to the three-year 

average of the 99th percentile (fourth highest) of the annual distribution of hourly averages. 

IML operates two SO2 monitors in the PRB, one for Black Hills Power (BHP) at the Wyodak site 

east of Gillette, and one for Wyoming Refining in Newcastle. Both monitors are near (and 

downwind from) major sources of SO2. The closest monitor is at BHP, approximately 15 miles 

southeast of the Buckskin Mine. In the last eight years, BHP has recorded only two hourly 

readings above 75 parts per billion (98.3 parts per billion on 3/13/07 and 77.4 parts per billion on 

7/30/2008). Wyoming Refining shows similar results (207.8 parts per billion on 11/19/08 and 

89.7 parts per billion on 9/28/05). Despite the fact that the monitors have been placed explicitly 

to measure impacts from major sources of SO2, neither site has violated the new 1-hour standard 

of 75 parts per billion, which applies to the three-year average as described above. Table 3.4-7 

shows the most recent three-year average of the 99th percentile of the annual distribution of 

hourly averages at BHP to be 61.1 parts per billion. 

3-72 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Total SO2 emissions from the Buckskin Mine for the year 2008 were calculated to be 32.3 tons 

(Buckskin Mining Company 2009). The primary source of these emissions is diesel fuel 

combustion, which would continue at roughly the same rate under the Proposed Action. SO2 

emissions from the Wyodak site, which includes several coal-fired power plants operated by 

BHP and Pacificorp, total in the thousands of tons per year. Based on the demonstration of 

historical compliance at the Wyodak site and the fact that SO2 emissions at Wyodak exceed those 

at the Buckskin Mine by two orders of magnitude, ambient impacts from Buckskin are expected 

to be well below the new EPA SO2 air quality standard. 

Table 3.4-7. 1-hour SO2 Concentrations (parts per billion) Black Hills Power (Wyodak site) 

Year High 99th Percentile Average 

2007 21.00 61.2 4.28 

2008 14.00 61.9 4.27 

2009 14.00 60.3 4.17

 3-Year Average 61.1 

SO2 = sulfer dioxide 

Source: Quick et al. 2003. 

3.4.4. 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. PM2.5 is the main cause of visibility impairment. Visual range, one of 

several ways to express visibility, is the farthest distance from which 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 part of the United States and 90 miles in the 

eastern part (EPA 2001b). Presently, the visibility conditions monitored in the Bridger 

Wilderness Area are among the best in the United States. 

Visibility impairment is 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. This goal was established as part 

of the CAA to prevent any future, and remedy any existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory federal class I areas that result from human-caused air pollution. The dv index is a 

scale related to visual perception that has a value near zero for a pristine atmosphere. A change 

in visibility of 1.0 dv represents a “just noticeable change” by an average person under most 

circumstances. Increasing dv values represent proportionately larger perceived visibility 

impairment. 

3.4.4.1. Affected Environment 

Air quality related values, including the potential air pollutant effects on visibility, are applied to 

pristine attainment PSD Class I (e.g., national parks) and sensitive Class II (areas outside 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-73 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

designated Class I zones) areas; those classifications are described in more detail in section 2.3 

of appendix G. The land management agency responsible for the Class I area (most restrictive) 

sets a limit of acceptable change for each AQRV. The AQRVs reflect the land management 

agency’s policy and are not legally enforceable standards. Table 3.4-8 shows approximate 

distances and directions from the general analysis area to 31 PSD Class I and sensitive Cass II 

areas in the vicinity of the PRB. 

Table 3.4-8. Distances and Directions from the General Analysis Area to Sensitive Air 

Quality Areas 

Distance (miles) Direction to Receptor 

MANDATORY FEDERAL PSD CLASS I AREA 

Badlands National Parka 165 ESE 

Bridger Wilderness Area 225 WSW 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 215 WSW 

Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area 343 NW 

Grand Teton National Park 265 WSW 

North Absaroka Wilderness Area 210 WNW 

Red Rocks Lake Wilderness Area 307 W 

Scapegoat Wilderness Area 393 NW 

Teton Wilderness Area 237 WSW 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park (North Unit) 242 NNE 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park (South Unit) 196 NNE 

U.L. Bend Wilderness Area 287 NW 

Washakie Wilderness Area 215 WSW 

Wind Cave National Park 123 SE 

Yellowstone National Park 236 W 

TRIBAL FEDERAL PSD CLASS I 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation 252 N 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 74 NNW 

FEDERAL PSD SENSITIVE CLASS II 

Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area 219 WNW 

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 168 SSE 

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 137 WNW 

Black Elk Wilderness Area 113 ESE 

Cloud Peak Wilderness Area 81 W 

Crow Indian Reservation 120 NW 

Devils Towner National Monument 42 ENE 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 316 NNW 

Fort Laramie National Historic Site 164 SSE 

Jewel Cave National Monument 117 ESE 

3-74 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

Table 3.4-8. Continued 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Distance (miles) Direction to Receptor 

Mount Rushmore National Memorial 112 ESE 

Popo Agie Wilderness Area 208 SW 

Soldier Creek Wilderness Area 197 SE 

PSD = prevention of significant deterioration of air quality 

a 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. 

The regional haze rule calls for improved visibility on the most impaired days and no additional 

impairment on the least impaired days (EPA 1999). The EPA participates in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (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. Figure 3.4-2 shows annual averages for the 20% best, 

average, and worst visibility days in the Badlands National Park and Bridger Wilderness Area 

from 1989 through 2005. To date, the Badlands National Park has statistically shown improved 

visibility on the least impaired days and no change in visibility on the average and most impaired 

days. The Bridger Wilderness Area has shown no statistically significant change in visibility on 

the least, average, or most impaired days (IMPROVE 2005). 

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 2003). The report is available at http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/visibility.asp. 

Surface coal mines are not considered to be major emitting facilities in accordance with the 

WDEQ Rules and Regulations (chapter 6, section 4). Therefore, the State of Wyoming does not 

require mines to evaluate their impacts on class I areas, though the BLM does consider such 

issues during leasing. 

3.4.4.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and support 

area (241 acres) would have a minor, short-term impact on visibility. Activities in the remainder 

of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases also would have a minor, 

short-term impact on visibility. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-75 
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Figure 3.4-2 

Visibility in the Badlands National Park and Bridger Wilderness Area 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Production would continue at the existing average annual rate of 25 million tons. Because 

visibility has improved or remained relatively unchanged under the existing permit for 42 million 

tons per year, only minor changes in visibility are anticipated under this alternative. Ongoing 

sources of impacts on visibility would continue as a result of mining the proposed tract, but 

would not be expected to increase on an annual basis. Kiewit has no plans to change blasting 

procedures or sizes associated with the mining the proposed tract. Coal haul rates and distances 

would not change significantly from current permitted levels and all unpaved mine roads would 

continue to be treated for dust suppression. Current BACT measures for particulates (outlined in 

section 3.4.2.3) that could contribute to impaired visibility would continue to be employed. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts on visibility as 

described under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the lease 

application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the 

future. 

Production would continue at the existing average annual rate of 25 million tons. Because 

visibility has improved or remained relatively unchanged under the existing permit for 42 million 

tons per year, only minor changes in visibility are anticipated under this alternative. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, surface coal mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and support 

area (926 acres) would have a minor, short-term impact on visibility. Activities in the remainder 

of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases also would have a minor, 

short-term impact on visibility. 

Production would continue at the existing average annual rate of 25 million tons. Because 

visibility has improved or remained relatively unchanged under the existing permit for 42 million 

tons per year, only minor changes in visibility are anticipated under this alternative. Ongoing 

sources of particulate emissions would continue as a result of mining in up to 1,883 acres of the 

BLM study area, but would not be expected to increase on an annual basis. Kiewit has no plans 

to change blasting procedures or sizes associated with the mining the proposed tract. Coal haul 

rates and distances would not change substantially from current permitted levels and all unpaved 

mine roads would continue to be treated for dust suppression. Current BACT measures for 

particulates (outlined in section 3.4.2.3) that could contribute to impaired visibility would 

continue to be employed. 

3.4.4.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

As discussed in section 3.4.2.1 and section 3.4.3.1, PM2.5 is the main cause of visibility 

impairment from coal mining operations, with secondary impacts from NOx emissions. 

Mitigation measures in use to limit emissions of particulate matter are discussed in section 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-77 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.4.2.3 and NOx mitigation measures are discussed in section 3.4.3.3. Additional information is 

provided in appendix G. 

Visibility monitoring in Wyoming consists of both the WDEQ-sponsored Wyoming visibility 

monitoring network and the IMPROVE program. The WDEQ has placed two visibilitymonitoring stations in the PRB. The TBNG site is 32 miles north of Gillette (about 20 miles 

northeast of the Buckskin Mine) and the Cloud Peak Wilderness Area site (Cloud Peak) is 

14 miles west of Buffalo (approximately 84 miles west of Gillette and the Buckskin Mine). Both 

sites include a variety of sophisticated monitoring equipment, as described in section 3.0 of 

appendix G. These sites are being used to characterize the extent, frequency of occurrence, and 

magnitude of impairments to visual air quality. 

The IMPROVE steering committee approved the incorporation of the TBNG and Cloud Peak 

sites into the IMPROVE network in June 2002. Although these stations are not located in Class I 

areas, the collected data will be comparable to monitoring data available from such areas 

elsewhere in the state. This information can help scientists determine the types and 

concentrations of air pollutants and their direction of travel in order to project visibility impacts 

on Class I areas. The Wyoming visibility monitoring network was recently supplemented with 

the development of a website at http://www.wyvisnet.com/all.html to allow public access to 

real-time monitored visibility and air quality conditions (WDEQ 2005a). 

3.4.5. Acidification of Lakes 

Lake acidification is the change in acid-neutralizing capacity, or the lake’s capacity to resist 

acidification. The acidification of lakes and streams is caused by atmospheric deposition of 

pollutants (acid rain). According to the EPA, SO2 and NOx are the main causes of acid rain 

(EPA 2009c); both elements are primarily derived from burning fossil fuels. Most lakes and 

streams have a pH between 6 and 8 (on a scale of 1 to 14), although some lakes are naturally 

acidic even without the effects of acid rain. Acid rain primarily affects sensitive water bodies 

located in watersheds whose soils have a limited ability to neutralize acidic compounds (called 

“buffering capacity”). Lakes and streams become acidic (i.e., pH value goes below 7) when the 

water itself and its surrounding soil cannot buffer the acid rain enough to neutralize it. In areas 

where buffering capacity is low, acid rain also releases aluminum from soils into lakes and 

streams; aluminum is highly toxic to many species of aquatic organisms. 

Several regions in the United States were identified in a national surface water survey as 

containing many of the waters sensitive to acidification. They include the Adirondacks and 

Catskill mountains in New York, the mid-Appalachian highlands along the east coast, the upper 

Midwest, and mountainous areas of the western United States. 

Scientists predict that the decrease in SO2 emissions required by a nationwide 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 2005b). The USDA Forest Service has been monitoring air quality in the Wind 

3-78 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

River Mountain Range in Wyoming since 1984 and is seeing a general trend of decreasing 

sulfates. In contrast, nitrates have been increasing globally. 

3.4.5.1. 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 in a particular region sets limits of acceptable change 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 acid-neutralizing capacity, which represents the lake’s 

capacity to resist acidification from acid rain. This unit of change is measured in 

microequivalents per liter. Table 3.4-9 shows the existing acid-neutralizing capacity monitored 

in some mountain lakes in Wyoming and their distance from the general analysis area. For 

comparison, the USDA Forest Service considers lakes with acid-neutralizing capacity values 

between 25 and 100 microequivalents per liter to be very sensitive to atmospheric deposition, 

and lakes with values less than or equal to 25 microequivalents per liter to be extremely sensitive 

to atmospheric deposition. 

Table 3.4-9. Existing Acid-Neutralizing Capacity in Sensitive Lakes 

Wilderness Area Lake 

Background AcidNeutralizing Capacity (μeq/L) Distance from General 

Analysis Area (miles) 

Bridger Black Joe 69.0 218

 Deep 61.0 243

 Hobbs 68.0 239 

Cloud Peak Upper Frozen 5.8a 82

 Emerald 55.3 89

 Florence 32.7 85 

Fitzpatrick Ross 61.4 250 

Popo Agie Lower Saddlebag 55.5 220 

μeq/l = microequivalents per liter 

a The background acid-neutralizing capacity is based on only six samples taken between 1997 and 2001. 

Source: Argonne 2002. 

3.4.5.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and support 

area (241 acres) would have a minor, short-term impact on lake acidification. Activities in the 

remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases also would have a 

minor, short-term impact on lake acidification. 

These levels of impacts on lake acidification are expected because of the distances from the 

Buckskin Mine to sensitive lakes in the region (table 3.4-9). Production would continue at the 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-79 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

existing average annual rate of 25 million tons, and ongoing sources of impacts on lake 

acidification would continue as a result of mining the proposed tract. These impacts would not 

be expected to increase on an annual basis. 

Impacts of coal mining on acid deposition are due primarily to NOx emissions from mining 

operations, as discussed in section 3.4.3 above. Studies have demonstrated that lake acidification 

is a regional phenomenon (Dillon et al. 1978). Kiewit has no plans to change its coal production 

rates or operations, including blasting methods, hauling rates and distances, or other emissions 

sources. Operations at the Buckskin Mine will continue to employ current control and 

notification measures for NOx emissions (outlined in section 3.4.3.3) to minimize the release of 

emissions into the atmosphere. Modeling for the current Buckskin Mine permit did not forecast 

any exceedances of the annual particulate or NO2 NAAQS at the currently permitted production 

rate of 42 million tons per year that could further contribute to lake acidification; Buckskin’s 

current and anticipated average annual production rates are 25 million tons per year. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected, and no new 

federal coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts on lake 

acidification as described under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to 

reject the lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general 

analysis area in the future. Production would continue at the existing average annual rate of 25 

million tons. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, surface coal mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and support 

area (926 acres) would have a minor, short-term impact on lake acidification. Activities in the 

remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases also would have a 

minor, short-term impact on lake acidification. 

These levels of impacts on lake acidification are expected because of the distances from the 

Buckskin Mine to sensitive lakes in the region (table 3.4-9). Production would continue at the 

existing average annual rate of 25 million tons. Ongoing sources of impacts on lake acidification 

would continue as a result of mining the final tract configuration. These impacts would not be 

expected to increase on an annual basis. 

Kiewit has no plans to change its coal production rates or operations, including blasting methods, 

hauling rates and distances, or other emissions sources, though the company is committed to 

working with adjacent landowners to address any concerns that arise. Operations at the 

Buckskin Mine will continue to employ current control and notification measures for NOx 

emissions (outlined in section 3.4.3.3) to minimize the release of emissions into the atmosphere. 

Modeling for the current Buckskin Mine permit did not forecast any exceedances of the annual 

particulate or NO2 NAAQS at the currently permitted production rate of 42 million tons per year 

3-80 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

that could further contribute to lake acidification; Buckskin’s current and anticipated average 

annual production rates are 25 million tons. 

3.4.6. 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 the Wyoming Air Resources 

Monitoring System which monitors sulfur and nitrogen concentrations near Buffalo, Sheridan, 

and Newcastle, and the National Atmospheric Deposition Program, which monitors 

precipitation chemistry in Newcastle. 

3.4.7. Residual Impacts on Air Quality 

No residual adverse impacts on air quality would occur following mining and reclamation. 

3.5. Water Resources 

This section describes the affected environment as it relates to water resources in the general 

analysis area, and identifies potential impacts on water resources that would result from the 

Proposed Action and alternatives. 

3.5.1. Groundwater 

3.5.1.1. Affected Environment 

Six water-bearing hydrologic units in the general analysis area could be disturbed by mining. In 

descending order, these units are recent alluvium, the Wasatch Formation, the Anderson coal 

seam, the Fort Union Formation interburden, and the Canyon coal seam. While the Anderson 

and Canyon coal seams belong to the Fort Union Formation geologically, they divide the Fort 

Union Formation into multiple distinct hydrologic sections. The interburden between the 

Anderson and Canyon coal seams exhibits very low permeability and has insufficient yield 

potential to be considered an aquifer; therefore, it will not be discussed here. The Fort Union 

Formation that underlies the Canyon coal will not be physically disturbed by mining activities 

but may be used for water supply. 

Aquifer characterization in the general analysis area is based on more than 80 groundwater 

monitoring wells installed in and adjacent to the WDEQ permit area between 1980 and 2000; the 

locations of currently active monitoring and water supply wells are shown on map 3.5-1. These 

wells were installed in each of the primary geologic units: alluvium (recent stream-laid and 

slope-wash deposits), the Wasatch overburden, and the Anderson and Canyon coal seams. These 

geological units are discussed below. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-81 
2,500 5,000
 

feet
 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 3.5-1 

Currently Active Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply Wells at Buckskin Mine 

0
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Recent Alluvium 

Groundwater in recent alluvium (sediments deposited by water flow) occurs primarily near and 

along the valley and draw bottoms associated with Hay Creek. It is directly connected to and 

recharged by groundwater in adjacent clinker and the Wasatch overburden. Alluvial 

groundwater flow generally follows topography, flowing out of upland areas into the valley and 

draw bottoms, then down-valley along the Hay Creek drainage. Hydraulic gradients are similar 

to the topographic and valley-bottom slopes on which the deposits reside. 

Aquifer testing indicates that the hydraulic conductivity, the capacity to transmit water, of 

stream-laid deposits along the Hay Creek valley bottom ranges from about 0.40 to 230 feet per 

day. Deposits in the general analysis area are finer-grained compared to those downstream, and 

exhibit hydraulic conductivities in the lower range. 

Although not alluvium, clinker is considered recent and can be an important groundwater 

resource. Recent testing and mine dewatering of the clinker near the Hay Creek valley bottom 

indicates hydraulic conductivities that may exceed 2,000 feet per day. Such high values are 

common for clinker along the coal outcrops in the PRB. 

Groundwater quality in the alluvial deposits is poor, and is generally unsuitable for domestic, 

agricultural, and livestock uses as defined by the Wyoming groundwater classification suitability 

criteria (WDEQ 2005b). Total dissolved solids (TDS), the measure of dissolved salts in water 

and an overall measure of water quality, is relatively high in the Hay Creek alluvium with an 

average of about 4,500 milligrams per liter. Isolated areas exhibit higher TDS concentrations 

because of surface water reservoirs that concentrate salts and locally affect alluvial groundwater. 

Sulfate, which contributes to the overall TDS, is generally high in the alluvium, roughly 10 times 

the suitability criteria limit. 

Wasatch Formation 

The principal groundwater occurrence in the Wasatch Formation is in sandstones that can be 

traced laterally for considerable distances. Aquifer testing of Wasatch sands indicates relatively 

low hydraulic conductivities that range from less than 1 to about 13 feet per day, with the highest 

values associated with surface sands that are commonly eolian in origin. These surface sands are 

the primary contributors of groundwater to the Hay Creek valley alluvium. 

Wasatch groundwater generally follows topography, flowing northeast from the upland areas and 

discharging into the Hay Creek valley and to the limited clinker deposits in sections 16 and 21. 

Seeps (groundwater emanating at grade over a broad area) occur in some upland areas where 

groundwater in the sandstones is near grade, especially in draws. 

Groundwater in the Wasatch sandstones is generally better quality when compared to other 

aquifer units, with an average TDS concentration of about 2,500 milligrams per liter. 

Overburden groundwater quality meets suitability criteria for livestock, but exceeds TDS and 

sulfate limits for domestic and irrigation uses. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-83 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Anderson and Canyon Coals 

The most extensive aquifer units in the general analysis area are the Canyon and Anderson coal 

seams. The aquifers are defined by the top and bottom of the seam, and are commonly confined 

by shale, silt, or clay. However, in some areas, groundwater in both seams may also occur in 

unconfined conditions and may even be unsaturated. 

Hydraulic conductivities in the coal seams are generally low and exhibit a range of about 

0.0020 to 2.0 feet per day. The variation is due to the degree to which the coal is fractured or its 

location relative to grade, which controls the degree of weathering. 

Measurements taken in the 1980s showed that groundwater flow in the Anderson coal seam was 

primarily to the east and northeast from upland areas toward discharge zones in the Hay Creek 

valley. In 2000, some groundwater in the Anderson coal seam was found to flow from east to 

west. Although some changes in groundwater flow patterns are a result of mine dewatering, 

changes can also be attributed to CBNG operations west of the general analysis area that began 

in the mid 1990s. 

Based on measurements taken in the 1980s, groundwater flow in the Canyon coal seam was 

similar to that of the Anderson coal seam (primarily to the northeast). In 2000, flows changed 

direction from east to west. As with the Anderson coal, in addition to mine dewatering, CBNG 

activities have contributed to the changes in groundwater flow patterns in the Canyon coal 

(Hydro-Engineering 2007). 

Water quality in the Anderson and Canyon coal seams exhibits considerable variation depending 

on the concentrations of major dissolved constituents, and is dominated by calcium, magnesium, 

and sulfate. Groundwater in the overburden affects water quality in the coals. CBNG drawdown 

may further affect water quality by creating induced hydraulic gradients in the coals. Coal 

groundwater, where present and still unaffected by mining or CBNG, is suitable for livestock use 

in some areas. In other areas, it is unsuitable for livestock or irrigation use because of elevated 

dissolved constituents or sodium adsorption ratio, a measure of the effect of sodium on soils. 

Elevated ammonia is consistent in both coal seams where bicarbonate dominates the anionic 

species, a phenomenon typical for coal groundwater in general. 

Subcoal Fort Union Formation 

The target coal seams in the general analysis area occur within the uppermost portion of the 

Tongue River member of the Fort Union Formation. The underlying Lebo and Tullock members 

consist of lithologies similar to that of the Tongue River, with sandstone predominating the 

Tullock and shale predominating the Lebo. The Lebo is commonly a confining unit between the 

Tongue River and Tullock members. 

The Tullock aquifer commonly exhibits transmissivity - the rate at which water is transmitted 

through an aquifer - that is higher than that of the Tongue River aquifer. This makes it a 

common water supply. The average transmissivity for this member as reported by the OSM 

(1984) is 290 square feet per day (2,200 gallons per day per foot). 

3-84 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Buckskin Mine uses two water supply wells completed in the Tullock aquifer south of the 

general analysis area (map 3.5-1). These wells supply water for both mining operations and 

on-site domestic use. 

3.5.1.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) would have 

substantial, permanent impacts on aquifers within the area to be mined. Mine-related activities 

in the support area (241 acres) would have no impact on aquifers, nor would activities in the 

remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) that are related to mining existing coal leases. 

The Proposed Action would result in reduced water levels in groundwater aquifers and water 

supply wells beyond the proposed tract, as described below. The reduction in groundwater is 

referred to as drawdown. It results from seepage of groundwater into, and dewatering ahead of, 

mine excavations. The extent of drawdown would depend on the distance of the aquifers from 

the proposed tract, the size of mine excavations, how long the excavations are open, and the 

extent of dewatering. Map 3.5-2 illustrates the extent of drawdown under the Proposed Action, 

taking into account mining of existing leases. The extent of dewatering depends on aquifer 

transmissivity, storage capacity, and heterogeneity, as well as the period over which dewatering 

occurs. Drawdown would extend preferentially in clean Wasatch sands that exhibit a relatively 

higher transmissivity than in less permeable materials. Dewatering through drawdown would 

also be most prevalent where these sands are laterally continuous. Drawdown patterns are more 

variable in aquifers that have more heterogeneous sands, such as the Wasatch and Fort Union 

sands, but will likely be a short-term occurrence as backfill water quality stabilizes over time. 

Concentrations of total dissolved solids would also increase under this alternative. 

Aquifer drawdown extends farther and occurs in a more consistent manner in the Anderson and 

Canyon coal seams than in the overburden because the aquifers have more homogeneous 

characteristics and are generally confined. However, drawdown can be substantially affected by 

variations in hydrogeologic characteristics such as fracture density, proximity to crop lines, 

recharge potential from overlying units, and lateral continuity. Such variations have been 

observed at the Buckskin Mine and would be likely in the proposed tract. Therefore, drawdown 

in the coals away from the mine is expected to behave in a similar manner to historical patterns 

at the mine. Overall groundwater is expected to rise to levels approaching those observed prior 

to mining over a relatively long period, likely greater than 50 years. However, the variety of 

underground water feature, such as vertical hydraulic gradients and perched aquifer zones, would 

not occur to the same degree because of the more homogeneous nature of the backfill. 

Therefore, the variety of water levels typically present prior to mining would not occur 

postmining. 

CBNG development, where present, would continue to have substantial effects on drawdown, 

especially in the coal seams. In the absence of CBNG development, drawdown typically is 

greatest near the mine, and decreases substantially away from the mine. Therefore, the Proposed 

Action would have greater impacts on near-mine groundwater resources than on those farther 

from the mine. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-85 
Clinker (locally called scoria or red dog) 

2,500 5,000

feet

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 3.5-2 

Extent of Drawdown under Proposed Action 

0
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Two water supply wells from the underburden aquifer are currently used by the Buckskin Mine. 

Although the evaluation of adequate water supply is ongoing as mining progresses, the mine may 

not require additional underburden water supply wells to mine the proposed tract. Due to its 

proximity to the existing Buckskin Mine, groundwater quality in the backfill aquifer on the 

proposed tract is expected to be similar to that measured in existing wells completed in the 

backfill at the mine. Variations in water quality may occur because of differences in the 

proportions of materials (i.e., sands, silts, and clays) used to reclaim the aquifer. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area related 

to mining existing leases would have no impact on groundwater. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a 

decision to reject the coal lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in 

the general analysis area in the future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) would have substantial, 

permanent impacts on aquifers within the area to be mined. Mine-related activities in the support 

area (926 acres) would have no impact on aquifers, nor would activities in the remainder of the 

overlap area (38 acres) that are related to mining existing coal leases. 

Long-term groundwater reduction in near-mine aquifers west of the BLM study area would 

extend farther than under the Proposed Action. Based on monitoring results to date, the two 

water supply wells currently in use could remain viable through the life of the mine. 

Groundwater quality in the backfill aquifer in the general analysis area is expected to be similar 

to that measured in existing wells completed in the backfill at the mine. 

3.5.1.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

If one of the action alternatives is implemented, Kiewit will complete baseline studies regarding 

regional and site-specific hydrogeologic characteristics to account for additional permitted area. 

As part of the baseline hydrogeologic studies for the existing permit area, Kiewit has installed 

monitoring wells in the alluvium, overburden, interburden, coals, and underburden to evaluate 

impacts on groundwater from mining activities. Also installed as part of the mining permit 

reclamation plan are backfill monitoring wells to evaluate groundwater of mine spoils as they 

re-saturate. If one of the action alternatives is implemented, Kiewit will expand these monitoring 

programs to address additional lease area as well as reclaimed areas on existing leases and will 

document groundwater monitoring in the mining permit amendment as well as in annual reports 

submitted to the WDEQ. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-87 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.5.2. Surface Water 

3.5.2.1. Affected Environment 

Surface Water Characteristics 

The most prominent surface water feature in the general analysis area is Hay Creek (map 3.5-3). 

Hay Creek topographically originates northwest of the general analysis area, in the NW4 of 

section 7, and then flows into the area and through section 18. The creek has been mined out in 

the central and southern portions of section 17, and is diverted to rejoin the undisturbed creek in 

the western half of section 16. Hay Creek is considered a minor stream in the regional drainage 

network of the Little Powder River. According to chapter 1, section 4 of the WDEQ Rules and 

Regulations, Hay Creek, although unclassified, would be characterized as a class 4 stream having 

intermittent or ephemeral flow that is protected for agricultural uses and wildlife watering. 

The creek is ephemeral in nature (i.e., responds only to rainfall or snow-melt events) as it enters 

the general analysis area in the SW4 of section 7. Down-valley of this location the valley bottom 

flattens, and Hay Creek is a poorly defined, ephemeral channel. Downstream of its undisturbed 

location in section 16, the creek varies between intermittent (i.e., flows for less than half of the 

year) and ephemeral as it courses eastward along a well-defined channel. 

At its confluence with the Little Powder River, about 2 miles east of the general analysis area, 

Hay Creek drains 15 square miles. The channel elevation drops about 34 feet over a channel 

length of 8,100 feet across the area, equating to an average channel slope of 0.0042. 

Hay Creek monitoring has been conducted since 1999 in the general analysis area in the 

NE4NE4 of section 18, and east of the area in the SE4NE4 of section 16. Monitoring has 

included both continuous flow measurements and periodic water quality sampling. 

Monitoring at both stations indicates that Hay Creek varies from dry to average base flows 

(flows that occur from normal contributions of groundwater) on the order of less than 1 cubic 

foot per second (cfs). Response to intense rainfall events may elevate the flow temporarily. 

CBNG well discharges have also affected stream flow in Hay Creek, resulting in fairly consistent 

but unnatural flows. 

Estimated runoff in the general analysis area, based on quantitative modeling, is 2.7 cfs for a 

10-year, 6-hour storm and 17 cfs for a 2-year, 24-hour storm. These estimates ignore the 

retarding effects of watershed impoundments on flow rates, so they represent maximum 

estimated runoff values. The runoff from the 2-year event is agriculturally significant because 

such a storm has an equal chance of occurring in any given year, and thus can be important for 

natural flood irrigation. 

3-88 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
2,500 5,000
 

feet
 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 3.5-3 

Surface Water Features in the General Analysis Area 

0
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Several impoundments are located in the general analysis area, in sections 17, 18, and 19. 

Named reservoirs with State Engineer’s Office appropriations in the general analysis area 

include Franklin #1 stock reservoir in the N2 of section 18 and Hay Creek blocking dike 

reservoir in the NW4NW4 of section 17. While these reservoirs provide a beneficial use for 

their appropriation, they affect groundwater and surface water hydrology. By temporarily 

storing water from both base flow and ephemeral events, these reservoirs generally decrease 

downstream flow by allowing localized evaporation and infiltration to groundwater. 

Impoundments in the general analysis area have storage capacities ranging from about 0.90 to 

12 acre-feet, with a combined storage capacity of about 26 acre-feet. Estimated annual runoff 

volumes from contributing watersheds generally exceed the storage volumes of these 

impoundments. Reservoirs south of the general analysis area in the central and southern portions 

of section 17 have been mined out. 

Several ephemeral channels in the general analysis area contribute drainage area to the Hay 

Creek valley. Three prominent, southeast-trending draws are located in sections 8 and 9, and 

two other prominent draws are located in sections 18 and 19. 

Surface Water Quality 

Monitoring at various locations along Hay Creek in the general analysis area indicates that water 

quality is poor. Water quality varies along the creek and is affected by in-channel impoundments 

that extend the amount time that the water is exposed to alluvial materials and concentrations of 

dissolved minerals through evaporation. Surface water quality has also been affected by CBNG 

discharges that contribute to apparent elevated sodium bicarbonate levels that are more 

characteristic of coal groundwater and not surface water in Hay Creek. 

Water quality is generally acceptable for livestock most of the time. Elevated TDS, sodium 

adsorption ratio, manganese, and sulfate may exceed WDEQ suitability criteria for irrigation. 

Prior to mining in the northern portion of section 17, TDS downstream of McGee Reservoir was 

roughly double that at upstream locations primarily as a result of elevated calcium and 

magnesium sulfate. 

3.5.2.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and 

mine-related activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a substantial, short-term 

impact on surface drainage systems and a permanent impact on reconstructed surface drainage 

systems. This alternative would have a minor to moderate, short-term to long-term impact on 

increased runoff and erosion rates immediately following vegetation removal, but a moderate, 

beneficial, long-term impact on increased infiltration on reclaimed lands. Activities in the 

remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) that are related to mining existing coal leases also 

would have similar impacts to those in the proposed tract and support area. Erosion and 

sediment discharge would likely increase in disturbed areas because of vegetation removal. 

3-90 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Water flow and direction in that area would be altered by the removal and reconstruction of 

drainage channels prior to mining and from redirected flow through the use of erosion- and 

sediment-control structures to manage surface water runoff from disturbed areas. No connected 

water bodies cross the proposed tract, so no additional channel diversions are anticipated. 

Regardless of planned mining and reclamation activities, large storms that exceed capacity 

designs for sediment-control structures (typically a storm that would exceed the 10-year, 24-hour 

rainfall) could produce sediments that have temporary impacts on areas downstream of mining 

operations. 

Effects on soil structure and hydrologic function in reclaimed areas would be long-term. Hay 

Creek and other affected drainages would be restored in approximately their original locations. 

Upon completion of reclamation, when soil structure and vegetation have been fully 

reestablished, the basic hydrologic functions of surface water flow, quality, and sediment 

discharge in the valley bottom would be restored to resemble premining conditions. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area (656 

acres) that are related to mining existing coal leases would have a substantial, short-term impact 

on surface water. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application 

would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

Water flow and direction in that area would be altered by the removal and reconstruction of any 

drainage channels prior to mining. Flow from the limited water resources in the area would be 

redirected through the use of erosion- and sediment-control structures to manage surface water 

runoff from disturbed areas. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and support area (926 

acres) would have the same impacts on various surface water characteristics as those described 

under the Proposed Action. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) that are 

related to mining existing coal leases also would have similar impacts to those described under 

that alternative, 

Erosion and sediment discharge would likely increase in disturbed areas because of vegetation 

removal. Water flow and direction would be altered by the removal and reconstruction of 

drainage channels prior to mining and from redirected flow through the use of erosion- and 

sediment-control structures to manage surface water runoff from disturbed areas. Additional 

impacts on Hay Creek’s main channel, extending from the NW corner of section 18 to the point 

where it enters the existing mine permit along the eastern section line of section 18, could occur. 

Channels draining into the Hay Creek valley bottom could also be removed to recover coal in the 

western half of section 18 and section 19. As described in chapter 2, Kiewit does not anticipate 

relocating any county roads or causing new disturbance in the operationally limited lands 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-91 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

between the two roads. Consequently, Kiewit does not anticipate the construction of any further 

diversions on Hay Creek west of the current permit boundary. 

3.5.2.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

If one of the action alternatives is implemented, Hay Creek and major channels will be restored 

after completion of mining operations, in accordance with SMCRA and Article 4 of the 

Wyoming Environmental Quality Act. 

Other permit requirements outlined in chapter 4 section 2(e) of the WDEQ Rules and 

Regulations include constructing sediment-control structures to manage and treat surface water 

discharges from disturbed areas and restoring reservoirs and playas disturbed during mining. 

Reservoirs in sections 17, 18, and 19 would be reconstructed and replaced in the approximate 

premining locations. Surface water quantity and quality in the restored Hay Creek channel 

would be monitored periodically per WDEQ requirements. 

3.5.3. Water Rights 

3.5.3.1. Affected Environment 

The State Engineer’s Office administers water rights in Wyoming, which are granted for both 

groundwater and surface water. Their records indicate that, as of May 2008, 2,380 permits for 

groundwater rights are within 3 miles of the general analysis area, 1,166 of which are for 

non-coal applicants. Groundwater rights for non-coal applicants are listed in appendix H. The 

breakdown of groundwater rights is as follows: 

 324 stock, CBNG; 

 152 CBNG; 

 156 miscellaneous; 

 101 monitoring; 

 96 stock, miscellaneous, CBNG; 

 71 miscellaneous, stock; 

 73 stock; 

 64 temporary filings; 

 60 domestic, stock; 

 38 domestic; 

 19 CBNG, reservoir supply, miscellaneous; 

 8 stock, miscellaneous; 

 2 industrial; 

3-92 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

 1 domestic, miscellaneous; and 

 1 irrigation. 

State Engineer’s Office records indicate that, as of May 2008, 368 permits for surface water 

rights are within 3 miles of the general analysis area, 308 of which are for non-coal applicants. 

Surface water rights for non-coal applicants are listed in appendix H. The breakdown of surface 

water rights is as follows: 

Adjudicated (129 total): 

 71 irrigation; 

 26 miscellaneous ; 

 20 stock; 

 9 irrigation, domestic; and 

 3 irrigation, reservoir supply. 

Un-adjudicated (179 total): 

 106 stock; 

 32 irrigation; 

 15 irrigation, reservoir supply; 

 13 oil refining/production, temporary use, industrial, drilling; 

 6 irrigation, domestic; 

 5 industrial; and 

 2 stock, domestic. 

3.5.3.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) would have a 

moderate, long-term impact on groundwater wells; mine-related activities in the support area 

(241 acres) would have a minor, long-term impact on one surface water right. Activities in the 

remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) that are related to mining existing coal leases would 

have no impact on water rights. 

Groundwater rights associated with existing water supply wells would experience impacts from 

the removal of aquifers in the proposed tract as a result of mining. Additionally, mine 

dewatering would affect existing wells near the proposed tract in the Wasatch or Fort Union 

formations above the Canyon coal seam; wells below the Canyon coal seam would not be 

affected. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-93 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Additional impacts on groundwater rights from CBNG development would continue. Impacts on 

water supply wells completed in the same coals where CBNG development is occurring may be 

affected as well as other wells that have hydraulic connections to these coals. The extent of 

impacts on these wells by CBNG development depends on how close they are to the CBNG 

extraction wells, the length of time groundwater withdrawals occur, and the hydraulic connection 

to aquifers from which CBNG groundwater withdrawals are occurring. 

One surface water right associated with the small tributary to Hay Creek would be removed 

during mining. Mining activities would also affect surface water rights down-slope of the 

general analysis area as a result of significantly altered hydraulic characteristics of the Hay Creek 

valley and its associated draws. Potential impacts include a reduction of surface water flow and 

a change in surface water quality from mining-related sediment discharges. Surface water rights 

up-slope of the general analysis area would not be affected. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) that are related to mining existing coal leases would have no impact on water rights. 

As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application would not preclude 

an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

Impacts on downstream surface water rights would be related to the previous diversion of a 

portion of Hay Creek from the northern half of section 17, as well as surrounding ephemeral 

draws. No new impacts on groundwater or surface water rights would occur due to the nature of 

mine-related support activities in the overlap area associated with existing coal leases. Impacts 

related to CBNG development could affect water rights in the overlap area. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) would have a moderate, 

long-term impact on groundwater wells, while mine-related activities in the support area 

(926 acres) would have a minor, long-term impact on up to two surface water rights. Activities 

in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) that are related to mining existing coal leases 

would have no impact on water rights. 

Additional groundwater rights could be removed, and dewatering impacts on groundwater rights 

could extend farther to the west. One additional surface water right in the western half of section 

18 could be removed; an additional reach of Hay Creek in the northwestern corner of section 

18 could be removed; and channels that lead to the Hay Creek valley bottom could be removed 

to recover coal in the western half of sections 18 and 19. The latter two impacts are not expected 

because Kiewit does not anticipate relocating any county roads or causing any new disturbance 

on the operationally limited lands between the roads. 

3-94 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.5.3.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

SMCRA and Wyoming state statutes (Title 41—Water) govern the protection of groundwater 

and surface water rights. Mine operators are required 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. 

If one of the action alternatives is implemented, Kiewit will update the list of private water 

supply wells that could be affected by mining and predict impacts on those wells as part of the 

WDEQ permitting process. Kiewit will commit to replacing those water supplies affected by 

mining with water of equivalent quality and quantity. Kiewit will reconstruct Hay Creek, 

surrounding channels, and reservoirs to restore surface water rights affected by mining. The 

permit reclamation plan must specify reconstruction methods to restore surface water features 

similar to those characterized prior to mining. Periodic monitoring of surface water flows and 

quality will be required ensure that flows and water quality are similar to premining conditions. 

Adjacent landowners to the north of the Buckskin Mine have contacted and met with mine 

personnel regarding their concerns about the impacts of mining on their water wells. The 

landowners and mine representatives are actively working to resolve those issues. 

3.5.4. Residual Impacts 

The action alternatives would have minor to moderate, long-term impacts on groundwater 

quantity as a result of removing aquifers and extracting groundwater. Although groundwater 

quantity would begin to recover once the backfill is replaced and the aquifer recharge begins, full 

recovery of groundwater levels in and adjacent to the general analysis area could extend well 

beyond the life of mine. The action alternatives would have permanent impacts on groundwater 

elevations (i.e., water table depths) related to perching (underground benches that can trap 

water), geologic layering (affecting underground water flow), or heterogeneity (affecting 

permeability). 

Groundwater quality is expected to return to premining conditions—adequate for livestock use— 

though it may exhibit slight but permanent variations related to the nature of the backfill. 

Because of the ephemeral nature of Hay Creek in the general analysis area, the action 

alternatives would have no residual impacts on surface water. Successful reclamation would 

ensure that rainfall would be adequately conveyed through reclaimed channels and stored in 

reclaimed reservoirs. 

3.6. Alluvial Valley Floors 

This section discusses the affected environment as it relates to alluvial valley floors (AVFs) in 

the general analysis area and the adjacent Buckskin Mine permit area and identifies any impacts 

on AVFs that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-95 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Prior to leasing and mining, AVFs must be identified because, under the SMCRA, mining on 

AVFs is prohibited unless the affected AVF is undeveloped rangeland that is insignificant to 

farming or 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 mining 

but might be affected by streamflow or groundwater impacts. AVFs not significant to 

agriculture can be disturbed during mining but must be restored as part of the reclamation 

process. 

3.6.1. Affected Environment 

Hay Creek is ephemeral in nature (i.e., it responds only to rainfall or snowmelt events) as it 

enters the general analysis area in the SW4SW4 of section 7 and flows to the east. Down-valley 

of this location the creek bottom flattens a poorly defined channel throughout the remainder of 

the general analysis area. Section 3.5 describes various aspects of the Hay Creek drainage, 

including its physical characteristics, potential for flood irrigation, and apparent subirrigated 

areas, among other features. In alluvial valley floors, subirrigation refers to 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 (30 CFR 701.5). 

WDEQ Rules and Regulations define AVFs as unconsolidated stream-laid deposits where water 

is available in sufficient quantities for agricultural activities (30 CFR 701.5). OSM and WDEQ 

have established guidelines to identify AVFs. These guidelines require detailed studies of 

geomorphology, soils, hydrology, vegetation, and land use, and are used to identify the following 

elements: 

 presence of unconsolidated stream-laid deposits, 

 potential for flood irrigation practices, 

 evidence of past or present flood irrigation, and 

 apparent subirrigated areas and the potential for natural flood irrigation. 

Areas identified as AVFs following these studies are evaluated for their significance to farming 

by the WDEQ. 

The WDEQ has not identified the agricultural productivity of the Hay Creek valley floor as 

significant to farming. Moreover, interviews with landowners and lessees who have agricultural 

operations in the Hay Creek valley floor consistently described failed or no attempts to develop 

artificial flood irrigation along Hay Creek (Buckskin Mining Company 2000). 

3.6.1.1. Studies Conducted to Determine Presence of Alluvial Valley Floors 

The primary AVF investigation in the general analysis area was completed in 2000. 

Investigations specific to section 16, east of that area, were completed by Triton Coal Company 

between 1980 and 1982, and the results from these investigations were incorporated into the 

3-96 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

2000 investigation. These AVF studies were conducted as part of the WDEQ mine permitting 

process to recover coal under Buckskin Mine’s existing leases. 

These investigations initially concluded that the Hay Creek valley bottom (including the portion 

that passes through the general analysis area) is not an AVF, as defined by WDEQ. That agency 

challenged this conclusion and determined that a portion of the Hay Creek valley floor is an 

AVF. The Wyoming Environmental Quality Council overturned this determination and upheld 

the original conclusion that the valley floor is not an AVF. A copy of the Environmental Quality 

Council order is included in appendix I. 

The findings of the investigations are described below. 

Presence of Unconsolidated Stream-Laid Deposits 

No stream-laid deposits are present in the general analysis area. Stream-laid deposits do occur in 

portions of the Hay Creek valley bottom and some associated upland draws beyond the general 

analysis area. Those areas consist of sand, gravel, and silt deposited by streamflow within Hay 

Creek and its tributaries. Prior to mining through the creek channel in the northern portion of 

section 17, mapped stream-laid deposits down-valley of the general analysis area occupied about 

57 acres on the creek bed. These deposits typically varied from about 80 to 500 feet wide, and 

were about 20 feet thick. Stream-laid deposits terminate before entering the reservoir in the 

general analysis area in the SW4NW4 of section 17. Upstream of that reservoir in the general 

analysis area, the valley-bottom deposits consist of slope wash overlying bedrock. Slope wash 

occurs along the bottom slopes of hills and in channel bottoms, including the Hay Creek valley 

bottom in section 18, and consists of reworked sediment deposited by overland flow. These are 

not fluvial (stream-laid) deposits associated with Hay Creek. 

Potential for Flood Irrigation 

Runoff from the 2-year, 24-hour storm event, generally considered agriculturally useful, yields 

about 11 acre-feet of water in the vicinity of the Buckskin Mine. This runoff volume is small 

relative to the cumulative storage capacity of reservoirs in the valley bottom and would not be 

sufficient to support any reliable flood irrigation practices. 

Poor surface water and groundwater quality in Hay Creek and its alluvium, respectively, would 

make it generally unsuitable for domestic, agricultural, and livestock uses. The poor 

groundwater quality is attributed to the effect of reservoirs that locally concentrate salts and to 

natural groundwater quality characteristics of adjacent deposits that recharge the alluvium. 

Water quality is discussed in detail in section 3.5. 

Groundwater quality in the Hay Creek alluvium is poor, and is generally unsuitable for domestic, 

agricultural, and livestock uses. Sulfate, which contributes to the overall TDS, is generally high 

in the alluvium, roughly ten times the suitability criteria limits. The poor groundwater quality is 

attributed to the effect of reservoirs that locally concentrate salts and to natural groundwater 

quality characteristics of adjacent deposits that recharge the alluvium. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-97 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The agriculturally useful flood is of insufficient volume to support any reliable flood irrigation 

practices. Runoff from the 2-year, 24-hour storm event, which is generally considered to be of 

agricultural use, yields about 11 acre-feet of water. This runoff volume is small relative to the 

cumulative storage capacity of reservoirs in the valley bottom and will not produce a flood that is 

useful for irrigation. 

Soils in the valley bottom also are of poor quality and are not suitable for irrigation purposes. 

Elevated electrical conductivity, boron, and selenium make the soils along Hay Creek unsuitable 

for irrigated row crops or improved pasture. The elevated electrical conductivity results in less 

water being available to plants because of osmotic potentials that exceed the capability of the 

plant to extract water from the soil. Boron toxicity may result in slowed growth and reduced 

production. Toxic concentrations of selenium may result in selenosis in livestock. 

Evidence of Flood Irrigation and Subirrigated Areas 

Plant species of agricultural interest have developed voluntarily in the native rangelands of the 

Hay Creek valley floor without any evidence that they were intentionally introduced for range 

improvement practices. Plant communities in the general analysis area that require flood 

irrigation are limited to the channel bottom along Hay Creek. Subirrigated vegetation occurs 

along and in the Hay Creek channel, adjacent to the channel in specific areas, and in isolated 

locations in upland areas. No evidence exists to indicate that these subirrigated plant species 

were specifically developed to exploit natural subirrigation. 

3.6.2. Environmental Consequences 

3.6.2.1. Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have no impact on AVFs. Activities in 

the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) that are related to mining existing coal leases also 

would have no impact on AVFs. 

No AVFs are present in the proposed tract or support area, or in the remainder of the overlap 

area. No primary drainages occur in any of those areas. One isolated, ephemeral draw crosses 

the northwestern corner of the proposed tract and support area, but it does not connect with Hay 

Creek or any other drainage and, therefore, does not include AVFs. 

As described in section 3.5, groundwater intercepted by dewatering activities would be routed 

through settling ponds to meet state and federal water quality criteria. Dewatering the alluvium 

in the proposed tract would not affect off-site alluvial groundwater downstream of the tract 

because no alluvium is present there and because the closed drainage in the area cannot 

contribute flow or alluvium to other systems. Dewatering could indirectly affect off-site alluvial 

groundwater up-valley of the proposed tract by creating a zone of influence (drainage area) that 

could extend beyond the tract boundary. 

3-98 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.6.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) that are related to mining existing coal leases would have no impact on AVFs. As 

discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the lease application would not preclude an 

application to lease a tract in the general analysis area the future. 

No AVFs have been identified in the overlap area. The majority of the portion of the Hay Creek 

channel that flows through that area has already been diverted as part of previously permitted 

mining activities, and Kiewit does not anticipate diverting any additional sections of that creek. 

3.6.2.3. Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and support area 

(926 acres) would have no impact on AVFs. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area 

(38 acres) that are related to mining existing coal leases also would have no impact on AVFs. 

No AVFs are present in the BLM study area and support area, or in the remainder of the overlap 

area, including the Hay Creek channel and floodplain. Mining could remove additional portions 

of the Hay Creek valley floor and associated features in the northern half of section 18 and the 

southwestern corner of the northwestern quarter of section 17. Kiewit does not anticipate any 

further diversions on Hay Creek, and has constructed a blocking dike at the western end of the 

current diversion to channel streamflow from the natural drainage into the existing structure. 

Indirect impacts (potential dewatering of alluvium) upstream of mine operations would be the 

same as those described for the Proposed Action, but could extend over a larger area. 

The Buckskin Mine has constructed a diversion for the valley floor that has been mined out in 

section 17. As mining approaches the valley floor in section 18, dewatering activities would 

deplete alluvial groundwater in the valley. Mining would subsequently progress across the 

valley floor and remove the alluvium. Stream diversions could be constructed to ensure that 

instream flows are preserved while mining progresses across the valley floor, though no 

additional diversions are expected to be constructed at this time. 

Groundwater intercepted by dewatering activities would be routed through settling ponds to meet 

state and federal water quality criteria. If additional diversions are constructed, discharges from 

these ponds would potentially increase the frequency and amount of flow in Hay Creek 

downstream of mining activities, thereby increasing surface water supplies outside the general 

analysis area to the east. Dewatering the alluvium in the final tract configuration would have no 

direct impact on off-site alluvial groundwater downstream of the tract because the alluvium in 

section 17 has already been removed. Dewatering could indirectly affect off-site alluvial 

groundwater up-valley of the tract by creating a zone of influence (drainage area) that could 

extend up-valley and northwest of the tract. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-99 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.6.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Chapter 5 of the WDEQ Rules and Regulations and SMCRA both address AVFs. If either of the 

action alternatives is implemented, the following mitigation and monitoring will be required. 

Basic surface water functions in Hay Creek will be restored during reclamation to ensure that 

water can be conveyed from the upstream, undisturbed point on the creek channel to the 

downstream tie-in point east of the general analysis area. The portion of the channel that will 

pass through reclamation will be constructed to simulate the characteristics of the premining 

native channel. Consideration will be given to erosional stability and to the reconstruction of 

ephemeral channels that would lead into the reclaimed valley floor. Surface water will be 

monitored to evaluate water quantity and quality through the reclaimed areas. Monitoring sites 

and frequency will be determined by WDEQ guidelines. 

3.6.4. Residual Impacts 

No AVFs have been identified in the general analysis area, and the majority of Hay Creek has 

already been diverted according to appropriate regulations to accommodate existing mining 

operations. Groundwater is expected to recharge and be reestablished in a similar manner to 

premining conditions, but may not exhibit the same hydrologic or chemical characteristics. The 

stream channel and the reclaimed valley floor would be reconstructed to mimic premining 

characteristics, but reconstruction would be an approximation. These impacts would be 

permanent but insignificant due to the absence of AVFs in the general analysis area. 

3.7. Wetlands 

This section discusses the affected environment as it relates to wetlands identified in the general 

analysis area through the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping system (USFWS 2007). It 

identifies potential impacts on those wetlands that would result from the Proposed Action and 

alternatives. For the purposes of this analysis, wetland determinations in the general analysis 

area were based on the NWI maps and a 2007 reconnaissance-level field visit by trained 

ICF International (ICF) wetland biologists. The field visit was conducted to ground-truth the 

current status of previously mapped NWI wetlands, in keeping with current BLM Data 

Adequacy Standards (1987) for EIS analyses of wetlands. 

3.7.1. Affected Environment 

“Waters of the U.S.” is a collective term for all areas subject to regulation by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the U.S. 

include special aquatic sites, large or small geographic areas that possess special ecological 

characteristics of productivity, habitat, wildlife protection, or other important and easily 

disrupted ecological values (40 CFR 230.3). Wetlands are a type of special aquatic site defined 

as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

3-100 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3(a)(7)(b)). 

Jurisdictional wetlands are defined as those wetlands that are within the extent of the Corps’ 

regulatory review. These wetlands must contain three components: hydric soil, a dominance of 

hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology.4 Nonjurisdictional wetlands are generally 

associated with internally drained depressions/playas that are isolated; nonjurisdictional other 

waters generally occur where areas of open water are ponded in a depression/playa area. As 

discussed in detail under section 3.7.3, only the Corps, in conjunction with the EPA, can make an 

official determination of jurisdiction under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Functional 

wetlands are areas that may contain only one or two of the three wetland criteria. The USFWS 

uses this third categorization in producing the NWI maps, which are based on aerial photo 

interpretation with limited or no field verification. 

The NWI maps show several wetlands occurring in the general analysis area (USFWS 2007). 

Many of these areas correspond with wetlands and other waters of the U.S. that were identified 

during previous wetland delineations of the Buckskin Mine; however, some of the information 

shown on these maps is relatively old and does not reflect current conditions (map 3.7-1). 

Based on the NWI maps, approximately 64.44 acres of wetlands have been identified in the 

general analysis area. Of these, 30.7 acres were considered potentially jurisdictional wetlands 

based on field observations (table 3.7-1); the remaining 33.74 acres were either considered as 

potentially nonjurisdictional wetlands (e.g., borrow pits, old impoundments) or were not found to 

be present during the field visit (table 3.7-2). As described above, only the Corps, in conjunction 

with the EPA, can make an official determination of jurisdiction under. 

The majority of the potential jurisdictional wetlands identified on the NWI maps and during the 

2007 field visit were associated with Hay Creek and other ephemeral tributaries in the general 

analysis area. Some wetlands previously mapped through the NWI may have been altered by 

agricultural uses and permitted mine disturbance or by CBNG-related water production in the 

general analysis area. 

4	 As a result of recent Supreme Court rulings (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 

January 9, 2001; and consolidated cases Rapanos vs. United States and Carabell vs. United States, known as the “Rapanos” decision, June 

19, 2006) non-navigable, isolated intrastate wetlands (e.g., playas) and other waters of the U.S. are not considered jurisdictional. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-101 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hay Creek 

10 

NWI-Identified Wetlands Determined to Be Wetlands 

NWI-Identified Wetlands Determined to Be Non-Wetlands 

Existing Buckskin Mine Permit Boundary 

General Analysis Area 22 

BLM Study Area 

Applicant Proposed Tract 

Primary Drainages 

Ephemeral Tributary ±

Pond or Reservoir 0 600 1,200 2,400 

Diversions 28 Feet 27 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 3.7-1 

NWI Wetlands and Other Waters in the General Analysis Area 

10 12 

R. 73 W. R. 72 W. 

16 

7 8 9

8 7 9 11 

Hay Creek 

5 

3 

4 

6 

MCGEE ROAD

12 

19 

Hay Creek Diversion (2004-2020) 

15 

14 

2 1 

COLLINS ROAD 

13 

17 

18 

North

Fork

Hay Creek

k D

13
 18
 17
 

Sedimentation 

No. 33 Reservior 16 (2004-2020) 15
 

Sedimentation 

No. 34 Reservior 

(2004-2020) 

oL ne Pea raw 

Backfill 3 

Sump 21 24 19 20 

TCO Sump 

25 30 29
 
 

 

 

 

c 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.7-1. NWI-Identified Wetlands in the General Analysis Area 

Wetland Name NWI Wetland Classificationsa Wetland Typeb Field Determinationc Acres 

NWI 1 PABFh Freshwater pond Wetland (impounded) 0.24 

NWI 2 PEMAh Freshwater emergent wetland Wetland (CBNG pond) 0.26 

NWI 5 PEMCh Freshwater emergent wetland Wetland (impounded) 0.10 

NWI 6 PEMAh Freshwater emergent wetland Wetland (CBNG pond) 0.29 

NWI 7 PEMA 

PEMC 

Freshwater emergent wetland Wetland (temporary 

ponding) 

3.0 

NWI 8 PUBFx 

PEMA 

Freshwater emergent wetland 

and freshwater pond 

Wetland (dry playa) 22.82 

PEMC 

NWI 9 PUSAx Other Wetland (surface ponding) 0.10 

NWI 11 PEMA Freshwater emergent wetland Wetland (farmed wetland) 2.24 

NWI 12 PEMCh 

PABFh) 

Freshwater emergent wetland 

and freshwater pond 

Wetland (impounded) 0.58 

NWI 14 PEMCh Freshwater emergent wetland Wetland (CBNG pond) 0.24 

NWI 15 PEMAh Freshwater emergent wetland Wetland (impoundment) 0.15 

NWI 17 PABFh Freshwater pond Wetland (dry impoundment) 0.68 

Total Acres 30.7 

NWI = National Wetland Inventory; P = palustrine; EM = emergent; AB = aquatic bed; US = unconsolidated shore; A = temporarily flooded; 

F = semi-permanently flooded; C = seasonally flooded; x = excavated; h = diked/impounded; CBNG = coal bed natural gas 

a Some of the wetlands studied had multiple wetland classifications associated with the wetland. 

b Based on USFWS NWI map. 

Based on 2007 reconnaissance-level field visit. 

Source: USFWS 2007; Cowardin et al. 1979. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-103 
 

 

 

c

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.7-2. NWI-Identified Wetlands Confirmed to be Non-Wetlands in the General 

Analysis Area 

Wetland Name NWI Wetland Classificationsa Wetland Typeb Field Determinationc Acres 

NWI 3 PEMA Freshwater emergent wetland Not a wetland 

(borrow pit) 

2.58 

NWI 4 PEMA Freshwater emergent wetland Not a wetland 

(borrow pit) 

1.09 

NWI 10 PABFh 

PEMA 

Freshwater emergent wetland 

and freshwater pond 

Not a wetland 11.67 

PEMAh 

NWI 13 PEMC Freshwater emergent wetland Not a wetland 

(old impoundment) 

0.10 

NWI 16 PEMA 

PEMCx 

Freshwater emergent wetland Not a wetland 

(non irrigated hay field) 

14.7 

NWI 18 PEMCh Freshwater emergent wetland Not a wetland 0.16 

NWI 19 PEMA 

PABFh 

Freshwater emergent wetland 

and freshwater pond 

Not a wetland 

(disturbed area) 

3.44 

Total Acres 33.74 

NWI = National Wetland Inventory; P = palustrine; EM = emergent; AB = aquatic bed; A = temporarily flooded; F = semi-permanently flooded; 

C = seasonally flooded; x = excavated; h = diked/impounded 

a Some of the wetlands studied had multiple wetland classifications associated with the wetland. 

a Based on USFWS NWI map. 

 Based on 2007 reconnaissance-level field visit or unrelated 2008 wetland delineation in the overlap area. 

Source: USFWS 2007; Cowardin et al.1979. 

Wetlands occur in a variety of forms in the general analysis area, with palustrine wetlands being 

the most common and abundant. Palustrine wetlands are defined by their close association with 

emergent herbaceous marshes, swales, or wet meadows and are supported by saturated soils 

along the banks of the drainages (Cowardin et al. 1979). Wetlands support a variety of 

vegetation types and occur mainly along drainages in the general analysis area. Hydrology for 

these areas is provided primarily by surface runoff from adjacent uplands and discharged CBNG 

waters. 

Hay Creek, which flows primarily from west to east, several other tributaries that generally flow 

into Hay Creek, and various open water areas (e.g., stockponds, impounded reservoirs) are 

potential other waters of the U.S. These features carry or store water but do not meet the criteria 

for classification as wetlands. The Buckskin Mine’s approved mining plan allows disturbance of 

a portion of the Hay Creek channel. Beginning in 2006, approximately 1.75 miles of the channel 

were diverted into the Hay Creek Diversion (map 3.5-3) to facilitate mining in the northern 

extent of the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. Additional details regarding water resources 

are provided in section 3.5. 

3-104 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Soils in the general analysis area consist mainly of loams, sandy loams, and some clay loams. 

One hydric soil unit, Felix Clay, is located in the general analysis area (NRCS 2008), on slopes 

ranging from 0 to 2% and in soils that are developing in alluvium derived from sandstone and 

shale on gently sloping uplands. The hydric soil unit is located near wetlands NWI 8 and NWI 9 

(table 3.7-1). Section 3.8 contains additional information on soils in the general analysis area. 

The specific functions (e.g., agriculture, livestock, and wildlife) of each identified wetland will 

be determined during the delineation associated with the permitting process, should a lease be 

issued and are, therefore, not addressed in detail as part of the EIS analysis. 

3.7.2. Environmental Consequences 

3.7.2.1. Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a moderate, permanent impact on two 

small, potentially jurisdictional NWI-inventoried wetlands (NWI 1 and NWI 14, 0.48 acre) 

(table 3.7-3, map 3.7-1). Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) that are 

related to mining existing coal leases would have a moderate, permanent impact on two 

additional potentially jurisdictional NWI-inventoried wetlands (NWI 12 and NWI 15, 0.73 acre). 

NWI 1 consists of a small, semi-permanently flooded, diked impoundment in the extreme 

northwestern corner of the proposed tract (map 3.7-1); field observations over the years have 

indicated that the reservoir is wet primarily during early spring months. NWI 14 is associated 

with a CBNG pond, and the remaining two NWI-inventoried wetlands are associated with 

impoundments. All wetland functions would be lost during mining and support activities. These 

impacts would be mitigated during reclamation by creating equivalent acreages of wetlands 

elsewhere in the Buckskin Mine permit area to ensure no net loss of wetland function in the 

general analysis area (section 3.7.3). No additional reaches of Hay Creek would be diverted 

under the Proposed Action. 

Table 3.7-3. Potential Wetland Impacts under the Proposed Action and Alternativesa 

Wetland Name	 Alternative 1 (Acres) Proposed Action (Acres) Alternative 2 (Acres) b 

NWI 1 0.24 0.24 

NWI 12 0.58 0.58 0.58 

NWI 14 0.24 0.24 

NWI 15 0.15 0.15 0.15 

NWI 17 0.68 

Total Acres 0.73 1.21 1.89

a Wetlands partially within a disturbance area were considered a full take, because a partial take of a wetland could affect the function of the entire wetland. 

b	 NWI 2, NWI 5, NWI 6, NWI 7, NWI8, NWI 9, and NWI 11 are located in the operationally limited lands where mining activity is not anticipated to occur; 

therefore, Alternative 2 would not affect these wetlands. The remaining NWI-inventoried wetlands were confirmed as non-wetlands during the 2007 site 

visit (table 3.7-2). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-105 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.7.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have a moderate, permanent impacts on 

two NWI-inventoried wetlands in the overlap area (NWI 12 and NWI 15, 0.73 acre) (table 3.7-3, 

map 3.7-1). As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application would 

not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. These 

impacts would be mitigated during reclamation by creating equivalent acreages of wetlands 

elsewhere in the Buckskin Mine permit area to ensure no net loss of wetland function in the 

general analysis area (section 3.7.3). 

3.7.2.3. Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a moderate, permanent impact on three 

small, potentially jurisdictional NWI-inventoried wetlands (NWI 1, NWI 14, and NWI 17, 

1.16 acres) (table 3.7-3, map 3.7-1). Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) 

that are related to mining existing coal leases would have a moderate, permanent impact on two 

additional potentially jurisdictional NWI-inventoried wetlands (NWI 12 and NWI 15, 0.73 acre). 

Approximately 28.8 acres (94%) of the NWI-inventoried wetlands are west of one or both 

county roads and in the area considered operationally limited by Kiewit; Kiewit does not 

anticipate relocating either road to access federal coal reserves. All wetland functions would be 

lost during mining activities, but the general analysis area would experience no net loss of 

wetlands due to permit requirements to create equivalent acreages of wetlands elsewhere in the 

Buckskin Mine permit area (section 3.7.3). Kiewit does not expect to divert any additional 

segments of Hay Creek under Alternative 2 due to the location of the drainage in the 

operationally limited area west of the county roads. 

3.7.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Since the 2007 NWI-based wetland determination was completed, a portion of the general 

analysis area was formally delineated by ICF wetland biologists. The results of this study are 

currently being reviewed by the Corps and the issuance of an approved jurisdictional 

determination is pending. Because the jurisdictional status of the delineated wetlands and other 

non-wetland waters has yet to be determined, the results of the post-2007 delineation are not 

presented in this document. 

If an action alternative is implemented, a wetland delineation will be completed for all areas 

outside of the area recently delineated. That report will be submitted to the Corps for 

verification and an approved jurisdictional determination will be requested. If unavoidable 

impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. are proposed under either action 

alternative, a section 404 Permit Application will be prepared. Kiewit will mitigate for all 

affected jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

3-106 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Mitigation is required at a minimum one-to-one ratio for jurisdictional wetlands. The wetland 

replacement plan, which must be approved by the Corps, requires no net loss of wetland area and 

function. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act does not cover nonjurisdictional wetlands; however, 

Executive Order 11990 requires that all federal agencies protect all wetlands. Mitigation for 

impacts on nonjurisdictional wetlands will be specified during the permitting process as required 

by the authorized state or federal agency (which may include the WDEQ and the OSM). 

Because surface land in the general analysis area is privately owned, the private surface owner 

may also contribute to decisions regarding mitigation for impacts on nonjurisdictional wetlands. 

The WDEQ allows and sometimes requires mitigation of nonjurisdictional wetlands, depending 

on the quality of the wetland functions. That agency may also require replacement of wetlands 

or playas with hydrologic significance. 

Wetland mitigation may begin prior to mining activities, depending on hydrologic resources 

available. Interim mitigation may be provided through the many sediment-control structures 

(ponds) created during mining, drainage diversion, removal of livestock from riparian areas, and 

repair of damaged wetlands. 

3.7.4. Residual Impacts 

Replaced wetlands (jurisdictional or functional) may not duplicate the exact function and 

landscape features of the premining wetlands, but all wetland replacement plans will be approved 

by the Corps, which has special required permitting procedures to assure that no net loss of 

wetlands will occur after reclamation. 

3.8. Soils 

This section describes the affected environment as it relates to soils in the general analysis area, 

and identifies potential impacts on soils that would result from the Proposed Action and 

alternatives. 

3.8.1. Affected Environment 

The affected environment described in this section is based on National Resources Conservation 

District soil surveys of Campbell County, Wyoming, which includes the proposed tract and 

general analysis area (National Resources Conservation Service 2004). 

Soils vary in composition and depth depending on where and how they were formed. Major 

factors involved in the formation of soils include whether the material was transported, the 

source of the material, and how the material was weathered after transportation. Five soil 

formation processes causing different soil types were noted in the general analysis area: 1) soils 

developing predominantly in alluvium (stream-laid) or eolian (wind-blown) deposits derived 

from sandstone and shale on upland ridges; 2) soils developing predominantly in alluvium 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-107 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

derived from sandstone and shale on gently sloping uplands; 3) soils developing predominantly 

in alluvium or colluviums (material that has been transported downslope by rock falls, slides, and 

slumps) derived from porcelanite on gently sloping uplands; 4) soils developing predominantly 

in residuum (residual material )weathered from sandstone and shale on gently sloping uplands; 

and 5) soils developing predominantly in alluvium over residuum weathered from sandstone and 

shale on gently sloping uplands. 

Soil surveys were conducted in 2007 by BKS Environmental Associates, Inc., to an Order 1-2 

resolution. The inventories included field sampling and observations at the appropriate number 

of individual sites to provide adequate sample sizes, and analysis of representative collected 

samples. Soils in the general analysis area were identified by series, which consist of soils that 

have similar horizons (distinct horizontal layers) in their profile (sequence of soil layers). Soil 

types and depths in the general analysis area are similar to soils currently being salvaged and 

used for reclamation at the Buckskin Mine and other nearby mines in northern Campbell County. 

Additional detailed information about the soil types sampled during 2007 is included in the Soils 

Data Report, which can be viewed at the High Plains District office of the BLM in Casper, 

Wyoming. These site-specific soil surveys located hydric (saturated) soils and inclusions of 

hydric soils, which are components used in identifying wetlands. Wetlands are discussed in 

section 3.7 of this EIS. Areas with soils that are not suitable to support plant growth include sites 

with high salinity (salty content), high sodicity (amount of sodium present), or excessive clay or 

sand content. 

3.8.2. Environmental Consequences 

3.8.2.1. Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a moderate, long-term impact on 

bulk density and infiltration rates in soils. Activities in these areas would have a moderate, 

beneficial, long-term impact on soil uniformity and decreased runoff, as well as chemical 

properties. The Proposed Action would have a moderate, short- to long-term impact on 

biological properties in soils that are stockpiled before reclamation. Activities in the remainder 

of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same 

impacts as those in the proposed tract and support area. 

Soils would be incrementally removed as mining and activities related to mining progress 

through the area. Soils removed and stockpiled during mining would be replaced under 

reclamation. The replaced soils would have a more uniform soil chemistry and soil nutrient 

distribution. Average topsoil quality would be improved because soil material that is not suitable 

to support plant growth would not be salvaged for use in reclamation. This would result in more 

uniform vegetative productivity on reclaimed lands. 

The baseline soils analysis of the proposed tract and support area indicates that the amount of 

suitable soil available for redistribution on disturbed areas would have an average depth of 

3-108 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

17 inches (1.4 feet). The replaced soil would support a stable and productive vegetation 

community adequate in quality and quantity to support the planned postmining land uses (i.e., 

wildlife habitat and livestock grazing). 

Reclamation would result in a temporary increase in the near-surface bulk density of soils in the 

proposed tract. The average soil infiltration rates would generally decrease, which would 

increase the potential for runoff and soil erosion. However, topographic moderation following 

reclamation would potentially reduce 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 would eventually form a new soil structure in the reclaimed 

soils. 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 closely mimic priming conditions and ensure proper drainage of 

water across the reclaimed spoils. Sediment-control measures would be implemented where 

runoff occurs to preserve reclaimed materials. Indirect impacts on biological organisms in the 

soil on the proposed tract and support area would include short- to long-term reduction in soil 

organic matter, microbial populations, seeds, bulbs, rhizomes, and live plant parts in soil 

resources that are stockpiled before replacement. 

3.8.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have similar impacts to those described 

under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease 

application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the 

future. 

3.8.2.3. Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a moderate, short- to long-term impact on 

most soils characteristics following reclamation. These activities would have moderate, 

beneficial, long-term impacts on soil uniformity and reduced runoff postmining. Activities in the 

remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have similar 

impacts and beneficial effects as those in the BLM study area and support area. Baseline soils 

characteristics and reclamation practices would be the same as those described under the 

Proposed Action. 

3.8.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

If either of the action alternatives is implemented, Kiewit will mitigate for the impacts on soil 

resources in accordance with WDEQ reclamation standards and requirements. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-109 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Soils suitable to support plant growth will be salvaged for use in reclamation. Soil stockpiles 

will be protected from disturbance and erosional influences. Soil material that is not suitable to 

support plant growth will not be salvaged; soil or overburden materials containing potentially 

harmful chemical elements (e.g., selenium) will not be used in reclamation. A minimum of 

4 feet of suitable overburden will be placed on the graded backfill surface below the replaced soil 

to meet state guidelines for vegetation root zones; those depths will be confirmed by sampling 

before topsoil is applied. Redistributed topsoil will be sampled to document redistribution 

depths and seeded to reduce wind erosion. Sediment-control structures will be constructed, as 

needed, to trap eroded soil. Vegetation growth will be monitored in reclaimed areas to confirm 

vegetation establishment and acceptability for bond release and determine if soil amendments are 

needed. Appropriate normal husbandry practices may be implemented to achieve specific 

reclamation goals. 

3.8.3. Residual Impacts 

The action alternatives would result in long-term alteration of soil characteristics. Existing soils 

would be mixed and redistributed, and soil-forming processes would be disturbed by mining. 

3.9. Vegetation 

This section addresses existing vegetation in the general analysis area and impacts on vegetation 

resulting from the Proposed Action and alternatives. Wetlands are addressed in section 3.7. 

Threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate plant species, and BLM Sensitive Species are 

addressed in appendices J and K, respectively. 

3.9.1. Affected Environment 

The affected environment for the general analysis area is based on the following: 

 Vegetation communities in the overlap area (656 acres) were mapped and quantitatively 

sampled during baseline inventories for a permit amendment in 2000. All field sampling and 

mapping efforts were conducted in accordance with WDEQ mine permitting requirements. 

 Vegetation communities in the remainder of the general analysis area (2,191 acres) were 

mapped and quantitatively sampled in 2007 and 2008; those efforts also complied with 

WDEQ permitting requirements. Additional detailed information about these survey 

methods and results is included in the Vegetation Data Report, which can be viewed at the 

High Plains District office of the BLM in Casper, Wyoming. That report includes a map 

showing the primary vegetation communities in the general analysis area. 

Vegetation in the general analysis area consists of species common to eastern Wyoming and is 

consistent with vegetation that occurs in the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. Eight distinct 

vegetation communities were identified and mapped in the general analysis area. Four additional 

categories were also mapped: Disturbed Areas, Tree Shelterbelts, Rough Breaks, and Open 

Water. Each of the latter three groups accounts for less than 1% of the total area. All vegetation 

3-110 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

communities and additional classifications are described below. Table 3.9-1 provides acreages 

and percent composition for each category. 

Table 3.9-1. Vegetation Communities in the General Analysis Area 

General Analysis Area BLM Study Area Proposed Tract 

Vegetation Community Acres Composition (%) Acres Composition (%) Acres Composition (%) 

Agricultural Cropland 727.1 25.5 532.9 28.3 39.3 9.4 

Agricultural Pasture: Moderate 

Management 86.2 3.0 54.4 2.9 3.7 0.9 

Agricultural Pasture: Intensive 

Management

Bunchgrass Prairie 

56.1 

232.8 

2.0 

8.2 

56.1 

160.8 

3.0 

8.5 

12.0 

0.0 

2.8 

0.0 

Lowland Prairie 124.9 4.4 77.1 4.1 2.2 0.5 

Mixed Grass Prairie 462.6 16.2 207.1 11.0 41.7 10.0 

Sandy Prairie 455.9 16.0 331.5 17.6 252.6 60.3 

Riparian Bottomland 174.3 6.1 77.4 4.1 4.1 1.0 

Big Sagebrush Shrubland 302.0 10.6 202.8 10.8 45.8 10.9 

Trees: Shelter Belt 0.8 0.03 0.8 0.04 0.9 0.2 

Disturbed: Roads 46.4 1.6 37.5 2.0 9.5 2.3 

Disturbed: CBNG 41.0 1.4 19.1 1.0 7.0 1.7 

Disturbed: Residential 20.4 0.7 20.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 

Disturbed: Other Non-Mining 11.9 0.4 9.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 

Disturbed: Mining 88.7 3.1 88.7 4.7 0.0 0.0 

Rough Breaks 12.5 0.4 5.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 

Open Water 3.4 0.1 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 

Totala 2,847.0 100.0 1,883.0 100.0 419.0 100.0 

CBNG = coal bed natural gas 

a Totals are rounded. 

Source: LandTrak Resources, Inc. 2009. 

3.9.1.1. Agricultural Cropland 

Agricultural cropland in the general analysis area consists of dryland, small grain production, 

and alfalfa hay production. The small grain production appears to use a fallow rotation cropping 

system. The alfalfa hay production is mostly dryland. Approximately 25.5 % (727.1 acres) of 

the general analysis area is Agricultural Cropland. 

3.9.1.2. Agricultural Pasture 

The classification system used for Agricultural Pasture—low management, moderate 

management, and intensive management—evaluates management efforts based largely on the 

presence of sagebrush. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-111 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Low Management 

Low management Agriculture Pasture, which contains stands of old-growth sagebrush, is not 

present in the general analysis area. 

Moderate Management 

Moderate management Agriculture Pasture accounts for approximately 3.0% (86.2 acres) of the 

general analysis area. This vegetation community is largely a mixture of cool-season, introduced 

pasture grasses such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) and smooth brome (Bromus 

inermis). A minor component of cool-season native species is present, as well. 

Some management of shrub species has occurred in this vegetation community. Typically, this 

vegetation community is hayed when sufficient moisture has occurred to make harvesting 

economically viable. In dry years, this community is used as early-season pasture for livestock 

production. If it is not hayed for several years, the sagebrush will become reestablished in this 

vegetation community. 

Intensive Management 

Intensive management Agricultural Pasture accounts for approximately 2.0% (56.1 acres) of the 

general analysis area. This vegetation community is located mostly along the edges of 

Agricultural Cropland. It is typically mowed annually to allow access to the cropland. This 

vegetation community is comprised almost exclusively of cool-season, introduced pasture 

grasses such as crested wheatgrass and smooth brome. Frequent mowing prevents shrubs from 

becoming reestablished. 

3.9.1.3. Bunchgrass Prairie Grassland 

Bunchgrass Prairie Grassland accounts for approximately 8.2% (232.8 acres) of the general 

analysis area. This community typically occurs on clinker sandstone or shale hills, knolls, and 

slopes that are moderately steep to steep. Soils are predominantly in the Ironbutte, Fairburn, 

Mittenbutte, Samday, Shingle, and Rock Outcrop map units that have shallow soils and usually a 

high coarse-fragment content. 

Vegetation species associated with Bunchgrass Prairie Grassland include: little bluestem 

(Schizachyrium scoparius), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Indian ricegrass 

(Achnatherum hymenoides), needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comata), and some blue grama 

(Bouteloua gracilis). Some big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) occurs in this community, 

typically in small, mosaic patterns as described in the Big Sagebrush Shrubland category, below. 

3.9.1.4. Lowland Prairie Grassland 

Lowland Prairie Grassland accounts for approximately 4.4% (124.9 acres) of the general analysis 

area. This community occurs primarily on gently sloping, often saline plains: on gently sloping 

benches usually adjoining Riparian Bottomlands: and in closed basins. Within this community, 

the amount of soil saturation, concentration of soil salts, and presence or absence of subirrigation 

varies with topographic position. Salt concentrations in lowland prairie soils influence 

3-112 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

plant-available water, thus affecting vegetation composition. Soil salt accumulations play a part 

in limiting moisture in the subirrigated category of the lowland prairie vegetation community. 

Transitional zones between soil water conditions in this community may be abrupt, or gradual 

and subtle, depending on local topographic and stormwater runoff conditions. Some portions of 

the lowland prairie benefit from periodic subirrigation which usually results in more robust 

growth of community vegetation. When present, subirrigation water tends to occur 16 inches 

below the ground surface. Soils are predominantly Boruff, Haverdad, and Felix series. 

Vegetation species associated with Lowland Prairie Grassland include: western wheatgrass 

(Pascopyrum smithii), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), 

streambank/thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus), and big sagebrush. 

3.9.1.5. Mixed-Grass Prairie Grassland 

Mixed-grass Prairie Grassland accounts for approximately 16.2% (462.6 acres) of the general 

analysis area. This community occupies rolling hills and ridges with moderate to deep soil 

development. Soils are predominantly loams, sandy clay loams, fine sandy loams, and sandy 

loams. Occasionally, clay loams and loamy sands are found in this community. This community 

is most strongly correlated with deeper soils, including Bidman, Cambria, Kishona, Lawver, 

Teckla, and Wibaux loams, and Hiland sandy clay loam. 

Vegetation species associated with Mixed-grass Prairie Grassland include: western wheatgrass, 

Indian ricegrass, needle-and-thread, blue grama, and big sagebrush. When big sagebrush occurs 

in this community, it is typically in small, mosaic patterns and accounts for less than 20% of the 

total vegetation cover composition. 

3.9.1.6. Sandy Prairie Grassland 

Sandy Prairie Grassland accounts for approximately 16.0% (455.9 acres) of the general analysis 

area. This community occurs on rolling hills and plains, with occasional wind blow-outs. It is 

most commonly associated with fine sandy loams and sandy loams (e.g., Taluce, Terro, Vonalee, 

and Vonalf soils), but also occurs on loams, sandy clay loams, loamy sands, and fine sands. The 

soil series is generally is found on deeper soils; however, moderately deep soils are not 

uncommon. 

Vegetation species associated with Sandy Prairie Grassland include: Indian ricegrass, 

needle-and-thread, blue grama, prairie sand reed (Calamovilfa longifolia), and threadleaf sedge 

(Carex filifolia). 

3.9.1.7. Riparian Bottomland 

Riparian Bottomland accounts for approximately 6.1% (174.3 acres) of the general analysis area. 

This community is associated primarily with Hay Creek and is limited in distribution due to the 

drainage’s narrow width throughout most of its length. In a few atypical instances, isolated 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-113 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Riparian Bottomland communities grow on hillsides in saturated soils associated with 

groundwater seeps. 

Species composition in riparian bottomland varies, and is primarily correlated with site-specific 

hydrologic conditions. This community can be subdivided into two main sub-communities: 

Riparian Bottomland Meadow and Riparian Bottomland Marsh. Riparian Bottomland Meadow 

is the predominate sub-community found throughout Hay Creek. The most prevalent vegetation 

type is cordgrass, with minor inclusions of spikerush and bullrush. Riparian Bottomland Marsh 

and emergent vegetation zones exist around the perimeters of stockponds. The dominant 

vegetation types in this sub-community are bullrushes, spikerushes, and sedges. Rushes 

typically have a higher relative cover value than cordgrass in these areas. Production values for 

Riparian Bottomland sites can vary independently of cover values. 

These bottomland communities typically occur on soils that are characteristically deep and 

poorly drained, including Boruff series and mollic fluvaquents. 

3.9.1.8. Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

Big Sagebrush Shrubland accounts for approximately 10.6% (302 acres) of the general analysis 

area (table 3.9-1). For purposes of this study, this community is defined as areas in which shrub 

and sub-shrub species comprise more than 20% of the total vegetation cover. Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland is found on a variety of topography, including gentle slopes, rolling hills and steep, 

dissected breaks. This community occurs commonly on shallow clay loams (such as the Theedle 

and Shingle series) and deep loams (such as the Forkwood and Cushman series), and 

occasionally on sandy loams. This shrub community occurs in a mosaic pattern across the 

landscape. Individual shrub patches range from 0.3 acre to 27.0 acres, with 4.9 acres as the 

average area. The patches are loosely connected by narrow corridors of other vegetation 

communities (usually Mixed Grass Prairie or Lowland Prairie Grassland) with only a few shrubs 

present. 

3.9.1.9. Disturbed Areas 

In addition to surface mining, several other forms of disturbance are present in the general 

analysis area. Those combined features comprise approximately 7.2% (208.4 acres) of the area 

and include county roads, historic two-track roads, CBNG roads and infrastructure, residential 

sites, and other disturbance not related to mining. 

3.9.1.10. Tree Shelterbelt 

Most of the trees in the general analysis area are associated with residential disturbance. Due to 

their extremely limited presence, residential trees were included in the Tree Shelterbelt category. 

One stand of plains cottonwood (Populus deltoids) is present in the southeastern quarter of 

section 19, T52N R72W, within the overlap area. This cottonwood stand encompasses 

approximately 0.03% (0.8 acre) of the general analysis area. 

3-114 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.9.1.11. Rough Breaks 

Rough Breaks refers to areas within the general analysis area where rock outcrops (including 

clinker) and badlands clay soils are associated with steep topography and limited vegetation. 

This category comprises 0.4% (12.5 acres) of the general analysis area. 

3.9.1.12. Open Water 

Open Water refers to water standing in reservoirs and stockponds in the general analysis area. 

Water bodies comprise 0.1% (3.4 acres) of the general analysis area. 

3.9.2. Environmental Consequences 

Impacts on wetlands and wildlife/livestock relative to vegetative disturbance are discussed in 

section 3.7 and section 3.10, respectively. 

3.9.2.1. Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and 

mine-related activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a moderate, short-term impact 

on vegetation, erosion, and grazing opportunities during mining. This alternative would have a 

negligible, long-term effect on changes in vegetation patterns and diversity after revegetation in 

the proposed tract and support area. It would have a minor, long-term impact on approximately 

46 non-contiguous acres of sagebrush in these areas, as well as on wildlife use of the area; no 

rough breaks would be affected. The Proposed Action would have a moderate, short-term 

impact on the potential for invasion by nonnative plant species. Activities in the remainder of 

the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts 

as most of those in the proposed tract and support area. Exceptions would be that activities in 

the overlap area would impact approximately 80 non-contiguous acres of sagebrush and one 

stand of plains cottonwood encompassing approximately 0.8 acre in section 19, T52N R72W. 

Native vegetation would be incrementally removed and reclaimed during and after mining, 

respectively. Sandy Prairie Grassland community is the most prevalent in the disturbance areas 

(table 3.9-1), followed to a lesser degree by agricultural lands and shrublands. Disturbance in the 

agricultural lands would likely disrupt one landowner’s ranching and farming operation. An 

additional five vegetative communities would also be affected, but to a considerably lesser 

degree. 

Impacts associated with the removal of vegetation could include increased soil erosion and 

differences between premining and postmining vegetative communities. The transition from 

native to reclaimed grasslands would be the least dramatic, with species composition expected to 

be similar to premining communities. As indicated, vegetation loss and subsequent reclamation 

would likely occur incrementally across disturbed areas, depending on the direction and rate of 

mining. Shrubs and trees affected by mining activities would be reestablished according to the 

current WDEQ-approved reclamation plan for the Buckskin Mine. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-115 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.9.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have similar impacts to those described 

under the Proposed Action for most factors during mining and following reclamation. It would 

have a minor, long-term effect on approximately 86 non-contiguous acres of sagebrush, as well 

as on wildlife use of the area. This alternative would impact one stand of plains cottonwood, 

encompassing approximately 0.8 acre in section 19, T52N R72W. As discussed in section 2.2.2, 

a decision to reject the coal lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in 

the general analysis area in the future. 

Vegetation removal and reclamation would occur incrementally in the overlap area. Shrubs and 

trees affected by mining activities would be reestablished according to the current 

WDEQ-approved reclamation plan for the Buckskin Mine. 

3.9.2.3. Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have the same impacts on vegetative 

characteristics during mining and following reclamation as those described under the Proposed 

Action. This alternative would have a minor, long-term impact on approximately 302 noncontiguous acres of sagebrush and 12 non-contiguous acres of rough breaks; two stands of trees 

(primarily cottonwoods) would be affected in the BLM study area and support area, as would 

wildlife use of the area. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to 

mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts as those in the BLM study area and 

support area, though no additional sagebrush or rough breaks would be affected in that area. One 

stand of plains cottonwood, encompassing approximately 0.8 acre in section 19, T52N R72W, 

would be removed from the overlap area prior to mining. 

Vegetation removal and reclamation would occur incrementally throughout the general analysis 

area. Agricultural Cropland is the most prevalent habitat in this area, followed by Mixed Grass 

Prairie, Sandy Prairie, and Big Sagebrush (table 3.9-1). The remaining vegetation communities 

and habitat classifications could also experience some level of disturbance (table 3.9-1). Shrubs 

and trees affected by mining activities would be reestablished according to the current 

WDEQ-approved reclamation plan for the Buckskin Mine. 

Impacts associated with the removal of vegetation could include increased soil erosion and 

differences between premining and postmining vegetative communities. The latter impacts 

would be reduced due to the similarity between premining and postmining vegetation in most of 

the affected area. Vegetation loss and subsequent reclamation would likely occur incrementally 

across the final tract configuration, depending on the direction and rate of mining. Impacts on 

vegetation from topsoil stripping and other mine-related activities would be addressed in 

accordance with the WDEQ approved mining and reclamation plan. 

3-116 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Mining activities under this alternative could impact trees within residential disturbance areas if 

Kiewit acquires the surface rights for those homes; however the company does not intend to 

pursue that option. Disturbance in agricultural lands would likely disrupt one landowner’s 

ranching and farming operation. 

3.9.3.	 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species, and 

BLM Sensitive Species 

The current list of federal endangered, threatened, and candidate species for Campbell County, 

Wyoming, includes two plant species. As of March 2010, the blowout penstemon (Penstemon 

haydenii) is considered endangered and the Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) is 

classified as threatened (http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/PDFs/CountySpeciesLists/ 

Campbell-sp.pdf). 

Appendix J of this document contains the biological assessment for federally listed species, and 

appendix K contains a discussion of the BLM sensitive species evaluation. No federally listed 

plant species would be affected under any alternative analyzed in this EIS. 

3.9.4.	 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

If either action alternative is implemented, reclamation, including revegetation, will immediately 

follow as mining progresses through the area. Estimates of the time elapsed from topsoil 

stripping through reseeding of any given area range from two to five years. This would be 

longer for areas occupied by stockpiles, haul roads, some sediment-control structures, and other 

mine facilities. Some roads and facilities would not be reclaimed until all coal removal has 

ended and active operations have ended. No new life-of-mine facilities would be built in the 

proposed tract or the final tract configuration, because in either case the tract would be mined as 

an extension of the existing mine. By the time mining ceases, more than 75% of disturbed lands 

will be reseeded. The remaining 25% will be reseeded during the subsequent two to three years 

as the life-of-mine facilities area is reclaimed. 

Reclamation will approximate premining vegetation, and reestablished vegetation will primarily 

consist of native species except were agricultural lands occur. Areas reclaimed for native species 

will be revegetated as specified in the approved mine plan using reclamation seed mixtures 

approved by the WDEQ. Those efforts will likely focus on a mixture of upland prairie 

grasslands with graminoid/forb-dominated areas to simulate the dominance of upland grasslands 

in the premining landscape. 

Initially, reclaimed lands will be dominated by grassland vegetation, which may be less diverse 

than the native premining vegetation, but more diverse than agricultural areas. At least 20% of 

the native vegetation area will be reclaimed to native shrubs at a density of one per square meter 

or as required by current regulations. Shrubs will be selectively planted in riparian areas and 

trees will be replaced at a one-to-one ratio. Estimates for the time it will take to restore shrubs, 

including sagebrush, to premining density levels range from one or two decades to up to 

100 years. Native vegetation from surrounding areas would enhance reclamation activities 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-117 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

through natural seed dispersal. The reclamation plan for the final tract configuration will include 

steps to control invasive, nonnative plant species. 

Revegetation growth and diversity will be monitored and managed, including treating invasions 

of nonnative species, until the final reclamation bond is released (a minimum of 10 years). 

Erosion will be monitored to determine if corrective action is needed during establishment of 

vegetation. Controlled grazing will be used during revegetation as a management tool and to 

determine the suitability of the reclaimed land for postmining land uses. Following completion 

of reclamation (seeding with the final seed mixture) and before release of the reclamation bond, a 

permanent, diverse, and productive vegetative cover would be established throughout the 

disturbance area. The decrease in plant diversity would not seriously affect the potential 

productivity of the reclaimed areas, and the proposed postmining land use (wildlife habitat and 

rangeland) should be achieved even with the changes in vegetation composition and diversity. 

Reclamation of agricultural pastures and croplands may occur, but is highly dependent on the 

postmine topography and landowner agreements. It is most likely that agricultural lands will be 

reclaimed to pastures suitable for either haying or livestock rather than croplands. Such areas 

will be reclaimed using a seed-mix of native grass and legume species. Agricultural croplands 

will be reseeded to either annual cereal grain, such as winter wheat, or to hayland with a legume 

such as alfalfa. Again, reclamation of cropland is dependent on postmine topography and soil 

suitability for crop production. Following reclamation bond release, management of the 

privately owned surface areas would revert to the private surface owners, who would have the 

right to manipulate the reclaimed vegetation. 

Revegetation success and patterns in reclaimed areas would be at least partially affected by the 

influence of postmining topography on surface water drainage patterns. For example, the 

maximum postmining overland slope would be 20%, in accordance with WDEQ policy. 

However, the average reclaimed overland slope would not be known until the technical review of 

the permit revision application has been completed by the WDEQ. Although no substantial 

changes in the average overland slope are predicted once reclamation is complete, the location 

and orientation of individual slopes could influence the direction and amount of runoff from rain 

and snow events, which could then result in different rates of vegetative reestablishment 

throughout reclamation. 

The climatic record of the western United States suggests that droughts could occur periodically 

during the life of the mine. Such droughts could severely hamper revegetation efforts, because 

lack of sufficient moisture would reduce germination and could damage newly established 

plants. Severe thunderstorms could also adversely affect newly seeded areas. Same-aged 

vegetation would be more susceptible to disease resulting from increased vulnerability during 

periods of water stress (too little or too much) than plants of various ages. Once a stable 

vegetative cover is established, the impact of these events would be similar to impacts on native 

vegetation. 

Restoration of wetlands is discussed in section 3.7; monitoring of livestock grazing standards is 

discussed in section 3.10. 

3-118 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.9.5. Residual Impacts 

Reclaimed vegetative communities may never completely restore the preming native plant 

community. Immediately following reclamation, revegetated areas would be characterized 

primarily by a mixture of upland prairie grasslands with graminoid/forb-dominated areas, which 

does resemble the current dominant community. An overall reduction in species diversity, 

especially for the shrub component, could occur. The decrease in plant diversity would not 

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

land use (wildlife habitat and livestock grazing) should be achieved even with the changes in 

vegetation composition and diversity. No net loss of jurisdictional wetlands would occur due to 

restoration requirements of the Corps (section 3.7). Any wetlands serving as stockponds or other 

agricultural uses would be restored in accordance with the requirements of the surface 

landowner. 

3.10. Wildlife 

This section describes the affected environment as it relates to wildlife in the general analysis 

area and various surrounding buffers, depending on the species, as well as impacts on wildlife 

and wildlife habitats that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

3.10.1. General Setting 

Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.9 provide detailed descriptions of the general setting, topography, and 

vegetative composition, respectively, of the general analysis area. The most pertinent 

information for wildlife is summarized here for reference. 

The terrain in the general analysis area consists primarily of gently sloping uplands and relatively 

level agricultural fields, with more rugged topography in the northeastern portion of the area. 

Elevations in the general analysis area range from approximately 4,080 to 4,380 feet above mean 

sea level. 

Predominant wildlife habitat types classified in the general analysis area broadly correspond with 

the major plant communities defined during the vegetation baseline study. The proposed tract 

itself is dominated (approximately 71%) by various upland grassland habitats (table 3.9-1). 

Habitats in the general analysis area are comprised primarily (71%) of upland grasslands and 

agricultural lands (approximately 40% and 31%, respectively). 

For this EIS, Big Sagebrush Shrublands are defined as vegetation communities where shrub and 

sub-shrub species comprise more than 20% of the total vegetation cover. This habitat type 

makes up less than 11% of both the proposed tract (approximately 46 noncontiguous shrub acres) 

and surrounding general analysis area (approximately 302 noncontiguous shrub acres). The 

shrub community is dominated by big sagebrush and occurs in a broken mosaic pattern across 

the landscape. Individual shrub patches range from 0.3 acre to 27.0 acres in size, with an 

average of 4.9 acres. The patches are loosely connected by narrow corridors of other vegetative 

communities (usually Mixed-grass Prairie or Lowland Prairie), with few shrubs present. Other 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-119 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

habitats present to a limited extent in the general analysis area include Riparian Bottomlands, 

Rough Breaks, Open Water, and Tree Shelterbelts, as well as previously disturbed areas (roads, 

pipelines, oil and gas storage tank complexes, and well pads). 

No major drainages pass through the proposed tract itself, though a closed, unnamed drainage 

system crosses its northwestern corner (map 3.5-3). Hay Creek flows from west to east through 

the northern half of the general analysis area, with a considerable portion of the channel passing 

through the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. Several primary and secondary tributaries are 

also in that area. Under natural conditions, Hay Creek and all tributaries in the area are 

considered ephemeral (i.e., respond only to rainfall or snowmelt events). The determination of 

stream classification was made using the flume monitoring data collected by the Buckskin Mine 

and reported in the existing permit document. Additional information regarding groundwater 

and surface water in the general analysis area is presented in section 3.5. 

CBNG discharge water has increased the frequency and duration of streamflow events in some 

portions of the general analysis area. The USFWS NWI maps (2007) show one small wetland (a 

0.24-acre, semi-permanently flooded, diked impoundment) in the extreme northwestern corner of 

the proposed tract (map 3.7-1); however, field observations over the years have indicated that it 

is wet primarily during early spring months. One playa and one small instream impoundment are 

present in the northwestern portion of the surrounding general analysis area. Those features are 

also seasonal, with water typically present in spring but dry by mid- to late summer. The playa is 

the only water body in the general analysis area that provides habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and other aquatic species. Due to its limited availability, it serves primarily as a staging area 

during spring migrations. Additional information regarding these water features is provided in 

section 3.5 and section 3.7. Due to the lack of permanent water sources, the general analysis 

area does not support any fisheries; fish species are, therefore, not discussed in this EIS. 

As described in section 1.1.3, a variety of ongoing mining and reclamation support activities 

occur in the overlap between the general analysis area and existing permit area. Mine operations 

and facilities throughout the rest of the existing permit area include storage silos, coal crushing 

and preparation plants, and a railroad spur and loading facility, among others. These activities 

often involve a variety of heavy equipment and occur 24 hours per day, every day of the year. 

Blasting occurs during daylight hours on a nearly daily basis. Disturbance and reclamation 

activities occur incrementally and sequentially throughout the permit area. Because the mine 

also operates at night, artificial lighting is present in active pit areas and on haul roads to ensure 

the safety of mine employees. 

3.10.2. Survey Requirements and History 

Long-term information on species occurrence and habitat use in the general analysis area was 

based primarily on results from annual wildlife monitoring surveys conducted for the existing 

Buckskin Mine over the past 26 years (1984–2009). The extent of these annual surveys was 

based on guidance from Appendix B of the WDEQ Coal Rules and Regulations, and included 

multiple seasons, depending on the species and requirements in place at the time. Appendix B of 

3-120 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

the WDEQ Coal Rules and Regulations specifies that annual wildlife monitoring surveys for 

larger, wide-ranging species at existing surface coal mines include the permit area and the area 

within a 0.5- to 2-mile radius, depending on the species. Surveys for smaller, less mobile species 

(e.g., small mammals and rabbits) or species with small breeding territories (e.g., breeding birds) 

are limited to the permit area only. Guideline 5 of those rules and regulations recommends that 

the survey area for wildlife baseline inventories include the area that would be disturbed as a 

result of mining plus up to a 2-mile radius, again depending on the species. Those baseline and 

annual monitoring survey areas were developed in collaboration with the WGFD and USFWS, 

the agencies responsible for regulating wildlife on non-federal surface in Wyoming. 

The BLM Data Adequacy Standards for the Powder River Coal Region (BLM 1987) describe the 

minimum data requirements needed to make coal leasing recommendations for wildlife 

populations and their habitats within the PRB Coal Production Region. Because most coal mines 

in the PRB have collected long-term annual monitoring data for a wide variety of vertebrate 

species as part of their WDEQ permit requirements, and because most surveys include lands 

beyond current permit boundaries, the BLM typically accepts that information as meeting the 

minimum requirements of these standards. The long-term (26 years) database available for the 

Buckskin Mine permit area and surrounding lands meets those minimum requirements. 

Guideline 5 and the BLM Data Adequacy Standards both call for up to a 2-mile radius for some 

species surveys. Therefore, the long-term data provided for this EIS analysis included the 

general analysis area and the area within a surrounding 2-mile radius (map 3.10-1). Because of 

its elevated level of concern in recent years, a 3-mile radius has been analyzed for sage-grouse 

leks (map 3.10-1) in other recent coal EISs; to remain consistent with those documents, a 3-mile 

radius was also analyzed for this EIS. 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. 

Information for each major group of vertebrate species is provided in the following subsections. 

Supporting data and a vegetation distribution map for the general analysis area are included in 

the Wildlife Data Report, which can be viewed at the BLM Wyoming High Plains District Office 

in Casper, Wyoming. 

Due to their proximity to the existing Buckskin Mine permit area, the entire proposed tract and 

the southern third (33%) of the general analysis area have been included in annual wildlife 

surveys for the last 26 years (1984–2009). Approximately 95% of the general analysis area has 

been surveyed annually for the last eight years (2002–2009) in conjunction with a previous 

permit amendment at the mine. The entire general analysis area and expanded adjacent lands 

were included in targeted baseline surveys conducted for the LBA process from late 2007 

through 2009. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-121 
BO Burrowing Owl 

0 5,000 

0 

10,000

5,000 10,000 

feet 

feet 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 3.10-1 

Raptor Nests, Prarie Dog Colonies, and Grouse Leks in the Wildlife Survey Area 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Supplemental information on species occurrence and habitat use in the general analysis area was 

obtained from several sources, including: baseline inventories conducted at the Buckskin Mine 

from 1977 through 1979 (original study), in 1988 (Spring Draw tract), and from early 1999 

through early 2000 (original Hay Creek amendment); annual wildlife monitoring reports 

submitted to the WDEQ by the Buckskin Mine and overlapping Eagle Butte and Rawhide mines 

from 1984 through 2009; the Final Eagle Butte Environmental Assessment (BLM 1994); the 

Final South Powder River Basin Coal EIS (BLM 2003); the Final EIS for the West Hay Creek 

Coal Lease Application (BLM 2004); the Final EIS for the Eagle Butte West Coal Lease 

Application (BLM 2007c); and from BLM, WGFD, and USFWS records and contacts from 2007 

through 2009. 

3.10.3. Big Game 

3.10.3.1. Affected Environment 

No crucial big game habitat or migration corridors are recognized by the WGFD in the general 

analysis area, or elsewhere in the coal mine region of the PRB. 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 pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are the only two 

big game species ever recorded in the general analysis area. No white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus) or elk (Cervus elaphus) have ever been observed in that area, though both species 

have rarely been seen within 2 to 3 miles of the general analysis area. The pronghorn is the most 

common big game species in the general analysis area. However, because the area is dominated 

by upland grasslands and agricultural lands (71%, combined), this species is not usually 

observed in great numbers. Pronghorn are most often associated with sagebrush communities, 

particularly in winter (Sundstrom et al. 1973; Fitzgerald et al. 1994); Big Sagebrush Shrublands 

comprise less than 11% of both the proposed tract and general analysis area. 

The WGFD has classified the habitat in the vicinity of the Buckskin Mine as a mix of yearlong 

and winter/yearlong pronghorn range. Both range types describe areas where a population or 

substantial portion of a population of animals makes general use of the habitat on a year-round 

basis. In yearlong range, pronghorn may occasionally leave the area under severe conditions. In 

winter/yearlong range, the area receives a predictable and significant influx of additional animals 

from other seasonal ranges in the winter. The entire general analysis area is within the WGFD’s 

Gillette herd unit. In post-season 2007, the WGFD estimated that population to be 

16,823 animals, with an objective of 11,000 (WGFD 2008a). The home range for pronghorn can 

vary between 400 acres to 5,600 acres. Several factors influence pronghorn movements, 

including season, habitat quality, population characteristics, water availability, and local 

livestock occurrence. Typically, daily movement does not exceed 6 miles. Pronghorn may make 

seasonal migrations between summer and winter habitats, but migrations are often triggered by 

availability of succulent plants and not local weather conditions (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). As 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-123 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

noted above, no big game migration corridors have been documented in the general analysis 

area. 

Mule deer use a wide variety of habitats, but typically prefer sagebrush-grassland, rough breaks, 

and riparian bottomland. As described, those habitats are limited throughout the general analysis 

area. Browse is an important component of the mule deer’s diet throughout the year, comprising 

as much as 60% of total intake during autumn, while forbs and grasses typically make up the rest 

of their diet (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). This species tends to be migratory in certain areas of the 

state, traveling from higher elevations in the summer to winter ranges that provide more food and 

cover. The WGFD has classified the region surrounding the Buckskin Mine as a mix of yearlong 

and winter/yearlong range for mule deer. The entire area is located within the WGFD’s Powder 

River mule deer herd unit. The agency estimated the 2007 post-season mule deer population for 

the herd unit at 49,560, which was below the current objective of 52,000 (WGFD 2008a). 

White-tailed deer are generally managed separately by the WGFD in the Central herd unit. This 

deer species prefers treed riparian habitats; no such habitats occur in the general analysis area. 

The agency classifies nearly the entire area as out of the normal white-tailed deer use range. The 

nearest known habitat for this species is located in the cottonwood corridor along the Little 

Powder River, approximately 2 miles east of the general analysis area. White-tailed deer have 

rarely been recorded outside of that corridor. 

A resident elk herd lives in the Rochelle Hills located several miles southeast of the general 

analysis area. Elk do wander from the protection of the Rochelle Hills to forage in native and 

reclaimed grasslands at some mines in the central and southern parts of the PRB but they have 

only rarely been documented within a few miles of the Buckskin Mine. None of the areas 

considered in this EIS are classified by the WGFD as within normal elk use range. 

3.10.3.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have minor to moderate, short-term 

impacts on pronghorn and mule deer, with long-term impacts on habitat carrying capacity. 

Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases 

would have the same impacts as described under the Proposed Action. This alternative would 

have no impact on elk and white-tailed deer because they are not present in the area. 

Mining and reclamation activities would occur incrementally throughout area. Some big game 

animals would be displaced from portions of the proposed tract, support area, and overlap area to 

adjacent habitats during mining. Because they are more prevalent, pronghorn would be most 

affected. However, long-term (since 1984) monitoring at the Buckskin Mine has demonstrated 

that pronghorn are more common in sagebrush shrubland habitats south of those areas than in the 

grasslands that dominate them. Similarly, mule deer would experience few impacts, given their 

infrequent use of these lands and the availability of suitable habitat in adjacent areas that would 

3-124 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

remain undisturbed by mining. Big game displacement would be temporary and incremental, 

occurring over several years and allowing for gradual changes in distribution patterns. Big game 

living in the areas adjacent to the proposed tract and support area could be adversely affected by 

increased competition from displaced animals. Noise, dust, and associated human presence 

would cause some foraging areas adjacent to mining activities to be avoided. However, 

pronghorn and mule deer have continued to occupy areas within and adjacent to active mining 

operations, suggesting that some animals do become habituated to such disturbances. 

Big game animals are highly mobile and can move to undisturbed areas. The construction of 

additional fences, spoil piles, and pits related to mining would likely restrict big game movement 

in or through the proposed tract to some degree. Pronghorn may not be able to negotiate these 

barriers during severe winter storms. However, WDEQ guidelines require fencing that is 

designed to permit passage of pronghorn and other big game species to the extent possible. 

Changes in big game carrying capacity would be minimal due to the relatively low level of big 

game use in the area and the current dominance of upland grassland and agricultural habitats in 

potential impact areas. Mule deer have regularly been documented in reclaimed grasslands at the 

adjacent Buckskin Mine and elsewhere in the PRB. Long-term restoration of sagebrush and 

other shrub species would facilitate pronghorn use of reclaimed mine lands over time. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts as described 

under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease 

application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the 

future. This alternative would have no impact on elk and white-tailed deer because they are not 

present in the area. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have the same impacts on big game during 

mining and following reclamation as those described under the Proposed Action. Activities in 

the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases also would 

have the same impacts as those under the Proposed Action. This alternative would have no 

impact on elk and white-tailed deer because they are not present in the area. Because the general 

analysis area is dominated (71% combined) by upland grassland communities and agricultural 

lands, the establishment of reclaimed grassland communities after mining has been completed 

would represent similar or somewhat improved habitats for big game, respectively, compared to 

those in the premining landscape. Long-term monitoring conducted at the Buckskin Mine has 

demonstrated that pronghorn are not common in the grasslands and agricultural lands that 

dominate the general analysis area. Mule deer are even less abundant in this area; both species 

use suitable habitat in adjacent areas that would not be affected by either action alternative. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-125 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.4. Other Mammals 

3.10.4.1. Affected Environment 

A variety of small and medium-sized mammal species may occur in the general analysis area. 

Some predators that could be present include the coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), 

and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Furbearers common to the area include the bobcat (Lynx 

rufus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), and badger (Taxidea taxus). Prey species include 

various rodents (e.g., mice, rats, voles, gophers, ground squirrels, and chipmunks), cottontails 

(Sylvilagus spp.), and jackrabbits (Lepus spp.). These prey species are cyclically common and 

widespread throughout the region and are important food sources for raptors and other predators. 

Because water is extremely limited, species such as the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon 

(Procyon lotor), and beaver (Castor canadensis) are uncommon throughout the general analysis 

area. Woodland species such as porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) and bats (e.g., hoary [Lasiurus 

cinereus] and big brown [(Eptesicus fuscus]) also have little habitat in the general analysis area. 

Few of those species have been recorded in the area during the last 26 years of annual 

monitoring, and those that were observed were not seen with any regularity. 

The black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) is a BLM sensitive species for the Buffalo 

Field Office due to its periodic occurrence in the federal listing process under the ESA of 1973, 

as amended. The most recent action regarding this species occurred on December 3, 2009, when 

the USFWS completed a status review of the black-tailed prairie dog and determined that it does 

not warrant protection as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA (74 FR 63344). 

Nevertheless, that agency 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. 

No prairie dog colonies occur in the proposed tract or general analysis area. The nearest colony 

is approximately 80 acres in size and is located in a narrow valley on the far side of a ridge that 

marks the northeastern extent of the general analysis area (map 3.10-1). Because neither action 

alternative would affect this species, no further discussion is provided for the black-tailed prairie 

dog in this section. 

3.10.4.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and 

mine-related activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a moderate, short-term impact 

on small and medium-sized mammals. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area 

(474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts as those in the 

proposed tract and support area. The Proposed Action would have no impact on prairie dog 

colonies, or species dependent upon water (e.g., muskrats) or extensive woodlands (e.g., 

porcupines) due to the absence of these habitat types in the affected area. 

3-126 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Mining and reclamation activities would occur incrementally throughout the area. Due to the 

high reproductive potential of most of these species, small and medium-sized mammals (e.g., 

lagomorphs, coyotes, and rodents) can quickly recolonize reclaimed lands. Because the 

proposed tract is dominated (71%) by upland grassland communities, the establishment of 

reclaimed grassland communities after mining has been completed would not result in a dramatic 

change in habitat types from the premining landscape. 

Medium-sized mammals could be directly affected by collisions with mine-related vehicles or 

traffic. Species inhabiting disturbed areas would be temporarily displaced to other habitats by 

mining, potentially resulting in increased competition and mortality, if those habitats are already 

at their carrying capacity. These populations would rebound as vegetation is reestablished or 

small mammal prey species recolonize reclaimed areas. Direct losses of small mammals would 

be higher than for other wildlife because their mobility is more limited and many retreat into 

burrows when disturbed. Populations of prey animals such as mice, voles, and ground squirrels 

would decline during mining. However, these animals have a high reproductive potential and 

tend to reoccupy and adapt to reclaimed areas quickly. Results from research projects on small 

mammal use of reclamation conducted on mined lands in the Wyoming and Montana PRB have 

indicated that reclamation objectives to encourage recolonization by small mammal communities 

are being achieved (Shelley 1992, Clayton et al. 2006 ). 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts as those 

described under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal 

lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in 

the future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a moderate, short-term impact on small and 

medium-sized mammals. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to 

mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts. This alternative would have no impact 

on prairie dog colonies. Because Kiewit does not intend to disturb operationally limited lands 

west of the county roads, Alternative 2 would have no impact on mammalian species dependent 

upon water or extensive woodlands; such habitats are absent or extremely limited in the affected 

area. 

Because the general analysis area is dominated by upland grassland communities and agricultural 

lands (71% combined), the establishment of reclaimed grasslands after mining has been 

completed would represent similar or somewhat improved habitats, respectively, compared to 

those in the premining landscape. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-127 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.5. Raptors 

3.10.5.1. Affected Environment 

Map 3.10-1 shows the locations and physical status of raptor nests identified the general analysis 

area and baseline survey area for the Buckskin Mine since annual monitoring began at Buckskin 

and the adjacent mines; the survey areas for adjacent mines overlap that of Buckskin. Over time, 

new nests have been built, and natural forces have destroyed many nests; others have been 

relocated for mitigation or removed by mining activities. In some cases, new nests have been 

created to mitigate the loss of other sites affected by mining operations. Eight intact raptor nests 

were present in the baseline survey area for raptors in 2008; only three were present in the 

general analysis area (map 3.10-1). Numerous intact and former nest sites are present elsewhere 

in the baseline survey area, beyond the general analysis area. Because these nest sites would not 

be affected by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, they are not discussed further in this section. 

Raptor species that have historically been documented in the general analysis area include the 

golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), ferruginous hawk 

(Buteo regalis), 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), and 

short-eared owl (Asio flammeus). These species are year-round residents, seasonal visitors, or 

migrants, depending on the species. Burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) could nest in old 

badger burrows, but they have not been recorded doing so in the general analysis area to date. 

Raptor species such as the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), screech owl (Megascops spp.), 

and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) are generally precluded due to the lack of appropriate 

habitats such as dense coniferous forests and riverine cliffs; those species have never been 

recorded in the general analysis area or at the adjacent Buckskin Mine. 

Bald eagles and rough-legged hawks both occur in the vicinity of the Buckskin Mine during 

winter. The bald eagle is a migrant and common winter resident of the PRB, but is not common 

in general analysis area. Bald eagle sightings in the general analysis area and at the adjacent 

Buckskin Mine have not been made with any regularity; observations have averaged less than 

one bird per year over the last 26 years (1984–2009) and have typically been limited to one or 

two individuals at a time. Both species occasionally perch in the small grove of trees in the 

southeastern corner of the proposed tract where it overlaps with the existing permit area and, 

therefore, are likely to be exposed to disturbance under existing conditions. 

On July 9, 2007, the USFWS published a Federal Register notice (72 FR 37346–37372) 

announcing that the bald eagle would be removed from the list of threatened and endangered 

species under the ESA; delisting was effective on August 8, 2007. However, the protections 

provided to the bald eagle under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act will remain in place. The bald eagle is recognized as a BLM sensitive species due to 

its former listed status and is further discussed in appendix K of this EIS. 

3-128 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The red-tailed hawk and great horned owl are the only two raptor species that nest with any 

regularity in the general analysis area, including in the proposed tract (map 3.10-1). The golden 

eagle and short-eared owl have infrequently nested in the general analysis area over time. One 

pair of Swainson’s hawks has periodically built a nest just outside the general analysis area but 

has never laid eggs. Although nest structures typically associated with ferruginous hawks have 

been found in the general analysis area, no active nests have been documented during 26 years of 

annual monitoring. As described previously, habitat is limited or absent for those species that 

nest exclusively in trees, on cliffs, or in prairie dog colonies. Several pairs of red-tailed hawks 

and great horned owls have adapted to nesting on mine highwalls and facilities such as coal 

crushers, silos, and other load-out structures at multiple coal mines in the PRB in recent years. 

The USFWS does not require mitigation for such nest sites at surface coal mines in northeast 

Wyoming due to the fact that disturbance activities were ongoing and continuous when raptors 

arrived to begin nesting. 

3.10.5.2. Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.10-1 presents the potential impacts on raptor nest sites (intact and former) under each 

alternative. 

Table 3.10-1. Potential Impacts on Raptor Nest Sitesa (Intact and Former) in the General 

Analysis Area (through 2009) Under the Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Alternative 1 

Species (No Action)b Proposed Action Alternative 2c 

INTACT NESTS 

Red-tailed hawk 0 0 1 

Red-tailed hawk/great horned owl 1 1 1 

Ferruginous hawk 0 0 1 

Total Intact Nests 1 1 3 

FORMER NEST SITES 

Red-tailed hawk/great horned owl 2 2 2 

Red-tailed hawk/golden eagle 1 1 1 

Golden eagle 1 1 1 

Short-eared owl 2 0 2 

Total Former Nest Sites 6 4 6 

a Rows are not summed across. 

b Nests within the overlap between the general analysis area and existing Buckskin Mine permit area only. 

Nest(s) within the general analysis area only (nest number based on maximum potential area of disturbance associated with leasing action). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-129 

c 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have no impact on known raptor nest 

sites, but would have a minor, short-term impact on foraging and nesting habitat. Activities in 

the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have a 

minor, short-term impact on one intact raptor nest and six former nest sites (table 3.10-1, 

map 3.10-1); four of the six former sites are in the tree shelterbelt in section 19, T52N R72W. 

These activities would have a minor, short-term impact on nesting and foraging habitat in the 

overlap area. 

The five nest sites in the tree grove have historically been used by red-tailed hawks, great horned 

owls, and golden eagles, but only hawks and owls have nested in that location since 1998. The 

eagle pair expanded its territory to the south that year and has not returned to the general analysis 

area. Short-eared owls nested at the two former sites in the northeastern portion of the overlap 

area; both sites were last used in 2006. 

Long-term monitoring data have demonstrated that the most consistent raptor pairs in the vicinity 

of the Buckskin Mine regularly nest within 0.25 mile and in view of regular human disturbance; 

thus, they are acclimated to having some level of activity occur near their nests. For example, 

one pair of red-tailed hawks nested within 400 feet of an occupied residence and 600 feet from 

the McGee Road each year from 2002 through 2008, fledging young in all but one year; the nest 

was tended in 2009. Great horned owls at Buckskin and other PRB mines regularly nest on 

active mine facilities such as coal crushers and batch load-outs. Details regarding raptor nesting 

efforts and success near mine operations are available in the Buckskin Mine annual wildlife 

reports, as well as those for other regional coal mines, on file with the WDEQ in Sheridan, 

Wyoming. 

Despite raptors’ apparent acceptance of regular human disturbance near active nests, mining 

activity could cause them to abandon nests near disturbance, particularly if operations 

unintentionally encroach on active nests during a given breeding season. Mining activities could 

also remove intact nests during the non-breeding season. Although these actions could have an 

impact on individual birds or pairs, mining associated with the Proposed Action would not have 

an impact on regional raptor populations due to the low level of use by nesting raptors in the 

area. Prior to any new disturbance associated with the Proposed Action, the current 

USFWS-approved avian monitoring and mitigation plan for the Buckskin Mine would be 

updated to incorporate mitigation measures to minimize impacts on nesting raptors (section 

3.10.10). 

Mining and reclamation activities would occur incrementally throughout the area. Because 

native habitats in the proposed tract, support area, and overlap area are dominated (71%) by 

upland grasslands, ground-nesting raptors and those foraging in the area should be able to 

transition easily to reclaimed grassland parcels. Equipment yards associated with mining 

provide additional habitat for prey species such as cottontails and rodents. Raptor pairs have 

voluntarily and repeatedly nested near such areas at Buckskin and other coal mines in the PRB. 

3-130 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Results from annual monitoring of prey populations at these mines have demonstrated that raptor 

nesting efforts and productivity at surface coal mines in northeast Wyoming have been 

influenced primarily by natural factors such as prey abundance, untimely inclement weather, and 

availability of nesting substrates. Due to the limited presence of trees and lack of tall cliffs, 

raptor species that nest in those features are not as abundant as those that either nest on the 

ground or are adaptable to nesting on mine facilities or other human-made structures (e.g., 

platform nests). During mining, new nesting habitat can be created in reclaimed areas through 

enhancement efforts like the installation of platform nests, relocation of snags, and tree plantings. 

Bald eagle sightings in the vicinity of the general analysis area have averaged less than one bird 

per winter over the last 26 years (1984–2009); no bald eagle nests have ever been documented at 

the Buckskin Mine. One or two individuals have infrequently been seen perched in the trees in 

the southeastern corner of the proposed tract during that period, but the tree stand has not 

officially been classified as a winter roost site. As described previously, those trees are within 

the overlap area and are already subject to future disturbance and/or appropriate mitigation 

measures that might be necessary within the existing permit boundary. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have a minor, short-term impact on one 

intact raptor nest and six former nest sites (table 3.10-1, map 3.10-1); four of the six former sites 

are in the tree shelterbelt in section 19, T52N R72W. These activities would have a minor, 

short-term impact on nesting and foraging habitat in the overlap area. The raptor mitigation plan 

for the mine would continue to be updated according to current permit requirements (every term 

of permit renewal or major change in the mine plan) to ensure protection of nesting raptors in the 

vicinity of the mine. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application 

would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

As described under the Proposed Action, red-tailed hawks, great horned owls, and golden eagles 

have historically nested in the tree grove that also falls within the proposed tract, but only hawks 

and owls have nested there since 1998. Short-eared owls have nested elsewhere in the overlap 

area, but those ground nests do not normally persist beyond the year they are used and have 

already been disturbed by previously permitted mine operations within the overlap area. Mining 

and reclamation activities would occur incrementally throughout the area. Because native 

habitats in the area dominated (71%) by upland grassland species, ground-nesting raptors and 

those foraging in the area would be able to transition easily to reclaimed parcels. If new nests 

are discovered in the overlap area in the future, the USFWS would be contacted to incorporate 

the site into the approved raptor mitigation plan for the Buckskin Mine. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) would have a minor, 

short-term impact on one intact raptor nest (map 3.10-1). Mine-related activities in the support 

area (926 acres) also would have a minor, short-term impact on one intact raptor nest. Activities 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-131 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

in the BLM study area and support area would have a minor, short-term impact on raptor 

foraging and nesting habitat. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to 

mining existing coal leases would have a minor, short-term impact on one intact raptor nest and 

six former nest sites (table 3.10-1, map 3.10-1); four of the six sites are in the tree shelterbelt in 

section 19, T52N R72W. These activities would have a minor, short-term impact on nesting and 

foraging habitat in the overlap area. 

Mining and reclamation activities would occur incrementally throughout the area. Because the 

general analysis area is dominated (71% combined) by upland grassland communities and 

agricultural lands, the establishment of reclaimed grassland communities after mining has been 

completed would represent similar or somewhat improved habitats, respectively, compared to 

premining conditions. These reclaimed areas would provide alternate nesting and/or foraging 

habitats for local raptors. 

Two stands of trees, beside the one in the overlap area, are present in the general analysis area; 

both are located adjacent to currently or recently occupied residences. Red-tailed hawks were 

first documented nesting near an occupied residence located between the McGee and Collins 

roads in 2002; the pair fledged two young that year. Hawks nested in that shelterbelt in each of 

the subsequent six years, despite increased activity at the residence in recent years; young 

fledged in five of those six years. No raptor nests have been documented in the shelterbelt near 

the recently vacated residence west of the junction of these roads. The lone intact ferruginous 

hawk nest in the general analysis area (map 3.10-1) has never been active since it was discovered 

in 1999. No active nests for this species have ever been recorded near the Buckskin Mine during 

the last 26 years of annual monitoring, although the presence of ground nests that are 

characteristic of ferruginous hawks suggests historic nesting activity. These ground nests can 

persist for many years without use as a result of the dry climate. 

Three additional intact raptor nests are located beyond, but within 0.5 mile of the general 

analysis area (map 3.10-1); that is the distance recognized by the BLM as an adequate buffer 

between disturbance and nests of most raptor species. All three structures have been classified as 

ferruginous hawk nests due to their physical locations and composition, but none have been 

active since their respective discoveries. One of those three nests is in the existing mine permit 

area (beyond the overlap area), and will be affected under any alternative. The remaining two 

nest sites are approximately 0.5 mile north of the general analysis area. These nests are 

separated from the general analysis area by multiple ridges and, thus, are buffered from future 

visual and audio disturbance in that area. 

As described in chapter 2, Kiewit does not anticipate relocating either county road. Should those 

areas be leased and scheduled for disturbance, the Buckskin Mine would be required to revise its 

monitoring and mitigation plan to provide adequate protection from new mine-related 

disturbances for nesting or roosting raptors (section 3.10.10). Prior to any new disturbance 

associated with the Proposed Action, the current USFWS-approved avian monitoring and 

mitigation plan for the Buckskin Mine would be updated to incorporate mitigation measures to 

minimize impacts on nesting raptors (section 3.10.10). 

3-132 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.6. Upland Game Birds 

3.10.6.1. Affected Environment 

Upland Game Birds 

Four upland game bird species are known to occur in suitable habitats in the general analysis 

area: the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), gray partridge (Perdix perdix), sharp-tailed 

grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), and greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), 

hereafter referred to as sage-grouse. Although all four species have been documented in and 

around the general analysis area over time, sightings typically consisted of fewer than 10 birds at 

a given location. 

The mourning dove is the most common upland game bird species in the vicinity of the Buckskin 

Mine. Doves are especially abundant during spring and fall migrations, with fewer observations 

during the nesting season. This species is also a relatively common breeding bird in Campbell 

County and may be found in a variety of habitat types (Cerovksi et al. 2004). Doves are often 

seen near sites with water sources and trees, though they are occasionally observed in sagebrush 

and greasewood stands. Mourning doves were recorded in the general analysis area, including in 

the proposed tract, during baseline surveys conducted in both 2007 and 2008, and in previous 

and subsequent years. Individuals observed in the proposed tract were most often associated 

with the small stand of trees in the southeastern corner that overlaps the existing Buckskin permit 

area. 

The gray partridge (a.k.a. Hungarian partridge or Hun) is an introduced, non-migratory game 

bird that forms flocks (or coveys) outside the breeding season. Gray partridge have observed 

along the reclaimed channel of Rawhide Creek inside the existing Buckskin permit area; that 

area is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the general analysis area. However, this species is 

not encountered with any regularity, with intervals of several years passing between sightings. 

No gray partridge were observed in the general analysis area during 2007 or 2008. 

The greater sage-grouse is a species of concern throughout the West and, as such, is given 

greater consideration in this EIS. Although the sharp-tailed grouse does not have the same status 

as sage-grouse, it has been documented at the Buckskin Mine over the years. Surveys for both 

species are conducted using the same timing and protocols. Consequently, portions of the 

following discussion apply to both species. Individual discussions are provided by species, 

where appropriate. 

Grouse Terminology and Survey Methods 

The WGFD manages and regulates grouse populations in Wyoming, while the WDEQ regulates 

surface coal mines in the state. Survey protocols for grouse used at Buckskin and other coal 

mines in northeast Wyoming are based on Appendix B of the WDEQ Coal Rules and 

Regulations. The wildlife survey and reporting protocols in this document are based on input 

and guidance provided by the WGFD. Those protocols are used during all baseline and annual 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-133 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

monitoring efforts conducted at surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB. For consistency with 

those efforts, WGFD nomenclature for leks and their management status is used in this EIS. 

A lek is defined as a traditional courtship display area attended by male grouse (WGFD 2006). 

For sage-grouse, leks are typically located in sagebrush dominated habitats. Sharp-tailed grouse 

leks can be found in both grassland and sagebrush habitats. The WGFD designates display sites 

as leks based on observations of two or more male grouse engaged in courtship displays made on 

two separate occasions during the appropriate time of day (WGFD 2006). Sub-dominant males 

may display on temporary strutting areas during population peaks, but those areas usually fail to 

become established leks. Therefore, the WGFD requires sites where small numbers (less than 

five) of males are observed strutting to be confirmed as active for two years before adding the 

site to the lek database. A group of leks in close enough proximity for males to move among 

them from one day to the next is considered a lek complex. A specific distance criterion to 

define a complex does not yet exist (WGFD 2006). 

The WGFD has adopted definitions for lek status to provide consistency in nomenclature when 

collecting and reporting sage-grouse data (WGFD 2006). The definitions describe the annual 

status and a long-term management status of sage-grouse leks; those definitions can also be 

applied to sharp-tailed grouse leks. The status is assessed annually based on the following 

definitions: 

 Active—any lek that has been attended by male grouse during the strutting season. 

 Inactive—any lek where sufficient data suggests that there was no strutting activity 

throughout a strutting season. 

 Unknown—leks for which status as active or inactive has not been documented during the 

course of a strutting season. 

The WGFD management status is based on a lek’s annual status, and includes three categories: 

 Occupied—a lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the prior 

10 years. Occupied leks are protected through prescribed management actions during 

surface-disturbing activities. 

 Unoccupied (formerly “historical lek”)—This category is further divided into two 

sub-groups: “destroyed” and “abandoned.” Unoccupied leks are not protected during 

surface-disturbing activities. 

	 Destroyed—A formerly active lek site and surrounding habitat (including sagebrush) that 

have been destroyed and are no longer suitable for grouse breeding. 

 Abandoned—A lek in otherwise suitable habitat that has been “inactive” during the most 

recent 10 consecutive strutting seasons. 

 Undetermined—Any lek that has not been documented as active in the last 10 years, and for 

which survey information is insufficient to designate it unoccupied. Undetermined leks are 

protected through prescribed management actions during surface-disturbing activities until 

sufficient documentation is obtained to confirm the lek is unoccupied. 

3-134 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Buckskin Mine has conducted surveys of known grouse leks and searches for new leks as 

part of its wildlife baseline inventories and annual wildlife monitoring programs since the late 

1970s and mid 1980s, respectively. Baseline inventories, which occurred prior to initial 

permitting and subsequent permit amendments, encompassed the mine’s permit area and the area 

within a 2-mile radius. Lek counts have been conducted in the Buckskin Mine permit area and 

the area within a 1-mile radius as part of the annual monitoring program for the last 26 years 

(1984–2009). The annual monitoring area was expanded to accommodate each new amendment 

as it was approved. Due to the proximity of the proposed tract to the existing mine, the entire 

proposed tract and most of the general analysis area have been included in previous survey 

efforts since 1984. 

Annual lek counts were voluntary until 1993, when the WDEQ issued the monitoring guidelines 

(Appendix B of the WDEQ Coal Rules and Regulations). Counts are conducted at 7- to 10-day 

intervals over a 3- to 4-week period from early April through early May each year per WGFD 

(2006) survey protocols. Surveys are conducted from the ground between 0.5 hour before 

sunrise and one hour after sunrise, and only during appropriate weather conditions (i.e., light 

wind and no precipitation). Each lek site is checked at least once in spring, with active leks 

counted at least three times. Repeated counts of males and females are made at each site until a 

consistent peak count is recorded. 

Specific surveys for nesting and wintering grouse are not part of the annual monitoring 

requirements for surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB. However, seasonal ground surveys 

for other wildlife species have been conducted in potential grouse nesting habitats annually since 

1984, including numerous walking surveys in sagebrush and other habitats targeting other 

ground-nesting species each spring. Surveys for winter grouse use have been conducted as part 

of the required baseline inventories for previous and proposed permit amendments over the 

years. Biologists conducted the surveys by driving and walking through sagebrush habitats 

watching for grouse and their sign (snow tracks, droppings, feathers) during winter months. 

Sage-grouse were also recorded during other wildlife surveys described in this section. 

Targeted surveys for sage-grouse broods were conducted as part of the required annual 

monitoring program twice each July from 1995 through 1999. Based on the lack of brood 

sightings at coal mines throughout the region, the WGFD recommended in 1999 that surveys for 

grouse broods be dropped from annual monitoring requirements under Appendix B of the 

WDEQ Coal Rules and Regulations. The Buckskin Mine voluntarily continued brood surveys 

through summer 2001 before amending its WDEQ mining permit to remove that survey 

requirement. Due to the increasing concern about the sage-grouse throughout its range, the mine 

voluntarily conducted grouse brood surveys annually from 2004 through 2009. All surveys were 

conducted by walking along approximately 4 miles of native and reclaimed drainages (2 miles 

each) within the existing Buckskin Mine permit area and recording any grouse or grouse sign 

observed. Similar surveys were conducted in drainages within proposed expansion areas over 

the years as part of baseline inventory requirements. Coincidentally, some survey routes 

included drainages within the general analysis area. Biologists also watched for and recorded 

any sage-grouse and broods seen incidental to other wildlife surveys during all monitoring years. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-135 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sage-Grouse Life History 

The sage-grouse is considered a “landscape species,” which means that large expanses of 

unfragmented land are required to provide all the habitat components necessary for their annual 

life cycle. This species is a sagebrush-obligate, and requires sagebrush habitat year-round for 

food, cover, and shelter, and for every phase of its life cycle. Sage-grouse often exhibit seasonal 

movements to use discrete sagebrush habitats, though the distance traveled varies widely among 

populations. These movements are often in response to devotion to seasonal-use areas (i.e., 

breeding, nesting/brood rearing, summering, and wintering), with adjustments related to severity 

of winter weather, topography, and vegetative cover. 

Sage-grouse breeding occurs on leks during late March and April. Leks are generally established 

in open areas surrounded by Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis), 

which is used for escape cover and protection from predators. Generally, lek sites are used year 

after year and are considered the center of year-round activity for resident sage-grouse 

populations. On average, approximately two-thirds of sage-grouse hens nest within 3 miles of 

the lek where they were bred. New spring plant growth, residual cover, and understory are 

important habitat components for nesting sage-grouse hens. 

Areas near nests are used for several weeks by hens for brood rearing. The habitats used during 

the first few weeks after hatching must provide both good cover to conceal the chicks and 

essential nutritional requirements during this period of rapid development. Brood-rearing 

habitats that have a healthy and wide diversity of plant species, particularly grasses and forbs, 

tend to provide the variety and abundance of insects that are an essential protein supply for the 

young birds. 

Summer habitat consists of sagebrush mixed with areas of wet meadows, riparian, or irrigated 

agricultural fields. As summer progresses and forbs mature and dry up, sage-grouse broods must 

move to more mesic or wet meadow-type habitats where succulent plants and insects are still 

available. This can be especially important in drier years and during extended periods of 

drought. As the fall season nears, sage-grouse form flocks as brood groups come together. As 

fall progresses, sage-grouse move toward their winter ranges. 

During winter, sage-grouse feed almost exclusively on sagebrush leaves and buds. Suitable 

winter habitat requires sagebrush to be accessible, especially in areas where snowfall is common. 

It is crucial that sagebrush be exposed at least 10 to 12 inches above snow level, as this provides 

food and cover for wintering sage-grouse. Population and habitat analyses suggest that wintering 

habitat can be as limiting as breeding habitats. 

Regional and Statewide Sage-Grouse Population Trends 

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% 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, 

3-136 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

this study estimated that sage-grouse populations declined at an average rate of 0.51% per year 

from 1968 to 1986 (9.66% decline overall), and at an average rate of 0.33% per year from 1987 

to 2003. Populations were lowest in the mid 1990s, with a gradual increase in numbers in some 

regions since that time (Connelly et al. 2004). 

The general analysis area is within the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group 

(NWLSWG) area, which includes portions of the WGFD Sheridan and Casper biological 

regions. Because the nearest USDA Forest Service lands are approximately 50 miles north and 

south of the general analysis area, this EIS does not include lek trends from the Thunder Basin 

National Grasslands. Results from that area are discussed in both the South Gillette Coal Lease 

Application Final EIS and the Wright Area Coal Lease Application Draft EIS, available on the 

Wyoming BLM website. 

Sage-grouse monitoring has occurred in the NWLSWG area since 1967. Assuming the number 

of males per active lek accurately reflects sage-grouse populations, population trends have 

exhibited a cyclical pattern within this area. Periodic highs and lows in grouse numbers have 

occurred at approximately 10-year intervals (figure 3.10-1). With the exception of the most 

recent cycle, each successive peak was lower than the preceding peak; the same was true for 

successive low counts. This long-term trend suggests a steadily declining sage-grouse 

population (WGFD 2008b). 

Comparisons between sage-grouse population trends in the NWLSWG area and statewide 

(figure 3.10-2) show strong similarities, though the average number of males per lek in the 

regional area has been lower than that observed statewide in most years. As in the NWLSWG 

area, the statewide sage-grouse population trend has exhibited a long-term (1960–2008) decline, 

a mid-term (1999–2008) increase, and a recent short-term (2006–2008) decline (WGFD 2008c). 

The mid- and short-term trends in statewide populations are believed to be largely weather 

related. Timely precipitation in some years resulted in improved habitat conditions, allowing 

greater numbers of sage-grouse to hatch and survive. Conversely, multi-year drought conditions 

are believed to have caused lower grouse survival in the early 2000s, leading to population 

declines. 

The WGFD considers these trends as valid at the statewide scale, but more varied at the local 

scale (WGFD 2008c). For example, sub-populations in areas more heavily influenced by 

anthropogenic impacts (e.g., subdivisions, intensive energy development, large-scale conversion 

of habitat from sagebrush to grassland or agriculture, interstate highways) have experienced 

declining populations or extirpation despite recent population increases in other parts of the state 

(WGFD 2008c). The potential for West Nile virus, as well as loss of population connectivity, 

represent additional threats to this species in many parts of its range (Naugle et al. 2004). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-137 
0 

10 20 30 40 50 60 

1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 

Y ear 

# Males/L e k 

Lek Count A ll Lek Check s 

Source: Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area, Annual Sage-Grouse Completion Report For 2008 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Average Male Sage-grouse Lek Attendance within the Northeast Wyoming Local Work
0

10203040506070

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Males/Lek

Year

WY Sage-grouse Ave. Males/Lek 1960-2008

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Average Number of Males per Lek Counted in Wyoming (1960–2008) with a Minimum of 1
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Agency Responses to Sage-Grouse Population Trends 

Since 1999, the USFWS has received eight petitions requesting that the sage-grouse be listed 

under the ESA as threatened or endangered. Three of the petitions requested that sage-grouse be 

listed as endangered across its entire range. On January 12, 2005, following a 12-month status 

review on the species, the USFWS concluded that listing was not warranted at that time. On 

December 4, 2007, U.S. District Court, District of Idaho, ruled that the USFWS 12-month 

petition finding on sage-grouse was in error and remanded the case back to the agency for further 

reconsideration. On February 26, 2008, the USFWS announced the initiation of another status 

review for the sage-grouse. That review process concluded on March 5, 2010, when the agency 

determined that listing the sage-grouse under the ESA was “warranted, but precluded” by other 

higher priorities; that determination has since received legal challenges by various groups. In 

response to these repeated petitions and the most recent determination regarding listing under the 

ESA, the USFWS has indicated the need for increased and continued efforts to conserve sagegrouse and sagebrush habitat on a long-term basis. That agency has encouraged continued 

development and implementation of conservation strategies throughout the species’ range. In 

May 2002, the USFWS office in Cheyenne, Wyoming, released a list entitled “Coal Mine List of 

40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming,” which replaced the previous 

“Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest List.” The sage-grouse is included as a Level I species 

on the updated list, which indicates the need for a monitoring and mitigation plan for this 

species. Although the sage-grouse continues to be managed by the WGFD, its current status as a 

candidate species under the ESA gives further impetus to ongoing annual monitoring efforts. 

The sage-grouse is also a BLM sensitive species (see appendix K) due to its recurring presence 

in the federal listing process. 

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. 

The closure followed the deaths of 11 sage-grouse in northeastern Wyoming from West Nile 

virus in August and early September of that year. According to WGFD’s September 11, 2003, 

press release, the commission took this action because the incidence of infection was much 

higher in northeastern Wyoming than in the rest of the state, and the area is on the fringe of 

sage-grouse range with marginal, fragmented habitat. Recent lek count data indicate that 

Wyoming’s sage-grouse populations increased slightly from 2004 through 2007. Lower 

incidences of West Nile Virus mortalities were also documented in those years, primarily due to 

cooler temperatures that reduced mosquito populations. Sage-grouse hunting seasons were 

reopened in 2004 (Christiansen 2004). 

In 2007, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal commissioned a Statewide Sage-grouse 

Implementation Team, which emerged from the Governor’s 2007 Sage-Grouse Summit. On 

March 17, 2008, the implementation team preliminarily identified and mapped recommended 

sage-grouse core breeding areas in Wyoming in an effort to better understand the types of habitat 

grouse prefer and what areas should be protected. No such habitat was defined in the vicinity of 

the general analysis area. 

3-140 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

On August 1, 2008, the Governor of Wyoming released an executive order regarding 

sage-grouse core area protection (Office of the Governor of Wyoming 2008) on state trust lands. 

The sage-grouse core area protection concept came about because of work by the Sage-Grouse 

Implementation Team. The implementation team developed a core population strategy for the 

state “to maintain habitats and viable populations of sage-grouse in areas where they are most 

abundant.” As part of that effort, the team delineated approximately 40 areas of state trust lands 

around Wyoming with a goal of maintenance and enhancement of grouse habitats and 

populations within the core areas. The areas were delineated by evaluating habitats within a 

4-mile radius of selected sage-grouse leks in high lek-density areas. The Implementation Team 

is currently working with the local sage-grouse working groups throughout Wyoming to revise 

those core areas to include lands within 5.3 miles of selected sage-grouse leks to increase 

protection for nesting hens, and to identify and protect other important habitats that might help 

maintain connectivity among populations. Revised maps and management recommendations are 

expected to be released in the latter half of 2010. 

The BLM Wyoming State Office is in the process of developing a statewide sage-grouse 

management policy and has incorporated sage-grouse focus areas based on the core area concept 

in the draft management policy. The BLM has indicated that the sage-grouse management 

strategy for future surface disturbance, which would include the Proposed Action and 

alternatives, will likely be based on the sage-grouse focus areas (BLM 2008d). 

Grouse History at the Buckskin Mine 

Based on results from annual counts and lek searches conducted for the Buckskin Mine, grouse 

occur but are not abundant in the general analysis area. In general, sharp-tailed grouse do not 

appear to be as prevalent as sage-grouse near the surface coal mines in northeast Wyoming. 

However, sharp-tailed grouse have been seen in greater numbers and with more frequency than 

sage-grouse in the general analysis area in recent years, though counts for both species have 

declined over time (table 3.10-2). 

Table 3.10-2. Peak Grouse Attendance at Leks in the Vicinity of Buckskin Mine (1984–2009)

 Daly 

SAGR 

Hay Creek 

SAGRa,b 

McGee 

SAGRc 

Stickel 

STGRb 

McGee I 

STGR 

McGee II 

STGRb 

McGee III 

STGRd 

Year M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 

1984 20 1 2 U — — — — — — — — — — 

1985 20 4 8 U — — — — — — — — — — 

1986 12 0 12 U — — — — — — — — — — 

1987 10 0 23 U — — — — — — — — — — 

1988 17 0 27 U — — — — — — — — — — 

1989 16 5 15 1 — — — — — — — — — — 

1990 9 1 12 1 — — — — — — — — — — 

1991 10 1 17 0 — — — — — — — — — — 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-141 
 

 

 

c 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.10-2. Continued 

Daly 

SAGR 

Hay Creek 

SAGRa,b 

McGee 

SAGRc 

Stickel 

STGRb 

McGee I 

STGR 

McGee II 

STGRb 

McGee III 

STGRd 

Year M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 

1992 7 1 20 5 — — — — — — — — — — 

1993 0 0 U U — — — — — — — — — — 

1994 0 0 U U — — — — — — — — — — 

1995 0 0 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — 

1996 0 0 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — 

1997 0 0 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — 

1998 0 0 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — 

1999 0 0 0 0 — — — — 5 0 — — — — 

2000 0 0 0 0 — — 13 1 8 0 — — — — 

2001 0 0 2 3 6 2 9 3 4 0 — — — — 

2002 0e 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 13 5 — — 

2003 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 8 1 — — 

2004 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 — — 

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4f

 0 

2006 0 0 0 0 U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2007 0 0 U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mgt. Statusg Abandoned Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied 

SAGR = sage-grouse; STGR = sharp-tailed grouse; M= Male; F = Female; U = Unknown, lek inaccessible due to mining; — = lek undiscovered 

a The lek was beyond the required annual monitoring area until 2002 but was checked at least once in most years. 

b In the Buckskin Mine permit area. 

The lek is beyond the required annual monitoring area; data presented is from the 2009 WGFD lek database. 

d In the general analysis area. 

e Two displaying males were seen once approximately 1,000 feet south of the historic lek site. The birds were presumed to have flown in from another lek 

located 2.0 miles south of the Daly lek site. 

f Birds were not displaying; number of males and females unknown. 

g Management status based on WGFD (2006) classifications. 

Four sharp-tailed grouse leks have been identified in the vicinity of the Buckskin Mine 

(table 3.10-2). All four are considered occupied under the WGFD management status 

classification system, though they have all been inactive for the last few years. No sharp-tailed 

grouse have ever been observed on the proposed tract, though flocks of as many as a dozen birds 

have infrequently been recorded in the winter feeding in fallow agricultural fields and perched in 

the tree shelterbelt near the junction of the Collins and McGee roads within the general analysis 

area. No sharp-tailed grouse have been seen in those locations since at least 2003. No nests or 

young of this species have ever been documented in the vicinity of the Buckskin Mine. 

3-142 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

As indicated, no sharp-tailed grouse leks are present in the proposed tract. Two leks (McGee II 

and McGee III) are located in the general analysis area. The McGee II lek is in the overlap with 

the existing Buckskin Mine permit area, and the McGee III lek is immediately north of that 

boundary (map 3.10-1). The McGee I sharp-tailed grouse lek is approximately 0.25 mile north 

of the general analysis area, on the far side of a ridge and approximately 50 feet from the McGee 

Road. The Stickel lek is in the existing permit area, approximately 0.75 mile southeast of the 

general analysis area; that lek has been or will be affected by previously permitted mine 

disturbance. 

The greatest number of male sharp-tailed grouse recorded in the vicinity of the mine in a given 

year occurred in 2000, when 13 birds were seen at the Stickel lek and 8 were observed at the 

McGee I lek (table 3.10-2). However, sharp-tailed grouse counts declined steadily after 2000, 

and none were found during any lek monitoring or search efforts conducted after 2005. Given 

the proximity of the three McGee lek sites to one another, and the fact that grouse were never 

seen at two leks within that complex in the same year, it is likely that the birds were merely 

shifting their display sites periodically based on vegetative conditions or other unknown factors, 

while remaining in the same general area. Similar occurrences at sharp-tailed grouse leks have 

been observed elsewhere in the region. The Stickel lek may have been part of the McGee 

complex as well. 

Three sage-grouse lek sites have been documented at the Buckskin Mine over the last 26 years of 

annual monitoring (table 3.10-2); none of these sites is within the general analysis area 

(map 3.10-1). The Daly sage-grouse lek has been inactive for the last 16 consecutive years and 

is considered abandoned by the WGFD. The remaining two leks have also been inactive in 

recent years, but are still classified as occupied. The Hay Creek lek is within the existing 

Buckskin Mine permit area, approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the general analysis area. This 

site has been or will be affected by previously permitted disturbance in the permit area. The 

McGee sage-grouse lek is approximately 1.25 miles north of the general analysis area, and the 

abandoned Daly lek site is approximately 0.75 mile west of the permit area and on the far side of 

U.S. Highway 14-16. 

The Daly sage-grouse lek has been monitored annually since 1984 (table 3.10-2). The greatest 

number of males recorded there was 20 in both 1984 and 1985. Peak male counts vacillated over 

the next seven years, but attendance gradually declined through 1992. No grouse were observed 

at the lek itself from 1993 through 2009. Two males were seen displaying approximately 

1,000 feet south of the historic Daly lek site on one occasion in late April 2002, but no grouse 

were recorded in that area during any subsequent surveys. Those two birds were presumed to 

have flushed from an active lek site approximately 2 miles south of the Daly lek. 

The Hay Creek sage-grouse lek is located in the northeastern corner of the existing Buckskin 

Mine permit area. The lek was active every year from 1984 through 1992, with a peak count of 

27 males in 1988. The site was not visited in 1993 or 1994, but no birds were observed during 

periodic checks from 1995 through 2000. Through 2000, the lek site was beyond the required 

annual monitoring area (existing permit boundary and 1-mile radius) for the Buckskin Mine; the 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-143 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mine surveyed the lek voluntarily during this period. Annual monitoring of the Hay Creek lek 

resumed from 2001 through 2009. Two displaying males and three hens were seen at the lek on 

one morning in 2001, but no grouse were present during subsequent checks that year, or in the 

following seven years. 

The McGee sage-grouse lek is located beyond the required annual monitoring area for the 

Buckskin Mine and, therefore, is not included in that monitoring program. A WGFD biologist 

first recorded the lek in 2001. Biologists with that agency monitored the lek each year through 

2005, and again in 2008; biologists with ICF monitored the lek in 2009. The peak male count 

during that period was the original six birds discovered in 2001. No grouse were seen at the 

McGee sage-grouse lek during four of the seven survey years, though the landowner reported 

birds present there in 2008 (the WGFD count was zero during three separate counts that year). 

No grouse nests have been encountered in the general analysis area. No grouse broods for either 

species were recorded in the general analysis area during targeted surveys or incidental to 

surveys for other species. No sage-grouse have been observed during winter, though site visits 

occur less often at that time of year. No sharp-tailed grouse have ever been observed on the 

proposed tract during any season, though flocks of as many as a dozen birds have infrequently 

been recorded in the general analysis area, feeding in fallow agricultural fields and perched in the 

tree shelterbelt near the junction of the Collins and McGee county roads in winter. No 

sharp-tailed grouse have been seen in those locations since at least 2003. 

As described in section 3.10.1, sagebrush habitat is limited to 302 noncontiguous acres in the 

general analysis area (including 46 noncontiguous acres in the proposed tract) with average patch 

size of 4.9 acres. These acreages represent less than 11% of the total vegetative cover for each 

respective area. Water sources in the general analysis area are limited to the diverted channel of 

the ephemeral drainage of Hay Creek, two small impoundments, and a playa. Of those, only one 

small impoundment is present in the proposed tract itself. All water bodies are seasonal, with 

water typically present in spring but dry by mid- to late summer. 

3.10.6.2. Environmental Consequences 

Given the dominant vegetation types in the general analysis area (upland grasslands and 

agricultural fields) and the lack of regular sightings over the last 26 years of monitoring, 

especially outside the breeding season, it is unlikely that either the sharp-tailed grouse or 

sage-grouse is a yearlong resident of the general analysis area. The WGFD stated in a letter to 

the BLM, dated May 6, 2010, that it has no concerns about terrestrial wildlife, including 

sage-grouse, pertaining to the Hay Creek II LBA coal lease application. 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and 

mine-related activities in the support area (241 acres) would have no physical impact on grouse 

leks (map 3.10-1). This alternative would have a minor, long-term impact on approximately 

46 non-contiguous acres of potential sage-grouse nesting habitat (sagebrush) in these areas. 

Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases 

3-144 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

also would have no impact on sage-grouse leks, but would have a moderate, long-term effect on 

one sharp-tailed grouse lek (map 3.10-1), and a minor, long-term impact on approximately 

80 non-contiguous acres of potential sage-grouse nesting habitat (sagebrush). 

No grouse leks, nests, broods, or other signs of use (feathers, droppings, and snow tracks) have 

been documented within the proposed tract during the last 26 years of monitoring. The proposed 

tract, support area, and overlap area do not provide any unique habitat for either grouse species. 

This combined area is dominated (71%) by upland grasslands. Sagebrush occurs on 

approximately 126 non-contiguous acres, with an average patch size of 4.9 acres. Impacts from 

mine-related noise would be minor and short-term due to the presence of natural buffers between 

mine activities and lek sites, and the temporary and incremental presence of operations in any 

given location. 

The mourning dove is the only species ever recorded in the proposed tract. Mining the proposed 

tract would affect known habitat for mourning doves, and potential habitat for gray partridge, 

sharp-tailed grouse, and/or sage-grouse to varying degrees. For example, the prevalence of 

grasslands and limited presence of surface water in the proposed tract limit its value to 

sagebrush-obligates such as the sage-grouse. The only group of trees (potential habitat for doves 

and roosting sharp-tailed grouse) in the proposed tract falls within the overlap area and, thus, 

would be disturbed by previously permitted activities. The upland grasslands that dominate the 

proposed tract are better suited for gray partridge, an introduced species, but no partridge have 

been documented in the proposed tract. Because the proposed tract is dominated by upland 

grasslands, the establishment of reclaimed grassland communities after mining has been 

completed would not result in a dramatic change in habitat types from the premining conditions. 

Some evidence has been documented that sage-grouse do repopulate areas after reclaimed 

shrublands have become established, but that process may take decades (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. Once 

they do return to an area, sage-grouse populations do not appear to attain their previous levels. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have no physical impact on sage-grouse 

leks, but would have a moderate, long-term effect on one sharp-tailed grouse lek (map 3.10-1), 

and a minor, long-term impact on approximately 86 non-contiguous acres of potential sagegrouse nesting habitat (sagebrush). Other factors associated with grouse and grouse habitat 

would be the same as those described under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, 

a decision to reject the coal lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in 

the general analysis area in the future. 

No sage-grouse leks are present in the overlap area, but one lek site is located approximately 

0.5 mile to the southeast, within the existing mine permit area (map 3.10-1). That lek site has not 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-145 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

been physically disturbed, but existing mine operations have been ongoing within 700 feet of the 

lek in recent years. 

Under this alternative, two occupied sharp-tailed grouse leks would be affected by activities in 

the overlap area related to mining existing leases. One sharp-tailed grouse lek is located in the 

overlap area itself (map 3.10-1) and another lek is approximately 500 feet north of that area. A 

third sharp-tailed grouse lek is within the Buckskin Mine permit area, approximately 0.75 mile 

southeast of the overlap area and 1,200 feet and in view of ongoing mine operations. As 

described under the Proposed Action, the overlap area does not provide any unique habitat for 

these four upland game bird species. The area is dominated by upland grasslands, with 

sagebrush occurring in small patches scattered across approximately 86 noncontiguous acres. 

No grouse nests or broods for either species have been documented in the overlap between the 

general analysis area and permit boundary, nor have grouse been observed in that area during 

winter. Both lek sites outside the overlap area but within the existing permit area have been or 

would be affected by previously permitted mine activities on existing leases. 

The tree windbreak in the overlap area represents potential nesting and/or roosting habitat for 

mourning doves and sharp-tailed grouse. As described previously, these trees would be affected 

by mine disturbance under any of the alternatives considered in this EIS. Little sagebrush is 

present in the overlap area. Therefore, the establishment of reclaimed grassland communities 

after mining has been completed would not result in a dramatic change in habitat types from the 

premining landscape. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have no impact on sage-grouse leks, but would 

have a moderate, long-term effect on two sharp-tailed grouse leks (map 3.10-1), and a minor, 

long-term impact on approximately 302 non-contiguous acres of potential sage-grouse nesting 

habitat (sagebrush). Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining 

existing coal leases would have no impact on sage-grouse leks or sagebrush. Impacts from 

mine-related noise on leks beyond the general analysis area would be minor and short-term due 

to the presence of natural buffers between mine activities and lek sites, and the temporary and 

incremental presence of operations in any given location. Impacts on known and potential 

upland game bird habitats from current facilities and mining techniques would be the same as 

those described above under the Proposed Action. 

No sage-grouse leks occur within the general analysis area (map 3.10-1). The nearest sagegrouse lek (Hay Creek) is within the existing permit area approximately 0.5 mile to the southeast 

and, thus, is already subject to disturbance from previously permitted activities. The McGee 

sage-grouse lek is on private surface approximately 1.25 miles north of the general analysis area. 

That site is on the far side of multiple ridges that provide a visual and audio buffer, and it is not 

likely to be affected by mine operations. Sage-grouse were last observed at the Hay Creek lek in 

2001 and the McGee lek in 2004; both are considered occupied by the WGFD. 

3-146 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Two occupied sharp-tailed grouse leks have been documented in the general analysis area over 

the last 26 years of annual monitoring (map 3.10-1). As described under the No Action 

Alternative, the McGee II lek is in the overlap area and the McGee III lek is immediately north 

of the overlap area. Due to their locations, those leks have been or would be disturbed by 

previously permitted mining of existing leases. The McGee I sharp-tailed grouse lek is 

approximately 0.25 mile north of the general analysis area. It would not be in view of that area 

due to the ridgeline that separates the two sites, but it could be affected by noise from within the 

general analysis area. The Stickel lek is approximately 0.75 mile southeast of the general 

analysis area and within the existing permit area; this site is within 1,200 feet and in view of 

previously permitted activities on existing leases. Sharp-tailed grouse were last recorded at the 

McGee II lek in 2004 and the McGee III lek in 2005. The McGee I lek was last active in 2001, 

and the Stickel lek in 2002. 

Disturbance and reclamation activities would be temporary and occur incrementally throughout 

the general analysis area. If mining activities disturb an occupied lek, grouse would have to use 

an alternate site or establish a new lek for breeding activities. 

In addition to lek sites, areas of suitable habitat for nesting 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 general analysis area is dominated (71% of 

total cover) by upland grasslands and agricultural fields, which do not provide the necessary 

shrub communities for forage and cover. Sagebrush in that area is limited to 302 noncontiguous 

acres, with an average patch size of approximately 4.9 acres. No grouse nests or broods have 

been documented in the general analysis area, nor have grouse been observed there during 

winter. Additionally, the general analysis area is not included in or within several miles of either 

a state sage-grouse core area or BLM sage-grouse focus area, though that does not preclude the 

need for grouse management when they are present. 

The general analysis area does not provide any unique habitat for these four upland game bird 

species, and future mine operations would affect existing and potential habitat to varying 

degrees. As described previously, the prevalence of upland grasslands and agricultural lands, 

and the limited presence of surface water reduce the area’s value to sagebrush obligates such as 

the sage-grouse. The only group of trees (potential habitat for doves and roosting sharp-tailed 

grouse) in the area that is not adjacent to an occupied or recently vacated residence also overlaps 

the existing permit area and, thus, would be affected by previously permitted activities regardless 

of the leasing decision. The upland grasslands and agricultural fields that dominate the area are 

well suited for gray partridge, an introduced species to this country, but no partridge have been 

documented in the general analysis area. 

Leasing, mining, and reclaiming a tract within the general analysis area would result in 

permanent, alterations in the topography and long-term changes in vegetative composition from 

premine conditions. Because the general analysis area is dominated (71%) by upland grassland 

communities and agricultural lands, the establishment of reclaimed grassland communities after 

mining has been completed would represent similar or somewhat improved habitats, 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-147 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

respectively, compared to those in the premining landscape. Restoration of sagebrush 

communities that are present could be difficult to accomplish through artificial plantings, and can 

take decades through natural regeneration. Until sagebrush returns to its premining density, a 

reduction in potential habitat for wildlife species associated with that habitat would occur in the 

general analysis area. 

Some evidence has been documented that sage-grouse do repopulate areas after reclaimed 

shrublands have become established, but that process may take decades (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. Once 

they do return to an area, sage-grouse populations do not appear to attain their previous levels. 

3.10.7. Other Birds 

3.10.7.1. Affected Environment 

The USFWS uses a list entitled the Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management 

Concern in Wyoming (table 3.10-3) for reviews related to existing and proposed surface coal 

mining (USFWS 2002). This list was taken directly from the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan 

(Cerovski et al. 2001), and was current through 2009. The USFWS considers Level I species as 

in need of conservation action, which includes having a monitoring and mitigation plan for those 

birds. Continued monitoring is recommended, but not required, for Level II species. 

Table 3.10-3. Forty Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern for Wyoming Coal 

Mines: Historical Occurrence and Status in or within 0.5 Mile of the Buckskin 

Mine Permit Areaa (2007–2009) 

Historical Occurrence in the 

Speciesb Vicinity of the Buckskin Minec 2007 2008 2009 

LEVEL I 

Mountain ploverd 

Charadrius montanus 

never recorded — — — 

Greater sage-groused 

Centrocercus urophasianus 

occasional breeder — — — 

McCown’s longspurd 

Calcarius mccownii 

rarely observed observed — — 

Baird’s sparrow 

Ammodramus bairdii 

never recorded — — — 

Ferruginous hawkd 

Buteo regalis 

historic breeder — observed — 

Brewer’s sparrowd 

Spizella breweri 

regular breeder 

(beyond general analysis area) 

presumed breeder presumed breeder presumed breeder 

Sage sparrow 

Amphispiza belli 

never recorded — — — 

3-148 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.10-3. Continued 

Speciesb 

Historical Occurrence in the 

Vicinity of the Buckskin Minec 2007 2008 2009 

Swainson’s hawkd 

Buteo swainsoni 

rare breeder potential breeder — — 

Long-billed curlew 

Numenius americanus 

infrequent spring migrant — — observed 

Short-eared owld 

Asio flammeus 

infrequently observed — observed — 

Peregrine falcon 

Falco peregrinus 

never recorded — — — 

Burrowing owld 

Athene cunicularia 

rare breeder — — — 

Bald eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

occasional in winter limited winter 

resident 

limited winter 

resident 

limited winter 

resident 

Upland sandpiperd 

Bartramia longicauda 

infrequently observed — — — 

LEVEL II 

Cassin’s kingbird 

Tyrannus vociferans 

never recorded — — — 

Lark buntingd 

Calamospiza melanocorys 

common breeder presumed breeder presumed breeder presumed breeder 

Dickcissel 

Spiza americana 

never recorded — — — 

Chestnut-collared longspurd 

Calcarius ornatus 

rarely recorded — — — 

Black-chinned hummingbird 

Archilochus alexandri 

never recorded — — — 

Pygmy nuthatch 

Sitta pygmaea 

never recorded — — — 

Marsh wren 

Cistothorus palustris 

never recorded — — — 

Western bluebird 

Sialia mexicana 

never recorded — — — 

Sage thrasherd 

Oreoscoptes montanus 

rarely observed observed once — — 

Grasshopper sparrowd 

Ammodramus savannarum 

occasional breeder potential breeder potential breeder presumed breeder 

Bobolink 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

never recorded — — — 

Common loon 

Gavia immer 

never recorded — — — 

Black-billed cuckoo 

Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

never recorded — — — 

Red-headed woodpecker 

Melanerpes erthrocephalus 

never recorded — — — 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-149 
c 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.10-3. Continued 

Historical Occurrence in the 

Speciesb Vicinity of the Buckskin Minec 2007 2008 2009 

Yellow-billed cuckoo never recorded — — — 

Coccyzus americanus 

Eastern screech-owl never recorded — — — 

Megascops asio 

Western screech-owl never recorded — — — 

Megascops kennicottii 

Western scrub-jay	 never recorded — — — 

Aphelocoma coerulescens 

Loggerhead shriked	 occasional breeder potential breeder — potential breeder 

Lanius ludovicianus 

Vesper sparrowd	 common breeder presumed breeder presumed breeder presumed breeder 

Pooecetes gramineus 

Lark sparrowd	 occasional breeder potential breeder — — 

Chondestes grammacus 

Ash-throated flycatcher never recorded	 — — — 

Myiarchus cinerascens 

Bushtit	 never recorded — — — 

Psaltriparus minimus 

Merlind	 rarely observed — — — 

Falco columbarius 

Sprague’s pipit never recorded — — — 

Anthus spragueii 

Barn owl never recorded — — — 

Tyto alba 

a	 The survey area for the Buckskin Mine overlapped the entire proposed tract and much of the general analysis area in most years (from 1984-2009). Both 

areas were completely covered during baseline studies conducted from 2007 through 2009. 

b	 Species are arranged in descending priority within each level as assigned in the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan (Cerovski et al. 2001). Level I indicates 

a clear need for conservation action. Level II represents a need for continued monitoring. 

Historical occurrence in the Buckskin Mine survey area is based on records from baseline or monitoring studies conducted at the mine (1984–2009). 

d	 Species regularly nests in the Powder River Basin. 

The Buckskin Mine has conducted specific surveys for migratory birds of concern annually since 

at least 1993, incorporating new lists and survey protocols (breeding bird point counts) as they 

were issued. These surveys have been conducted in both spring and summer to detect both 

migrating and breeding birds. Beginning in 2006, annual point count surveys for breeding bird 

(primarily passerines) were conducted per a request by the USFWS Ecological Services Office in 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. Survey efforts used a fixed-radius circular plot method adapted from 

Reynolds et al. (1980). Results from these surveys are included in the annual report for the 

Buckskin Mine each year. Although breeding bird surveys are not required by Appendix B of 

the WDEQ Coal Rules and Regulations, they have been incorporated into the USFWS-approved 

Avian Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the Buckskin Mine. 

3-150 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

As described in section 3.10.2, the annual monitoring survey area for most migratory bird 

species of concern includes the existing permit area and a 0.5-mile radius. Because they are 

protected under one or more federal laws, the survey area for bald eagles and other raptor species 

is expanded to a 1-mile radius. The annual monitoring survey area for sage-grouse is also a 

1-mile radius, but leks within 3 miles of the general analysis area were considered for this EIS to 

meet BLM concerns about this species. 

Due to the proximity of the general analysis area to the existing Buckskin Mine permit area, the 

entire tract has been included in annual surveys for avian species of concern since at least 1993, 

with extensive coverage in the general analysis area during that period. Results from surveys 

conducted for migratory birds at the Buckskin Mine are available in baseline and annual wildlife 

reports, on file with the WDEQ in Sheridan, Wyoming. Those reports include a tabulation of the 

regional status, expected occurrence, historical observations, and breeding records for each 

species on the current list of avian species of concern for a given report year, as well as two or 

more preceding years; additional information for each species observed in a given year is also 

included in each report. 

Table 3.10-3 provides 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 for the Buckskin Mine from 2007 through 2009. 

Eighteen of the 40 listed species have historically been observed in the annual migratory bird 

survey area, though they may not have been seen in the EIS general analysis area: 10 Level I 

species and 8 Level II species. None of the Level I species regularly breed in the general 

analysis area, though they are often recorded elsewhere in the survey area. Twenty-two of the 

40 avian species of concern have never been recorded in the general analysis area or Buckskin 

Mine permit area: 4 Level I and 18 Level II species. Some raptor species of management 

concern, including species that nest in the general analysis area, are discussed in section 3.10.5. 

Sage-grouse are discussed in section 3.10.6. 

The most frequently recorded nesting species in the migratory bird survey area are the lark 

bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and grasshopper 

sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). All three of those species are considered Level II. The 

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), a Level I species, often nests in sagebrush stands in 

unmined portions of the existing permit area, beyond the general analysis area. Five additional 

species have nested (including failed attempts) less often in the area, including the Swainson’s 

hawk, sage-grouse, short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and lark sparrow 

(Chondestes grammacus); the grouse and both raptor species are considered Level I. The bald 

eagle is only observed in the winter or as a migrant. The other eight species have been observed 

infrequently (table 3.10-3). 

The mountain plover is included on the “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 withdrew the proposal in September 2003 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-151 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

(USFWS 2008), based on the conclusion that information available at that time did not indicate 

the threats to the mountain plover and its habitat were likely to endanger the species in the 

foreseeable future. In June 2010, the USFWS reinstated the 2002 proposed rule to list the 

mountain plover as a threatened species and invited public comments. On May 11, 2011, after a 

thorough review of all available scientific and commercial information, the USFWS determined 

that the mountain plover is not threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, including the general analysis area and the rest of Campbell County, Wyoming 

(76 FR 92). Consequently, this species was removed from the listing process under the ESA. 

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). This species has not been 

documented in within the migratory bird survey area; nor was it documented during other 

wildlife surveys conducted for the Buckskin Mine. Nevertheless, the current permit document 

for the mine includes species-specific protection measures for mountain plovers, in the event that 

they are present in the future. 

Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in northeastern Wyoming’s 

PRB. No bald eagle winter roosts have ever been documented in the bald eagle survey area, 

though potential winter roosting habitat for this species is present. That habitat consists of 

isolated cottonwood shelterbelts in the general analysis area, as described in section 3.9. No 

known bald eagle nests, or consistent yearly concentrated prey or carrion sources (e.g., sheep, 

fisheries) for bald eagles have been documented in the bald eagle survey area. 

The bald eagle was more common and abundant in the area during winters from 2004 through 

2007 than in previous or subsequent 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. Rabbit numbers appeared to be at or near a peak in their cycle during those 

years. During those winters, one or two bald eagles occasionally used the shelterbelt is in the 

overlap area between the general analysis area and existing Buckskin Mine permit area. Bald 

eagles had never been observed concentrating in this windbreak during the previous two decades 

of wildlife surveys. No bald eagles have ever been documented in the tree shelterbelt around the 

recently vacated residence near the junction of the Collins and McGee roads in the general 

analysis area, or the shelterbelt surrounding the occupied residence between the two roads. A 

single adult bald eagle was observed once perched in an isolated cottonwood just south of the 

latter residence. As noted, bald eagle sightings within the Buckskin Mine survey area averaged 

only 0.5 per year over the last 26 years (1984–2009). 

The burrowing owl is uncommon at the Buckskin Mine and has never been observed in the 

general analysis area. This species is an infrequent breeder in the prairie dog colony just beyond 

the northeastern corner of the general analysis area. 

The sage-grouse was recently added to the Level I list of avian species of concern at coal mines. 

This species is becoming less common in the vicinity of the Buckskin Mine, as described in 

section 3.10.6. No sage-grouse leks are present in the general analysis area, and sage-grouse 

3-152 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

have not been recorded there during the last 26 years of annual monitoring. Both the proposed 

tract and the general analysis area are dominated by upland grassland habitats, with only 11% 

(46 and 302 noncontiguous acres, respectively) of their areas comprised of sagebrush habitats. 

Suitable nesting habitat is scarce if not absent in the general analysis area for the remainder of 

the “Coal Mine List of 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming”; 

therefore, the other species have rarely or never been recorded. 

Under natural conditions, limited seasonal waterfowl and shorebird habitat is present in the 

general analysis area. Prior to CBNG development, the natural aquatic habitat in the general 

analysis area was mainly available during spring migration as a single ephemeral stream, two 

stock impoundments, and a closed-basin playa. All of these water features generally were quite 

low or dry after spring. The relatively recent development of CBNG resources upstream and 

within the general analysis area has enhanced surface water availability to some degree resulting 

in a limited increase in habitat for waterfowl and shorebird species. However, all water bodies 

within the general analysis area continue to be dry or nearly so by mid-summer in most years; 

exceptions occur during years with above average precipitation. 

The adjacent Buckskin Mine has conducted a voluntary program of waterfowl and shorebird 

monitoring at various native and reclaimed water bodies in the existing permit area. Multiple 

surveys were conducted in spring and summer each year since 2004. Those surveys did not 

include the playa located between the Collins and McGee roads, the largest and most persistent 

water body in the general analysis area, but it did include a similar playa in the mine permit area, 

approximately 1.25 miles south of the general analysis area. Both playas have been enhanced by 

CBNG discharge water in recent years. Common species seen at the playa within the permit area 

include the Canada goose (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), along with common shorebirds such as the killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and spotted 

sandpiper (Actitis macularia). Similar species have been or would be expected to be recorded at 

the playa in the general analysis area. 

3.10.7.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a minor, short-term impact on 

nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for migratory bird species of management concern, as well 

as carrying capacity and habitat diversity on reclaimed lands. This alternative would have a 

negligible, short-term impact on waterfowl. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area 

(474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts on migratory 

birds and waterfowl as in the proposed tract and support area. None of the 18 migratory bird 

species of management concern for Wyoming coal mines that have historically been observed in 

the migratory bird survey area are regularly seen in the proposed tract. The upland grasslands 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-153 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

that dominate the tract lack the specific characteristics (shrubs, wetlands, prairie dog colonies, or 

shorter, less dense grasses) typically associated with most Level I species that have historically 

been recorded in the area. No sage-grouse leks are present in the proposed tract. The bald eagle 

is the only avian species of concern that has been recorded in the proposed tract. This species 

has been documented an average of less than once per year in the vicinity of the Buckskin Mine 

over the last 26 years of annual monitoring, with even fewer observations in the tree shelterbelt 

in the overlap area in section 19, T52N R72W. That shelterbelt is already subject to mine related 

disturbance associated with existing coal leases. Additional potential impacts on the sage-grouse 

and raptors in general, as well as measures in place to prevent impacts on these species from 

existing mining operations, were included in the preceding discussions. Additional information 

regarding species currently or recently involved in the ESA listing process is provided in 

appendix J. 

The Proposed Action could have impacts on existing nesting and foraging habitat for these 

species in the proposed tract and support area. The habitat loss would be short-term for 

grassland species, but would last longer for shrub-dependent species. However, with less than 

11% of the total composition, sagebrush is not a dominant community in those areas. 

Reclamation practices at the Buckskin Mine are designed to provide a mosaic of upland and 

bottomland habitats that would potentially host most of these species. All disturbance and 

reclamation efforts would occur incrementally throughout the area. Because the proposed tract is 

dominated (71%) by upland grassland communities, the establishment of reclaimed grasslands 

after mining has been completed would not result in a dramatic change in habitat types from the 

premining landscape. 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 premining and postmining 

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 (Shelley 1992; 

Clayton et al. 2006). 

No impacts on mountain plovers are anticipated because this species has never been documented 

in its survey area in the last 26 years of monitoring. Additionally, typical suitable habitat (short 

and sparse vegetation) for this species is not present in the general analysis area. 

The Proposed Action would have a negligible, short-term effect on migrating and breeding 

waterfowl and shorebirds due to the extremely limited presence and seasonal nature of open 

water and wetland habitats in the area. Sedimentation ponds created during mining would 

provide interim habitat for aquatic fauna. The current reclamation plan for the Buckskin Mine 

requires that the segment of the Hay Creek channel in the northern portion of the general analysis 

area affected by currently permitted mining be reclaimed to restore its premining functions and 

aquatic habitats. The diversion channel and other future diversions would not provide the same 

3-154 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

habitat as the natural channels, although natural stream flow and the presence of CBNG 

discharge water would not be affected. Mitigation for all impacts on jurisdictional wetlands 

would be required in accordance with section 404 of the Clean Water Act (section 3.7). If new 

wetlands do not duplicate the exact function and/or landscape features of the premine wetlands, 

species associated with those habitats could be beneficially or adversely affected as a result, 

depending on their premine status. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts on migratory 

birds and waterfowl as those described under the Proposed Action. No unique habitat features 

occur in the overlap area. The only trees or primary water body are the tree shelterbelt in section 

19, T52N R72W and Hay Creek, respectively; the tree stand is expected to be disturbed and the 

creek has already been diverted during previously permitted activities. As discussed in section 

2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application would not preclude an application to lease a 

tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a moderate, short-term impact on nesting, 

roosting, and foraging habitat for migratory bird species of management concern, as well as 

carrying capacity and habitat diversity on reclaimed lands. This alternative would have a 

negligible, short-term impact on waterfowl. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area 

(38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts on migratory birds 

and waterfowl as in the proposed tract. 

None of the 18 migratory bird species of management concern for Wyoming coal mines that 

have historically been observed in the vicinity are regularly seen in the general analysis area. 

The upland grasslands and agricultural lands that dominate the area lack the specific 

characteristics (shrubs, wetlands, prairie dog colonies, or shorter, less dense grasses) typically 

associated with most Level I species that have historically been recorded in the area. No 

sage-grouse leks are present in the general analysis area; the lone sage-grouse lek in the 

immediate vicinity is located in the existing permit area and, thus, is already subject to 

previously permitted disturbances. An average of less than one bald eagle per year has been 

recorded in the entire Buckskin Mine survey area that overlaps the general analysis area. The 

tree shelter belt in section 19, T52N R72W where bald eagles have occasionally been observed is 

in the overlap area, which is already scheduled for eventual disturbance associated with 

previously permitted activities for existing coal leases. Additional potential impacts on the 

sage-grouse, bald eagle, and raptors in general, as well as measures in place to prevent impacts 

on these species from existing mining operations, were included in the preceding discussions. 

Impacts on existing habitats for these species would be short-term for grassland species, but 

would last longer for shrub-dependent species. However, with less than 11% of the total 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-155 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

composition, sagebrush is not a dominant species in the general analysis area. Reclamation 

practices at Buckskin are designed to provide a mosaic of upland and bottomland habitats that 

would potentially host most of these species. All disturbance and reclamation activities would 

occur incrementally throughout the area. Because the proposed tract is dominated (71%) by 

upland grassland and agricultural lands, the establishment of reclaimed grasslands after mining 

has been completed would not result in a dramatic change in habitat types from the premining 

landscape. 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 premining and postmining 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 (Shelley 1992; Clayton et al. 

2006). 

No impacts on mountain plovers are anticipated because this species has never been documented 

in its survey area in the last 26 years of monitoring. Additionally, typical suitable habitat (prairie 

dog colonies and other areas of short, sparse vegetation) for this species is not present in the 

general analysis area. 

Alternative 2 would have a negligible effect on migrating and breeding waterfowl and shorebirds 

due to the extremely limited presence and seasonal nature of this habitat in the area. 

Sedimentation ponds created during mining would provide interim habitat for aquatic fauna. The 

current reclamation plan for the Buckskin Mine requires that the segment of the Hay Creek 

channel in the northern portion of the general analysis area affected by currently permitted 

mining be reclaimed to restore its premining functions and aquatic habitats. The diversion 

channel and other future diversions would not provide the same habitat as the natural channels, 

although natural streamflow and the presence of CBNG discharge water would not be affected. 

Mitigation for all impacts on jurisdictional wetlands would be required in accordance with 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (section 3.7). If the mitigated wetlands do not duplicate the 

exact function and/or landscape features of the premine wetlands, species associated with those 

habitats could be beneficially or adversely affected as a result, depending on their premine status. 

Only three shelterbelts are present in the general analysis area. One stand is in the overlap with 

the existing Buckskin Mine permit area and the other two surround currently or recently 

occupied residences. 

3-156 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.10.8. Amphibians, Reptiles, and Aquatic Species 

3.10.8.1. Affected Environment 

Wildlife surveys completed specifically for the Buckskin Mine 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. Some 

of these species are common inhabitants of the wildlife survey area for the Buckskin Mine, but 

they have not necessarily been regularly observed in the general analysis area. 

Reptile and amphibian species have been recorded during the various surveys at the Buckskin 

Mine and on adjacent lands, including the general analysis area. These species include the tiger 

salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), great plains toad (Bufo cognatus), boreal chorus frog 

(Pseudacris triseriata maculata), eastern short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi 

brevirostre), prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis viridis), and bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucas 

sayi). 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 general analysis area. The lack of deep-water habitat and extensive and persistent 

water sources within that region precludes the presence and diversity of fish and other aquatic 

species. Consequently, monitoring of aquatic species is not regularly conducted at the Buckskin 

Mine, and fish surveys were not required or conducted specifically for the proposed tract. 

The scarcity of mesic habitats throughout the majority of the wildlife survey area for the 

Buckskin Mine also reduces the potential of the area to attract aquatic species. Recent influxes 

of CBNG discharge water into Hay Creek has provided extended periods of surface water in 

some, but not all, of the last few years. 

3.10.8.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and 

mine-related activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a negligible, short-term impact 

on aquatic species. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining 

existing coal leases would have the same impact as in the proposed tract and support area. 

Mining the proposed tract would remove habitat for amphibians and reptiles in some areas. 

Disturbance and reclamation activities would occur incrementally throughout the area. Due to 

the limited presence of water in the area, no fisheries and few, if any, other aquatic species would 

be affected. Because the proposed tract is dominated (71%) by upland grassland communities, 

the establishment of reclaimed grasslands after mining would not result in a dramatic change in 

habitat types from the premining landscape. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-157 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Under jurisdiction of the Buckskin Mine’s current WDEQ mine permit, Hay Creek has already 

been diverted to recover coal from the existing coal leases (section 3.5.2.1). This diversion does 

not impact the proposed tract. The aquatic resources of Hay Creek would be restored after 

mining to approximate premining conditions. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as described under 

the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application 

would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

Water resources in the overlap area are not sufficient to support fisheries and few, if any, other 

aquatic species would be affected. Under jurisdiction of the Buckskin Mine’s current WDEQ 

mine permit, Hay Creek has already been diverted to recover coal from the existing coal leases 

(section 3.5.2.1). This diversion affects the northern part of the overlap between the general 

analysis area and existing permit area. The aquatic resources of Hay Creek would be restored 

after mining to approximate premining conditions. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a negligible, short-term impact on aquatic 

species. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal 

leases would have the same impact as in the proposed tract and support area. Mining in the 

general analysis area would remove habitat for amphibians and reptiles in some areas. 

Disturbance and reclamation activities would occur incrementally throughout the area. Due to 

the limited presence of water in the area, no fisheries and few, if any, other aquatic species would 

be affected. Because the general analysis area is dominated (71% combined) by upland 

grassland communities and agricultural lands, the establishment of reclaimed grassland 

communities after mining has been completed would represent similar or somewhat improved 

habitats, respectively, compared to those in the premining landscape. 

Under jurisdiction of the Buckskin Mine’s current WDEQ mine permit, Hay Creek has already 

been diverted to recover coal from the existing coal leases (section 3.5.2.1). This diversion does 

not impact the proposed tract, but it does span the northern part of the general analysis area. The 

aquatic resources of Hay Creek would be restored after mining to approximate premining 

conditions. 

3.10.9.	 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Animal Species, and 

BLM Sensitive Species 

The current list of federal endangered, threatened, and candidate species for Campbell County, 

Wyoming, includes one vertebrate species. As of March 2010, the greater sage-grouse was 

classified as a candidate species based on the recent listing decision of “warranted, but 

3-158 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

precluded” under the ESA (USFWS 2010). The species list is available at the USFWS website: 

http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/PDFs/CountySpeciesLists/Campbell-sp.pdf. 

Appendix J of this document contains the biological assessment for federally listed species and 

appendix K contains a discussion of the BLM sensitive species evaluation. No threatened or 

endangered vertebrate species would be affected under any alternative analyzed in this EIS. In 

February 2004, the USFWS issued a block clearance for black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) 

in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming (USFWS 2004). As of March 2010, 

the ferret was no longer included on the list of threatened and endangered species for Campbell 

County (USFWS 2010). 

3.10.10. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring 

The current USFWS-approved monitoring and mitigation plan for Migratory Bird Species of 

Management Concern for Coal Mines in Wyoming must be updated prior to both the WDEQ 

permitting phase and the occurrence of new disturbance associated with new coal leases to 

include any new species, nests, or important habitats that could be affected under the action 

alternatives. The development and implementation of such mitigation plans has proven to be 

effective in providing mitigation options that minimize or preclude negative impacts on nesting 

raptors and other migratory bird species of concern. The current monitoring and mitigation plan 

and the associated USFWS approval letter are included in the existing Buckskin Mine permit 

document, on file with the WDEQ in Sheridan, Wyoming. The plan includes the following 

provisions: 

 creating raptor nests and nesting habitat through enhancement efforts (nest platforms, tree 

plantings) to mitigate other nest sites affected by mining operations; 

 relocating raptor nests that would be affected by mining in accordance with the approved 

raptor monitoring and mitigation plan; 

 obtaining federal and/or state permits for removal and mitigation of golden eagle nests and 

those of other raptor species; 

 restricting mine-related disturbances from encroaching within stipulated buffers of active 

raptor nests from egg-laying until fledging to prevent nest abandonment and injury to eggs or 

young; 

 reestablishing ground cover necessary for the return of a suitable raptor prey base after 

mining; and 

 requiring use of current raptor-safe construction for overhead power lines (APLIC 2006). 

In addition to a USFWS-approved avian monitoring and mitigation plan, regulatory guidelines 

and requirements designed to prevent or reduce surface coal mining impacts on wildlife include: 

 fencing designed to permit passage of pronghorn and other big game species to the extent 

possible; 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-159 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

 restoring sage-grouse habitat after mining including reestablishing sagebrush and other 

shrubs on reclaimed lands and grading reclaimed lands to create swales and depressions 

suitable for sagebrush obligates and their young; 

 restoring diverse landforms, replacing topsoil, and constructing brush piles, snags, and rock 

piles to enhance habitat for wildlife; 

 restoring short-grass habitat for species that nest and forage in those habitat types; 

 restoring habitat provided by jurisdictional wetlands; 

 reclaiming the stream channels and restoring surface water flow quantity and quality after 

mining to approximate premining conditions; 

 and the implementation of species-specific protective measures for listed species, as needed. 

The current permit for the Buckskin Mine requires reconstruction of bed form features in major 

stream channels, such as pools and runs, that should help restore the channels’ natural function, 

as well as provide habitat. Restoration will be or may be achieved by salvaging sufficient 

material from channel terrace alluvium or material having the same physical characteristics to 

reconstruct pool features. Current reclamation, as well as future reclamation of Hay Creek 

would incorporate any 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 either of the action alternatives is implemented. 

Baseline wildlife surveys were conducted for the adjacent Buckskin Mine before mining 

operations began. Annual wildlife monitoring surveys have been conducted since the mid 1980s. 

These surveys are required by state and federal regulations, and will continue for the life of the 

mine; the annual survey area would be expanded to accommodate new coal leases, as needed. 

The mine has also voluntarily conducted 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 surrounding 

perimeter that varies in size according to the species being surveyed. As a result, the entire 

proposed tract and most of the surrounding general analysis area have been surveyed as part of 

the required monitoring surveys for the Buckskin Mine for many years. 

The current annual monitoring program at the Buckskin Mine includes: 

 spring surveys for new and/or occupied raptor nests, upland game bird lek locations, 

threatened and endangered species, and migratory birds; 

 late spring surveys of raptor production for occupied nests, opportunistic observations of all 

wildlife species, threatened and endangered species, and migratory birds; 

 raptor territorial occupancy and nest productivity surveyed within a 1-mile (annual 

monitoring) or 2-mile (baseline inventories) radius of the existing permit areas; 

 summer surveys for raptors, migratory birds, and lagomorph density; 

 breeding bird surveys; 

3-160 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

 winter surveys for bald eagle winter roosts in 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 in and surrounding the permit area (currently 

conducted during alternate years); and 

 voluntary annual surveys for migrating and nesting waterfowl, shorebirds, and other water 

obligate avian species. 

Similar annual monitoring programs have been in effect at most other PRB coal mines since the 

mid-1990s. 

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 until the early 2000s. In 1999, the WGFD reviewed monitoring data and requirements for 

big game species on those mine sites. They concluded that monitoring had demonstrated a lack 

of impacts on 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 

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 important migration corridors, neither of which are present within the proposed tract or 

general analysis area. Although big game surveys are no longer required as part of the annual 

wildlife monitoring program at the Buckskin Mine, Kiewit has voluntarily continued these 

surveys on a reduced but regular schedule. 

The Buckskin Mine currently operates under a raptor monitoring and mitigation plan approved 

by the USFWS. This plan would be amended to include the final tract configuration if additional 

federal coal reserves are leased and proposed for mining. The amended raptor mitigation plan 

would be subject to review and approval by USFWS before the amended mining plan is 

approved. 

A monitoring and mitigation plan for migratory bird species of management concern has also 

been developed in cooperation with USFWS for the existing Buckskin mining operation, and that 

plan would be amended to include the final tract configuration. If additional species are 

documented nesting or using the area regularly, a mitigation plan would be developed to protect 

those birds and their habitat. 

3.10.11. Residual Impacts 

Although the lands disturbed by future mining would be reclaimed in accordance with the 

requirements of SMCRA and Wyoming statutes, some residual wildlife impacts would occur. 

The reduction in topographic variety 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. Limited riparian and aquatic habitats are 

present in the general analysis area. Areas that currently support sagebrush would be altered to a 

grassland community, perhaps for decades, during the interim between sage plantings and 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-161 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

maturity in reclamation. Until premining habitats have been fully reestablished, such habitat 

transformations would likely result in a change in wildlife species composition. Those species 

may repopulate reclaimed areas, but populations may not attain premining levels. The limited 

presence of sagebrush communities in the general analysis area would help minimize such 

residual impacts. Minimal residual impacts on threatened and endangered, candidate, or 

proposed plant and animal species would occur, because few such species have ever been 

recorded in the general analysis area, and state and federal regulations require reclamation of 

specific habitats important for these species. 

3.11. Land Use and Recreation 

This section discusses the affected environment and environmental consequences in the general 

analysis area as they relate to surface and mineral ownership, and land use (private and 

industrial), including impacts resulting from the Proposed Action and alternatives. Those 

impacts are considered in and within 3 miles of the general analysis area for recreation resources. 

3.11.1. Affected Environment 

Campbell County does not have a countywide land use plan, but has been working on a 

comprehensive land use plan jointly with the City of Gillette. The City of Gillette’s land use 

plan, City of Gillette/Campbell County Comprehensive Planning Program, provides general 

goals and policies for land use in the county, including state and federal coal leases, and is an 

integral part of the overall plan for Campbell County (City of Gillette 1978). The proposed lease 

area does not have a designated zoning classification. 

The entire surface of the existing Buckskin Mine permit area and general analysis area is 

privately owned by individuals or companies (map 3.11-1). All of the federal coal reserves in 

the proposed tract and BLM study area are federally owned, whereas the remaining subsurface 

minerals (i.e., oil and gas reserves) are under a mixture of private and federal ownership 

(map 3.11-2). All oil and gas production infrastructure located in the proposed tract is privately 

owned; facilities in the rest of the general analysis area are under a mix of federal and private 

ownership. Section 3.11.1.1 provides additional information about mineral ownership. 

Wildlife habitat and livestock grazing are the primary present and historical land uses in the 

general analysis area. Secondary land uses include pastureland (ranching), dryland cropland, 

transportation, and CBNG development. Coal mining at the Buckskin Mine is and has been the 

dominant land use to the east and south of the general analysis area since the mid 1980s. 

In addition to existing surface disturbance associated with the Buckskin Mine, the general 

analysis area includes small crop areas, two Campbell County roads (the Collins and McGee 

roads), several overhead electric transmission lines, oil and gas pipelines, and three residences. 

Only one of the three residences is currently occupied. 

3-162 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
2,500 5,000
 

feet
 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 3.11-1 

Surface Ownership in the General Analysis Area 

0
Producing Coal Bed Natural Gas Wells 

Plugged and Abandoned Coal Bed 

Natural Gas Wells 

2,500 5,000 Shut-in Coal Bed Natural Gas Wells 

feet

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 3.11-2 

Oil and Gas Ownership, Leases, and Facilities in the General Analysis Area 

0
 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

U.S. Highway 14-16 lies approximately 1 mile southwest of the general analysis area; it is 

accessed from the general analysis area via the Collins Road. The Collins Road forms the 

western boundary of the proposed tract, crossing vertically through the western part of the 

general analysis area. At its intersection with the McGee Road, it continues to the north while 

the McGee Road angles to the northeast. Wyoming Highway 59 is approximately 2 miles east of 

the general analysis area; no public access connects that highway with the general analysis area. 

Section 3.15 provides additional details about transportation facilities in the general analysis 

area. 

3.11.1.1. Oil and Gas Production 

Oil and gas estates in the general analysis area fall under a mix of federal and private ownership 

(map 3.11-2). Table 3.11-1 shows the breakdown of ownership in the proposed tract and BLM 

study area. 

Table 3.11-1.	 Distribution of Oil and Gas Ownership in the Proposed Tract and BLM 

Study Area 

Federal Ownership Private Ownership 

Proposed tract 251.1 acres 60% 167.9 acres 40% 

BLM study area 806.5 acres 43% 1,076.5 acres 57% 

Table 3.11-2 lists the current (May 2008) federal oil and gas lease numbers and lessees in the 

general analysis area. 

Table 3.11-2. Current Federal Oil and Gas Leases in the General Analysis Area 

Lease Number Location Lessees of Record 

T52N R72W 

WYW 134209 Section 17; Lots 1,9 Expired 10/31/06, closed 3/19/2007 

WYW 138419 Section 17; Lots 6,7,10,11,14 Relinquished 2/6/2008, closed 2/12/2008 

Section 19; Lots 11,13–15, 19, 20 

Section 20; Lots 3,6,10,11 

WYW 146781 Section 9; Lots 9,10 Majestic Petroleum Operations LLC 

And other lands outside of BLM study area Preston Reynolds & Co., Inc. 

Redstone Resources Inc. 

Storm Cat Energy (Powder River) LLC 

Woodward Enterprises LLC 

WYW 146782 Section 7; Lots 13,20 Majestic Petroleum Operations LLC 

Section 8; Lots 10-16 Preston Reynolds & Co., Inc. 

Redstone Resources Inc. 

Storm Cat Energy (Powder River) LLC 

Woodward Enterprises LLC 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-165 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.11-2. Continued 

Lease Number Location Lessees of Record 

WYW 154928 Section 17; Lots 2–4 Van K. Bullock 

WYW 144486 Section 19; Lot 10 Terminated 8/8/2008 

T52N R73W 

WYW 130063 Section 2; Lots 7,10,12,18 Devon Energy Production Co. L.P. 

Majestic Petroleum Operations LLC 

Redstone Resources Inc. 

Woodward Enterprises LLC 

According to WOGCC records (May 2008), no permitted, operating conventional oil wells are 

located in the general analysis area. The Supreme Court has ruled (98-830) that CBNG, 

previously referred to as coal bed methane or CBM, belongs to the owner of the oil and gas 

estate. As of May 2008, 30 permits had been issued for drilled or proposed well sites on lands in 

the BLM study area itself. Of those, 12 have expired without drilling, 3 are reported as plugged 

and abandoned, and 15 are currently producing. Another 12 wells are producing CBNG in the 

support area for the BLM study area. Additional information relative to conventional oil and gas 

and CBNG development in the general analysis area is included in section 3.3.2. 

When surface rights are in private ownership and the rights to develop the mineral resources 

(e.g., underlying oil and gas estates) are publicly held and managed by the federal government, it 

is referred to as a split estate. In split estates, mineral rights are considered dominant, taking 

precedence over other rights associated with the property, including surface ownership. The 

mineral owner must show due regard for the interests of the surface owner and occupy only those 

portions of the surface that are reasonably necessary to develop the mineral estate (BLM 2009b). 

Under FLPMA, the BLM is mandated to manage public lands under a multiple-use approach, 

including the federal mineral estate, to enhance the quality of life for all present and future 

generations. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 guides the land use planning, leasing, bonding, 

operations, and reclamation associated with all development of federal oil and natural gas 

resources. Various laws granted land patents to private individuals but reserved the mineral 

rights for the federal government. The BLM must comply with the provisions of the laws under 

which the surface was patented; however, many of those laws do not identify the rights of the 

surface owner in split estate mineral development situations (BLM 2009b). 

Numerous ancillary facilities exist in support of current oil, gas, and CBNG development in the 

general analysis area. This supporting infrastructure may include well access roads; well pads; 

surface or underground production equipment at the wellheads; well production casing that 

extends from the surface to the production zone; underground gas-gathering lines and 

high-pressure transmission pipelines; facilities for the treatment, discharge, disposal, 

containment, or injection of produced water; metering and compressor stations; and electrical 

overhead or underground power lines to energize pumps and compressors. Because CBNG 

development and production have been occurring near the Buckskin Mine for many years, some 

of these facilities, particularly pipelines, lie within the general analysis area (section 3.15). 

3-166 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Section 3.3.2 and section 3.11.1 address producing, abandoned, and shut-in oil and gas 

(conventional and CBNG) wells in the general analysis area; appendix F (table of permitted 

oil/gas wells) discusses these features within 3 miles of the general analysis area. Well location 

information, oil and gas ownership and oil and gas lease information are presented on 

map 3.11-2 and in table 3.11-2. The BLM manages federal lands on a multiple-use basis, in 

accordance with federal regulations. In response to conflicts between oil and gas and coal lease 

holders, BLM policy advocates optimizing the recovery of all minerals to ensure that the public 

receives a reasonable return for these publicly owned resources. Optimal recovery of 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 applicant mines and existing oil and gas 

lessees have resulted in agreements that allowed development of both resources on portions of 

recently issued LBA tracts. In the PRB, royalties have been and would be lost to both the state 

and federal governments if federally owned CBNG is not recovered prior to mining, or if federal 

coal is not recovered due to conflicts between lessees. State and federal governments can lose 

bonus money when the costs of the agreements between the lessees are factored into the fair 

market value determinations. 

3.11.1.2. Coal Mining 

South and east of the general analysis area, coal mining is the dominant land use. The mines in 

this area—Buckskin, Rawhide, Eagle Butte, Dry Fork, and Wyodak—form a contiguous 

development area from the northernmost mine (Buckskin) to the Wyodak mine located just 

outside and immediately east of the City of Gillette. This cluster of mines represents the 

northernmost group of developed coal mines in Campbell County. The permitted coal 

production rate at the Buckskin Mine is currently 42 million tons; actual production in 2007 was 

25.3 million tons, representing an increase of approximately 11% over the 22.8 million tons 

produced in 2006. The other four coal mines are permitted for a combined total annual 

production of 86 million tons, and reported a total actual production in 2007 of 52.4 million tons. 

The Hay Creek II lease application is the only LBA currently pending in this group of mines. 

Eagle Butte’s West LBA (WYW-155132) was the last lease granted to a mine in the group. 

3.11.1.3. Recreation 

Big game hunting (pronghorn, mule deer, and white-tailed deer) is the principal recreational land 

use within approximately 3 miles of the general analysis area (recreation analysis area) 

(section 3.10). Surface land ownership in the PRB is approximately 80% private, and hunting is 

allowed only with the landowner's permission. The WGFD reports that limited hunter access to 

private lands has become a primary issue in providing hunting opportunities and controlling 

optimal harvest levels and distribution (WGFD 2008a). During the past two or three decades, 

landowners have been increasingly reluctant to allow sportsmen to freely cross and hunt on their 

lands, thus reducing the amount of private lands that are open and reasonably available for 

hunting. Access fees are commonly levied and continue to rise. Most of the private land in the 

recreation analysis area is leased to professional outfitters catering to nonresident hunters. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-167 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

In general, USDA-FS- or BLM-managed public lands in Wyoming, as well as state-owned 

school sections, are open to hunting if legal access is available. Due to safety concerns, 

however, publicly owned surface lands contained in active mining areas are closed to the public. 

No public lands are included in the recreation analysis area. In addition to access, WGFD (2008) 

cites that drought, severe winters, and increased incidents of poaching have diminished the 

hunting opportunities for deer and pronghorn in the recreation analysis area during the past 

decade. 

The WGFD classifies most of the recreation analysis area as yearlong habitat for pronghorn. 

None of the area is classified as severe winter range, crucial, or critical habitat, and no migration 

corridors have been identified. The recreation analysis area is in pronghorn hunt area 17, which 

is within the Gillette pronghorn herd unit. During the 2007 season, harvest from this herd unit 

(including all animals harvested in hunt areas 17, 18, and 19) included 958 bucks, 533 does, and 

0 fawns (a total of 1,481 pronghorn). Post-season population estimated for the same pronghorn 

herd unit in 2007 numbered 16,823, which is well above the objective (11,000) for the herd 

(WGFD 2008a). 

The WGFD has classified the lands in the recreation analysis area as a mix of yearlong and 

winter/yearlong range for mule deer. No winter, crucial, or critical mule deer habitat or 

migration corridors have been identified in this area. The recreation analysis area is located in 

mule deer hunt area 18, part of the Powder River mule deer herd unit, which also includes hunt 

areas 17, 23, and 26. During the 2007 season, harvest from this herd unit (in hunt area 18) 

included 657 bucks, 255 does, and 0 fawns (a total of 912 mule deer out of 1,553 active licenses 

issued). Total harvest for the Powder River mule deer herd unit included 2,590 bucks, 

1,076 does, and 44 fawns (a total of 3,710). The 2007 post-season population estimate was 

49,560 with a herd management objective of 52,000. The WGFD believes that, because 

outfitters lease much of the private land in this herd unit and hunting antlered bucks is 

encouraged, the buck/doe ratios are skewed, and additional pressure is placed on any accessible 

public lands. 

The WGFD manages white-tailed deer separately from mule deer. This species is rarely seen in 

the recreation analysis area because white-tailed deer prefer riparian areas and irrigated 

agricultural lands (WGFD 2008a). The entire area is outside of any white-tailed hunting area 

authorized by WGFD; therefore, no licenses may be issued or filled. 

Rare sightings of elk have been confirmed in the recreation analysis area. No elk hunt areas have 

been assigned in Campbell County. The closest is the Fortification area herd approximately 

18 miles southwest of the general analysis area, and another in the Rochelle Hills near the 

Thunder Basin National Grasslands, approximately 70 miles southeast of the general analysis 

area. 

Upland game birds (e.g., turkeys, grouse) inhabit some parts of the recreation analysis area. 

Hunting opportunities are limited because of lack of habitat and restricted access to private lands. 

The turkey hunting seasons are spring and fall, while other upland game birds are hunted only in 

fall. 

3-168 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

No sport fisheries exist in the recreation analysis area. 

3.11.2. Environmental Consequences 

3.11.2.1. Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and 

mine-related activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a moderate, short-term impact 

on livestock grazing opportunities during mining and CBNG facilities. This alternative would 

have a minor to moderate, short-term impact on access for sub-coal oil and gas development. 

The Proposed Action would have a negligible to moderate, short- to long-term impact on wildlife 

habitat, depending on the species, and no impact on removal of conventional oil and gas facilities 

and loss of access to public land in the proposed tract and support area. Activities in the 

remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the 

same impacts as those in the proposed tract and support area. 

All existing CBNG surface and downhole production and transportation equipment and facilities 

would be removed under this alternative, and all oil and gas development in these areas would be 

stopped during mining and reclamation activities. No surface facilities for conventional oil and 

gas would be affected. Oil and gas development could resume after reclamation is complete and 

the bond is released (approximately 10 years). Deeper conventional oil and gas could be 

reestablished, and coal seams deeper than those intended for mining would also be available for 

CBNG development in the postmine environment. 

Existing coal and transportation activities, infrastructure, and facilities would continue to operate 

in the area. Coal production would be expected to remain at its current average rate of 

25 million tons per year. No major public roadways would be affected; Kiewit does not 

anticipate relocating the Collins Road to access new federal coal reserves. 

Livestock and wildlife would be incrementally displaced during mining as activities progress; all 

disturbance areas would be reclaimed to provide suitable grazing habitat for both groups. 

Section 3.10 provides a detailed description of impacts on livestock and wildlife. 

General access to and across the disturbance areas for recreation, ranching, and oil and gas 

development would be restricted or eliminated during mining and reclamation. Following 

reclamation bond release, management of the privately owned surface would revert to the private 

surface owner. 

3.11.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impacts as those 

described under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-169 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in 

the future. 

3.11.2.3. Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have the same impacts as those described under 

the Proposed Action. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining 

existing coal leases also would have the same impacts. 

This alternative could have impacts on public use of the Collins and McGee roads, if one or both 

were closed or relocated; however, Kiewit does not anticipate pursuing either option. 

Section 3.15 contains additional information regarding impacts on transportation. 

3.11.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

If one of the action alternatives is implemented, mined areas will be reclaimed as specified in the 

approved mine permit reclamation plan to support the primary postmining land uses of wildlife 

habitat and livestock grazing. Reclamation of agricultural pastures and croplands may occur, but 

is highly dependent on the postmine topography and landowner agreements. Mining and 

reclamation procedures would include stockpiling and replacing topsoil, using reclamation seed 

mixtures approved by the WDEQ, and replacing stock reservoirs to assure full use of all grazing 

and wildlife habitat restored under reclamation. 

Steps to control invasive nonnative plant species using chemical and mechanical methods would 

be included in the amended mine plan. Revegetation growth and diversity would be monitored 

until the final reclamation bond is released (a minimum of 10 years following seeding with the 

final seed mixture). Erosion would be monitored to determine if corrective action is needed 

during vegetation establishment. Controlled grazing would be used during revegetation to 

determine the suitability of the reclaimed land for anticipated postmining land uses. 

See section 3.3.3.3 for discussion of regulatory requirements, mitigation, and monitoring related 

to oil and gas development. 

The reclamation standards required by SMCRA and Wyoming state law meet the standards and 

guidelines for healthy rangelands for public lands administered by the BLM in Wyoming. 

3.11.4. Residual Impacts 

No residual impacts on land use and recreation are expected. 

3-170 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.12. Cultural Resources and Native American Consultation 

This section describes cultural resources, including Native American resources, in the general 

analysis area, and identifies impacts on these resources that could result from the Proposed 

Action and alternatives. 

3.12.1. Cultural Resources 

3.12.1.1. Affected Environment 

Cultural resources represent the nonrenewable remains of past human activity. The PRB, 

including the general analysis area, has been inhabited by hunting and gathering populations for 

at least 13,000 years. Throughout prehistory, groups of mobile hunters and gatherers depended 

on the wide variety of plant and animal resources for their survival. 

Chronology 

Frison’s (1978, 1991) chronology for the Northwestern Plains divides the occupation of the area 

into the Paleoindian, Early Plains Archaic, Middle Plains Archaic, Late Plains Archaic, Late 

Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic periods. 

 Paleoindian period (13,000 to 7,000 years before present [B.P.]) 

 Early Plains Archaic period (7,000 to 5,000–4,500 years B.P.) 

 Middle Plains Archaic period (5,000 to 4,500–3,000 years B.P.) 

 Late Plains 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 includes a number of cultural complexes that are associated with 

distinctive styles of lanceolate or stemmed projectile points (Frison 1978). On the Northwestern 

Plains, the Paleoindian period is synonymous with the “big game hunting tradition,” in which 

large mammals such as bison and mammoth were hunted. Evidence for the use of vegetal 

resources is present among Paleoindian populations occupying the Black Hills and Big Horn 

Mountains. 

Projectile point styles from the Early Plains Archaic period reflect a change from the large 

lanceolate and stemmed projectile points characteristic of the Paleoindian Period to large side- or 

corner-notched types. The subsistence pattern reflects use of a broad spectrum of resources and 

a much-diminished use of large mammals. 

The onset of the Middle Plains Archaic is defined by the appearance of the McKean Techno 

Complex around 4,900 years B.P. (Frison 1978, 1991, 2001). McKean Complex projectile 

points include the Duncan and Hanna stemmed variants as well as the McKean lanceolate type. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-171 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

These point types were used until 3,100 years B.P. when they were replaced by a variety of 

corner-notched points (Pelican Lake and Besant) (Martin 1999). Sites dating from this period 

exhibit a continued emphasis on plant procurement and processing. 

The Late Plains Archaic 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 the continued expansion of groups 

into the interior basin grasslands as well as the foothills and mountains. 

The Late Prehistoric period (1,850–400 years B.P.) is marked by a transition in projectile point 

technology around 1,500 years B.P. The corner-notched and side-notched dart points 

characteristic of the Late Plains Archaic are replaced by smaller corner- and side-notched points 

for use with the bow and arrow. Ceramic technology also appears. Around 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 may reflect a narrower subsistence base focused on the 

communal hunting of pronghorn and bison. 

The Protohistoric period (400 to 250 years B.P.) marks the beginning of Euro American 

influence on the aboriginal cultures of the Northwestern Plains. Additions to the material culture 

include the horse and European trade goods such as glass beads, metal, and firearms. Projectile 

points of this period include side-notched, tri-notched, and un-notched points, with the addition 

of metal points. Groups occupying the basin at this time appear to have practiced a highly 

mobile settlement strategy. 

The Historic period (250 to 120 years B.P.) is summarized from Schneider et al. (2000). The 

Oregon Trail brought numerous pioneers through Wyoming, but few stayed. It was not until the 

cattle industry developed in the late 1860s that what is now Wyoming became attractive for 

settlement. The region offered abundant grazing lands for raising livestock that could be shipped 

across the country via the recently completed (1867–1868) transcontinental railroad. 

Settlement of the region surrounding Gillette, Wyoming, began in the late 1800s, after the Fort 

Laramie Treaty in 1876 placed the Sioux 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 to promote the settlement of 

undeveloped areas along the rail lines. The presence of the railroad allowed the cattle industry to 

further develop 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). 

The dryland farming movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had a 

profound effect on the settlement of the PRB during the years around World War I. Although 

the principles of dryland farming were sound, success still required a certain amount of 

precipitation each year. Wyoming encouraged dryland settlement of its semi-arid lands through 

a Board of Immigration created in 1911. Newspapers extolled the virtues of dryland farming, 

3-172 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

and railroads conducted well-organized advertising campaigns on a nationwide basis to settle the 

regions through which they passed. 

The most intensive period of homesteading activity in the eastern PRB occurred in the late 1910s 

and early 1920s. Promotional efforts by the state and the railroads, the prosperous war years for 

agriculture in 1917 and 1918, and the Stock Raising Act of 1916 with its increased acreage (but 

lack of mineral rights) all contributed to this boom period. A large number of land filings 

consisted of existing farms and ranches expanding their holdings in an optimistic economic 

climate. However, an equally large number of homesteaders had been misled by promotional 

advertising and were not adequately prepared for the experiences that awaited them in the PRB. 

It soon became apparent to the would-be dryland farmer that he could not make a living by 

raising only crops. Some were initially successful in growing wheat, oats, barley, and other 

small grains, along with hay, alfalfa, sweet clover, and other grasses for the increased number of 

cattle. 

A drought in 1919 was followed by a severe winter, and market prices fell in the spring of 1920. 

Those homesteaders who were not ruined by the turn of events often became small livestock 

ranchers and limited their farming to growing forage crops for their livestock and family garden 

plots. Some were able to obtain cheap land as it was foreclosed or sold for taxes. During the 

1920s, the size of homesteads in Wyoming nearly doubled and the number of homesteads 

decreased, indicating the shift to livestock raising (LeCompte and Anderson 1982). 

With serious drought beginning in 1932, Weston, Campbell, and Converse counties were eligible 

for a drought relief program. The Northeast Wyoming Land Utilization Project began 

repurchasing the low value homestead lands and making the additional acres of government land 

available for lease. This helped the small operator expand his grazing land. Cropland taken out 

of production could be reclaimed and added to the grazing lease program. Grazing associations 

were formed to regulate grazing permits. In 1934, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration 

began studying portions of Converse, Campbell, Weston, Niobrara, and Crook counties. In all, 

2 million acres were included in the Thunder Basin Project (LA-WY-1). Nationally, the program 

hoped to shift land use from farms to forest, parks, wildlife refuges, or grazing districts. In 

marginal agricultural areas, cash crops were replaced by forage crops, the kind and intensity of 

grazing was changed, and the size of operating units was expanded (USDA Forest Service n.d.). 

During the development program to rehabilitate the range, impounding dams were erected, wells 

were repaired, springs developed, and homestead fences were obliterated while division fences 

were constructed for the new community pastures. Farmsteads were destroyed and the range 

reseeded. Remaining homesteaders and ranchers often purchased or scavenged materials from 

the repurchased farmsteads. Pits were dug on some homesteads and machinery and demolished 

buildings buried (many of these were dug up during the World War II scrap drives). Ironically, 

the rehabilitation project used a labor pool of former farmers who had spent years building what 

the government paid them to destroy. Their efforts were so successful that almost no trace 

remains of many homesteads. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-173 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

While counties lost much of their population base as a result of the Resettlement Administration 

relocation program, they were strengthened financially through school closings, limiting road 

maintenance to main arterioles, and receipt of delinquent taxes payments. The remaining 

subsidized ranches were considerably larger and provided a stabilizing effect on the local 

economies. Three grazing associations were formed: the Thunder Basin Grazing Association, 

the Spring Creek Association, and the Inyan Kara Grazing Association. These associations 

provided more responsible management of the common rangeland than in earlier years. 

Early fur trappers noted the presence of coal in Wyoming in the mid 1800s and in northeastern 

Wyoming as early as the 1830s. The oldest coal mines in Wyoming were established along the 

Union Pacific Railroad; however, transportation systems were not developed in northeastern 

Wyoming until after the Fort Laramie Treaty in 1876. In the vicinity of Gillette, local ranchers 

and settlers mined coal in the area for their own use. Similar to the history described for the 

cattle industry and ranching, once the railroad arrived commercial development of coal mining 

began. Steam locomotives were the major consumer of coal in northeastern Wyoming, and coal 

production accelerated during World War II. Annual coal production declined after the war 

when the railroads transitioned from steam- to diesel-powered locomotives. In 1965, the demand 

for low-sulfur coal increased for use in power plants, and coal leasing began at an intensive level 

(Rosenberg 1990). 

Files Search and Class III Cultural Resources Surveys 

A files search is conducted through the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

prior to beginning field surveys for all new projects. The files search determines if the area has 

been previously surveyed and identifies any known cultural resources in the area. The files are 

accessible only by qualified archaeologists with appropriate clearance from the agency. 

A Class III cultural resources survey is an intensive and comprehensive pedestrian inventory of a 

proposed project area conducted by professional archaeologists and consultants. The survey is 

designed to locate, identify, and record all prehistoric and historic cultural properties 50 years 

and older that have exposed surface manifestations. These cultural properties are then evaluated 

for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Properties must 

be recorded at a sufficient level to allow for this evaluation. Determinations of eligibility are 

made by the managing federal agency in consultation with the SHPO. If a property is 

determined to be not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, no further work is required and the 

property can be disturbed without any further analysis or mitigation. Consultation with the 

SHPO must be completed before the mining plan can be approved. 

Eighteen cultural resource surveys have been conducted in the vicinity of the general analysis 

area. Eleven of the surveys are associated with expansion of the Buckskin Mine and seven were 

conducted for other activities as follows: one pipeline project, one power line project, one 

seismic line project, two CBNG developments, and two conventional oil well developments. In 

November 2007, a Class III cultural resource survey was conducted in the portion of the general 

analysis area that had not been previously surveyed: sections 7, 9, 18, and 19 of T52N R72W and 

3-174 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

sections 12, 13, and 24 of T52N R73W. The 2007 survey was conducted over an area of 

approximately 920 acres (Newberry 2008). 

A total of 19 cultural sites have been documented in the vicinity of the Buckskin Mine. Of these, 

14 are located in the general analysis area (table 3.12-1). One isolated find was recorded and one 

previously recorded site, 48CA1832, could not be located during the 2007 survey. 

Table 3.12-1. Cultural Sites Previously Identified in the General Analysis Area 

Site NRHP Site 

Number Status Author(s)/Organization Report/Study Name Year Type 

48CA862 NE University of Wyoming Buckskin Mine 1980 P 

48CA865 NE University of Wyoming Buckskin Mine 1980 P 

48CA868 NE University of Wyoming Buckskin Mine 1980 P 

48CA1828 NE High Plains Consultants Spring Draw Survey 1982 P 

48CA1830 NE High Plains Consultants Spring Draw Survey 1982 H 

48CA1832 NE High Plains Consultants Spring Draw Survey 1982 H 

48CA1834 NE High Plains Consultants Spring Draw Survey 1982 H 

48CA2223 NE LTA Incorporated Exxon Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Project 

Segment 2 

1985 P 

48CA3376 NE TRC/Mariah Associates Class III Inventory of the Hay Creek Tract 

Buckskin Mine 

2000 H 

48CA3898 NE TRC/Mariah Associates Triton Coal Company LLC Buckskin Mine 

Lease Expansion 

2001 P 

48CA6360 NE Ecosystems Management Buckskin Mining Company Hay Creek II 2006 H 

48CA6361 NE Ecosystems Management Buckskin Mining Company Hay Creek II 2006 H 

48CA6362 NE Ecosystem Management Buckskin Mining Company Hay Creek II 2006 H 

48CA6797 NE Antiquus Cultural Resource Consulting Hay Creek II LBA 2007 H 

NRHP = National Register of Historic Places; NE = Not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

Site types: P = prehistoric; H = historic 

Source: Newberry 2008. 

The entire general analysis area has been inventoried for cultural resources at a Class III level. 

Of the 14 sites identified in that area, 6 are prehistoric and 8 are historic (Newberry 2008). All 

of the prehistoric sites are determined not eligible for the NRHP. No further protection is 

afforded these sites and no further work is required. Historic site categories documented in the 

general analysis area fall under the context of rural settlement. Specifically, the historic sites in 

the general analysis area are associated with homesteading and stock-raising circa the 1910s to 

the 1940s. All of the historic sites are determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP. No 

further protection is afforded these sites and no further work is required. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-175 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.12.1.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have no impact on known cultural 

resources or known unevaluated sites. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) 

related to mining existing coal leases also would have no impact on known cultural resources. 

Up to 6 known prehistoric sites and 8 known historic sites would be destroyed as a result of 

mining and support activities under this alternative. All of these sites were determined to be not 

eligible for inclusion in the NHRP. Additional ineligible sites discovered during operations may 

be destroyed without protection or further work. Impacts on eligible sites discovered during 

operations would be avoided or mitigated through data recovery prior to mining. Impacts on 

unevaluated sites are not permitted; unevaluated sites would be evaluated prior to mining. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have no impact on known cultural 

resources or known unevaluated sites. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the lease 

application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the 

future. 

No eligible or ineligible sites are known to exist in the overlap area. Ineligible sites discovered 

during operations may be destroyed without protection or further work. Impacts on eligible sites 

discovered during operations would be avoided or mitigated through data recovery prior to 

mining. Impacts on unevaluated sites are not permitted; unevaluated sites would be evaluated 

prior to mining. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have no impact on known cultural resources. 

Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases 

also would have no impact on known cultural resources or known unevaluated sites. 

Up to 6 known prehistoric sites and 8 known historic sites would be destroyed as a result of 

mining and support activities under this alternative. All of these sites were determined to be not 

eligible for inclusion in the NHRP. Additional ineligible sites discovered during operations may 

be destroyed without protection or further work. Impacts on eligible sites discovered during 

operations would be avoided or mitigated through data recovery prior to mining. Impacts on 

unevaluated sites are not permitted; unevaluated sites would be evaluated prior to mining. 

3-176 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.12.1.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Class I and Class III surveys are conducted prior to disturbance to identify cultural resources on 

all lands affected by federal undertakings, including leasing of federal minerals. All cultural 

sites documented in the general analysis area during surveys associated with this EIS were 

determined to be not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Therefore, these sites are afforded no 

further protection and no further work is required before mining can begin. 

Mining activities are monitored during topsoil stripping and other surface-disturbing activities. 

If previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during these operations, Buckskin will 

stop all activity in that vicinity until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find. If the 

archeologist determines it is warranted, SHPO is consulted to further evaluate the eligibility of 

the discovery for inclusion on the NRHP. Cultural resources that are determined to be eligible 

for the NRHP would be avoided or, if avoidance is not possible, a recovery plan would be 

implemented prior to disturbance and data would be collected (recorded or excavated) from the 

site(s) prior to removal. If a lease is issued under either of the action alternatives, the BLM 

would attach a stipulation requiring the lessee to notify appropriate state and federal personnel if 

cultural materials are uncovered during mining operations. This stipulation is included in 

appendix E. Full consultation with SHPO must be completed prior to approval of a mining plan. 

3.12.1.4. Residual Impacts 

No cultural resources eligible for listing on the NRHP have been formally identified and 

recorded in the general analysis area to date. If either of the action alternatives is implemented, 

sites determined to be ineligible for the NRHP would be permanently removed as a result 

mining. If cultural resources are discovered in the future that are determined to be eligible for 

the NRHP and cannot be avoided, they would be permanently removed as a result of mining. 

Although cultural resources that are not removed or that remain undiscovered prior to 

disturbance would be permanently destroyed by surface coal mining operations, the analyses 

(e.g., intensive pedestrian inventories, site evaluations and excavation, and analysis of prehistoric 

cultural resources) required prior to implementation of these activities provide substantial 

information and a better understanding regarding existing resources and local prehistory in the 

region. 

3.12.2. Native American Consultation 

3.12.2.1. Affected Environment 

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 possessing no 

human-made features. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-177 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

No Native American heritage, special interest, or sacred sites have been formally identified and 

recorded in the general analysis area to date. However, the geographic position of the general 

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 Devil’s Tower to the north) creates 

the possibility that existing locations may have special religious or sacred significance to Native 

American groups. 

3.12.2.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have no impact on known Native 

American heritage sites. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to 

mining existing coal leases also would have no impact on such sites. 

 No Native American heritage, special interest, or sacred sites have been formally identified and 

recorded in the proposed tract, support area, or overlap area to date. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have no impact on known Native 

American heritage sites because none are known to be present in the area. As discussed in 

section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the lease application would not preclude an application to lease 

a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have no impact on known Native American 

heritage sites. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining 

existing coal leases also would have no impact on such sites. 

No Native American heritage, special interest, or sacred sites have been formally identified and 

recorded in the general analysis area to date. 

3.12.2.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

The following tribes have been identified as groups with potential concerns about actions in the 

PRB: 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. Copies of the EIS 

have been sent to these tribal governments and representatives. They are also being provided 

with more specific information about the known cultural sites in the general analysis area. Their 

help is being requested in identifying potentially significant Native American heritage, special 

3-178 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

interest, or sacred religious or cultural sites in the general analysis area before a leasing decision 

is made on the Hay Creek II application. 

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 the BLM on 

coal leasing and mining activity in the PRB at briefings held in Rapid City, South Dakota, in 

March 2002. 

If Native American heritage, special interest, or sacred sites are discovered in the future in the 

general analysis area, Buckskin will stop all activity in that vicinity until all appropriate entities 

have been notified and all steps have been taken to address concerns related to those sites. 

3.12.2.4. Residual Impacts 

Although cultural resources that are not removed or have remain undiscovered prior to 

disturbance would be permanently destroyed by surface coal mining operations, the analyses 

(e.g., intensive pedestrian inventories, site evaluations and excavation, and analysis of prehistoric 

cultural resources) required prior to implementation of these activities provide substantial 

information and a better understanding regarding existing resources and the local prehistory in 

the region. 

3.13. Visual Resources 

This section describes existing visual resources in the general analysis area and identifies 

impacts that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

3.13.1. Affected Environment 

Visual sensitivity levels are determined by the concern of viewers for what they see and the 

frequency of travel through an area. 

Natural views within and into the general analysis area consist mainly of vegetated open 

landscapes, including rolling mixed-grass prairie, scattered stands of sagebrush, and a small 

region of rough breaks. Natural views from the general analysis area to the north and west are 

similar to those within the area. Views to the south and east consist mostly of surface mining 

activities and facilities. Signs of human use in and near the area include active farming and 

ranching activities (fences, homesteads, hayfields, croplands, farm equipment, and livestock), 

tree shelterbelts around residences, CBNG development (pipeline rights-of-way, well shelters, 

and compressor stations), transportation facilities (roads and railroads), and overhead electric 

power lines and substations. U.S. Highway 14-16 lies approximately 1 mile to the southwest of 

the general analysis area. The southern portion of the general analysis area can be viewed from 

this roadway with the Buckskin Mine storage silos beyond it. The Collins and McGee roads pass 

through the western half of the general analysis area, and active mining at Buckskin is visible 

from both roads. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-179 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

For management purposes, the BLM evaluated the visual resources on lands under its 

jurisdiction in the 1985 Buffalo RMP (BLM 1985). The inventoried lands were classified into 

visual resource management (VRM) classes used to describe increasing levels of change within 

the characteristic landscape. They are defined as follows (BLM 2001a): 

 Class I—Natural ecologic changes and very limited management activity is allowed. Any 

contrast (activity) within this class must not attract attention. 

 Class II—Changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) caused by an 

activity should not be evident in the landscape. 

 Class III—Contrasts to the basic elements caused by an activity are evident but should 

remain subordinate to the existing landscape. 

 Class IV—Activity attracts attention and is a dominant feature of the landscape in terms of 

scale. 

 Class V—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. 

The 2001 RMP Update (BLM 2001a) covers Campbell County and the general analysis. The 

general analysis area is classified as VRM class IV because of the industrial nature of the energy 

development and active farming and residential use in the area. The overall natural scenic 

quality of class IV area is considered relatively low. 

Surface coal mines are not considered to be major emitting facilities in accordance with the 

WDEQ Rules and Regulations (chapter 6, section 4). Therefore, State of Wyoming does not 

require mines to evaluate their impacts on class I areas, though the BLM does consider such 

issues during leasing. 

3.13.2. Environmental Consequences 

3.13.2.1. Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and 

mine-related activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a moderate, short-term impact 

on visual resources during mining. Following reclamation, this alternative would have a minor 

to moderate, permanent impact on terrain and a minor, long-term impact on approximately 

46 non-contiguous acres of sagebrush in these areas. Activities in the remainder of the overlap 

area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact on most 

resources as the Proposed Action, with a minor, long-term impact on approximately 

80 non-contiguous acres of sagebrush. 

No visual resources that are unique to this area have been identified in or near the proposed tract. 

Coal extraction operations would be within 1 mile of and visible from U.S. Highway 14-16; 

mine support activities such as topsoil stripping and stockpiling could be 0.25 mile closer to the 

highway. Mining activities would encroach to within 100 feet of the eastern right-of-way of the 

3-180 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Collins Road (section 3.15). The road would remain in its existing alignment, but mined areas 

immediately east of the right-of-way would be lowered during and after mining operations. The 

areas disturbed under the Proposed Action would be considered VRM class V prior to 

reclamation. Reclamation would restore these areas to at least the premining VRM class IV 

conditions. 

Reclaimed land would resemble the surrounding undisturbed terrain, although slopes might 

appear smoother (less intricately dissected) and the vegetation would be more homogenous for 

several years. Sagebrush comprises approximately 126 non-contiguous acres of the area 

associated with the Proposed Action, with an average patch size of 4.9 acres. 

3.13.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact on most resources 

as the Proposed Action, with a minor, long-term impact on approximately 86 non-contiguous 

acres of sagebrush. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application 

would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

No visual resources that are unique to this area have been identified in or near the overlap area. 

The current VRM class designations for the mine would not change. Impacts on the terrain and 

sagebrush habitats in the overlap area would be the same as those described under the Proposed 

Action, but would affect approximately 86 non-contiguous acres of shrubs. 

3.13.2.3. Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a moderate, short-term impact on visual 

resources during mining. Following reclamation, this alternative would have a minor to 

moderate, permanent impact on terrain and a minor, long-term impact on approximately 

302 non-contiguous acres of sagebrush in these areas. Activities in the remainder of the overlap 

area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact on most 

resources as the Proposed Action, with no impacts on sagebrush. 

No visual resources that are unique to this area have been identified in or near the general 

analysis area. Coal extraction would be within 0.5 mile of and visible from U.S. Highway 14-16; 

mine support activities such as topsoil stripping and stockpiling could be 0.25 mile closer to the 

highway. Mining activities would encroach to within 100 feet of the eastern rights-of-way for 

both the Collins and McGee roads (section 3.15). The roads would remain in their existing 

alignments, but adjacent mined areas would be lowered during and after mining operations. 

Mining could only occur between and west of these two roads if they were closed or relocated, as 

described in section 2.2.1.1 and section 2.2.3.1. Kiewit does not anticipate pursuing either of 

those options, and neither road is expected to be disturbed under this alternative. During mining 

and prior to reclamation, areas disturbed under Alternative 2 would be considered VRM class V; 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-181 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

after reclamation they would be restored to at least their premining VRM class IV condition. 

Impacts on the terrain and sagebrush habitats in the general analysis area would be the same as 

those described under the Proposed Action, but would affect approximately 302 non-contiguous 

acres of shrubs. 

3.13.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Landscape character would be restored during reclamation to resemble the original contours. 

Disturbed areas would be reseeded with an approved seed mixture that includes native species. 

Section 3.2 and section 3.9 provide more detailed discussions of the regulatory requirements, 

mitigation, and monitoring for topography and vegetation, respectively. 

3.13.4. Residual Impacts 

No residual impacts on visual resources are expected. 

3.14. Noise 

This section describes existing conditions in the general analysis area associated with noise, and 

identifies impacts that would occur under the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

3.14.1. Affected Environment 

The affected environment is described for noise in the general analysis area and vicinity. 

3.14.1.1. Noise Terminology 

A decibel (dB) is the unit of measure used to represent sound pressure levels. The A-weighted 

decibel (dBA) is a measure designed to simulate human hearing by placing less emphasis on 

lower frequency noise, because the human ear does not perceive lower frequencies in the same 

manner as higher frequencies. Figure 3.14-1 presents noise levels associated with some 

commonly heard sounds. Short-term noise, lasting from several seconds to several hours, is 

quantified by the equivalent noise level (Leq). The 24-hour average noise levels are quantified as 

“day-night” noise levels. 

3.14.1.2. Noise-Sensitive Areas 

For the purposes of this noise analysis, noise-sensitive areas have been categorized into the 

following groups. Map 3.4-4A and shows the occupied residences in and near the general 

analysis area discussed in this section; map 3.4-4B zooms in on the residence to the west and 

southwest of the general analysis area. 

3-182 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Adapted From ABC's of Our Noise Codes published by

Citizens Against Noise, Honolulu, Hawaii

HOW I T FE E LS 

Near permanent damage 

level from short 

exposures 

Pain to ears 

Uncomfortably 

loud 

Discomfort 

threshold 

Very loud 

Conversation 

stops 

Intolerable for 

phone use 

Extra auditory 

physiological 

effects 

Quiet 

Sleep interference 

EQUIVALENT 

S OUNDS 

50 hp siren 

(100 ft) 

Jet engine 

(75 ft) 

Turbo-fan jet at 

takeoff power 

(100ft) 

Scraper-loader 

Jet fly over 

(1000 ft) 

Noisy newspaper 

press 

Air compressor 

(20 ft) 

Power lawnmower 

Steady flow of 

freeway trafic 

10-HP outboard motor 

Automatic 

dishwasher 

Vacuum cleaner 

Window air 

conditioner outside 

at 2 ft. 

Window air 

conditioner 

in room 

Occasional private 

auto at 100 ft. 

Quiet home during 

evening 

Bird calls 

Library 

Soft whisper 5 ft. 

Leaves rustling 

DECIBELS
 

130 

120 

110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

E Q UIVALE NT
 

S OUNDS
 

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 S OUNDS 

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

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Figure 3.14-1 

Relationship Between A-Weighted Decibel Readings and Sounds of Daily Life 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Occupied Residences within the General Analysis Area 

One occupied residence is located within the general analysis area, less than 0.25 mile north of 

the existing mine permit area (map 3.4-4A). This residence is in direct line-of-sight of the 

current mine pit and associated support activities (e.g., topsoil stripping, soil stockpiling). The 

lack of obstacles between the residence and mine operations results in no buffering of noise 

generated at the mine. 

Occupied Residences North of the General Analysis Area 

These four residences range from 1.5 to 2.5 miles north of the general analysis area, and at least 

2 miles north of the existing mine permit boundary (map 3.4-4A). The high rolling terrain 

between these residences and the general analysis area blocks their line-of-sight and creates a 

buffer from noise generated by current mine operations. 

Occupied Residences along U.S. Highway 14-16 and West of the General Analysis Area 

The nearest of these residences is approximately 0.5 mile west of the general analysis area 

(map 3.4-4B) and approximately 1.5 miles from overlap between the general analysis area and 

the Buckskin Mine permit area (map 3.4-4A). The small Green Valley Estates subdivision is 

immediately west of Highway 14-16, approximately 0.75 mile from the general analysis area and 

1.75 miles from the majority of its overlap with the permit boundary. The high rolling terrain 

between these residences and the general analysis area provides a visual and audio buffer from 

current and future mine operations. 

Occupied Residences along U.S. Highway 14-16 and Southwest of the General Analysis Area 

The nearest of these residences is within the existing permit area, approximately 0.25 mile west 

of the general analysis area (map 3.4-4B); this residence is immediately north of an existing coal 

lease (map 3.0-1). The Pineview Ranchettes and Bredthauer subdivisions lie mostly to the west 

of U.S. Highway 14-16, less than 0.25 mile from the Collins Road and the western limit of the 

existing Buckskin Mine permit area (map 3.4-4B). One house in the Pineview Ranchettes 

subdivision lies between the highway and the permit boundary, approximately 0.5 mile west of 

the general analysis area. The residence within the permit area is on the far side of a hill that 

separates it from all but the extreme southwestern corner of the general analysis area. Most of 

the residences in the two subdivisions are on a hillside above the rolling terrain to the northeast. 

Their line-of-sight to both the general analysis area and the existing permit area is generally 

unobstructed, so few potential buffers from mine-related noise are present. However, nearly all 

of the residences in this area are adjacent to and west of Highway 14-16, a well-traveled major 

highway and, thus, are currently exposed to regular traffic noise. 

3.14.1.3. Existing Noise Sources and Existing Noise Levels 

Existing noise sources in the general analysis area include coal mining activities, traffic on 

Highway 14-16 and the Collins and McGee roads, mine-related rail traffic along the rail spur 

serving the mines, wind, and CBNG activities and facilities. 

3-184 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Noise originating from CBNG development equipment (e.g., drilling rigs and construction 

vehicles) and production facilities (e.g., well sites and compressor stations) is apparent locally 

over the short term (i.e., 30 to 60 days) where well drilling and associated construction activities 

occur. 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. 

No baseline noise studies have been conducted for existing noise levels at the northern and 

western residences nearest the general analysis area, and no site-specific noise level data are 

available for the general analysis area. Studies of background noise levels at other PRB mines 

indicate that ambient sound levels generally are low, owing to the isolated nature of the area. 

Because the general analysis area is immediately adjacent to an operating mine, the current median 

noise level is estimated to be between 40 and 60 dBA, with the noise level increasing with proximity 

to active mining operations. Mining activities are characterized by noise levels of between 85 and 

95 dBA at 50 feet from actual mining operations and activities. 

The residences in the general analysis area and the one in the permit area are both close to 

ongoing mine operations and county or federal road systems. Noise at these two residences is 

likely dominated by sources from the Buckskin Mine and public roads. The three subdivisions 

are close to other neighboring residences and Highway 14-16. Therefore, existing noise levels at 

those residences are likely dominated by traffic and ranching or suburban noise sources. 

3.14.2. Environmental Consequences 

The assessment of noise impacts from the Proposed Action and alternatives focuses on the 

following related noise issues: 

 increased noise levels at residences with a direct line-of-sight to and within 0.25 to 0.5 mile 

of new mining activity; 

 noise impacts on wildlife; 

 increased railroad noise along the rail spur serving the mine; and 

 hearing protection for mine workers. 

The Noise Control Act of 1972 indicates that a 24-hour equivalent noise level (Leq[24]) of less 

than 70 dBA prevents hearing loss, and that an outdoor day-night level (Ldn) below 55 dBA, in 

general does not constitute an adverse impact (EPA 1974). 

3.14.2.1. Proposed Action 

Increased Noise Levels at Occupied Residences 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and 

mine-related activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a minor to substantial, 

short-term impact on noise levels, depending on the location of occupied residences relative to 

operations. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing 

coal leases would have the same impact on noise as the Proposed Action. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-185 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Within the General Analysis Area 

The nearest occupied residence is less than 0.25 mile from the overlap area (map 3.4-4A). As 

coal extraction moves incrementally away from existing leases south toward the proposed tract, 

noise associated with mining would also move away from that residence. 

North of the General Analysis Area 

Mining and related activities would remain at least 2 miles from the nearest residence under the 

Proposed Action (map 3.4-4A). High terrain between these residences and the proposed tract 

would provide a visual and audio barrier from mine operations. 

West of the General Analysis Area 

Under the Proposed Action, mining and mine support activities associated with the proposed 

tract and support activities in the remainder of the overlap area would remain at least 0.75 mile 

from the nearest residence and 1.25 miles from the nearest subdivision (map 3.4-4A and map 

3.4-4B). High terrain and an active highway located between the residences and the proposed 

tract provide visual and audio buffers from current and future mine-related noise. 

Southwest of the General Analysis Area 

Under the Proposed Action, mining and mine support activities associated with the proposed 

tract and support activities in the remainder of the overlap area would be at least 0.75 mile from 

the majority of occupied residences, One residence would be approximately 0.5 mile west of the 

overlap area but within the existing permit area (map 3.4-4B) and immediately adjacent to an 

existing lease. Few natural buffers from mine-related noise are present between the majority of 

residences in this area and current or future mine operations. However, nearly all of the 

residences in this area are adjacent to and west of a well-traveled major highway and, thus, are 

currently exposed to regular traffic noise. 

Noise Impacts on Wildlife 

Under the Proposed Action, wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the proposed tract would 

continue to be exposed to noise from mine-related activities, but noise levels are not expected to 

increase. Anecdotal observations at surface coal mines in the area indicate that wildlife may 

adapt to increased noise associated with coal mining activity. After mining and reclamation are 

completed, noise levels would return to premining levels. 

Increase in Noise Levels near the Rail Spur 

No new railroads or rail loading facilities would be constructed under the Proposed Action; rail 

car loading would continue at the loadout facility in the existing permit area approximately 

1.5 miles southeast of the proposed tract. The nearest occupied residence is approximately 

2.25 miles to the northwest, with numerous hills and existing noise sources between the rail spur 

and the residence. The mines located north of Interstate 90 (including Buckskin) share a 

common rail spur connecting to the main east-west rail line along the interstate to ship coal to 

users throughout the United States. No residences are located near the common rail spur north of 

the railroad junction. Under the Proposed Action, average coal car loading would remain at the 

3-186 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

same level as under existing conditions for Buckskin Mine (five trains per day). Railroad noise 

impacts are usually evaluated by considering the 24-hour average noise increase compared to 

existing conditions, rather than evaluating short-term Leq noise impacts from each individual 

train (Federal Transit Administration 2006). Because the average number of coal trains would 

not increase, the Proposed Action would not cause an increase in the 24-hour average noise 

levels along the rail spur. 

3.14.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have a minor to substantial, short-term 

impact on noise levels, depending on the location of occupied residences relative to operations. 

As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application would not preclude 

an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

The nearest occupied residence is less than 0.25 mile from the overlap area (map 3.4-4A). As 

coal extraction moves incrementally away from existing leases south toward the proposed tract, 

noise associated with mining would also move away from that residence. 

3.14.2.3. Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a minor to substantial, short-term impact on 

noise levels, depending on the location of occupied residences relative to operations. Activities 

in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have 

the same noise impacts as described under the Proposed Action. 

Increased Noise Levels at Occupied Residences 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a minor to substantial, short-term impact on 

noise levels, depending on the location of occupied residences relative to operations. Activities 

in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have 

the same noise impacts as described under the Proposed Action. 

Within the General Analysis Area 

Mining activities could eclipse the single occupied residence within the general analysis area 

(map 3.4-4A) if the McGee road is closed or relocated, as described in section 2.2.3.1. However, 

Kiewit does not anticipate pursuing road closure or relocation. 

North of the General Analysis Area 

Mining and related activities would remain at least 1.5 miles from the nearest occupied residence 

(map 3.4-4A). High terrain between these residences and the general analysis area would 

provide a visual and audio barrier from mine operations. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-187 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

West of the General Analysis Area 

The majority of mining and mine support activities in the general analysis area would remain at 

least 0.5 mile from the nearest residence and approximately 1 mile away from the nearest 

subdivision (map 3.4-4A and map 3.4-4B). High terrain and an active highway located between 

the residences and the general analysis area provide visual and audio buffers from current and 

future mine-related noise. 

Southwest of the General Analysis Area 

Mining and mine support activities within the general analysis area would remain at least 

0.25 mile from the nearest residence (map 3.4-4B); that residence is within the permit area and 

immediately adjacent to an existing lease. Mining activities in the general analysis area would 

remain at least 0.5 mile from the nearest subdivision. Few potential buffers from mine-related 

noise are present between most of the residences in this area and current or future mine 

operations. However, nearly all of the residences in this area are adjacent to and west of a 

well-traveled major highway and, thus, are currently exposed to regular traffic noise. 

Noise Impacts on Wildlife 

Under Alternative 2, wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the general analysis area would 

continue to be exposed to noise from mine-related activities, but noise levels are not expected to 

increase. Anecdotal observations at surface coal mines in the area indicate that wildlife may 

adapt to increased noise associated with coal mining activity. After mining and reclamation are 

completed, noise levels would return to premining levels. 

Increase in Noise Levels near the Rail Spur 

No new railroads or rail loading facilities would be constructed under Alternative 2; rail car 

loading would continue at the loadout facility in the existing permit area approximately 1.5 miles 

southeast of the general analysis area. The nearest occupied residence is approximately 

2.25 miles to the northwest of the rail spur, with numerous hills and existing noise sources 

between it and the residence. The mines located north of Interstate 90 (including Buckskin) 

share a common rail spur connecting to the main east-west rail line along the interstate to ship 

coal to users throughout the United States. No residences are located near the common rail spur 

north of the railroad junction. Under Alternative 2, average coal car loading would remain at the 

same level as under existing conditions for Buckskin Mine (five trains per day). Railroad noise 

impacts are usually evaluated by considering the 24-hour average noise increase compared to 

existing conditions, rather than evaluating short-term Leq noise impacts from each individual 

train (Federal Transit Administration 2006). Because the average number of coal trains would 

not increase, this alternative would not cause an increase in the 24-hour average noise levels 

along the rail spur. 

3.14.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Mine operators are required to comply with Mine Safety and Health Administration regulations 

concerning noise, which include protecting employees from hearing loss associated with noise 

3-188 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

levels at the mines. This agency 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 noise impacts are expected. 

3.15. Transportation 

This section describes the affected environment as it relates to transportation in the general 

analysis area, and identifies impacts that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

3.15.1. Affected Environment 

Transportation facilities near the general analysis area include Highway 14-16; Wyoming State 

Highway 59 (Wyoming 59); the Collins and McGee roads; unimproved local and access roads; 

the improved Buckskin Mine access road; the Buckskin Mine rail spur; oil and gas pipelines; 

electric corridors; and associated rights-of-way (map 3.15-1 and map 3.4-4A). Oil and gas 

pipelines are shown on map 3.15-2. 

3.15.1.1. Roadways 

Highway 14-16 and Wyoming 59 are the major north-south public transportation corridors in this 

area. Highway 14-16 is approximately 0.5 mile west of the southwestern corner of the general 

analysis area and approximately 2 miles west of its northwestern corner. It is accessed from the 

general analysis area via the Collins Road. The Collins Road forms the western boundary of the 

proposed tract, crossing vertically through the center of the general analysis area. At its 

intersection with the McGee Road, it continues to the north while the McGee Road angles to the 

northeast. Wyoming Highway 59 is approximately 2 miles east of the general analysis area; no 

public access connects that highway with the general analysis area. Both highways are paved, 

two-lane roads. The county roads are improved, two-lane, dirt roads that also run roughly 

north-south. 

3.15.1.2. Railways 

Coal extracted from the existing surface coal mines in the PRB is transported in rail cars along 

the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) rail lines. The coal mines 

north of Gillette, including the Buckskin Mine, ship most of their coal via the east-west 

BNSF Railroad that runs through Gillette for destinations in the Midwest. The coal mines south 

of Gillette and in the Wright area ship most of their coal via the Gillette-to-Douglas BNSF/UP 

joint rail lines that travel south through Campbell and Converse counties, then east over separate 

BNSF and UP rail lines headed for destinations in the Midwest. Individual spur lines connect 

each PRB mine to the BNSF or UP mainlines. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-189 
2,500 5,000
 

feet
 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 3.15-1 

Transportation Facilities in the Vicinity of the General Analysis Area 

0
2,500 5,000
 

feet
 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 3.15-2 

Oil and Gas Pipelines in the General Analysis Area 

0
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Buckskin Mine rail spur provides access to the mine and is located approximately 1.5 miles 

southeast of the general analysis area. This rail spur is the northern terminus of a series of spur 

lines that serve the surface coal mines north of Gillette and extends south for more than 13 miles. 

3.15.1.3. Oil and Gas Pipelines and Electric Corridors 

Several power lines and active oil and gas pipelines are present in the general analysis area. The 

overhead, electric transmission and distribution lines traverse the entire area (map 3.15-1) and 

are primarily associated with mine operations, but they also serve the nearby subdivisions and 

surrounding homes described in section 3.14. The pipelines are predominately associated with 

CBNG production, though some oil is transported as well. Two pipelines cross the length of the 

general analysis area from south to north, but most are concentrated in the southwestern corner 

(map 3.15-2). 

3.15.2. Environmental Consequences 

3.15.2.1. Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and 

mine-related activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a minor to moderate, 

short-term impact on mine-related use of public highways and relocation of pipeline and utility 

infrastructure. This alternative would have a minor to substantial, short-term impact on mining 

operations near the Collins and McGee county roads, depending on their proximity to the 

road(s), but no impact on rail lines. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) 

related to mining existing coal leases would have a moderate, short-term impact on mine related 

use of public highways. These activities would have no impact on pipelines and a negligible to 

minor, short-term impact on power lines and mining operations near the county roads. 

No public roadways are located within the proposed tract, but the Collins Road is adjacent to its 

western boundary. As described in section 2.2.1.1, lands within 100 feet of the outside line of 

the right-of-way of a public road are considered unsuitable for surface coal mining. 

Consequently, the federal coal reserves underlying the Collins Road, its right-of-way, and an 

associated 100-foot buffer zone cannot be accessed under current conditions. Mining could only 

occur under the Collins Road or its right-of-way and buffer if the road were closed or relocated, 

as described in section 2.2.1.1. Kiewit does not anticipate pursuing either of those options, and 

the road and its right-of-way and buffer are not expected to be disturbed under this alternative. 

Unless an exception is granted to the BLM’s prohibition against mining under or immediately 

adjacent to a public road (coal screening unsuitability criterion 3, section 2.2.1.1), a stipulation 

would be attached to the lease stating that mining activity would not be conducted within the 

Collins Road right-of-way or its 100-foot buffer zone. Vehicular traffic to and from the 

Buckskin Mine would remain at existing levels. 

Coal mined in the proposed tract would be transported by rail. Mining would be an extension of 

existing Buckskin operations, and would rely on existing rail facilities and infrastructure. 

Annual coal production would not increase under the Proposed Action, nor would the volume of 

3-192 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

rail shipments. Portions of four active oil and gas pipelines and one potential new easement 

cross the proposed tract, support area and/or remainder of the overlap area. Surface disturbance 

such as overland travel, topsoil stripping, and trenching associated with removal of existing lines 

and construction of new corridors would result if one or more pipelines are relocated. Minor 

surface disturbance would also result from relocating and rebuilding the three overhead power 

lines in the area. Such disturbance is typically limited to overland travel by small- to 

medium-sized vehicles and augering holes approximately 3 feet in diameter to accommodate the 

new power poles. 

3.15.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have a moderate, short-term impact on 

mine related use of public highways. These activities would have no impact on pipelines and a 

negligible to minor, short-term impact on power lines and mining operations near the county 

roads. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on rail lines. As discussed in 

section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application would not preclude an application to 

lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

Mining and related activities in the overlap area could have minor impacts along 0.25 mile of 

one public roadway. No new roads or rail lines would be physically affected under this 

alternative. Because the overlap area is within the existing permit area, all power line and 

pipeline issues have already been addressed. 

3.15.2.3. Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have the same impacts as described under the 

Proposed Action. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining 

existing coal leases also would have the same impacts. 

Approximately 3 miles of two public roadways pass through the western half of the general 

analysis area (map 3.15-1). As described under the Proposed Action, and in sections 2.2.1.1 and 

2.2.3.1, the federal coal reserves underlying the Collins and McGee roads, their rights-of-way, 

and the associated 100-foot buffer zones are considered unsuitable for mining and cannot be 

accessed unless one or both roads are closed or relocated. Kiewit does not anticipate pursuing 

either of those options, and neither road is expected to be disturbed under this alternative. Unless 

an exception is granted to the BLM’s unsuitability criterion 3, a stipulation would be attached to 

the lease stating that mining activity would not be conducted within the rights-of-way or 

100-foot buffer zones for these county roads. Vehicular traffic to and from the Buckskin Mine 

would remain at existing levels. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-193 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Coal mined in the final tract configuration would be transported by rail. Mining would be an 

extension of existing operations and would rely on existing rail facilities and infrastructure. 

Annual coal production and volume of rail shipments would not increase. 

Six existing oil and gas pipelines, one potential new pipeline easement, and eight overhead 

power lines are present in the general analysis area. Surface disturbance such as overland travel, 

topsoil stripping, trenching, and augering associated with removal and relocation of 

infrastructure and facilities would result in varying levels of surface disturbance in current and 

new locations. If relocation of pipelines or corridors is necessary, it would be handled according 

to specific agreements between the coal lessee and the pipeline or utility owners. Due to their 

location within the existing permit area, most, if not all, pipeline and power line issues have 

already been addressed. 

3.15.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Regulatory requirements regarding transportation facilities preclude any public road from being 

relocated or closed unless the appropriate authority has allowed it. Existing pipelines and oil and 

gas lines can be relocated, if necessary, in accordance with specific agreements between the coal 

lessee and the pipeline and utility owners. After mining, the land will be reclaimed to support 

the premining uses described in section 1.1.3.1. Oil and gas wells, pipelines, and utility 

easements will be reestablished as required. 

3.15.4. Residual Impacts 

With the opening of the PRB 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. The largest coal trains are 

from the PRB to power plants in Illinois, Missouri, and Texas (Federal Railroad 

Administration 2008). 

Shifting 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 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, or it can be blown from rail car tops during transit. In testing conducted by 

Union Pacific Railroad, BNSF, 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 pound per mile. 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 0.4 pound per mile (National Coal Transportation 

Association 2007). 

3-194 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The derailment of two trains in the PRB in 2005 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 (Union Pacific Railroad 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 becomes 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 (Gartrell 2007a). 

The National Coal Transportation Association (2007) testing results suggested that rail car 

bottom spillage may have more of a negative impact on rail bed stability than loss from the top 

of rail cars since the leakage is directly above and near the ballast. The testing also indicated a 

32% decrease in bottom spillage of coal after adjustment of the rapid discharge doors. 

Accumulating coal dust deposits have become a concern in Converse County. While the coal 

mines north of Gillette, including the Buckskin Mine, ship most of their coal via the east-west 

BNSF Railroad to destinations in the Midwest, 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 mine load-outs to Bill, Wyoming, and through Converse County (Delbridge 2007). 

The Converse County Board of Commissioners is concerned with the coal dust piles that have 

accumulated in the county from rail transport of coal. 

Spontaneous combustion of accumulated coal dust can cause rangeland fires. Smoldering coal 

dust in 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% of the department’s average 

summer call volume and are an ongoing problem for them. Often water only temporarily puts 

down the flames; some fires repeatedly ignite over the course of several hours or days. 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 does not come close to the actual costs, according 

to the Douglas Volunteer Fire Department Chief (Delbridge 2007). 

A Converse County private landowner invited the BLM to examine and survey the coal that had 

fallen from coal trains traveling through his land. On July 7, 2008, BLM personnel met with the 

landowner and toured his rangeland, which was adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, about 

26 miles north of Douglas, Wyoming. The BLM surveyed various coal accumulations in Box 

Creek. One area had a coal accumulation 1.8 feet thick. Water runoff washed lost coal from the 

trains into drainages; the amount of coal deposited varied along the tracks (BLM 2008d). 

BNSF is working with the utility companies and the mines to encourage delivery of larger 

chunks of crushed coal (3-inch versus 2-inch diameter) to reduce the amount of small particles 

that are created in the crushing process. Another possibility that may help lessen blowing coal 

dust from trains is the application of surfactant to the tops of loaded coal cars. When applied to 

coal, the surfactant can stabilize and adhere coal dust to larger coal chunks. Tests have shown 

that coal dust on railroad tracks can be reduced as much as 95% with surfactant use. The 

specific surfactant used must meet utility companies’ burning specifications (Gartrell 2007a). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-195 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

A collaborative effort between the National Coal Transportation Association, PRB mines, and 

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. Preliminary results have 

demonstrated that this new design may result in a 30% to 60% reduction in coal dust blowing off 

the top of cars during the early portion of the route (Union Pacific Railroad 2006). 

Converse County Commissioners have formally expressed concerns to the BLM regarding fire, 

health, and safety issues associated with blowing coal dust from trains. They have stated that the 

health and wellbeing of Converse County citizens downwind of the railroad tracks continue to be 

jeopardized by the lack of coal dust mitigation in the coal mining permit process. The 

commissioners have recommended that coal dust mitigation be applied as a standard condition of 

approval before mining permits are issued (BLM 2008e). 

As discussed in section 1.3, the BLM does not authorize mining permits nor does it regulate 

mining operations with the issuance of a BLM coal lease. WDEQ is the agency that permits 

mining operations and has authority to enforce mining regulations. In Wyoming, WDEQ has 

entered into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to regulate surface coal 

mining operations. Mitigation and other requirements are developed as part of the mining and 

reclamation permit. These permits and the provisions they contain must be approved by WDEQ 

before mining of federal coal leases can occur. 

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 railroads in the United States, and the National Coal Transportation Association, 

whose mission includes facilitating the resolution of coal transportation issues to serve the needs 

of the general public and industry (National Coal Transportation Association 2008). 

3.16. Hazardous and Solid Waste 

3.16.1. Affected Environment 

Potential sources of hazardous or solid waste could include spilled, leaked, or dumped 

substances, petroleum products, and solid waste associated with coal and oil and gas exploration, 

oil and gas development, utility line installation and maintenance, or agricultural activities. No 

such hazardous or solid wastes are known to be present in the general analysis area. Wastes 

produced by current mining activities at the Buckskin Mine are handled according to the 

procedures described in chapter 1, section 1.1.3.5. 

3.16.2. Environmental Consequences 

3.16.2.1. Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and 

mine-related activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a negligible, short-term impact 

3-196 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

on hazardous and solid wastes generated by mining operations. Activities in the remainder of the 

overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as in 

the proposed tract and support area. 

Wastes generated under this alternative would be similar to those currently being created by 

existing mining operations. Such wastes 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 Buckskin Mine (section 1.1.3.5). 

3.16.2.2. Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have a negligible, short-term impact on 

hazardous and solid wastes generated by mining operations. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a 

decision to reject the coal lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in 

the general analysis area in the future. 

3.16.2.3. Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a negligible, short-term impact on 

hazardous and solid wastes generated by mining operations. Activities in the remainder of the 

overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as in 

the BLM study area and support area. 

Hazardous and solid wastes generated in the course of mining an alternative tract configuration 

would be similar to those currently being created by existing mining operations. Waste handling 

and disposal procedures would be the same as those described for existing mining operations 

(section 1.1.3.5), and would be in accordance with WDEQ-approved waste disposal plans at the 

Buckskin Mine. 

3.16.3. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Kiewit will adhere to the regulatory requirements for production, use, storage, transport, and 

disposal of solid waste and hazardous or extremely hazardous materials that result from mining 

activities, described in section 1.1.3.5. All mining activities involving hazardous materials are and 

would continue to be conducted so as to minimize potential environmental impacts. 

3.16.4. Residual Impacts 

No residual impacts associated with hazardous and solid waste are expected. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-197 
 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.17. Socioeconomics 

This section describes existing socioeconomic conditions in Campbell County, the City of 

Gillette, and nearby unincorporated areas and identifies impacts on those conditions that would 

result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

3.17.1. Local Economy 

3.17.1.1. Affected Environment 

Wyoming’s coal mines set a new annual production record of 466.3 million tons in 2008, an 

increase of about 14.2 million tons (3.1%) over the record 452.1 million tons produced in 2007. 

Coal produced from 14 active mines in Campbell and Converse counties accounted for 

approximately 96% of total statewide coal production in 2008 and virtually all of the gain in 

statewide production from 2007 to 2008 (Wyoming Department of Employment 2009a). 

Energy resource development has been the primary stimulus behind a marked economic 

expansion across the state in recent years. Recent estimates of the state’s gross state product 

(GSP)5

 highlight the significance of the minerals industry to the statewide economy. Estimates 

of the 2007 GSP indicate the mining industry, including oil and gas and support activities, 

accounted for more than 30% of the state’s total GSP of $31.5 billion. Statewide GSP climbed 

by nearly 45% (in nominal dollars) between 2003 and 2007 largely due to the increases in natural 

gas development and production. The contribution of mining production to the 2007 statewide 

GSP was more than twice that of the government sector, the next largest sector, and more than 

three-and-one-half times the contribution of the real estate industry, the next largest private 

industrial sector (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2009). 

Wyoming, Campbell County, Campbell County School District 1, the City of Gillette, and many 

other governmental entities across the state receive revenues derived directly and indirectly from 

taxes and royalties on the production of federal coal, including that at the Buckskin Mine. Such 

revenues include lease bonus bids, ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, royalty payments, sales 

and use taxes on equipment and other taxable purchases, and portions of required contributions 

to the federal AML program and Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. Companies pay lease bonus 

bids for the right to enter into lease agreements for federal coal. 

Current statutorily established allocation formulas presently cap the total annual distributions to 

local governments from the state’s share at levels substantially below the revenues generated by 

mineral development in the state. Consequently, the bulk of such revenues accrue to the state 

general fund, budget reserve fund, Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund, and school 

foundation and construction budgets. The combined statutory distributions to cities and counties 

during fiscal year 2007 was $53.5 million, about 2.9% of the total $1.79 billion in federal 

mineral royalties and severance taxes received by the state. Moreover, distributions to local 

5	 GSP is a measure of the total market value of goods and services produced by the labor, capital, and property in the state, after netting out 

the value of intermediate outputs imported to the state. 

3-198 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

government are not earmarked for those local entities where the activities are located or the 

social and economic effects are felt. Instead, the distributions are made to all cities and counties 

in the state. 

In 1994, a study conducted at the University of Wyoming estimated the total fiscal benefit to the 

State of Wyoming for coal produced in the PRB at $1.10 per ton (Borden et al. 1994). 

Calculating the estimated total fiscal benefit to the state 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 (BLM 2006b). 

Revenues to the federal government from leasing and production of federal coal include 

retention of one-half of the lease bonus bids and federal mineral royalties. Bonus bids are paid in 

five annual installments, with half returned to the state. In 2004 and 2005, BLM held 

competitive sealed-bid lease sales for six coal tracts (NARO South, Hay Creek, West Hay Creek, 

Little Thunder, West Roundup, and NARO North). The successful bonus bids for these six sales 

ranged from 30 cents per ton to 97 cents per ton and totaled $1.69 billion, including 

$146.3 million for the Hay Creek tract (BLM 2006b). The bonus bid payments associated with 

these sales topped $200 million in fiscal year 2006. The remaining bonus bid payments from 

those past sales, estimated at about $170 million per year to the State of Wyoming, will occur 

this year and the next fiscal year. 

Three sales involving coal in the Wyoming PRB were held in the first four months of 2008. Two 

of those sales were successful. The Eagle Butte and South Maysdorf tracts yielded bonus bids 

within the range of the 2004/2005 sales (BLM 2008f). As additional sales are planned, 

successful sales will generate additional coal lease bonus bid disbursements. Such 

disbursements to the state are then allocated to fund capital construction projects for cities, 

towns, and counties; the state’s highway fund; community colleges, and schools (Wyoming 

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group 2007). 

Federal mineral royalties (FMR) are collected by the federal government when the produced coal 

is sold, with a royalty rate equal to 12.5% of the sale price. The federal government retains 51% 

of the receipts and 49% of the FMR is disbursed to the State of Wyoming. Total FMR 

disbursements, including coal bonus bid payments to the state in fiscal year 2007 derived from 

all mineral production (not solely coal), was $927 million (Wyoming Consensus Revenue 

Estimating Group 2008). In 2006, the Buckskin Mine paid $17.8 million in FMR. 

In addition to the FMR, coal mines pay as much as 31.5 cents per ton of surface coal produced to 

fund AML reclamation programs. The Buckskin Mine payments to the federal mining 

reclamation program exceeded $6 million in 2006. Historically about 83% of the funds were to 

be returned to states and tribes with AML problems, subject to adjustments to reflect the actual 

appropriations authorized by Congress and overall AML program priorities. Future AML 

payments associated with the proposed coal sales are assumed to be 28.0 cents per ton. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-199 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Wyoming historically received about 50% of the AML funds generated by production in the 

state. Amendments to Title IV of the SMCRA enacted in 2006 altered the structure of the AML 

program. Under the revised program, Wyoming will receive payments over the next seven years 

to replace past underpayments stemming from Congressional budget authorizations that were 

insufficient to fully fund the program. However, the state will not be entitled to receive future 

distributions from the AML program. Wyoming will receive an equivalent in-lieu amount, of 

50%, in the form of grants from general treasury funds. The new funds will be subject to fewer 

restrictions regarding their use (OSM 2007a, b). 

Additional sources of revenue from coal mining include federal corporate and personal income 

taxes and annual lease rentals paid to the government. 

Sales and use taxes are levied by the state and by local governments. Approximately 70% of the 

revenues generated from the statewide 4.0% levy are retained by the state; the remaining 

revenues are distributed to the counties, cities, and towns according to statutory formula. In 

addition, Campbell County levies a 1% general purpose local option tax and a 0.25% specific 

county option tax. Sales and tax revenues are vital for local governments. Statewide total sales 

and use tax revenues totaled $922.1 million in fiscal year 2007. Fully $1 of every $6 in 

statewide sales and use tax receipts was derived directly from economic activity in Campbell 

County (Wyoming Department of Revenue 2007). A direct accounting of sales and use taxes 

paid by coal mining firms is not available; however, it is likely substantial given the operating 

budgets of the mines. 

In 2006, the Buckskin Mine had a total payroll, including benefits and incentives, of 

$19.3 million. In addition, the mine made outlays of nearly $91 million for non-labor operating 

expenses, capital investments, permits, licenses, fees, royalties, and taxes. Approximately 60% 

of the latter sum was spent with vendors and suppliers in Wyoming or paid directly to state and 

local governments. An internal analysis of the Buckskin Mine’s outlays yielded an estimated 

$1.8 million paid in sales and use taxes in 2006. The total payroll includes $31.7 million in 

federal mineral royalties, mined land reclamation, and black lung taxes, a considerable portion of 

which return to Wyoming (Ackermann pers. comm.). 

The County, Campbell County School District 1, and several special service districts also rely on 

ad valorem/property taxes levied on the real property and value of production and benefit from 

operations of the Buckskin Mine. 

Rising production and market values for oil, natural gas, and coal, coupled with increases in 

production have given rise to dramatic increases in the ad valorem tax bases of producing 

counties, particularly Campbell County. In 2008, Campbell County had an ad valorem tax base 

of $4.72 billion, an increase of more than $1.0 billion, or 29% increase in the past three years. 

Campbell County’s total ad valorem tax base accounted for more than 21% of the aggregate 

statewide assessed value on all real property and mineral production. The coal mining industry 

accounted for nearly 66% of Campbell County’s total assessed value (table 3.17-1). The 

Buckskin Mine, along with other coal mines and the natural gas industry, are the largest 

taxpayers in Campbell County. 

3-200 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.17-1. Contribution of Coal Mining to 2008 Assessed Valuation of Campbell County 

Total Assessed Value 

Coal Mining 

(Real Property) 

State-Assessed 

Minerals—Coal 

Coal-Related Share 

of Totala 

$ 4,772,822,444 $ 258,857,305 $ 2,852,086,593 65.8% 

a (coal mining real property + state-assessed minerals) / total assessed value = coal-related share of total 

Sources: Wyoming Department of Revenue 2008 and Wyoming State Board of Equalization 2008. 

3.17.1.2. Environmental Consequences 

Federal and state royalties, severance tax, and other revenues generated by leasing and mining 

coal depend on the eventual sale date and price of coal. This analysis assumes a conservative 

price estimate of $7.85 per ton of coal. It is approximately 25% below the statewide average 

price of $10.56 per ton for 2010 thru 2012 (reflecting both contracted and spot sales prices) used 

by Wyoming’s Consensus Revenue Estimating Group to estimate the state’s revenues from 

mineral severance and federal mineral royalty revenues over the next five years (Wyoming 

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group 2007, 2008). Royalty and severance tax revenues would 

increase above the amounts projected in this analysis should actual values be higher, and vice 

versa. Coal prices increased in 2005, generally in response to concerns over transporting and 

maintaining adequate stockpiles, but then declined in 2006. Prices trended upward in 2007 and 

the first half of 2008, topping $14.00 per ton for 8,800-Btu coal in April and again in November 

(U.S. Department of Energy 2008a). 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a moderate to substantial, beneficial, 

short-term impact on economic development and revenues to federal, state, and local coffers 

resulting from various royalty and tax payments, respectively. Activities in the remainder of the 

overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as in 

the proposed tract and support area. 

This alternative is projected to generate $69.2–$87.3 million in federal revenues, $90.6–$108.8 

million in state and local revenues (table 3.17-2), and potential bonus bids on the leased 

recoverable coal ranging from $0.30 to $0.97 cents per ton. The projected revenues are based on 

the total tons of recoverable coal, and, therefore, are not affected by future production rates. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-201 
 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.17-2. Projected Major Revenue Increases under the Proposed Action and 

Alternativesa 

Additional Under 

Item 

Existing Buckskin 

Mine 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Proposed Action Alternative 2 

State and Local Revenues $563.6 million 0 $90.6–$108.8 million $250.2–$300.4 million 

Federal Revenues $417.0 million 0 $69.2–$87.3 million $191.0–$241.1 million 

Mine Life 14 years 0 2 years 6 years 

Additional Employees 0 0 0 0 

a Includes severance taxes, federal mineral royalties, and payments to the AML and Black Lung Disability funds. Revenues assume an average sale price 

of $7.85 per ton for coal. State and local revenues include allowances for “in-lieu” amounts for AML, for sales and use taxes on direct purchases by the 

mine, and ad valorem/property taxes on real property and production, but not the sales and use taxes associated with the indirect and induced activity 

supported by the mine. The state revenues do not include any allowances for “recapture” revenues from Campbell County School District 1. 

The overwhelming majority of the state and local revenues reported above would accrue to the 

state general fund, budget reserve, and Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund. Substantial 

revenue would also go to the Wyoming School Foundation Program and school construction 

programs. Due to statutorily established “caps” on distributions of federal royalty and severance 

tax revenues to local government, only a relatively small share of these revenues would go to 

Campbell County and the City of Gillette. 

The Wyoming School Foundation Program is also likely to benefit from revenues generated by 

the “recapture” provisions of local ad valorem taxation. These provisions are triggered when 

local school districts collect revenue based on state-mandated property tax levies for education 

that exceed authorized expenditure levels under the state’s funding equalization program. These 

provisions require such excess tax revenue to be forwarded to the state for use in funding 

operations in districts with relatively smaller property tax bases. Campbell County School 

District 1 is among the few districts in the state that is consistently subject to the “recapture” 

provisions. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as those described 

under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease 

application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the 

future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a moderate to substantial, beneficial, shortterm impact on economic development and revenues to federal, state, and local coffers resulting 

from various royalty and tax payments, respectively. Activities in the remainder of the overlap 

3-202 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as in the BLM 

study area and support area. 

Alternative 2 would generate $191.0-$241.1 million in projected federal revenues, $250.2– 

$300.4 million in state and local revenues (table 3.17-2), and potential bonus bids on the leased 

recoverable coal ranging from $0.30 to $0.97 cents per ton. The projected revenues are based on 

the total tons of recoverable coal and hence are insensitive to future production rates. 

Allocation of revenue would be the same as described for the Proposed Action. 

3.17.2. Population 

3.17.2.1. Affected Environment 

Future residency patterns of the Buckskin Mine’s employees would be expected to mirror that of 

the mine’s current workforce. More than 80% of the current workforce resides in or near 

Gillette, with 12% living elsewhere in Wyoming, and 8% commuting from locations in South 

Dakota. Because of the proximity of the mine to Gillette, the company does not sponsor bus 

service for employees to and from the mine as do some of the other mines in the region. Rather, 

employees drive personal or company vehicles or participate in informal carpools. 

The community of Gillette, the county seat, would most likely attract the majority of any new 

residents due to its current population levels and the availability of services, shopping amenities, 

and educational institutions. 

Campbell County’s population climbed from 33,698 in 2000 to an estimated 41,473 in 

July 2008, ranking it the third most populous of Wyoming’s 23 counties (table 3.17-3). The 

increase represents 23% net growth since 2000, trailing only Sublette County (43%) in terms of 

population growth rates among Wyoming counties. However, Campbell County ranked first in 

terms of net absolute population growth with a net gain of 7,775 residents. Natrona County, 

where Casper, the state’s largest city is located, registered the second-largest absolute change, 

gaining 6,596 residents between 2000 and 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). 

Table 3.17-3. Population Change, 2000 to 2008 

2000 2006 2007 2008 

Population Change from 2000 through 2008 

Absolute Percent 

Campbell County 33,698 38,480 40,433 41,473 7,775 23.1 

City of Gillette 19,646 23,264 25,031 N/A 5,385* 27.4 

N/A = Not yet available 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008a, 2009). 

Gillette’s July 2007 population of 25,031, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, ranks it the 

fourth-largest city in the state, behind Cheyenne, Casper, and Laramie. Gillette’s net population 

gain of 5,385 residents led all municipalities in the state by a considerable margin; Casper’s net 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-203 
 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

gain of 3,359 residents was the second-largest increase among Wyoming cities and towns 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2008a). 

The City of Gillette has long maintained that the Census Bureau population estimates are low. 

The city’s population estimates were 27,533 and 30,636, respectively for December 2006 and 

2007: the latter is more than 5,600 residents higher than the census estimates. The city cites 

updated housing inventories, household demographics, and the extremely low housing vacancy 

rates for its higher estimates (City of Gillette 2008a). Beyond the direct implications for 

population, the latter also suggests that the Census estimates overlook households that would 

qualify as residents but are unable to find housing and consequently are living in local hotels and 

motels on a longer-term basis (Langston pers. comm.). The city also believes the Census 

estimates overlook the many single-status workers who reside in the community on a long-term 

basis, but who maintain a permanent legal place of residence elsewhere.6 Though they 

technically are not residents, these individuals place demands on the city and other local public 

service providers. 

In comparison to the statewide population, the median age of Campbell County residents was 

substantially lower and it had relatively fewer minority residents, a higher percentage of 

residents under 18, and a larger average household size as shown in table 3.17-4. 

Table 3.17-4. Demographic Characteristics, 2000 

Characteristic Wyoming Campbell County 

Median Age 36.2 32.2 

Percent Residents < 18 Years Old 26.1 31.0 

Average Household Size 2.5 2.7 

Percent Minority Residents 7.9 3.9 

Source: Task1C Report (BLM 2005b) 

The majority of the current population directly and indirectly associated with the Buckskin 

Mine’s current workforce resides in and is already integrated into the Gillette community. 

3.17.2.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have no impact on the population in 

Campbell County, the City of Gillette, or nearby unincorporated areas. Activities in the 

remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the 

same impact as in the proposed tract and support area. 

6	 Single-status workers are married with spouses or families, or are unmarried but living in household settings, who relocate temporarily for 

employment purposes but who are not accompanied by other family or household members. 

3-204 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The proposed tract would allow the Buckskin Mine to maintain operations at the current level; 

the mine would not expand as a result of a lease sale. Consequently, no new employment 

opportunities would result directly from this action, and local and regional populations would not 

change to accommodate that need. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as those described 

under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease 

application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the 

future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have no impact on the population in Campbell 

County, the City of Gillette, or nearby unincorporated areas. Activities in the remainder of the 

overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as in 

the BLM study area and support area. 

An alternative tract configuration would allow the Buckskin Mine to maintain operations at the 

current level; the mine would not expand as a result of a lease sale. Consequently, no new 

employment opportunities would result directly from this action and therefore local and regional 

populations would not change to accommodate that need. 

3.17.3. Employment 

3.17.3.1. Affected Environment 

Coal mining processes and productivity have changed substantially in recent times. New 

technologies and higher-capacity equipment are major contributors to these changes. Local coal 

mining employment grew rapidly during the 1970s as more mines opened and production 

climbed. Between 1980 and 1998, overall production rose while the number of mining 

employees decreased or remained constant. The employment declines followed major capital 

investments in facilities and production equipment aimed at increasing productivity 

(BLM 2005d). Since 1998 direct employment in Powder River coal mines has climbed, but 

relatively slower than production, which has risen by more than 50% (Wyoming Department of 

Employment 2009a). 

At the beginning of 2008, the mining sector, including oil and gas workers, accounted for more 

than 26% of all wage and salary jobs in Campbell and neighboring Converse counties, more than 

two-and-one-half times the statewide percentage. Surface coal mines or coal contractors in those 

two counties directly employed approximately 7,400 people, representing about 23% of the total 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-205 
 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

employment labor force (Wyoming Department of Employment 2009a, 2009b; U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 2009). 

Total statewide covered employment7 stood at 276,195 in the first quarter of 2008, nearly 20% 

higher than the corresponding 230,554 jobs in 2003. Approximately one-out-of-four new jobs 

added in the state during the five-year period was related to the energy industry, with most of 

that increase concentrated in support industries for oil and gas development. 

During that same period, statewide coal mining employment increased by 1,809 jobs (27%) to 

6,614, while total employment in Campbell County grew by 8,010 jobs (29%) 

(Wyoming Department of Employment 2009b). The recent increases in the numbers of local 

jobs has affected all industries, but was concentrated in mining, construction, transportation, and 

local government (Wyoming Department of Employment 2009b, 2009c). The mining sector, 

which includes the oil and gas industry, accounts for about 28% of all employment and 39% of 

the total labor wages paid in Campbell County. Coal mining is the major constituent of the 

mining industry in Campbell County, unlike most other areas of Wyoming where oil and gas 

development is the primary constituent. 

Local labor market conditions reflect the strong economic expansion in recent years, driven 

principally by energy resource development. Unemployment has been near historic lows with 

average unemployment dipping below 2.0% in Campbell County in 2008, even as the local labor 

force has grown due to immigration and the attraction of additional residents into the labor force 

(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009). 

The Buckskin Mine provides work for 338 (October 2008) employees. The current employment 

level resulted from an increase of about 130 employees following the 2004 acquisition of 

additional reserves in the West Hay Creek coal lease and subsequent increase in production. The 

mine also purchased additional mining equipment to boost production as it worked to address 

increased stripping ratios (overburden to coal ratio) in its active production seams. 

The Buckskin Mine is contemplating hiring a few additional employees to reach its currently 

desired staffing levels. Filling these positions, a part of the No Action Alternative, would raise 

the workforce to 345 or 350 workers (Ackermann pers. comm.). Little or no further change in 

direct employment is anticipated at the mine in conjunction with either the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 2, assuming a sustained average annual production of 25 million tons. 

Covered employment refers to those full- and part-time, private and government wage and salary workers covered under the state’s 

unemployment insurance program. About 97% of non-agricultural workers are included. Exclusions include insurance and real estate 

agents on commission; most railroad workers; the self-employed; unpaid volunteers or family workers; members of the military; and many 

agricultural workers. 

3-206 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 

7 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.17.3.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a negligible, beneficial, short-term 

impact by extending current employment levels by two years; no new jobs would be added. 

Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases 

would have the same impact as in the proposed tract and support area. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have a negligible, beneficial, short-term 

impact on local employment due to Buckskin’s intention to hire a few additional employees to 

meet current staffing needs. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease 

application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the 

future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a minor, beneficial, short-term impact by 

extending current employment levels by up to six years; no new jobs would be added. 

Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases 

would have the same impact as in the BLM study area and support area. 

3.17.4. Housing 

3.17.4.1. Affected Environment 

The 2000 census tallied 13,288 housing units in Campbell County (U.S. Census Bureau 2008b). 

Population growth since 2000 has prompted new housing construction in the region. According 

to the Census Bureau estimates, net additions to the number of housing units in Campbell County 

from 2000 through 2007 total 1,240 units (table 3.17-5). However, for many years construction 

did not keep pace with demand. Consequently, vacancy rates have fallen to record lows and 

housing prices have climbed. In the second half of 2007, a survey of rental housing estimated a 

vacancy rate of just 0.3% (4 units) in Campbell County (Wyoming Housing Database 

Partnership 2008). Another recent housing survey in Gillette yielded a vacancy rate of 0.1% for 

rental properties with many complexes reporting lengthy waiting lists. That survey also 

estimated a year-end vacancy rate of 2.0% among 11 mobile home parks 

(City of Gillette 2008a). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-207 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 3.17-5. Campbell County Housing Inventory, 2000 and 2007 

2000 2007 Change 

13,288 14,528 +1,240 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2008b 

In 2007, a major surge in new residential construction occurred in Campbell County, triggered 

by pent-up housing demand and anticipated future demands associated with the pending 

construction of the Dry Fork Station power plant (2008–2010), rising coal production, and 

continuing natural gas development. The City of Gillette alone issued 986 building permits for 

new housing units in 2007. That total, consisting of 244 single-family units, 140 duplex units, 

and 602 multi-family units, nearly equaled the combined total of the previous six years. In 

addition, the city issued 126 permits for new manufactured homes. At year’s end 

624 multifamily units were under construction with another 72 units expected to be permitted in 

early 2008 (City of Gillette 2008a). 

In the fourth quarter of 2007, average rental housing costs in Campbell County were $708 for a 

two-bedroom, unfurnished apartment; $308 for a single-wide mobile home lot; and $1,185 for a 

two- or three-bedroom single-family home. As compared to the same period in 2006, those 

averages represent increases of 1.5%, 9.1%, and 21.6% for apartments, mobile home lots, and 

single family homes, respectively. Within the state, only Teton and Sublette counties have 

higher costs (Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 2008). 

The average selling price of homes in Campbell County in 2006, based on 436 sales, was 

$199,945. That average was the fifth highest among Wyoming counties, a 7.6% increase over 

2005, and an overall increase of 52% in five years (Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 

2008). 

In addition to permanent housing, a substantial number of temporary or transient housing exists 

in Campbell County, the City of Gillette, and nearby unincorporated areas. Such housing 

includes hotels or motels, campgrounds, and some spaces within recreational vehicle 

(RV)/mobile home parks. Given the tight housing market conditions in Gillette, workers and 

families waiting for traditional housing to become available are reportedly using some units for 

longer-term occupancy. 

Gillette currently supports 18 motels and inns offering a total of about 1,370 guest rooms; Wright 

recently opened a 27-room motel (Wyoming Travel and Tourism 2007). Commercial 

construction permits for a new 80-room motel and a new dormitory to house railroad employees 

were also issued in 2007 (City of Gillette 2008a). 

Gillette has two year-round, commercial campgrounds with approximately 135 hookups for RVs 

plus tent areas (Wyoming Travel and Tourism 2007). In an effort to address current and 

anticipated housing needs (particularly those associated with temporary workforces for power 

plant construction and oil and gas development) Campbell County amended its zoning 

regulations in 2007 to include a new district for recreational vehicle parks. Such parks can 

3-208 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

accommodate travel trailers, campers, motor homes, and other recreational vehicles that are 

commonly used as housing, in a setting that offers centralized laundries, showers, and 

recreational support activities, as well as utility service and hookups (Campbell County 2008b). 

3.17.4.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have no impact on housing demands in 

Campbell County, the City of Gillette, or nearby unincorporated areas. 

The proposed Hay Creek II tract would allow the Buckskin Mine to maintain operations at the 

current level; the mine would not expand as a result of a lease sale. Consequently, no new 

employment opportunities or influxes of new residents would result directly from this action and, 

therefore, demands on local and regional housing resources would not change to accommodate 

that need. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact on housing 

demands as those described under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision 

to reject the coal lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the 

general analysis area in the future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have no impact on housing demands in Campbell 

County, the City of Gillette, or nearby unincorporated areas. Activities in the remainder of the 

overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as in 

the BLM study area and support area. 

An alternative tract configuration would allow the Buckskin Mine to maintain operations at the 

current level; the mine would not expand as a result of a lease sale. Consequently, no new 

employment opportunities or influxes of new residents would result directly from this action and, 

therefore, demands on local and regional housing resources would not change to accommodate 

that need. 

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 address growing demands for public services. Current facilities and 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-209 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

services are generally adequate for the current population, although several service providers are 

engaged in expansion plans to accommodate future growth and improve service delivery. 

Campbell County School District 1, the third-largest district in Wyoming in total enrollment, is 

the public school district most directly affected by operations at the Buckskin Mine. Total 

enrollment in Campbell County School District 1 declined by more than 500 students between 

1998 and 2004, and climbed by 390 students through the fall of 2007 in response to economic 

and population growth in the county (Wyoming Department of Education 2008). The enrollment 

increase is marked by a disproportionate increase in the number of very young children, i.e., the 

total number of students enrolled in kindergarten through third grade accounting for more than 

70% of the net increase. This pattern is indicative of the recent migration by younger households 

into the area. 

Campbell County School District 1 facilities include 15 elementary schools, 2 junior high 

schools, and 2 high schools (one with two campuses in Gillette). The school district is in the 

midst of a five-year plan to replace several schools, modernize others, and complete other major 

systems maintenance and upgrades. The overall plan is budgeted at more than $57 million. 

Future plans include completion of a new elementary school and additions to a high school 

(Wyoming School Facilities Commission 2007). 

The Campbell County Sheriff’s Department and Gillette Police Department are the two primary 

local law enforcement agencies in the county. In addition to general law enforcement throughout 

the county, the Sheriff’s staff provides court security, conducts criminal investigations, operates 

the detention center, and provides animal control and dispatch for multiple entities. 

The Sheriff’s office is budgeted for 60 sworn deputies and other employees. Campbell County is 

proceeding with a major expansion and remodel of the Campbell County detention center. The 

existing facility has 128 beds, with separate modules for women and juveniles (BLM 2005d). 

The expansion will add 144 beds for adult inmates along with a separate 16-bed facility for 

juvenile offenders. Additional space for detention center support functions and departmental 

administrative, dispatch, and records storage are also included in the expansion 

(Campbell County 2008a). 

The Gillette Police Department has primary responsibility for law enforcement within the 

municipal boundaries. The department had 70 full-time positions in 2007, an increase of 

10 positions as compared to 2005. In part, the increase reflects heightened demands for services 

associated with a rapid influx of energy-related workers and the corresponding population 

growth (City of Gillette 2008b). 

Fire suppression, fire safety, first responder medical emergency, and hazardous material response 

throughout Campbell County is provided by the Campbell County Fire Department, which is 

governed by a city-county joint powers board. The department maintains four stations in Gillette 

and six rural stations dispersed throughout the county. Construction of a new departmental 

headquarters facility commenced in 2007. The facility includes administrative office space, 

training facilities, parking bays for apparatus, and maintenance and storage facilities 

3-210 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

(City of Gillette 2008a). The Buckskin Mine maintains equipment and trained staff to fight fires 

on mine property. 

The primary medical care facility serving the region is the Campbell County Memorial Hospital, 

a 90-bed acute care hospital, located in Gillette. The hospital is planning for a major expansion 

and renovation project that will add 73 new rooms, as well as other diagnostic, treatment, 

patient-care, and support facilities. Local health care capabilities include a nursing program at 

Gillette College, housed in a newly completed facility, built by the city. The new Health Science 

Center provides opportunities for expanded cooperative teaching and training between the 

college and the hospital. 

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. Emergency air transport service for severe injuries or critically ill patients is available 

through Wyoming Life Flight, based in Casper, Wyoming. Wyoming Life Flight provides 

transport to Wyoming Medical Center, a level 2 trauma facility, and other appropriate regional 

health care facilities in Billings, Montana, Denver, Colorado, or elsewhere. 

The principal water and wastewater utilities are operated by the City of Gillette. The city’s water 

system has ample capacity for its service area for most of the year. However, the system 

operates near capacity during the peak demand months of June, July, and August. The city 

recently completed a level II water study to identify longer-term solutions to its water supply 

problems and is now proceeding to implement its recommendations. High-priority actions 

include drilling a new well, promoting additional conservation through education and new rate 

structures, and adopting outside watering/irrigation schedules during the summer (Petersen pers. 

comm.; City of Gillette 2008a). 

Gillette’s sewer treatment system was originally designed for a service population of 

approximately 35,000. Recently completed improvements increased treatment capacity to 

accommodate a population of 50,000. The city is also proceeding with plans to expand/extend 

major sewer lines to provide capacity to accommodate new development. Currently, the system 

serves in excess of 30,000 residents and visitors in the city and surrounding areas 

(City of Gillette 2008a). 

3.17.5.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a negligible, short-term impact on 

local government facilities and services by extending current demands by two years; no new 

impacts would occur. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to 

mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as in the proposed tract and support 

area. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-211 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Although no further changes in direct employment or populations are expected to occur in 

association with the proposed tract, the timeline of existing and previously planned new positions 

and the resulting demands on local government facilities and services would be extended under 

the Proposed Action. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have no impact on local government 

facilities and services because the No Action Alternative would not extend the timeline of 

current demands. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application 

would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a negligible, short-term impact on local 

government facilities and services by extending current demands by up to six years; no new 

impacts would occur. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining 

existing coal leases would have the same impact as in the BLM study area and support area. 

Although no further changes in direct employment or populations are expected to occur in 

association with an alternative tract configuration, the timeline of existing and previously 

planned new positions and the resulting demands on local government facilities and services 

would be extended under Alternative 2. 

3.17.6. Social Setting 

3.17.6.1. Affected Environment 

The social setting for coal development in the PRB is described in the Task 1C Report for the 

PRB coal review (BLM 2005d)8. That report emphasizes Campbell County and its communities 

as the nucleus for coal development in the PRB. The Buckskin Mine has been in production 

since 1981, and the mine and its employees contribute to the social and economic stability of 

Campbell County and the City of Gillette. 

3.17.6.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and 

mine-related activities in the support area (241 acres) would have a negligible, beneficial, 

short-term impact by extending the current social setting of Campbell County and local 

communities by two years. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to 

This report is available online at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs.html. 

3-212 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 

8 
 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as in the proposed tract and support 

area. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have no impact on the local social 

setting. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease application would not 

preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have a minor, beneficial, short-term impact by 

extending the current social setting of Campbell County and local communities by up to six 

years. Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal 

leases would have the same impact as in the BLM study area and support area. 

3.17.7. Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice is concerned with actions that have disproportionate impacts on a given 

segment of society 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 at 59 FR 7629. That 

executive order requires federal agencies to identify and address unreasonably high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 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. 

Communities within Campbell County, entities with interests in the area, and individuals with 

ties to the area 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. This EIS and contributing socioeconomic 

analysis provide a consideration of the impacts with regard to disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts on minority and/or low-income groups, including Native Americans. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-213 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.17.7.1. Affected Environment 

Economic and demographic data (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2006a) indicate that neither 

minority populations nor people living at or below the poverty level make up a “meaningfully 

greater increment” of the total population in Gillette or Campbell County than they do in the 

state as a whole. Also, the Native American population is smaller than in the state as a whole, 

and no known Native American sacred sites are located on or near the general analysis area 

(section 3.12.2.1). 

3.17.7.2. Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have no impact on environmental justice. 

Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases 

would have the same impact as in the proposed tract and support area. 

Because neither minority populations nor people living at or below the poverty level make up a 

“meaningfully greater increment” of the total population in Gillette or Campbell County than 

they do in the state as a whole, the Proposed Action would not result in adverse effects 

associated with environmental justice. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new federal 

coal reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area 

(656 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have the same impact as those described 

under the Proposed Action. As discussed in section 2.2.2, a decision to reject the coal lease 

application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general analysis area in the 

future. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and mine-related 

activities in the support area (926 acres) would have no impact on environmental justice. 

Activities in the remainder of the overlap area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases 

would have the same impact as in the BLM study area and support area. 

Because neither minority populations nor people living at or below the poverty level make up a 

“meaningfully greater increment” of the total population in Gillette or Campbell County than 

they do in the state as a whole, Alternative 2 would not result in adverse effects associated with 

environmental justice. 

3-214 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.17.8. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

Surface coal mines are required to pay royalty and other taxes and fees 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 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 the 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 NOx exposure, and 

their potential impact on the health of people living in the local area. 

Health impact assessments examine and assess the potential effects of proposed projects on 

human health on a broad scale, including social, emotional, and cultural, and physical impacts. 

These assessments rely on available scientific data, public testimony, and modeling to predict 

potential health impacts. The BLM does not have jurisdiction in regard to conducting human 

health assessments. However, the BLM invited the Wyoming Department of 

Health/Environmental Health Section and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention to 

review and provide comment on the draft EIS for the Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application. 

In reference to the stated public concerns, air pollution is controlled by state and federal air 

quality regulations and standards established under the federal CAA Amendments. State 

implementation plans are in place to ensure proposed actions such as coal mining comply with 

all associated air quality regulations and criteria. The WAAQS are stricter than the NAAQS and 

are enforced by the WDEQ. 

As described in section 3.4.2.3, the WDEQ in a joint effort with PRB mining stakeholders 

developed a detailed NEAP for the coal mines of Campbell and Converse counties, Wyoming, 

based on EPA natural event policy guidance. It identifies potential control measures for 

protecting public health and minimizing exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS. 

All mines are required to conduct long-term air quality modeling to show that their proposed 

operations will comply with the NAAQS and WAAQS. They are also required to conduct 

regular monitoring to demonstrate that their actual air emissions do not exceed these standards. 

The WDEQ permit process for coal mines requires air quality modeling of the primary air 

pollutants PM10 and NO2. Section 3.4.2.3 contains air quality mitigation measures that WDEQ 

implemented to prevent exceedances of NAAQS and WAAQS by surface coal mines. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-215 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.18. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the 

Human Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement 

of Long-Term Productivity 

Under NEPA, an EIS must include a discussion of the “relationship between short-term uses of 

man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 

1502.16). This requirement is duplicated in the BLM NEPA Handbook chapter V, 

sections B.2.a.(3) and C.3.h.(2) (BLM 2008b). This section provides a summary of the residual 

impacts of surface coal mining (short-term use) on those resources that have some long-term 

production capability. Resources such as geology, paleontology, surface water, wildlife use, and 

others considered “non-producing” are not included in this section. 

3.18.1. Local Area 

3.18.1.1. Topography 

If either action alternative is implemented, coal mining activities would modify almost all 

components of the present ecological system in the mined tract, which have developed over a 

long period. In the long term, the land surface would be topographically lower following 

reclamation. Although the reclaimed surface would resemble original contours, it would have a 

more homogenous appearance and lack some of its original diversity in shape, structure, and 

outline. 

3.18.1.2. Coal Bed Natural Gas 

CBNG is currently being recovered from within the general analysis area, and the BLM’s overall 

assessment of this resource suggests that a large portion of the CBNG resource in the area has 

been recovered or would be recovered prior to mining under either of the action alternatives. 

CBNG resources that have not been recovered from the Canyon and Anderson seams prior to 

mining would be lost when the coal is removed. Luca Technologies Inc. has developed a method 

of using methanogenisis to enhance biogenetic methane production from indigenous bacterial 

communities residing in the PRB coals. This technique is currently capable of producing up to 

30 million cubic feet per day through nutrient enhancement of microbacterial communities; the 

bacteria metabolize the complex organic molecules in hydrocarbon deposits and produce the gas 

as a waste product. 

Selection of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) would not be likely to decrease the total 

methane emissions attributable to coal mining in the United States in the long term, because 

numerous other sources of coal exist that could meet the demand even after the Buckskin Mine 

recovered all of the coal in its existing leases. Likewise, it would not be likely that total U.S. 

methane emissions would increase measurably in the long term if one of the action alternatives is 

implemented, because the annual production rate would not increase under either alternative. 

3-216 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.18.1.3. Air Quality and Visual Resources 

Because annual coal production rates and supporting mining activities would continue at current 

levels under either action alternative, they would not increase existing impacts on the air quality 

and visual resources in the area on a short-term basis. However, existing effects would continue 

for two to six years beyond the current life-of-mine estimate. No residual impacts on air quality 

or visibility are expected following coal extraction, removal of surface facilities, and completion 

of reclamation. 

3.18.1.4. Water Resources 

If either of the action alternatives is implemented, groundwater quality after reclamation may 

differ from premining conditions, but would be similar to the quality in previously reclaimed 

areas. Water quality would remain adequate for current uses such as livestock and wildlife. 

Mining would permanently remove any aquifers in the final tract configuration. Groundwater 

depth would increase in an area extending northwest (upstream) of mining operations due to 

drawdown from dewatering prior to mining, but should eventually return to premining levels 

because recharge areas would not be disturbed during coal recovery. 

3.18.1.5. Vegetation 

The forage and associated livestock grazing present in the general analysis area would be 

temporarily and incrementally disturbed during mining and reclamation. Croplands and pasture 

in the area would also be affected. Impacts on native vegetation and producing agricultural lands 

could occur on up to 2,847 acres due to mining and support activities (e.g., topsoil stripping, soil 

stockpiling), if the largest possible tract configuration is mined. However, because the county 

roads in the area are not likely to be closed or relocated, actual new disturbance is expected to be 

limited to a maximum of 618 additional acres (table 2-4). Any disturbance would occur 

incrementally over a period of years. Soils would be replaced and vegetation would be restored, 

as required by the mining plan (section 3.8 and section 3.9). Because the general analysis area is 

dominated (71% combined) by upland grassland communities and agricultural lands, the 

establishment of reclaimed grassland communities after mining has been completed would 

represent similar or somewhat improved habitats, respectively, compared to premining 

conditions. In the long term, reclaimed lands would provide equivalent or better forage 

production capacity for domestic livestock. This outcome would be required before the 

performance bond is released. Long-term productivity would depend primarily on postmining 

range management practices largely controlled by private landowners. 

3.18.1.6. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

If either of the action alternatives is implemented, mining would disturb foraging habitat for a 

variety of wildlife species, particularly those associated with upland grasslands (the combined 

dominant habitat in the area). Sagebrush obligates such as the sage-grouse would not experience 

the same level of impacts due to the limited presence (approximately 11%) and broken 

distribution of shrubs in the general analysis area. Although some wildlife would be displaced or 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-217 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

lost in the short term, monitoring of previously reclaimed lands indicates that reclamation can 

support levels of wildlife abundance and species richness similar to those present prior to mining 

disturbance over the long term. The timeline for the return to premine wildlife use varies widely 

by species, with the shortest period for grassland species and longest for species that depend on 

mature sagebrush, such as the sage-grouse and pronghorn. 

3.18.1.7. Recreational Resources 

If either of the action alternatives is implemented, short-term impacts on recreational resources 

could occur from a reduction in big game populations resulting from habitat disturbance and 

reduction in access to some hunting areas. However, hunting opportunities are already limited 

due to the dominance of private lands in and around the general analysis area, so these impacts 

would be minimal. Reclamation efforts would eventually restore wildlife habitats similar to 

premining conditions, and access to hunting areas affected by mining would presumably be 

restored as well. Consequently, no long-term adverse impacts on recreation would be expected. 

3.18.1.8. Socioeconomic Resources 

If either of the action alternatives is implemented, the short- and long-term economy of the 

region would be enhanced. The Proposed Action would extend the current life-of-mine estimate 

by two years; Alternative 2 would extend it up to six years (table 2-4). 

3.18.2. Human Health Impact Assessment 

In 2008, public concerns were brought to the BLM’s attention in regard to conducting human 

health impact assessments in the PRB where coal mining activities occur to assess the potential 

impacts of proposed projects on human health. These assessments examine health on a broad 

scale, including social, emotional, and cultural impacts as well as physical impacts. The impact 

assessments rely on available scientific data, public testimony, and modeling. 

The BLM does not have jurisdiction in regard to conducting specific human health assessments. 

However, that agency 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 

Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application EIS. Neither agency was able to provide detailed 

information due to time and staffing constraints. Information regarding general aspects of 

human health impact assessments are included in sections 3.4 (Air Quality), 3.5 (Water 

Resources), 3.14 (Noise), 3.16 (Hazardous and Solid Waste), and 3.17 (Socioeconomics). While 

this information may not provide a thorough discussion of all aspects of these assessments, it is a 

summary of credible scientific data and evidence that is relevant to evaluating reasonably 

foreseeable t impacts on human health. 

Public concerns were largely focused on the potential for exposure to particulate matter and NOx 

emissions from coal mining, and the potential impacts of such exposures on the health of people 

living in the vicinity of surface coal mines located in the eastern PRB. 

3-218 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Air pollution is controlled by state and federal air quality regulations and standards established 

under the federal CAA Amendments. State implementation plans are in place to ensure 

proposed actions like coal mining comply with all associated air quality regulations and criteria. 

Wyoming standards, WAAQS are stricter than their national counterparts, NAAQS, and are 

enforced by the WDEQ. As described in section 3.4.2.3, the WDEQ developed a NEAP for the 

coal mines of the PRB. The plan, based on the EPA Natural Event Policy guidance, identifies 

potential control measures for protecting public health and minimizing exceedances of the PM10 

NAAQS, which is the only particulate emission required to be monitored at this time. 

All mines are required to conduct air quality modeling to show that their proposed operations 

will comply with the WAAQS and NAAQS, and they are required to demonstrate through 

monitoring that their actual air emissions do not exceed the standards. The WDEQ coal mining 

permit process requires air quality modeling of the primary air pollutants PM10 and NO2. Section 

3.4.2.3 addresses air quality mitigation measures that the WDEQ has implemented to prevent 

exceedances of the WAAQS and NAAQS at other PRB surface coal mines. 

As stated above and as discussed in section 3.4, maintenance of current annual coal production 

rates and supporting mining activities under either action alternative would mean that ongoing, 

short-term impacts on air quality would not increase. No residual impacts on air quality are 

expected following coal extraction, removal of surface facilities, and completion of reclamation. 

According to section 3.5.1, postmining groundwater quality may differ from premining quality, 

but is expected to be quite similar to the premining overburden aquifer and meet Wyoming Class 

III standards for use as stock water. 

While mining is in progress, surface water quality (section 3.5.2) would continue to be protected 

by directing surface runoff from affected areas to various sediment-control structures including 

sediment ponds, traps, ditches, sumps, and mine pits. Under normal conditions, exceedances of 

effluent limitations are not expected in the future as mining extends into new drainages and 

additional sediment-control facilities are added. After mining and reclamation are complete, 

surface water flow and quality would approximate premining conditions. 

Noise levels in the general analysis area would not increase near most occupied residences in the 

vicinity; however, existing activities such as blasting, loading, and hauling would continue for 

two years beyond the current life-of-mine estimate under the Proposed Action, and up to six 

years under Alternative 2. Projected noise in the general analysis area would be farther from 

some homes than currently allowed within the existing permit area. The distance and terrain 

between occupied homes and disturbance area provide visual and audio barriers to the north and 

west of the general analysis area. Due to the general remoteness of the area, and because mining 

is already occurring there, noise would have few off-site impacts. No residual noise impacts are 

expected. 

As discussed in section 3.16, wastes generated by mining in the general analysis area would be 

handled in accordance with the existing regulations using the procedures currently in use and in 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-219 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

accordance with the WDEQ-approved waste disposal plan at the Buckskin Mine. No residual 

hazardous and solid waste impacts are expected. 

As discussed in section 3.17.6, no change in the social setting of Campbell County or the 

community of Gillette would be anticipated under either action alternative. The Buckskin Mine 

has been operating for more than 27 years, and the mine and its employees contribute to the 

social and economic stability of Campbell County and the City of Gillette. No socioeconomic 

residual impacts are expected. 

Coal mines, including the Buckskin Mine, are under the jurisdiction of the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration. That agency’s mission is to “administer the provisions of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as amended by the Mine Improvement and 

New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act), and to enforce compliance with 

mandatory safety and health standards as a means to eliminate fatal accidents; to reduce the 

frequency and severity of nonfatal accidents; to minimize health hazards; and to promote 

improved safety and health conditions in the Nation's mines” (U.S. Department of Labor 2009). 

While an official health impact assessment is not within the agency’s authorization, it does 

monitor and enforce some of the health and safety standards for mining that are related to these 

impact assessment issues. 

3.18.3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Considerable scientific investigations and discussions are ongoing regarding the causes of the 

recent rise in global mean temperatures and whether a warming trend will continue. This section 

addresses GHG emissions as specifically related to the Buckskin Mine and the Hay Creek II 

LBA tract. 

GHGs have been raised as a concern due to the greenhouse effect. Ongoing scientific research 

has identified the potential impacts of anthropogenic (from human activities) GHG emissions 

and changes in biologic carbon sequestration on the global climate. Through complex 

interactions on a regional and global scale, these changes cause a net warming effect of the 

atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat radiated by the earth back into space, 

much as glass traps heat over a greenhouse. Many GHGs occur naturally in the atmosphere, 

such as CO2, methane (including CBNG), water vapor, ozone, and N2O. Other GHGs are 

synthetic, such as chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, as well as 

sulfur hexafluoride. 

Although natural GHG levels have varied for millennia, recent industrialization and burning of 

fossil carbon sources have caused equivalent CO2 concentrations to increase dramatically, and 

are likely to contribute to overall global climatic changes. GHGs are not regulated, but a 

consensus has become established in the international community that global climate change is 

occurring and that GHGs may play a role. As with any field of scientific study, uncertainties are 

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 

3-220 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

with virtual certainty, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented 

trends (EPA 2008b). 

Climatic change analyses are comprised of several factors, including GHG emissions, land use 

management practices, and the albedo effect (i.e., the cycle of increased temperature of the 

environment resulting from increased absorption of normally reflected light). It is assumed that 

existing land and resource conditions in the general analysis area have been and will continue to 

be affected by climate change under all alternatives. National and regional data that are available 

have been referenced, including a recent comprehensive report, The Effects of Climate Change 

on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States 

(U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2008a). 

Because the tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with these GHG 

emissions are presently unavailable, the analysis cannot reach conclusions as to the magnitude or 

significance of the emissions on climate change, or to associate specific actions with the specific 

climate impacts. The impacts of climate change represent the cumulative impacts of, among 

other factors, all worldwide GHG and emissions and land use management practices. 

As discussed in section 1.3, the BLM does not authorize mining just by issuing a federal coal 

lease. The WDEQ, with oversight from the OSM, has regulatory authority in issuing permits to 

mine coal in Wyoming. However, the 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 being mined in the Wyoming PRB is used to generate electricity by coal-fired power 

plants in many states. A discussion of emissions and byproducts generated by burning coal to 

produce electricity is included in section 4.2.14, with a more complete discussion of the status of 

global climate change and cumulative considerations in section 4.2.14.1. Chapter 4 also includes 

an assessment of cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions under all analyzed alternatives. 

As discussed in section 2.2.2, under the currently approved mining plan, which represents the 

No Action Alternative, Kiewit anticipates that Buckskin Mine would mine its remaining 

estimated 370.4 million tons of recoverable federal coal reserves in 14 years at an average annual 

production rate of approximately 25 million tons. Kiewit estimates that the average annual coal 

production rate of approximately 25 million tons would continue under either action alternative. 

To the extent that emission data were available or could be inferred from representative data, 

potential GHG emissions have been identified that could result from implementation of either of 

the action alternatives, as well as emissions that would result from the No Action Alternative. 

The analysis provides a qualitative measure of the incremental change in GHG emissions 

resulting from the action and no action alternatives. The analysis also provides a measure of the 

incremental change resulting from these alternatives in relation to GHG emissions from all 

current coal mining. 

This study projects emissions for a typical year of operations at the Buckskin Mine, if additional 

federal coal reserves are leased and mined in the general analysis area. Emissions are measured 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-221 
 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

as metric tons of equivalent CO2 (CO2e), a unit of measure that takes into account the global 

warming potential of each of the emitted GHGs in terms of CO2e emissions9. Table 3.18-1 

summarizes the equivalent conversion factors used by the IPCC for those GHGs commonly 

associated with surface coal mining. The completed inventory includes emissions from carbon 

fuels used in mining operations and locomotive fuel used in on-site rail transport, electricity used 

on site (e.g., facility lighting and operation, lighting to illuminate roads, power for electrically 

operated equipment, and conveyors), and mining processes (e.g., blasting, methane released from 

mined coal, and spontaneous combustion). Net carbon sink effects from disturbed and reclaimed 

lands are considered negligible, as the projected annual stripping and reclamation acreages are 

roughly equal at 200 acres a year. Not included in this CO2e emissions estimate is rail transport 

to the buyers. 

Table 3.18-1. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Conversion Factors 

Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factor 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1 

Methane (CH4) 21 

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 310 

Source: EPA 2005c. 

The annual CO2e emissions from the Buckskin Mine are not expected to increase under either 

action alternative for the Hay Creek II LBA; average annual production would not increase and 

average strip ratios and haul distances would remain substantially the same as under existing 

operations. Table 3.18-2 summarizes the annual Buckskin Mine CO2e emissions inventory for 

nominal and maximum permitted production rates. 

Table 3.18-2. Estimated Annual Equivalent Carbon Dioxide Emissions at the Buckskin Mine 

2008 Actual At 30 million metric At 42 million metric 

Source (25 million tons) tons per year tons per year 

Fuel 94,136 107,379 150,331 

Electricity 43,212 49,291 69,007 

Mining Process 85,188 97,173 136,042 

Total of three sources 222,536 253,843 355,380 

Source: IML Air Quality Data Report 2010, available for viewing at the BLM Wyoming High Plains District Office in Casper, Wyoming. 

Conversely, projected CO2e emissions over the life of the mine would increase under either 

action alternative. Although annual average production rates and associated annual emission 

levels are not expected to increase. 

9 The EPA states, “Emissions of greenhouse gases are typically expressed in a common metric, so that their impacts can be directly compared, 

as some gases are more potent (have a higher global warming potential or GWP) than others. The international standard practice is to 

express greenhouse gases in carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents, or CO2e. Emissions of gases other than CO2 are translated into CO2e using 

global warming potentials. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends using 100 year potentials” (EPA 2005c). 

3-222 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Center for Climate Strategies estimates that activities in Wyoming will account for 

approximately 60.3 million metric tons of gross CO2e emissions in 2010 and 69.4 million metric 

tons in 2020 (Center for Climate Strategies 2007). Using those projections, the 2008 Buckskin 

Mine emissions total (table 3.18-2) represents 0.37% of the 2010 statewide emissions. 

As mentioned above, the CO2e emission estimates in table 3.18-2 include projected methane 

emissions vented from exposed unmined coal. The estimated annual amount of CO2e emissions 

from vented methane is approximately 79,156 metric tons, or about 36% of the total Buckskin 

Mine CO2e emissions for 2008. Methane emissions from Wyoming’s coal mines in 2010 are 

projected to be 2.3 million metric tons of CO2e (Center for Climate Strategies 2007), of which 

the Buckskin Mine’s 2008 methane emissions represent 3.4%. Methane emissions from U.S. 

anthropogenic sources in 2007 totaled 699.9 million metric tons CO2e (U.S. Department of 

Energy 2008b). Therefore, the estimated 2008 methane emissions vented from recovered coal at 

the Buckskin Mine constitutes about 0.0113% of the total 2007 U.S. methane emissions from 

anthropogenic sources. 

For computation of methane release from the coal seams at the Buckskin Mine, an emission 

factor of 7.44 standard cubic feet of methane per ton of coal mined (scf/ton) was used. The EPA 

guidance for surface mines in the northern plains recommends a regional average of 7.44 scf/ton 

for mining and processing coal in that region (EPA 2004). Methane adsorption10 levels in PRB 

coal seams vary widely within and between seams. They depend on bed depth, geology, and 

CBNG extraction history and proximity to surface coal mines. Data obtained by the USGS and 

BLM Resource Management Group (U.S. Geological Survey 2006) from coal cores that the 

agencies collected near PRB mines show gas contents ranging from 0.48 scf/ton to 17.2 scf/ton. 

Since considerable CBNG production has occurred in the immediate vicinity of the Buckskin 

Mine, methane contents in the coal seams are expected to be at the lower end of this range. 

Related to this same study, an internal report gives an average gas content of 6.8 scf/ton, a 

median of 4.8 scf/ton, and a mode of 2.0 scf/ton (WSO-RMG 2006) for cores taken near the 

eastern margin of the PRB near the coal mines. Since the EPA factor of 7.44 scf/ton is slightly 

higher than the highest of these three measures, it was chosen to estimate the maximum rate of 

methane release from coal seams at the Buckskin Mine. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the remaining life of the Buckskin Mine would be 

approximately 10 to 16 years, depending on production levels. Under the Proposed Action the 

mine life would be extended by approximately two years; Alternative 2 could extend the mine 

life by up to six additional years. The Buckskin Mine estimates that average annual production 

rates of 25 million tons would not be affected by any leasing alternative. 

Section 4.2.14 presents an assessment of cumulative impacts related to GHGs, including 

potential contributions under the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

10 Adsorption is the adhesion of a thin layer of molecules of some substance to the surface of a solid or liquid. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-223 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3.18.4. Carbon Sequestration 

Information relative to the carbon sequestration legislation was collected from news coverage 

posted on the internet and websites for the Wyoming Legislative Services Office, U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE), and EPA. 

Carbon sequestration, the process of carbon capture, separation, and storage or reuse, is being 

researched as a means to stabilize and reduce concentrations of CO2 (a GHG). Direct options for 

carbon sequestration would involve means to capture CO2 at the source (e.g., power plant) before 

it enters the atmosphere coupled with “value-added” sequestration (e.g., use of captured CO2 in 

enhanced oil recovery operations). Indirect sequestration would involve means of integrating 

fossil fuel production and use with terrestrial sequestration and enhanced ocean storage of carbon 

(U.S. Department of Energy 2007a). 

The PRB has geologic formations and producing oil and gas reservoirs that are potential target 

candidates for both enhanced oil recovery and/or deep geologic sequestration. The current 

limiting factor is the lack of pipeline infrastructure and economic feasibility for CO2 

transmission and use. 

Although one enhanced oil recovery project involving CO2 injection is underway in the PRB 

(Salt Creek Field) and another is possibly planned (Highlight Field), no geologic carbon 

sequestration projects currently exist or are currently planned in the PRB at this time. This may 

change with the advent of new federal legislation, regulations, and economic incentives, 

particularly those that may combine enhanced oil recovery and sequestration projects or 

operations. 

Additionally, the EPA, from the perspective of considering CO2 as a waste, is proposing new 

federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act for the underground injection of CO2 for 

the purpose of long-term underground storage, or geologic sequestration. The regulation is being 

proposed to ensure protection of underground sources of drinking water from injection-related 

activities. It is currently expected that the final rulemaking will be completed by 2010. This 

new rulemaking may result in increased interest in using existing, depleted, deep, oil and gas 

reservoirs, deep saline formations and/or deep coal seams such as found in the PRB. 

3.18.5. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring 

In 2009, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (74 FR 209), which 

requires reporting of GHG emissions from large sources and suppliers in the U.S. Under the 

rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and 

facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit 

annual reports to the EPA. The rule was signed by the Administrator on September 22, 2009, 

and it became effective on December 29, 2009. The EPA believes that the new reporting system 

will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development 

of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. 

3-224 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The PRB mines supply fossil fuel, but fall into the category of “Suppliers of Coal.” The EPA did 

not finalize reporting requirements for coal suppliers in the Final Rule, Subpart KK (74 FR 209); 

however the agency anticipates making these requirements known by January 1, 2011, so that 

record keeping can begin and the first annual GHG emission reports can be submitted in 2012 

(EPA 2010). Each of the PRB mines also generates more than 25,000 metric tons of GHG 

emissions, potentially qualifying for GHG reporting under this new criterion. The EPA has 

currently limited the applicability of the 25,000-metric ton threshold to stationary combustion 

sources (EPA 2010). The Buckskin Mine, with or without the Hay Creek II LBA, does not 

approach this stationary source threshold. Therefore, it is anticipated that formal GHG reporting 

for Buckskin will commence in January 2011. 

Control of GHG emissions also is not currently required as part of the permitting process for the 

PRB coal mines. However, the mitigation and management of GHG emissions at the Buckskin 

Mine are being achieved through the following measures: 

 minimizing blast size to the extent possible to reduce CO2 and NO2 emissions; 

 using different blends of ammonium nitrate fuel oil and slurries and gels used in coal and 

overburden blasts to reduce CO2 and NO2 emissions; 

 reducing fuel consumption by restricting equipment idling times, maintaining equipment 

(e.g., vehicles, compressors, generators) to improve fuel efficiency, and focusing on 

high-efficiency engines for replacement, thereby reducing CO2, NO2, and N2O emissions; 

and 

 suppressing in-pit coal fires promptly, thereby reducing CO2 and NO2 emissions from coal 

combustion. 

3.19. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the major commitment of resources would be 

mining and consumption of approximately 54.1 million tons and up to 149.7 million tons of coal, 

respectively; nearly all of that coal will be used for electrical power generation. CBNG that is 

not recovered prior to mining would be irreversibly and irretrievably lost (see additional 

discussion of the impacts of venting CBNG to the atmosphere in section 3.18 and in chapter 4). 

An estimated 1 to 2% of the energy produced would be required to mine the coal; this energy 

would also be irretrievably lost. 

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the quality and characteristics of topsoil would be 

irreversibly changed on 419 acres (plus a buffer area to the north of the tract) and up to 

1,883 acres (plus a 0.25-mile-wide buffer), respectively, as a result of mining and mine support 

activities (e.g., topsoil stripping, soil stockpiling). Actual impacts would likely be limited to 

618 acres, under Alternative 2, because Kiewit does not anticipate pursuing closure or relocation 

of county roads necessary to mine additional reserves. Soil formation processes would continue 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 3-225 
3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

but would be irreversibly altered during mining and related activities. Newly formed soil 

material would be unlike that in the natural landscape. 

Wildlife deaths resulting directly or indirectly from mining operations or associated activity 

would constitute irreversible and irretrievable losses, though future recruitment into the 

population would mitigate those losses to some degree. 

Loss of human life could occur as a result of 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 from 1987 through 1996, fatal accidents 

of personnel directly employed at surface coal mines excluding contractors) occur at the rate of 

0.003 per 200,000 human-hours worked. Disabling (lost-time) injuries occur at the rate of 

1.46 per 200,000 human-hours worked. Any injury or loss of life resulting from mining and 

related activities would constitute irreversible and irretrievable losses. 

Disturbance of all known historic and prehistoric sites in the mined area would be mitigated to 

the maximum extent possible. However, accidental destruction of presently unknown 

archeological or paleontological resources, including Native American resources, would 

constitute irreversible and irretrievable losses. 

3-226 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.0 CUMULATIVE ANALYSES 

Chapter 4 summarizes existing conditions and cumulative impacts in the PRB1, as well as 

projected changes to those cumulative impacts that could result from adding future developments 

in the area. 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. 

The table (table 4-41) presented at the end of this chapter provides a summary of the magnitude 

and duration of cumulative impacts in the PRB based on upper and lower estimates for future 

coal production in the region, as described in the following discussion. The Proposed Action and 

alternatives for the Hay Creek II EIS fall within those projections. 

The 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. 

The BLM is currently completing the final phases of 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 projects or applications, such as the Proposed Action, are approved. The 

contents and completion dates of the various task reports include: 

 Task 1A Report (BLM 2005a): existing air quality conditions; 

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

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-1 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

 Task 1B Report (BLM 2006c) and update to the Task 1B Report (BLM 2009e): existing 

water resources conditions; 

 Task 1C Report (BLM 2005b): existing social/economic conditions; 

 Task 1D Report (BLM 2005c): existing other environmental resource conditions; 

 Task 2 Report (BLM 2005d) and update to the Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c): past and present 

coal, oil and gas, and other development; 

 Task 3A Report (BLM 2006d) and updates to the Task 3A Report (BLM 2008a, BLM 

2009d): predicted air quality conditions; 

 Task 3B Report (BLM 2006e) and update to the Task 3B Report (BLM 2009f): predicted 

water resources conditions; 

 Task 3B Phase 2 evaluation (BLM, in progress): predicted water resource conditions; 

 Task 3C Report (BLM 2005e): predicted social/economic conditions; and 

 Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f) and update to the Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g): predicted 

other resource conditions. 

The Task 1 and Task 2 reports have been completed. The update to the Task 2 Report (BLM 

2009c) is reflected in this document. The Task 3 reports for air quality conditions, water 

resources conditions, social/economic conditions, and other resource conditions have also been 

completed. Information from the 2008 update to the Task 3A Report (BLM 2008a) was included 

in the Hay Creek II LBA draft EIS to project air quality effects for 2015. After the draft EIS was 

issued, modeling of cumulative air quality effects for 2020 was completed (BLM 2009c); data 

and analyses for both model years are reflected in this final EIS. The groundwater impacts 

modeling portion of the Cumulative Water Resources Effects (BLM 2009e) was recently 

completed and is also reflected in this document, along with the cumulative surface water 

effects. The Task 3B Phase 2 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 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 (map 4-1). 

4-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
B.N.S.F. RR 

B.N.S.F. RR 

PSO Ash 

Creek Mine 

Big

Horn 

Mine SHERIDAN 

COUNTY CAMPBELL 

COUNTY
 SHERIDAN 

Arvada 

Dry Fork Station 

Wygen I


Wygen II
 

Wyodak BUFFALO 1 Neil Simpson 1


Neil Simpson 2
 GILLETTE 

Barber 

Creek 

2 

JOHNSON
 

COUNTY
 

Hartzog WRIGHT 

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

Two Elk 

Unit 1 

3 

SCALE: 1"= 20 MILES 

LEGEND 

Federal Coal Lease Areas 

Railroads 

Existing and Proposed Power Plants CONVERSE Former Surface Coal Mine Sites 

Task 1 and 2 Study Boundary COUNTY 

Dave COAL MINE SUBREGIONS Johnston Mine 

Buckskin, Dry Fork, Eagle Butte, 1 Subregion 1 ­ Rawhide, and Wyodak Mines 

Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and 2 Subregion 2 ­ Cordero-Rojo Mines Dave Johnston Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder,

3 Subregion 3 - North Antelope Rochelle,

and Antelope Mines 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 4-1 

Wyoming Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating Current 

and Projected Levels of Development 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 within the PRB, because that is the area where 

surface coal mining operations and CBNG production operations would affect 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 analyses of past, present, and future levels of development presented in 

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

water, socioeconomic, and other resources presented in the 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. 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. Task 2 was updated based on 

actual levels of development through 2007, and current development estimates available through 

2009 (BLM 2009c). 

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 July 2010, the 

BLM’s Wyoming State Office held 28 competitive coal lease sales and issued 20 new federal 

coal leases containing almost 5.7 billion tons of coal using the LBA process. The lease sales are 

listed in chapter 1, table 1-1, and the leased tracts are shown on map 1-1. This leasing process 

has undergone the scrutiny of two appeals to the Interior Board of Land Appeals and one audit 

by the General Accounting Office. As can be seen on figure 4-1, 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 listed 

in table 1-2. 

4-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Recoverable Tons of Federal Coal Leased Versus Tons of Federal Coal Mined Since 1990 in Campbell and Co
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The 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 (I-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 Alluvial Valley Floor 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 status as of 2007. In 2003, the 

baseline year for the Task 1 and Task 2 studies, there were 12 active surface coal mines and one 

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

Rochelle Mine has been incorporated into the Black Thunder Mine following its purchase by the 

operator of the Black Thunder Mine. The North Rochelle Mine leases were divided between 

Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle mines in 2006. Peabody has deferred startup of 

their new mine, the School Creek Mine which is located between the Black Thunder and North 

Antelope Rochelle Mine, until at least late 2010, 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 (map 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 (the Big Horn Coal Mine in northern Sheridan County 

and the Dave Johnston Mine in southern Converse County) in the PRB have ended mining 

operations, relinquished their federal coal leases, and reclaimed areas of disturbance. 

The lands within the Dave Johnston Mine permit boundary are owned by PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp 

requested a change in postmining land use from livestock/wildlife grazing to industrial for the 

areas that would be affected by a wind energy project right-of-way. Some of the area was on full 

reclamation bond release and some area included was on pre-law lands. The WDEQ approved 

this change of land use in three stages between September 2007 and May 2008. The Glenrock 

Wind Energy Project is sited at the reclaimed surface coal mine and; it began operations in late 

2008 and early 2009. 

Other operations related to surface coal mining have existing permits 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. Nevertheless, the WDEQ continues to monitor all three mines with field inspections; 

groundwater monitoring is also conducted at the Ash Creek Mine. 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 later in this chapter. 

4-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environ

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

Permitted 

2007 Coal Production Production Level 

2003 Mine 1994 Mine Owner 2007 Mine Owner (million tons)a (million tons)b Status and Additional Comme

Subregion 1 (North Gillette) Buckskin SMC (Zeigler) Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. 25.3 42.0 Active Dry Fork Phillips/WFA & Fort WFA 5.3 15.0 Active (includes former Fort Union M

Union Ltd 

Eagle Butte Cyprus-Amax Foundation Coal West, Inc.c 25.0 35.0 Active 

Rawhide Carter (Exxon) Peabody Holding Co. 17.1 24.0 Active 

Wyodak Wyodak Resources Wyodak Resources 5.0 12.0 Active (includes former Clovis Point 

Total 77.7 128.0 

Subregion 2 (South Gillette) Belle Ayr Cyprus-Amax Foundation Coal West, Inc. 26.6 45.0 Active

Caballo Carter (Exxon) & Peabody Holding Co. 31.2 50.0 Active (includes Rocky Butte and W

Western Energy 

Cordero Rojo Kennecott & Drummond Rio Tinto Energy Americad 40.5 65.0 Active (consolidation of former Cord

Coal Creek ARCO Arch Coal Inc. 10.2 25.0 Inactive 2000, operations resumed 

Total 108.5 185.0 

Subregion 3 (Wright) Antelope Kennecott Rio Tinto Energy Americad 34.5 36.0 Active 

Black Thunder ARCO Arch Coal Inc. 65.3 100.0 Active Jacobs Ranch Kerr-McGee Rio Tinto Energy Americad 38.1 55.0 Active North Antelope Peabody Peabody Holding Co. 91.5 99.0 Active (consolidation of former North Rochelle Mines) North Rochelle SMC (Zeigler) Arch Coal Inc. 20.9 35.0 Inactive since 2005, leases split betw

North Antelope Rochelle Mines 

Total 250.3 325.0 

Total for 3 Subregions 436.5 638.0 

a Wyoming State Inspector of Mines (2007) and Shamley pers. comm. b WDEQ 2007 permitting levels (Shamley pers. comm.) 

Ownership of the Eagle Butte Mine and Belle Ayr Mine changed from Foundation Coal West, Inc., to Alpha Coal West, Inc. as of July 31, 2009. Notification of new ownership was subm

d Kennecott Energy Company changed its name to Rio Tinto Energy America in 2006 and to Cloud Peak Energy Resources LLC in 2009. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 

c 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

In March 2008, the Fort Union plant was idled down. In August 2010, Evergreen Energy Inc. 

agreed to sell the Fort Union site to Synthetic Fuels LLC of Colorado, which has plans to 

develop a coal-to-liquids facility on the site (MarketWatch, Inc. 2010). 

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

(map 4-1) for purposes of this cumulative impact discussion: 1) North Gillette; 2) South Gillette; 

and 3) Wright. Table 4-1 lists the mines included in each subregion. 

A fourth subregion includes former and proposed mines in Sheridan County, 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 2005 Task 2 Report (BLM 2005b) projected that a 

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

Energy Inc. announced that they had 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 (Shewski 2007). 

The surface coal mines listed in table 4-1 currently produce over 96% of the coal produced in 

Wyoming each year. Since 1989, coal production in the PRB has increased by an average of 6% 

per year. The increasing production is primarily because of increasing sales of low-sulfur, lowcost PRB coal to electric utilities who must comply with the phase I requirements of Title III of 

the 1990 CAA Amendments. Electric utilities account for 97% of Wyoming’s coal sales. In 

2009, production from the Wyoming PRB coal mines dropped by about 7% from the 2008 

levels, the first drop since the early 1900s. This drop coincided with a national coal production 

decline resulting from reduced industrial electric demand in 2009. 

In 2003, the baseline year for the PRB Coal Review, more than 35% of the coal mined in the 

United States came from the Wyoming PRB. According to the DOE, that amount had increased 

to about 38% by 2007 and to over 38% by 2009 (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2009a 

and 2009b). 

The 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% of Campbell County, where the majority of the leases are located. 

Both the 2005 and updated 2009 Task 2 reports 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: 

 analysis of historic PRB production levels in comparison to the gross domestic product and 

national coal demand; 

 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; 

4-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

 availability, projected production cost, and quality of future mine-specific coal reserves 

within the PRB region; and 

 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 and 

2005 production levels and the two projected coal production scenarios for those years are shown 

in figure 4-2 and tables 4-2 and 4-3. The actual 2007 and 2008 production levels are also shown 

on figure 4-2 for reference. 

Tables 4-2 and 4-3 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 (2003), actual values as of 2007, and cumulative projected 

disturbance areas for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are broken down into three categories: 

 areas that are or that are projected to be permanently reclaimed; 

 areas that are or that are projected to be undergoing active mining or that have been mined 

but are not yet reclaimed; and 

 areas that are or that are projected to be occupied by mine facilities, haul roads, stockpiles, 

and other long-term structures, and that are, therefore, unavailable for reclamation until 

mining operations are completed. 

Tables 4-2 and 4-3 also include estimates of baseline year and projected future coal mining 

employment, water consumption, and water production. 

The Hay Creek II LBA is associated with the Buckskin Mine in the North Gillette subregion of 

mines. The analysis assumes that if the proposed tract or an alternative tract configuration is 

offered and if the applicant becomes the lessee, the mine will increase current production to a 

level where the five 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 4-2 and tables 4-2 and 4-3; Kiewit does not anticipate an actual increase in average annual 

production as a result of acquiring a new maintenance tract. The existing and projected coal 

development levels and associated disturbance shown in tables 4-2 and 4-3 include production at 

the five North 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 proposed tract or alternative tract configuration. If the Proposed Action or 

Alternative 2 is implemented, mining of the federal coal reserves would extend the current 

Buckskin Mine life-of-mine estimate by two years or up to six years, respectively. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-9 
Tons/Year 

500,000,000 600,000,000 

Lower Production Scenerio Upper Production Scenario 

Actual Production 

400,000,000 300,000,000 200,000,000 100,000,000 

0 

2003 2005 2007 

Year 

2008 2010 2015 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Projected and Actual Total Coal Production from Campbell and Converse Counties under the Lower and U
4.0 Cumulative Environ

Table 4-2. Actual and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Lower Coal Production Scenari

Cumulative Cumulative Active Cumulative Area 

Subregion 

Annual Production (million tons) 

Cumulative Disturbed Area (acres) 

PermanentlyReclaimed Area (acres) 

Mining Area andUnreclaimed Mined Area (acres) 

Disturbed and Unavailable for Reclamationa (acres) 

Total Mine Employment 

AnCo(m

Original 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 8,359 861 

Wright Subregion 232 35,498 11,401 13,992 10,105 3,090 

Total for 2003 364 68,794 21,238 23,459 24,097 4,697 

Actual 2007 North Gillette Subregion 78 14,421 3,658 8,342 5,781 1,032 

South Gillette Subregion 100 23,630 6,441 12,353 9,273 1,424 Wright Subregion 250 45,542 15,785 31,577 11,941 3,077 

Total for 2007 428 83,593 25,884 52,272 24,338 5,533 

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 

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

Source: Updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-3. Actual and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine Development, Upper Coal Production Scenari

Cumulative Cumulative Active Cumulative Area 

Subregion 

Annual Production (million tons) 

Cumulative Disturbed Area (acres) 

PermanentlyReclaimed Area (acres) 

Mining Area andUnreclaimed Mined Area (acres) 

Disturbed and Unavailable for Reclamationa (acres) 

Total Mine Employment 

AC(m

Original 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 8,359 861 Wright Subregion 232 35,498 11,401 13,992 10,105 3,090 1,

Total for 2003 364 68,794 21,238 23,459 24,097 4,697 2,

Actual 2007 North Gillette Subregion 78 14,421 3,658 8,342 5,781 1,032 

South Gillette Subregion 100 23,630 6,441 12,353 9,273 1,424 

Wright Subregion 250 45,542 15,785 31,577 11,941 3,077 1,

Total for 2007 428 83,593 25,884 52,272 24,338 5,533 2,

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 1,

Total for 2010 479 102,448 46,771 29,989 25,688 5,339 2,

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 1,

Total for 2015 543 124,545 65,396 32,139 27,009 5,522 1,

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 1,

Total for 2020 576 149,089 86,196 34,545 28,345 5,678 2,

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

Source: Updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c). 

4-12 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

As discussed in sections 1.1.3.1, Kiewit estimates that the existing Buckskin Mine had 

approximately 344.3 million tons of recoverable coal reserves at the end of 2008. Overall, the 

mine had produced a total of 339.8 million tons of coal as of December 2008, with annual 

production averaging 20.6 million tons over the previous six years. The mine’s current air 

quality permit as approved by the WDEQ allows mining of up to 42 million tons of coal per 

year. If the mine produces coal at the projected average annual estimate of 25 million tons, the 

remaining recoverable reserves would be depleted in less than 14 years (2022). If the mine 

increases production to the permitted level, the remaining recoverable reserves at the Buckskin 

Mine would be depleted in about 8.8 years (2016). Kiewit estimates that the proposed tract 

includes approximately 54.1 million tons of recoverable coal. Based on that estimate, acquisition 

of the proposed tract would increase the recoverable reserves at the Buckskin Mine by almost 

14.6%. At the estimated future average annual production level (25 million tons), mine life 

would be extended by over two years. However, if production levels increase to the currently 

permitted level (42 million tons per year) or if the WDEQ approves a higher annual rate of 

production, the coal would be recovered more quickly. 

4.1.1.2 Coal-Related Development 

Coal-related development as defined for this analysis includes railroads, coal-fired power plants, 

major (230-kilovolt [kV]) transmission lines, and coal technology projects. Table 4-4 

summarizes the estimated disturbance associated with coal-related 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. Actual and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal-Related Development (acres) 

2003 

Actual 

2007 2010 2015 

Projected 

2020 

4,892 5,802

Source: Updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c). 

 5,963 6,915 6,914 

Coal Transportation 

As discussed above, electric utilities account for about 97% of Wyoming’s coal sales. Most of 

the coal sold to electric utilities is transported to power plants by rail. A small part, about 2% in 

2007, of national coal production is exported abroad, but data are not published as to where this 

export coal is produced. A joint BNSF and UP rail line serves the coal mines in the Wright and 

South Gillette subregions. For the baseline year of 2003, the existing capacity of the line was 

estimated at approximately 350 million tons per year. For that same year, the existing capacity 

of the BNSF line, which services the North Gillette subregion, was estimated at 250 million tons 

per year. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-13 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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

to 2020 in Wyoming: expansion of the BNSF and UP rail facilities south of Gillette and the 

construction of the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad Corporation (DM&E) rail line in 

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

would be built between Decker and Miles City, Montana. 

BNSF and UP completed work to improve sections of the existing joint rail line and had 

increased capacity from 350 million tons per year to 450 million tons per year by 2008 with 

plans to improve additional sections of the existing joint rail line and to further increase capacity 

to 500 million tons per year 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 million tons per year and 455 million tons per year by 2020. The remaining planned 

expansion projects are considered highly likely to occur. 

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

Wyoming (approximately 15 and 265 miles, respectively) and 600 miles of rail line rehabilitation 

in South Dakota and Minnesota. Approximately 78 miles of the new rail line construction would 

provide new rail services to the coal mines in the South Gillette and Wright subregions. The 

Surface Transportation Board released a final supplemental EIS for the DM&E 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld 

the appeal of the supplemental EIS in December 2006. In 2007, Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. 

(CP) acquired DM&E and the Surface Transportation Board approved CP’s acquisition of 

DM&E on September 30, 2008 (All Business 2008). The railroad’s expansion into the PRB 

would require a substantial financial commitment, and CP is concentrating on the integration of 

DM&E’s operation before making a decision on the expansion project. No decision has been 

made on whether or not CP will build the PRB extension. This decision is contingent on several 

conditions: 1) acquire the necessary right-of-way to build the line; 2) execute agreements with 

PRB mines on terms for operations by DM&E over their loading tracks and facilities; 3) secure 

sufficient contractual commitments from prospective coal shippers to route their traffic over the 

PRB line to justify the investment required to build the line; 4) arrange financing for the project; 

and 5) an economic and regulatory environment that would support a long-term investment of 

this magnitude must be present (Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad 2009). 

The Surface Transportation Board announced approval of the final stretch of the rail line 

proposed by the Tongue River Railroad Company in October 2007. The company must acquire 

necessary federal and state permits and rights-of-way 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 (Brown 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 

4-14 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Mine is developed. Development of the Otter Creek tracts—more than a billion tons of state and 

private coal—could initiate expansion of the region’s coal industry and facilitate construction of 

the Tongue River Railroad. Appraisals of the Otter Creek lease tracts were completed in April 

2009 (Brown 2009) and the Montana Land Board voted to lease the 572 million tons of stateowned coal in December 2009 (Dennison 2009). The Montana Board of Land Commissioners 

voted to approve the lease of the Otter Creek tracts to Ark Land Company on March 18, 2010 

(Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 2010). 

Electric Power Generation 

Five coal-fired power plants are in the Wyoming PRB study area analyzed in Tasks 1 and 2 

(map 4-1). Black Hills Power Corporation owns and operates the Neal Simpson Units 1 and 2 

(21.7 megawatts [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 

5 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. 

Three separate interconnected gas-fired power plants (Hartzog, Arvada, and Barber Creek) are 

also located near Gillette, Wyoming (map 4-1). Each contains three separate 5-MW-rated 

turbines that provide electric power to Basin Electric and its customers. In winter, the maximum 

capacity can reach 22.6 MW from each site. All units are in operating condition, although they 

do not operate at maximum capacity. 

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

assumed that proposed coal-fired power plants that plan to initiate operation by 2010 would have 

to have been undergoing air quality permit review by 2003 in order to obtain the required 

construction permits and complete construction by 2010. The study identified the following four 

projects as likely for development by 2015. 

 Black Hills Power and Light has received an air permit for the start of construction of 

WYGEN III; issues related to that permit currently are being resolved. WYGEN III would 

be a 100-MW facility located adjacent to WYGEN II. The plant is in construction and 

nearing completion. Operation of this facility by 2015 is considered highly likely. 

 Basin Electric Power Cooperative has obtained an air construction permit for a 385-MW 

coal-fired power plant (Dry Fork Station) near Gillette, Wyoming. The estimated startup 

date is 2011. It is estimated that 1.2 million tons of coal per year would be required to fuel 

the facility. The cooling technology includes a dry scrubber, since that type of operation 

commonly is installed for PRB coal-fired units. Operation of this facility by 2015 is 

considered highly likely. 

 North American Power Group has permitted a 280-MW 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 45-MW gas-fired 

turbine. The air permit originally was issued in August 2002; construction has been initiated, 

with actual startup expected in 2011. This unit would be dry-cooled, requiring very little 

water. Campbell County approved more than $123 million in industrial revenue bonds for 

application to the Two-Elk financing. Operation of this facility by 2015 is considered 

moderately likely. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-15 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

 Wyoming Power Company (a subsidiary of NAPG) submitted a permit application for TwoElk Unit #2. This unit would be a 750-MW supercritical pulverized coal-fired electric 

generating unit that would burn coal from the nearby mines. The unit would be located on an 

approximately 60-acre site adjacent to Two-Elk Unit #1. The permit was expected to be 

issued in 2008, and operation of this unit was considered moderately likely in 2015. 

Currently, the Wyoming Power Company (a subsidiary of NAPG) has a proposal for Two 

Elk Unit #2. Some paperwork for this project was filed with WDEQ. The paperwork was 

returned in March 2010. 

The PRB Coal Review assumes that all existing power plants in the PRB region would remain 

operational through 2020. 

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 estimated that by 2020 four major transmission lines would be 

constructed. Markets would dictate the size and location of such facilities, and these are not 

known as of this time. Because transmission lines are a necessary supporting infrastructure for 

power generating facilities to provide connection to the grid, the PRB Coal Review assumes they 

would be required as part of the overall system development for the proposed power plants 

discussed in the previous section. Six specific proposals for these transmission lines have been 

identified by the PRB Coal Review analysis update. Information is insufficient 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 345-kV Wyoming-Colorado 

Intertie as well as the Trans West and Gateway West and South projects have been proposed in 

Wyoming to move power from Wyoming to growing load demands in Idaho, Nevada, and other 

areas in the western United States (Hodges 2007). The TransWestern Express proposes to move 

electric power from Wyoming to Arizona through Colorado or Utah. The High Plains Express is 

proposed to move power from Wyoming to New Mexico and Arizona. 

An estimated 1,380 MW of new power plant production capacity and 250 MW of new wind 

energy production capacity are anticipated in the Task 2 study area by 2015.One new 300-MW 

wind energy project and potentially up to 700 MW of additional power generation provided by 

coal-fired power plants is projected for 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. It is projected that these 

transmission lines would be constructed by 2015 to connect to outside markets. However, 

4-16 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

specific location(s), capacities, and effects on the existing system cannot be determined at this 

time. 

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 

AMAX (predecessor to Foundation Coal West, Inc. and Alpha 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. Evergreen Energy (formerly 

operating as KFx) previously built a prototype commercial-scale coal upgrading plant near the 

old Fort Union Mine (now part of the Dry Fork Mine). The facility did achieve commercial 

production levels of K-Fuel® (the company’s enhanced coal product) for a short period (2006 

through early 2008); it was used for testing and demonstration purposes. Approximately 60 

people were employed at the plant. Evergreen Energy decided to idle the plant in May 2008, 

laying off all but caretaker staff. 

The following coal conversion projects have been proposed, and are described in some detail in 

the PRB Coal Review. These projects were not included in the PRB Coal Review analysis 

because the likelihood of their occurrence was not known when the analysis was conducted: 

 Evergreen Energy Coal Beneficiation Project. Long-term plans for Evergreen Energy’s coal 

upgrading plant near the Dry Fork Mine have not been announced, although reopening and 

dismantling the currently idle plant and redeploying some of the equipment to another 

location have surfaced as possibilities. 

 Rentech Inc. Coal Liquefaction Project. In 2004, Rentech completed a feasibility study for a 

coal liquefaction facility, based on the historic Fischer-Tropsch process, to produce lowsulfur diesel fuel from sub-bituminous coal. Thereafter, Rentech continued to consider the 

potential of developing a commercial-scale facility in the PRB, while simultaneously 

investing in a product demonstration facility near Denver, Colorado. 

 White Energy Company, NRG Energy, and Buckskin Mining Company. In March 2008, the 

three companies entered into a joint development agreement to complete a feasibility study 

of building and operating a plant having a capacity to produce at least 1 million tons of 

binderless coal briquettes annually at the Buckskin Mine. Although the plant would be 

located on surface owned by the Buckskin Mine, and would purchase coal from the mine, it 

would be permitted and operated independently from the mine by White Energy Company 

and NRG Energy. 

 GreatPoint Energy and Peabody Coal. These two companies entered into an agreement in 

January 2008, under which Peabody Coal would become the preferred provider of coal to 

GreatPoint Energy for use in a commercial-scale coal-to-gas conversion plant in the PRB. 

 Wyoming Infrastructure Authority. The Wyoming Infrastructure Authority (WIA) was 

created in 2004 by the Wyoming State Legislature. It was tasked with promoting the state’s 

economic development by assisting in the development of interstate electric transmission 

infrastructure. In 2006, WIA’s role was expanded to also promote advanced coal 

technologies related to electric generation (Wyoming Infrastructure Authority 2008a). In 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-17 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

2007, WIA selected PacifiCorp from a list of 17 candidate firms and entered into a publicprivate partnership to assess the feasibility of developing an integrated gasification combined 

cycle power plant. The initial study focused on a site in southwestern Wyoming, but may 

open the way for similar projects elsewhere in the state (Wyoming Infrastructure Authority 

2008a), including the PRB. 

 Additionally, there is a developing technology that would use existing oil and gas wells to 

generate biologically formed methane by enhancing the methane production from naturally 

occurring microbes in the coal. This process is proposed for commercial testing. It is a 

hybrid between conventional in-situ coal gasification and conventional CBNG development. 

A policy to authorize and regulate this activity is currently being developed by the 

Department of the Interior. 

Carbon Sequestration 

Carbon sequestration, the process of carbon capture, separation, and storage or reuse, is being 

researched as a means to stabilize and reduce concentrations of CO2 (a GHG). Direct options for 

carbon sequestration would involve means to capture CO2 at the source (e.g., power plant) before 

it enters the atmosphere coupled with “value-added” sequestration (e.g., use of captured CO2 in 

enhanced oil recovery [EOR] operations). Indirect sequestration would involve means of 

integrating fossil fuel production and use with terrestrial sequestration and enhanced ocean 

storage of carbon. 

No carbon sequestration projects currently exist in the Wyoming PRB study area. However, CO2 

is being injected underground for the purpose of EOR near that study area in the Salt Creek area. 

The 59th Session of the Wyoming State Legislature passed, and Governor Freudenthal signed 

into law, legislation that could affect long-term energy-related development in the PRB (House 

Bills 0089 and 0090) (Wyoming Legislative Services 2008). The former (now part of Wyoming 

Statute 34-1) specified the ownership of subsurface “pore” space, established the rights to use 

such space for the purpose of carbon sequestration, and maintained the primacy of the mineral 

estate and the owners of such estate to reasonable use of the surface for the purpose of mineral 

exploration and production. 

Legal provisions enacted as a result of House Bill 0090 vested regulatory control over carbon 

sequestration with WDEQ and directed the department to promulgate rules, regulations 

(including permitting processes), and standards for such use. The legislation also specifies that 

applications for a carbon sequestration project must describe the geology of the area, aquifers 

above and below the intended injection zone, drill holes and operating wells in the area, potential 

impacts on other fluid resources, and identify a program for detecting migration or excursion of 

the CO2. Finally, the enacted legislation (Wyoming Statute 35-11-103) specifically states that 

the act is not intended to impede or impair the rights of oil and gas operators to inject CO2 

through an approved EOR project and establish, verify, register, and sell emissions reduction 

credits. 

Based on the coal-related and oil- and gas-related development in the PRB study area, the 

potential exists for future development of carbon sequestration in the area. However, no 

commercial projects specifically targeted at capturing and sequestering carbon have been 

4-18 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 c 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

identified at this time. Sequestration was not included in the PRB Coal Review analysis because 

the likelihood of projects occurring was not known when the analysis was conducted. 

Table 4-5 is 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. 

Table 4-5. Past, Present, and Projected Wyoming PRB Coal Mine and Coal-Related 

Development Scenario 

Year 

Coal 

Production 

(million tons 

per year) 

Number of 

Active Coal 

Minesa 

Number of 

Active Power 

Plants 

Number of 

Active Coal 

Conversion 

Facilitiesb 

Direct Coal Mine 

Employment 

Total Coal 

Disturbance 

(acres)c 

Past and Present 

1990

1995

2000

2003

2007

Projected Deve

 163 

247 

323 

364 

428 

lopment—Lower 

18 

19 

12 

12 

13 

Coal Production Scenario 

3 

4 

4 

4 

5 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

2,862 

3,177 

3,335 

4,697 

5,533 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

68,794 

83,593 

2010

2015

2020

 411 

467 

495 

131 

131 

131 

7 

7 

7 

12 

12 

12 

5,433 

5,705 

5,731 

98,662 

117,236 

137,443 

Projected Development—Upper Coal Production Scenario 

2010

2015

2020

 479 

543 

576 

131 

131 

131 

7 

7 

8 

12 

12 

12 

5,509 

5,722 

5,998 

102,448 

124,545 

149,089 

N/A = Not Available 

a Mines have consolidated and may continue to do so in the future. Also, new mines may be permitted to better access the coal reserves projected for 

mining by 2020. 

b	 Several coal conversion facilities currently are being evaluated; however, there is only one for which the likelihood of future development currently can be 

assessed. 

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, 2003, and 2007a) and Updated Task 

2 Report (BLM 2009c). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-19 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.1.2 Oil and Gas Development 

The following information on existing conventional and CBNG development is summarized 

from the updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c). 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 Energy Services 2004) in the Task 2 

study area. Of those, 60% were development wells drilled in established producing areas. The 

remaining 40% 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% of the wildcat wells were plugged and abandoned. By 2003, the successful 

new field wildcat wells had resulted in the discovery of 61 new fields that produced 

719,000 barrels of oil and 1.45 billion cubic feet of non-CBNG (Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission 2004). 

As of the end of 2003, approximately 3,500 producing conventional oil and gas wells were in the 

Wyoming PRB study area plus 1,386 seasonally active wells (IHS Energy Services 2004). The 

WOGCC reported that these wells produced approximately 13 million barrels of oil and 41 

billion cubic feet of conventional gas in 2003 (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

2004). The USGS (2002a) estimated that the mean undiscovered noncoal bed hydrocarbon 

resource in the PRB (including Montana) is 1.8 billion barrels of oil equivalent. 

By the end of 2007, there were approximately 3,857 producing conventional oil and gas wells in 

the Wyoming PRB study area plus an estimated 1,500 seasonally active wells (IHS Energy 

Services 2008). WOGCC reported that these wells produced approximately 11.4 million barrels 

of oil and 22 billion cubic feet of conventional gas in 2007 (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission 2008c). 

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 (Wyoming State Geological 

Survey 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% (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. Thus, 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 (Wyoming 

State Geological Survey 2003). This projected temporary upward trend in conventional oil and 

gas development is reflected in the PRB Coal Review projections (table 4-6). 

4-20 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

c

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-6. Actual Wyoming PRB Conventional Oil and Gas Development Scenario 

Actual 

Production and Wells 2003 2007 

Annual Gas Production (billion cubic feet) 

Annual Oil Production (million barrels) 

Active Wells 

Inactive Wells 

39.9 

12.9 

5,067a

1,994 

22.0 

11.4 

 3,857b 

0c 

a Total includes approximately 1,500 seasonally active wells. 

b	 Total includes approximately 1,500 seasonally active wells and an unknown number of inactive wells. 

Unknown. 

Source: Updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c). 

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 Coal Review study area 

(Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 2008). However, the number of idle wells 

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

(once the wells are abandoned) would be reclaimed, and would no longer represent a 

disturbance. 

4.1.2.2 CBNG Development 

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

development of shallow CBNG resources. Commercial development of these resources began in 

limited areas west of and adjacent to the northernmost surface coal mines in the late 1980s. 

Since that time, CBNG development has spread south and west into other parts of the Task 1 and 

Task 2 study areas. 

On private and state oil and gas leases, the WOGCC and the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

(SEO) authorize CBNG drilling. On federal oil and gas leases, the 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. The 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, 14,758 producing CBNG wells were in the study 

area (IHS Energy Services 2004), and total production for 2003 was 346 billion cubic feet, or 

88% of the total gas production from the PRB (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

2004). Total CBNG production in the PRB was 377 billion cubic feet for 2006, 432 billion cubic 

feet for 2007, and 536 billion cubic feet for 2008 (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission 2009). Average daily CBNG production was about 947 million cubic feet per day 

in 2003 (Holcomb 2003), 1,033 in 2006, 1,177 in 2007, and 1,469 in 2008 (Wyoming Oil and 

Gas Conservation Commission 2009). 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 period 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-21 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

was approximately 2.3 billion barrels (96,600 million gallons). According to the WOGCC 

website, water production in the PRB associated with CBNG production has ranged between just 

over 567 million barrels (23,814 million gallons), or about 1.6 million barrels per day, in 2003, 

and 679 million barrels, about 1.9 million barrels per day, since December 2003. 

Since the early 1990s, the Wyoming BLM has completed numerous environmental assessments 

and two EISs analyzing CBNG projects. The most recent of these is the Final EIS and Proposed 

Plan Amendment for the PRB Oil and Gas Project, completed in January 2003 (BLM 2003). 

The level of CBNG development since 2003 appears to be lower than was forecast in that 

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

approximately 2,000 in 2004. The updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c) 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 baseline 2003, actual 2007, and 

projected 2010, 2015, and 2020 levels of CBNG development used to evaluate projected 

cumulative environmental impacts in the PRB Coal Review. 

Table 4-7. Actual Wyoming PRB CBNG Development Scenario 

Production and Wells 2003 2007 

Annual Production (billion cubic feet) 338 432 

Active Wells 14,758 20,408 

Source: Updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c). 

The amount of CBNG activity appears to be at a lower rate than was forecast by earlier 

projections in the Final EIS and Proposed Plan Amendment for the PRB Oil and Gas Project 

(BLM 2003), as well as in the 2005 Task 2 Report (BLM 2005b). New CBNG well numbers fell 

from a high of slightly more than 4,600 in 2001 to approximately 2,000 in 2004. It is anticipated 

that the number of new wells would increase so that between 2010 and 2020 the number of new 

wells drilled per year, basinwide, would range from 2,892 to 3,943. As shown in table 4-7, there 

would be 31,943 CBNG wells basinwide by 2010, considerably lower than the over 40,000 wells 

predicted for the same time period in the Final EIS and Proposed Plan Amendment for the PRB 

Oil and Gas Project (BLM 2003). It is anticipated that production in the cumulative effects study 

area would increase from the 432 billion cubic feet per year observed in 2007 to approximately 

1,026 billion cubic feet per year in 2020. These estimates are relatively aggressive related to 

actual activity from 2003 to 2007 (BLM 2009c), and it is likely that the Buffalo RMP revision, 

currently underway, will further refine these estimates. 

4.1.2.3 Oil- and Gas-Related Development 

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

transportation pipelines and refineries. Table 4-8 summarizes the net disturbance, reclamation, 

and water production associated with oil and gas activity (conventional oil and gas, CBNG, and 

major transportation pipelines) for 2003 (baseline year) and projects disturbance, reclamation, 

and water production for future years. 

4-22 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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

Disturbance and Water Production 

Actual Projected 

Category 2003 2007 2010 2015 2020 

Cumulative Disturbed Area (acres)a 177,140 178,023 248,086 344,713 427,557 

Cumulative Permanently Reclaimed Area (acres) 114,777 111,926 157,803 226,775 310,959 

Cumulative Unreclaimed Area (acres) 62,363 66,097 90,283 117,959 116,598 

Annual Water Production (million gallons per year) 26,405 31,738 50,865 71,166 72,047 

a 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: Updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c). 

Pipelines 

Major transportation pipelines for the transport of oil and gas to outside markets are a key factor 

in the development of CBNG and conventional oil and gas resources in the Task 2 study area for 

the Wyoming portion of the PRB. Major transportation pipelines also provide for transport of 

CO2 to crude oil well fields, which depend somewhat on the availability of CO2 for EOR. 

Currently, there are more than 13 major transportation pipeline systems in the PRB that transport 

gas resources to markets outside of the PRB (Flores et al. 2001; Wyoming Pipeline Authority 

2008). The current capacity of these pipeline systems is approximately 2.1 billion cubic feet per 

day. Currently, the combined natural gas production (CBNG and conventional gas) in the 

Wyoming PRB study area is approximately 1.22 billion cubic feet per day. 

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. 

Currently, there are two proposed natural gas transportation pipeline projects and one proposed 

EOR pipeline that would cross the PRB study area: 

 Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison), wholly owned by a subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, is 

proposing to construct the Bison Pipeline Project, an interstate natural gas pipeline designed 

to transport gas from the PRB to the Midwest market. The Bison project will consist of 

approximately 302 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and related facilities that 

will extend from near Gillette through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota 

where it will interconnect with the Northern Border Pipeline system in North Dakota. 

Approximately 53 miles of the proposed route is within the Wyoming PRB Coal Review 

study area. If constructed, the Bison project would have a capacity of 470 million cubic feet 

per day with potential to expand to approximately 1,000 million cubic feet per day. Bison 

filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a certificate 

of public convenience and necessity to construct, own and operate the pipeline in April 2009 

with an in-service estimate of 2010 (Bison Pipeline 2009). 

 The proposed Pathfinder Pipeline Project was a 42-inch-diameter, 500-mile-long natural gas 

pipeline that would cross the Wyoming PRB study area; however, its main supply of gas 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-23 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

would come from the Green River Basin, where it would originate. It is possible that an 

interconnect at Dead Horse Creek might provide an outlet for PRB-produced gas into 

Pathfinder. If constructed, the Pathfinder project would have had a 1.2 to 2.0 billion cubic 

feet per day capacity. TransCanada received a notice of pre-filing on the Pathfinder Project 

from FERC on June 4, 2008. TransCanada sent a letter to FERC asking that pre-filing 

activities be suspended on March 23, 2009. TransCanada has no record to indicate 

termination the Pathfinder docket (Dodson pers. comm.). 

 Encore’s proposed 231 mile CO2 pipeline would extend from near Lysite, Wyoming, to the 

Belle Creek oil production field in Powder River County near Ridge, Montana. The 

Greencore pipeline would go through the PRB and transport CO2 used for EOR and carbon 

sequestration. The pipeline construction is planned to start in the summer of 2011pending 

issuance of a federal right of way and surface owner consents. This project is considered to 

have a high likelihood of completion. Information on this project can be found by contacting 

the Wyoming Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute. 

Beyond the Task 2 study area for the Wyoming PRB, the oil and gas pipeline projects essentially 

would parallel one another to interconnect with Northern Border’s main pipeline in North 

Dakota. Since these projects would be interstate gas transportation pipelines, they would be 

regulated by the FERC. Although FERC lists these projects as “on the horizon” (Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission 2008), no formal applications have been filed with the regulatory 

agencies (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 2008; WDEQ 2008). Both of these projects 

are dependent upon acquisition of sufficient support in the open season process. Based on the 

lack of formal applications, their likelihood currently is considered low (BLM 2009c). 

Currently proposed and construction-in-progress natural gas transportation pipeline projects 

would not cross the Wyoming PRB study area; however, they would influence the ability of PRB 

gas producers to access outside markets. These projects are the Alliance Pipeline (a 42-inchdiameter natural gas pipeline proposed from Wamsutter, Wyoming, to Emerson, Manitoba) and 

the Rockies Express (from Rio Blanco County, Colorado, to Monroe County, Ohio) (Rockies 

Express Pipeline LLC 2008; Wyoming Pipeline Authority 2008). The Alliance Pipeline is 

expected to commence construction in 2012, with a proposed in-service date sometime in 2013. 

Rockies Express Pipeline (western segment from western Colorado to Missouri) was in-service 

in January 2008. The expected in-service date for the eastern segment (Missouri to Ohio) is 

October 2011. Although important to PRB gas producers, because these projects would not 

cross the Wyoming PRB study area, they are not considered further in this analysis. 

The amount of available pipeline capacity could limit the amount of future CBNG development. 

In the 2005 Task 2 Report (BLM 2005b), it was estimated that growth of Wyoming PRB CBNG 

production could rise from the 2003 level of 947 million cubic feet per day up to 3 to 4 billion 

cubic feet per day around 2007 and remain at or above those levels until 2015 (Holcomb 2003). 

However, production rates of 3 to 4 billion cubic feet per day were not realized by 2007, and the 

average daily production for all gas (conventional and CBNG) was approximately 1.22 billion 

cubic feet per day (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 2008). Average CBNG 

production in 2007 was approximately 1.24 billion cubic feet per day. The addition of the Bison 

Pipeline Project would increase the take-away capacity of the PRB by approximately 0.5 billion 

cubic feet per day, resulting in total take-away capacity for the PRB of approximately 2.55 

billion cubic feet per day. The addition of the Pathfinder Pipeline Project would increase the 

4-24 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

take-away capacity by approximately an additional 1.6 billion cubic feet per day, for a total of 

approximately 4.15 billion cubic feet per day. Based on the assumptions in the updated Task 2 

Report (BLM 2009c), the projected total gas production (conventional and CBNG) would 

increase to 2.06 billion cubic feet per day in 2010, 2.86 billion cubic feet per day in 2015, and 

2.91 billion cubic feet per day in 2020. Therefore, likelihood for additional new pipeline 

construction for 2010 is low, with a higher likelihood in subsequent years (BLM 2009c). 

In the 2005 Task 2 Report (BLM 2005b), it was indicated that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation 

was planning to extend its CO2 pipeline that runs between Bairoil, Wyoming, and Salt Creek, 

Wyoming, to the Sussex Field located in the southern Johnson County portion of the Wyoming 

PRB study area. However, more recent information indicates that this has not occurred 

(Anadarko Petroleum Corporation 2008). According to the Wyoming Enhanced Oil Recovery 

Institute, fields in the Wyoming PRB study area that would be good candidates for EOR using 

CO2 include Hartzog Draw, Hilight, and House Creek (Boyles and vant Veld 2006). Laterals 

from the Greencore Pipeline could be constructed in the future to carry CO2 to potential oil 

recovery projects in the Wyoming portion of the PRB; however, no projects are currently 

planned. The 2005 Task 2 Report (BLM 2005b) projected that basinwide production of CBNG 

could double by 2020, which would suggest that additional pipelines could be built. The recent 

update of the that report (BLM 2009c) revised the projections. As noted in Section 4.1, trends in 

CBNG development since 2007 indicate that this estimate may be lowered as new forecasting is 

done. Current gas pipeline capacity out of the PRB is approximately 2.05 billion cubic feet per 

day; average conventional natural gas and CBNG production in 2007 was approximately 1.24 

billion cubic feet per day. Based on the information in the updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c), 

potential total gas production (conventional natural gas and CBNG) has been projected at 2.06 

billion cubic feet per day by 2010. This potential is pipeline capacity limited, suggesting 

additional pipelines could be built. 

Refineries 

Construction of a new refinery was completed in the Wyoming PRB study area in 2008. The 

NorthCut Refinery, owned and operated by Interline Resources, is located in Converse County, 

approximately 20 miles north of the town of Douglas, Wyoming. Construction of the refinery, 

which was a conversion of the previously existing Well Draw Gas Plant, included installation of 

a crude oil pipeline between the company’s existing crude gathering system and the refinery. 

The NorthCut Refinery is a crude oil topping plant, specifically engineered to process 

4,000 barrels per day of sweet crude produced in the PRB. Output from the refinery will include 

naptha, off-road diesel, and reduced crude oil. The markets for the products include ethanol 

manufacturers, mines, and other refineries. The company-owned crude oil pipeline and 

third-party tanker trucks will be used for delivery of crude stocks. Tanker trucks also will be 

used to transport finished products from the facility (Interline Resources 2008). 

The refinery is adjacent to and east of Wyoming 59, with the joint BNSF and UP rail line located 

just to the west of the highway. The site previously had been the location of the Well Draw Gas 

Plant (approximately 20 acres), which shut down in 2002 following a fire. Interline has acquired 

an additional 12 acres bordering the original site for administrative, maintenance, and 

transportation-related uses (Interline Resources 2008). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-25 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The level and composition of outputs from the existing NorthCut Refinery would respond to 

various markets, potentially resulting in the construction of additional infrastructure and/or 

facilities in the future. Any future changes and associated disturbances would occur within the 

property currently owned by Interline Resources at the NorthCut site (Williams pers. comm.). 

Currently, no specific plans for expansion have been identified. As a result, the likelihood for 

project expansion currently is considered speculative. Therefore, it has been eliminated from 

further analysis in this study. 

No other reasonably foreseeable plans for construction and operation of new petroleum refineries 

in the Wyoming portion of the PRB have been identified. 

4.1.3 Other Development Activity 

4.1.3.1 Other Mining 

Uranium, sand, gravel, bentonite, and clinker (or scoria) have been and are being mined in the 

Wyoming PRB study area. 

Wyoming has been the nation’s leading producer of uranium ore since 1995, and also hosts the 

nation’s largest uranium reserves (Wyoming State Geological Survey 2009). There are three 

primary uranium mining districts in the PRB: Pumpkin Buttes, Southern Powder River, and 

Kaycee (BLM 2003). Numerous uranium mining sites, both potential and existing, are present in 

these districts. Wyoming’s only currently producing uranium mines are the Smith RanchHighland operation and the Christensen Ranch operation. The Smith Ranch-Highland operation 

is located in Converse County in the Southern Powder River District, and the Christensen Ranch 

operation is located in Johnson and Campbell counties in the Pumpkin Buttes area. The Smith 

Ranch-Highland operation is owned by Power Resources, Inc. (dba Cameco) and uses the in-situ 

recovery (or in-situ leach) method of mining. Aside from the Smith Ranch-Highland operation, 

the only other uranium mining operation in the PRB that is currently licensed by the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the Christensen Ranch/Irigaray operation (owned by 

COGEMA Mining, Inc.) located in Johnson and Campbell counties (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 2009). 

In the 2005 Task 2 Report (BLM 2005b), reasonably foreseeable uranium development was 

eliminated from further consideration because: 1) there were no specific projects with pending 

applications and 2) no development was anticipated, based on market conditions. 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. Because of increased overall demand for energy in 

recent years, uranium prices have increased from a low of $7 a pound in 2001 to over $138 a 

pound in 2007 (Barry 2008). The price fell to $62 in 2008 and is currently in a range of $40 to 

$50 per pound, which is expected to hold through 2010 because of stable demand and a growing 

supply. The recent upsurge in yellowcake spot prices has increased exploration and claimstaking activity in the PRB and is generating considerable interest in new development 

(Wyoming State Geological Survey 2009). 

In response to the increased price of uranium, a number of uranium mine developments currently 

are proposed in the Wyoming PRB study area. The NRC is currently reviewing applications for 

4-26 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

two new uranium recover facilities in the PRB: the Moore Ranch and the Nichols Ranch-Hank 

Unit (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2009). The Moore Ranch, owned by Energy 

Minerals Corporation (dba Uranium One), is located in Converse County, and the Nichols 

Ranch-Hank Unit, owned by Uranerz Energy Corporation, is located in Campbell and Johnson 

counties. Both of these projects submitted license applications in 2007, they are located in the 

Pumpkin Buttes District, and would use the in-situ recovery method of mining. 

Over the next three years, the NRC expects to receive additional applications for new uranium 

recovery facilities, as well as requests for restarts and expansions of existing facilities. Table 4-9 

provides information on the three new projects and four expansion projects currently proposed in 

the PRB, all of which would use in-situ recovery. With the exception of the Ross Project, which 

is located in western Crook County, the proposed developments are all in the Pumpkin Buttes 

District in southwestern Campbell and northwestern Converse counties. The actual number of 

the proposed developments that would become operational would depend on several factors 

including uranium prices and approval of permits. 

Table 4-9. In-Situ Recovery Uranium Projects Currently Proposed in the Task 2 Study 

Area for the Wyoming portion of the PRB 

Project/Company County 

Application 

Type 

Watershed/Mining 

District Likelihood/Rationale 

Ludeman Satellite 

Project/Energy Metals 

Corp (dba Uranium One) 

Converse Expansion/Amend 

ment to Moore 

Ranch 

Antelope Creek/Pumpkin 

Buttes District 

Moderate for 2012/Letter of intent to 

NRC February 2009, application 

expected 2009. 

Allemand-Ross Satellite 

Project/Energy Metals 

Corp (dba Uranium One) 

Converse Expansion/Amend 

ment to Moore 

Ranch 

Antelope Creek/Pumpkin 

Buttes District 

Moderate for 2012/Letter of intent to 

NRC February 2009, application 

expected 2009. 

Ross Project/Peninsula 

Minerals, Ltd. 

Crook New Little Missouri River/not in 

one of the three districts 

Moderate for 2012/Letter of intent to 

NRC October 2009, application 

expected 2010. 

Collins Draw 

Project/Uranerz Energy 

Corporation 

Campbell New Powder River/Pumpkin 

Buttes District 

Moderate for 2012/Letter of intent to 

NRC March 2008, application 

expected 2009. 

North Butte-Ruth Campbell Expansion/Satellit Powder River/Pumpkin High probability for 2012/Application 

Project/Power and e to Smith Ranch Buttes District for commercial operation filed March 

Resources, Inc. (dba Johnson 2006. 

Cameco) 

Reno Creek 

Project/Bayswater 

Uranium Corporation 

Campbell New Belle Fourche River and 

Antelope Creek/Pumpkin 

Buttes District 

Moderate for 2015/Letter of intent to 

NRC March 2009, application 

expected 2010. 

Ruby Ranch Campbell Expansion/Satellit Powder River and Belle Moderate for 2015/Letter of intent to 

Project/Power e to Smith Ranch Fourche River/Pumpkin NRC March 2008, application 

Resources, Inc. (dba Buttes District expected 2009. 

Cameco) 

NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Sources: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2009), World Information Service on Energy (2009).
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-27 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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

and cat 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 (Wyoming Mining Association 

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 (i.e., sand, gravel, and stone) is used for construction purposes. In the PRB, the more 

important aggregate mining localities are in Johnson and Sheridan counties (Wyoming State 

Geological Survey 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 

4 acres have been reclaimed. 

Clinker (known locally as scoria or red dog), 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. Clinker generally is mined in Converse and Campbell 

counties in the Wyoming PRB study area. 

Increased sand, gravel, and clinker 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 clinker operations were not analyzed in detail in the PRB Coal 

Review. 

4.1.3.2 Industrial Manufacturing 

A number of existing industrial manufacturing establishments are 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 Campbell County Economic 

Development Corporation and Converse Area New Development Organization, are continually 

engaged in efforts to recruit or assist new business formation in the PRB study area. For 

example, the latter has pursued development of long-term potential projects; however, the 

4-28 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

Because of increasing concerns over global climate change, there is strong interest from 

consumers, investor-owned utilities, and environmental and economic sustainability interests in 

wind energy generating projects and other forms of renewable energy projects. The current 

development interest in wind energy generation is driven in part by mandates for many utilities 

to increase the use of renewables in their overall energy portfolio, decisions by environmentally 

conscious firms to use renewable energy sources, and also because of the development of wind 

energy manufacturing infrastructure in the region. 

Wind power facilities have been proposed, are being constructed, and are providing energy at 

various sites in Wyoming, including the PRB. There is good potential for wind power, and these 

facilities can contribute to meeting forecasted electric power demands; however, they are 

dependent on available transmission capacity to send power to users. Among the lower 48 

states, Wyoming currently ranks in eleventh place in terms of existing wind power capacity with 

986 MW currently in operation and 299 MW under construction. Texas ranks in first place with 

8,797 MW in operation and 660 MW under construction. In terms of annual wind energy 

potential, Wyoming ranks seventh with 747 billion kilowatt-hours per year. North Dakota ranks 

first with 1,210 billion kilowatt-hours per year (American Wind Energy Association 2010). 

Although many Wyoming locations having the highest potential are in the southern portion of 

the state, areas in both Converse and Campbell counties offer sufficient potential to support 

commercial-scale wind generation projects. 

 One such project, the Glenrock Wind Farm, is currently providing power in the Wyoming 

PRB study area. PacifiCorp completed construction of this three-phase project in Converse 

County in 2009. The Glenrock Wind Farm is located approximately 15 miles north of the 

existing Dave Johnston Power Plant, on and near the site of the former Dave Johnston Coal 

Mine. This is the first wind energy project in the nation to be located at a reclaimed coal 

mine. The first phase, known as the Glenrock Wind Energy Project, went online in 2008. 

The second and third phases, the Rolling Hills Wind Energy Project and the Glenrock III 

Wind Energy Project, respectively, went online in 2009. The Glenrock and Rolling Hills 

phases each consist of 66 wind turbine generators (each rated at 1.5 MW [99 MW total]). 

The Glenrock III phase consists of 26, 1.5-MW wind turbines (39 MW total) (PacifiCorp 

2009). 

 Duke Energy (dba Three Buttes Windpower, LLC) completed the Campbell Hill Windpower 

Project and began commercial operations in December 2009. The Campbell Hill Windpower 

Project is located approximately 15 miles northeast of Casper in Converse County and 

consists of 66 wind turbines generating 99 MW. PacifiCorp will buy all of the output 

generated by the project. 

 Duke Energy plans to build the Top of the World Wind Energy Project, a 200-MW wind 

farm located northeast of Glenrock in Converse County. Construction was expected to begin 

in early 2010 upon receipt of all necessary permits from the state. PacifiCorp will buy the 

power generated by the project (Duke Energy 2009). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-29 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

 Third Planet Windpower is in the initial development phase of a wind energy project (Reno 

Junction Windfarm) in the Pumpkin Buttes area of southwestern Campbell County. Third 

Planet Windpower has acquired approximately 13,000 acres of land leases for the project, 

installed meteorological monitoring sites, and is currently doing environmental and 

feasibility studies. The company plans to install up to 133, 1.5-MW towers, yielding a total 

capacity of 200-MW, if fully constructed. The site for the Reno Junction Wind Farm is close 

to the Black Hills Power Pumpkin Buttes substation and the companies are seeking an 

agreement for interconnection. Construction was expected to begin in mid-2010, with an 

online date anticipated for the end of 2010 (Rogers 2008). This project is considered 

moderately likely to occur (BLM 2009c). 

Land use disturbance for wind energy projects is associated with development of access roads, a 

turbine assembly pad, and foundation pad for each wind turbine tower. Additional land 

disturbance results from installation of transformers and substations, underground electric and 

fiber optic communications cables, one or more operations and maintenance facilities, 

meteorological towers, and a transmission line connecting the project to the regional grid. Much 

of the disturbance area is reclaimed immediately following construction, with long-term 

disturbance associated with permanent facilities (i.e., access roads, support facilities, and tower 

foundations). 

Wind generating projects have an expected life of approximately 25 years, which could be 

extended based on market conditions and the overall condition of the infrastructure. Some 

redisturbance would occur at the time of decommissioning, followed by final reclamation. 

According to the American Wind Energy Association (2010), transmission will be a key issue 

for the wind industry’s future development over the next two decades. 

4.1.3.4 Solar Power 

Although Wyoming has been given a rating of 5,000 to 5,500 watt hours per square meter per 

day solar resource for flat plate collectors, currently, no utility-scale solar power collection 

facilities are located on federal, state, or private lands in Wyoming. Furthermore, no applications 

for the development of utility-scale solar energy projects had been filed as of June1, 2011. 

The BLM, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the DOE are jointly 

preparing a solar energy programmatic EIS which could facilitate future solar energy 

development application processes. Wyoming is not covered in the programmatic EIS but still 

may be affected by it. Information on the programmatic EIS can be found at: 

http://solareis.anl.gov. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy project proposals on a caseby-case basis. 

Solar energy use in Wyoming is, as of January 1, 2010, limited to private residences and private 

commercial establishments. Current Wyoming solar energy incentives include a sales tax rebate 

on industrial or commercial solar energy generation equipment, a one-time grant of up to $3,000 

offered through lottery from the Wyoming Business Council, and the utility buy back of unused 

electricity at the wholesale price. Solar energy production equipment and installation at 

residential, commercial, and utility sites is expensive. Currently, the electric utility costs in 

Wyoming are such that the cost of installation does not favor solar energy development over 

existing forms of energy development. 

4-30 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.1.3.5 Reservoirs 

Currently, five key water storage reservoirs are present 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 surface disturbance associated with these water storage areas is 

3,263 acres. 

Based on the applicable water plans prepared for the Wyoming Water Development Commission 

for its Basin Planning Program (HKM Engineering et al. 2002a and 2002b), there are long-range 

projections for development of additional reservoirs in the Wyoming PRB study area. However, 

none of these reservoirs have reached the planning stage; therefore, there was not enough 

information to analyze them in the PRB Coal Review. 

4.1.3.6 Other Non-Energy Development 

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

private physical infrastructure, private enterprises, and public activities has been developed in the 

PRB over time. Examples of infrastructure include the highway and road networks, airports, 

government offices, hospitals, public schools, municipal water systems, and extensive residential 

and commercial real estate development. Private enterprises include local retail and service 

establishments, newspaper publishing, and transportation and distribution firms. 

There are a number of existing industrial manufacturing and service establishments located in the 

Wyoming PRB study area. Most are relatively small with fewer than 50 employees, and most 

serve local and regional markets, the majority of which are directly or indirectly related to energy 

resource development and production. Hettinger Welding and L&H Welding and Machine, both 

based in Gillette, are the largest industrial manufacturing firms in the region specializing in 

repairs, rebuilding, and manufacturing for the mining industry. Though classified as wholesalers 

and repair establishments, rather than as manufactures, firms such as Wyoming Machinery and 

P&H Mining Equipment also serve the mining and oil and gas industries. Other industrial 

manufacturing and service establishments in the region provide metal fabrication, metal plating, 

custom and precast concrete products, and specialized chemical products and services. Over the 

years, some of these firms have expanded such that they now support activities and serve 

markets outside the PRB region. However, they remain dependent upon the local and regional 

markets to sustain their existing operations (BLM 2009c). 

Local economic development organizations, including Campbell County Economic 

Development Corporation and Converse Area New Development Organization are continually 

engaged in efforts to recruit or assist new business formation in the PRB study area. For 

example, the Converse Area New Development Organization is pursuing development of an 

ammonium nitrate plant (using methane as a feedstock) in the Bill, Wyoming, area, as well as 

location of an aluminum mill in the same general location. These and similar prospects are longterm potential whose outcomes are uncertain and for which little information and detail are 

available. As a result, they were eliminated from analysis in the PRB Coal Review (BLM 

2009c). 

Local governments, school districts, and other special service districts and public entities 

continually engage in long-term planning. Examples of some of the recently completed projects 

and developments, as well as anticipated plans or proposals for development in public, private, 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-31 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

and commercial infrastructure in the City of Gillette and Campbell County, are included in the 

current City of Gillette development summary (City of Gillette 2009) and are summarized below. 

 The City of Gillette’s Wastewater Treatment Plant was upgraded in 2007. 

 An expansion and renovation of the county courthouse were completed in 2006, and a new 

public health building was completed in 2007. 

 The Wyoming Center, a conference and multi-event facility expansion of the Gillette CAMPLEX, was completed in 2008 annual. The expansion includes more exhibit space, 

conference and indoor athletic facilities with seating for up to 9,000, an indoor ice rink, and 

various concession and support spaces. 

 A new $10 million headquarters for the Campbell County Fire Department providing 

administrative, training, storage space, and additional parking bays for firefighting equipment 

and vehicles was completed in 2008. 

 A new Hospice Center, the Cummins Diesel Service Center, and the Hillcrest School were 

completed in 2008. 

 Construction of the new Health Sciences Center at Gillette College was competed in 2008. 

The facility houses the school’s nursing program, providing classrooms, labs, faculty offices, 

and other spaces. The nursing program functions in conjunction with the Campbell County 

Memorial Hospital 

 Major infrastructure projects within and adjacent to the city limits in 2008 and 2009 included 

highway and roadway improvements, drainage system improvements, library renovations, 

subdivision developments, and expansion of the county landfill. 

 Expansion of the Campbell County Detention Center and remodeling of the Sheriff’s Office 

were completed in 2009. 

 Construction of various commercial and residential housing developments is ongoing. 

 The new $55 million Campbell County Recreation Center was completed and opened in 

April 2010. 

 The county, city, and Gillette College are partnering on a Campus Housing Complex and the 

Industrial Technical Education Center. Construction of these facilities is ongoing and part of 

a long-range master plan for the college that is designed to provide a broad college-level 

curriculum and provide more focused education and training to support local business and 

industry. The 100-bed Gillette College Student Housing project was completed and opened 

for use in September 2009. The $55 million, 97,700-square foot Technical Education Center 

opened in January 2010. 

 Campbell County Memorial Hospital is undergoing a major expansion and renovation project 

that began in 2009 and is expected to be completed in 2011. 

 The new Hillcrest Elementary School in Gillette has been completed and opened in 

September 2009. 

 The Burma Road extension is under construction. It will provide a north-south route across 

I-90 connecting the hospital area with Lakeway Road. This will improve traffic flow, and 

4-32 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

open up more land for future development. The section across I-90 opened in August 2010 

with full completion of the project projected for spring 2011. 

 The City of Gillette is seeking state and local funding to construct an additional municipal 

water supply. Construction of a second Madison Formation well field in Crook County near 

the Keyhole Reservoir and a second water supply line from the well field to Gillette is 

expected to begin in 2011 or 2012. 

 The Wyoming School Facilities Commission oversees all aspects of construction and 

maintenance of school facilities and physical plant. School districts submit five-year plans 

for facilities spending, which are subject to approval and funding by the commission. 

Currently approved master plans for the seven school districts serving some portion of the 

Wyoming PRB study area include defined needs for more than $115 million in capital 

construction, some of which have already been funded; the total includes approximately $51 

million for the Campbell County School District, the bulk of which would fund three new 

elementary schools and one new high school (Wyoming School Facilities Commission 

2008). 

Additional private sector industrial and commercial development is expected to occur within the 

context of normal community and economic development. The strong economic base provided 

by the coal mines, oil and gas companies, and relatively high income of residents draws regional 

and national retailers (e.g., The Home Depot) to the area. Gillette’s location on I-90 and the 

strong demand for lodging by energy workers, travelers, and visitors associated with events at 

the CAM-PLEX also have spurred construction of several new motels (Campbell County 

Economic Development Corporation 2008; City of Gillette 2008a). 

 The 2010 Wyoming Department of Transportation State Transportation Improvement 

Program includes planned construction for the 2010 fiscal year and preliminary engineering 

estimates for projects with anticipated construction dates through 2015. In general, 

Wyoming transportation projects scheduled over the next six years include maintenance, 

reconstruction, and improvement projects. Airport improvement plans consist primarily of 

pavement rehabilitation and overlays, with some minor expansion of taxiways, aprons, and 

parking. Costs anticipated for 2010 through 2015 for highway and airport maintenance, 

reconstruction, and improvement projects in the PRB Coal Review study area (Sheridan, 

Johnson and Campbell counties) are approximately $190 million. No construction of new 

highways is scheduled, and no new airports are proposed. 

 In addition to highway projects included in Wyoming Department of Transportation’s 2008– 

2013 plan, the Eagle Butte Mine received approval from WYDOT to relocate a portion of 

U.S. Highway 14-16 in the vicinity of the Gillette–Campbell County Airport, north of the 

city of Gillette. The relocation will facilitate the recovery of approximately 40 million tons 

of additional coal recently acquired by the mine through the West Eagle Butte West LBA 

tract coal sale. Three alternative alignments, involving the construction of up to 6.8 

centerline miles of new roadway, were identified and a preferred alternative was 

subsequently chosen and approved by the department. Construction of the new highway 

segment is anticipated in 2011/2012 (Wyoming Department of Transportation and 

Foundation Coal Company 2008). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-33 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

There are numerous current and anticipated plans for future investment in public and private 

infrastructure in the PRB. Such investments would include state and local investment in 

transportation, administrative, and educational facilities. 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 because 

of proximity or coincidental project schedules and timetables (BLM 2009c). 

4.2	 Affected Environment and Cumulative Environmental 

Consequences 

This section summarizes the existing conditions based on the results of the Task 1 Report and the 

cumulative environmental consequences of projected development for 2010, 2015, and 2020, 

based on the Task 3 report. 

As discussed in section 4.0, 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 

(map 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 (map 4-2). This analysis region includes over 4 million acres and is referred 

to below as the Task 3 study area. Table 4-10 summarizes the total disturbance and reclamation 

acreages for the 2003 baseline, 2007 actual, and the total projected disturbance and reclamation 

acreages for 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the Task 3 study area. 

A total of approximately 210,096 acres (5%) within the Task 3 study area had been disturbed by 

cumulative development activities as of 2003. Based on the information presented in 

Appendices A and D of the updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c), approximately 222,568 acres 

(5%) had been disturbed by development activities by the end of 2007. Of those 222,568 acres 

of cumulative disturbance, approximately 83,593 acres (38%) were associated with coal mine 

development. 

Of the 222,568 total acres of actual cumulative disturbance documented through 2007, 

approximately 113,382 acres (51%) have been reclaimed. The remaining 109,186 acres of 

disturbance would be reclaimed incrementally or following a project’s completion, depending on 

the type of development activity and permit requirements. 

4-34 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-10. Actual and Projected Wyoming PRB Total Development Scenario, Task 3 

Study Area 

Total Acres Total Acres Acres Unavailable Acres Affected by 

Year Disturbed Reclaimed Acres Unreclaimed for Reclamationa Coal Developmenta 

Actual 

2003 210,096 111,879 

2007 222,568 113,382 

Projected Development—Lower Coal Production Scenario 

98,217 

109,186 

24,097 

24,338 

68,794 

83,593 

2010 278,209 159,291 

2015 354,148 219,816 

2020 422,727 289,937 

Projected Development—Upper Coal Production Scenario 

118,918 

134,332 

132,790 

26,338 

27,549 

28,797 

98,662 

117,236 

137,443 

2010

2015

2020

 281,996 

 361,456 

 576,646 

161,124 

224,024 

397,155 

120,872 

137,432 

179,491 

25,688 

27,099 

28,345 

102,448 

124,545 

149,089 

a Includes coal mine and coal-related disturbance; those acres will be reclaimed when mine operations end. 

Source: Updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c). 

Of the 83,593 total cumulative acres of disturbance directly associated with coal mine 

development through 2007, approximately 25,884 acres (31%) have been reclaimed. Of the 

remaining 57,709 acres of coal-related disturbance, approximately 24,338 acres (42%) currently 

are not available for reclamation, as they are occupied by long-term facilities necessary to 

conduct mining operations. These areas would be reclaimed near the end of each mine’s life. 

Reclamation of the remaining 33,371 acres (58%), which represent areas of active mining and 

areas where coal has been recovered but reclamation has not been completed, would proceed 

concurrently with coal mining. 

The total cumulative disturbance is projected to increase to as much as 576,6462 acres in 2020 

under the upper coal production scenario (table 4-10), which would represent approximately 

12.9% of the study area. This projected disturbance includes coal mining, coal-related 

development, and oil and gas and related development disturbance in the study area. Of those 

576,646 acres, it is projected that 149,0893

 acres (26%) would be associated with coal mining 

activities. Oil and gas related disturbance represents over 70% of the remaining cumulative 

disturbance. 

2 Data for 2020 total cumulative disturbance and reclamation projections obtained from Appendix C, Table C-3 in the updated Task 2 Report 

(BLM 2009c). 

3 Data for 2020 cumulative coal-related disturbance and reclamation projections obtained from Appendix A, Table A-2 in the updated Task 2 

Report (BLM 2009c). Math errors in that update have been corrected in table 4-10 and the above text for the Hay Creek II final EIS. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-35 
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 

Belle Fourche River 

Four Horse C re e k 

Caballo Creek 

Cottonwood Creek 

Little R ve i r 

Wild

Cat

Creek 

Salt Creek 

South

Fork

Powder River 

Buffalo 

Creek 

Middle 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 Wild 

Horse Creek 

Timber Creek 

Little

Powder River 

Fork Crazy 

Woman 

Creek 

Powder 

River 

Wild Horse Creek 

Bitter

Creek 

F ourm ile Creek 

Pumpkin Creek 

Dry Fork Powder River 

North Fork Bear 

Creek 

PSO ASH CREEK MINE BIG HORN MINE 

River 

SHERIDAN 

COUNTY 

SHERIDAN 

r edwoP

Upper


Belle
 2 Fourche 

Little 

Powder
 

River


CAMPBELL
 

COUNTY
 

1
 BUFFALO 

Upper


Powder
 

River
 

GILLETTE 

North 

River South
 

Fork
 

JOHNSON 

COUNTY 

Powder 

Fork WRIGHT 

Creek Upper

River 

3
 

SCALE: 1"= 20 MILES Antelope


Creek
 

LEGEND 

Federal Coal Lease Areas 

CONVERSE Subwatersheds in the Environmental COUNTY Consequence Study Area 

Coal Mine Groundwater Model Dry Creek (CMGM) Domain 

Railroads 

Former Surface Coal Mine Sites 

COAL MINE SUBREGIONS 

Dry Fork
 Cheyenne River
 

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 

Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder,

3 Subregion 3 - North Antelope Rochelle,

and Antelope Mines 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 4-2 

Wyoming Task 3 Study Area for PRB Coal Review Studies Evaluating 

Projected Environmental Consequences 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

 Areas reclaimed during each future time period shown in table 4-10 reflect the amount of 

disturbed acreage projected to be permanently reclaimed by that respective point in time. For 

example, under the upper coal production scenario for 2020, of the 576,646 acres of total 

cumulative disturbance, approximately 397,155 (69%) would be reclaimed by 2020. The 

remaining 179,491 acres (31%) of disturbance would be reclaimed incrementally or following a 

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

Of the 149,089 acres of cumulative disturbance projected to be associated with coal mining 

through 2020, approximately 86,196 (58%) would be reclaimed by 2020. Of the remaining 

62,893 acres of coal mining-related disturbance, it is estimated that approximately 28,345 acres 

(45%) would be unavailable for concurrent reclamation due to the presence of long-term 

facilities, which would be reclaimed near the end of each mine’s life. Reclamation of the 

remaining 34,548 acres (55%) of projected disturbance through 2020 would proceed 

concurrently with mining operations. 

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. 

The PRB Coal review study areas are defined by discipline for projected environmental 

consequences, with some changes to the watershed map (map 4-2) as defined below. 

 The potential air quality impacts were evaluated over a multi-state area (including most of 

Wyoming, southeastern Montana, southwestern North Dakota, western South Dakota, and 

northwestern Nebraska) because they would be expected to extend beyond the Wyoming and 

Montana PRB air quality study area that was used to identify emissions sources for the air 

quality analysis. 

 The socioeconomic impact analysis focused on Campbell County, but also considered 

Converse, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston counties as directly affected and Niobrara 

and Natrona counties as indirectly affected. 

 The groundwater drawdown was evaluated in the area surrounding and extending west of the 

surface coal mines shown on map 4-2 (groundwater study area), because that is the area 

where groundwater drawdown related to surface coal mining operations and CBNG 

production operations would overlap. 

4.2.1 Topography and Physiography 

The PRB is located within the Upper Missouri Basin Broken Lands physiographic subprovince 

that includes northeastern Wyoming and eastern Montana to the Canadian border. The 

topography generally is of low to moderate relief with occasional buttes and mesas. The general 

topographic gradient slopes down gently from southwest to northeast with elevations ranging 

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

than 4,000 feet above sea level on the north and northeast along the Montana state line. The 

major drainages in the PRB 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 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-37
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 on map 4-2, 

permanently alters the topography by removing the overburden and coal and then replacing the 

overburden. 

Recontouring during reclamation to match approximate original contours, as required by 

regulation, reduces the long-term impact on 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) 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, 2007, 2010, 2015, and 2020 are given in table 4-10. 

4.2.2 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology 

The study area for geology, mineral resources, and paleontology is the Task 3 study area 

(map 4-2). 

4.2.2.1 Geology 

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

were formed during the Laramide Orogeny events. 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 (U.S. Geological Survey 2004); the low risk of 

ground shaking in the PRB 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 (U.S. Geological 

Survey 2008). Seismic activity induced by coal mine blasting operations occurs throughout the 

PRB and has reached a USGS local magnitude rating of 3.6 in some instances (U.S. Geological 

Survey 2004). 

4.2.2.2 Mineral Resources 

Coal 

Most of the coal resources in the PRB are found in the Fort Union and Wasatch formations; 

however, coal layers in the Wasatch formation are thinner and less continuous than those in the 

Fort Union formation. Therefore, Wasatch coal is not as economically important as Fort Union 

4-38 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

coal for either coal mining or CBNG development. Projected levels of coal production and 

disturbance under the lower and upper coal production scenarios are listed 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. 

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. Actual production rates for conventional oil and gas and 

CBNG in 2007 and projected rates for 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 2007) and are projected to occur in the years 2010, 2015, and 2020 are included 

in the totals in table 4-10. 

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. 

4.2.2.3 Paleontology 

Paleontological Resources are any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms, preserved 

in or on the earth’s crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about 

the history of life on earth. 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 paleontological resources are documented in the 

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

familiar with the area. It has been determined that paleontological resources on federal land shall 

be managed and protected using scientific principles and expertise. Appropriate plans for the 

inventory, monitoring, and the scientific and educational use of these resources shall be 

developed, in accordance with applicable agency laws, regulations, and policies, These plans 

shall emphasize interagency coordination and collaborative efforts where possible with nonfederal partners, the scientific community, and the general public. 

Significant paleontological localities have been recorded on federal lands in some areas of the 

PRB. However, the absence of localities in the PRB does not always 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 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-39 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

the Task 3 study area have the potential to adversely affect scientifically significant fossils, if 

they are present in or adjacent to disturbance areas. 

The potential for impacts to scientifically significant paleontological resources are predicted to 

be greatest in areas where PFYC Class 4 or 5 (High or Very High) formations are present (see 

section 3.3.3.1). In addition, in most cases those rock units with a PFYC of 3 (Moderate or 

Unknown) will require some management decision and action. Class 3 formations are 

fossiliferous units where fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable 

occurrence; or of unknown fossil potential. Surface-disturbing activities will require sufficient 

assessment to determine whether significant paleontological resources occur in the area of a 

proposed action, and whether that action could affect the paleontological resources. 

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 

(PFYC 5) Sundance, Morrison, Cloverly, and Lance formations crop out along the margins of 

the basin and 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 (PFYC 5) White 

River Formation occurs only on Pumpkin Buttes in southwestern Campbell County. 

In recent years, the Wasatch Formation has been downgraded to a Class 3a formation (geologic 

units with widely scattered scientifically significant fossils) in the PRB, but remains a Class 5 

formation (highest rating) statewide. The Fort Union Formation is under consideration to be 

upgraded from a Class 3 (geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, abundance, 

and predictable occurrence; or of unknown fossil potential) to a Class 4 formation (geologic units 

containing a high occurrence of scientifically significant fossils) statewide. The Potential Fossil 

Yield Classifications of these rocks units, as well as many others in Wyoming, are currently 

under revision and may change in the near future. 

The greatest potential impact on surface and subsurface paleontological resources 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 2007, and are projected to occur as a result of all 

projected development in the years 2010, 2015, and 2020, are shown in table 4-10. However, 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 on paleontological resources as a result of these activities. 

4-40 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.3 Air Quality 

There is substantial scientific evidence that increased atmospheric concentrations of GHG and 

land use changes are contributing to an increase in average global temperature. As of January 1, 

2011, GHG are regulated pollutants. A discussion of this subject has been included in section 

4.2.14. 

The 2005 Task 1A Report (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, because actual emissions data was 

unavailable. 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 2005 Task 2 

Report (BLM 2005b) identifies reasonably foreseeable development activities for the years 2010, 

2015, and 2020. 

The 2006 Task 3A Report (BLM 2006d) evaluates the impacts on air quality and air qualityrelated values for the year 2010 using the development levels projected for 2010—the same 

model and meteorological data that were used for the baseline year study in the Task 1A Report 

(BLM 2005a). The BLM updated the model and conducted an impact analysis for the year 2015. 

This updated model is reflected in the 2008 update to the Task 3A Report (BLM 2008a), which 

uses a revised baseline year of 2004 and revised projected scenarios for the year 2015. The BLM 

updated the model again in 2009 and conducted an impact analysis for the year 2020. The most 

recent update to the Task 3A Report for 2020 (BLM 2009d) uses the same baseline year of 2004 

with revised projected scenarios for the year 2020. A revised baseline year emissions inventory 

was developed using 2004 actual emissions data or emissions estimates and has incorporated the 

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

modeling study was done. 

Existing and projected emissions sources for the revised baseline year (2004) and 2015 and 2020 

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 west of the PRB, and the northern portion of Converse County, Wyoming; and 

 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 Task 1A and 3A study areas in 

each state (overall, the near-field receptor grid points were spaced at 1-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). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-41 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The EPA guideline CALPUFF model system version 5.8 (Scire et al. 1999a) was used for this 

study, which differs from the version used in the Task 1A and original Task 3A studies. The 

impacts for the baseline year (2004) and for 2015 and 2020 lower and upper coal production 

scenarios were directly modeled. As discussed above, the modeling domain extends over most 

of Wyoming, southeastern Montana, southwestern North Dakota, western South Dakota, and 

western Nebraska. An interagency group participated in developing the modeling protocol and 

related domain that were used for this analysis. 

The modeling approach for the updated Task 3A Report used actual emissions from existing 

sources representative of 2004 operations and projected those emissions for the expected level of 

development in 2015 and in 2020 (BLM 2009d). Year 2004 emission inventory data were 

previously developed for the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Supplemental EIS. 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 and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Only actual emission sources 

inside the study area described above were included in the modeling. Key major sources were 

included, such as the coal-fired power plants, gas-fired power plants, and sources that were 

included in the Title V (operating permit) program. The Dave Johnston power plant, which is 

located outside of but adjacent to the study area in Converse County, was included in the 

baseline year study and in the projected emissions. Some operational adjustments were made to 

accommodate small sources with air permits that were presumed to be operating at less than full 

capacity. Emissions from other sources, including estimated construction-related fugitive dust 

emissions, were computed based on EPA emission factors and on input data from the WDEQ. 

The PRB Coal Review generally considers existing regional air quality conditions in the Task 1A 

and Task 3A study areas to be very good. 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 complies 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 Buckskin Mine will comply 

with the PM10 and PM2.5 near-field and short-term NO2 air standards for the 2015 and 2020 

modeled air quality impacts at the currently permitted mining rate. The applicant has indicated 

that they propose to mine either action alternative at a rate (average of 25 million tons per year) 

well below its currently permitted level (42 million tons per year). 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 the Badlands 

National Park and Jim Bridger Wilderness Area from 1989 to 2005 (figure 3.4-2). 

Predicted impacts from baseline year (2004) and projected 2015 and 2020 emissions were 

modeled for four air quality criteria pollutants (NO2, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10), along with changes 

in air quality-related values at Class I and 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 

4-42 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

analysis focuses on changes in cumulative impacts, but not on a comparison to PSD-related 

evaluations, which would apply to specific sources. 

Table 4-11 presents the modeled impacts on ambient air quality at the near-field receptors in 

Montana and Wyoming. Results shown represent the maximum impact at any point in each 

receptor group; data are provided for the baseline year (2004) analysis and for both coal 

production scenarios for 2015 and 2020. Peak impacts occur at isolated receptors and are likely 

due to unique source-receptor relationships. The model results should not be construed as 

predicting an actual exceedance of any standard, but are at best indicators of potential impacts. 

The results of the modeling depict the anticipated changes under both the lower and upper 

development scenarios (table 4-11). For the Wyoming near-field receptors, the predicted impact 

of the 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations show localized exceedances in the region of the 

NAAQS for the baseline year (2004), as well as for both development scenarios for 2015 and 

2020. Both 2020 development scenarios show the concentration increases by a factor of 2.5 

relative to the base year for these two parameters. Additionally, while down about 10% from 

2015, the 2020 development shows a 20% increase of annual PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at 

peak Wyoming near-field receptors relative to the base year. This level of increase for 2020 

predicted modeled exceedances of annual standards for PM2.5 that year. Impacts of NO2 and SO2 

emissions are predicted to be below the NAAQS and WAAQS at the Wyoming near-field 

receptors. 

Based on the modeling results, impacts at Montana near-field receptors would be in compliance 

with the NAAQS and the Montana Ambient Air Quality Standard (MAAQS) for all pollutants 

and averaging periods, with one exception (table 4-11). Importantly, the 1-hour NO2 

concentrations at Montana near-field receptors for all years and development scenarios were 

predicted to exceed the NAAQS. Those concentrations were also predicted to exceed the 

MAAQS in 2015 at isolated locations because of CBNG development in Wyoming; however, 

with the anticipated southward progression of the CBNG wells, the 1-hour NO2 concentrations in 

2020 are predicted to remain below the MAAQS. The southward progression of the CBNG 

wells also contributes to a predicted slight decrease in 2020 of impacts for annual NO2, PM10 and 

PM2.5 relative to the baseline year. Although large percentage increases were predicted in SO2 

impacts by 2020, especially for 1- and 3-hour monitoring, those levels would remain below the 

national and state ambient standards for all pollutants in the Montana near-field. 

As discussed in section 3.4.2.2, modeling tends to over-predict the 24-hour impacts of surface 

coal mining and, as a result, the WDEQ 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 the WDEQ and EPA Region VIII, dated January 24, 1994, allows the WDEQ to 

conduct monitoring in lieu of short-term modeling for assessing coal-mining-related impacts in 

the PRB. This agreement also requires “best available work practice” mitigation measures in all 

coal mining permits (WDEQ and EPA 1994). The monitored exceedances at surface coal mines 

in the Wyoming PRB and the measures that the WDEQ 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. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-43 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-11. Projected Maximum Potential Near-Field Impacts (μg/m3) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Base Year 

(2004) 

Impacts 

2015 Lower Coal 

Development

Scenario 

Impacts 

2015 Upper Coal 

Development

Scenario 

Impacts 

2020 Lower Coal 

Development

Scenario 

Impacts 

2020 Upper Coal 

Development

Scenario 

Impacts 

National 

AAQS 

Wyomi

AAQS 

Wyoming Near-Field NO2 Annual 31.3 46.7 47.4 30.5 30.6 100 100 

SO2 Annual 15.3 16.2 16.2 16.4 16.5 80 60 

24-hour 112.3 119.6 119.6 143.3 143.3 365 260 

3-hour 462.0 814.1 814.1 936.7 936.7 1,300 1,300 

PM2.5 Annual 13.4 18.7 21.4 16.3 16.3 15 15 

 24-hour 87.6 179.5 179.5 218.4 218.4 35 35 

PM10 Annual 38.4 53.5 61.0 46.6 46.6 — 50

 24-hour 250.4 512.8 512.9 624.1 624.3 150 150 

Montana Near-Field NO2 Annual 3.3 6.5 6.5 2.5 2.6 100 — 

 1-hour 409.0 826.3 826.4 440.1 442.7 188.1 — 

SO2 Annual 1.6 1.7 1.7 3.0 3.1 80 — 

24-hour 16.1 16.5 16.6 24.7 27.1 365 — 

 3-hour 65.0 66.5 66.5 138.9 138.9 1,300 — 

1-hour 162.9 166.6 166.6 237.0 259.1 — — 

PM2.5 Annual 1.0 1.8 1.9 0.9 0.9 15 — 

24-hour 10.2 15.4 20.6 10.2 10.2 35 — 

PM10 Annual 2.8 5.2 5.3 2.5 2.6 — — 

24-hour 29.1 44.0 58.5 29.3 29.3 150 — 

μg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter; AAQS = Ambient Air Quality Standards; PSD = prevention of significant deterioration; NO = nitrogen oxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate m

less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter 

a No standard or increment. b The EPA has revoked the NAAQS annual PM 10 standard of 50 μg/m3, but that standard is still effective for Wyoming until it enters into rulemaking to revise the state AAQS. 

Bold values indicate projected exceedance of national and/or state ambient air quality standards. 

Source: 2009 update to the Task 3A Report (BLM 2009d). 

4-44 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The maximum modeled impact on the annual PM2.5 level is projected to be above the standard 

(15 μg/m3

) at near-field receptors in Wyoming for the lower and upper coal production scenarios 

for both 2015 and 2020. Annual PM10 levels are projected to be above the standard (50 μg/m3) 

at near-field receptors in Wyoming for 2015, and then to fall back below the standard for the 

2020 lower and upper coal production scenarios. The EPA has revoked the NAAQS annual 

PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3

, but until Wyoming enters into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS, 

that standard is still effective. The WDEQ issues air quality permits for coal mining. That 

agency cannot issue any permit that violates ambient air quality standards. As noted, impacts of 

NO2 and SO2 emissions are predicted to be below the NAAQS and WAAQS at all Wyoming 

near-field receptors for all years. A large portion of the impacts for all scenarios would be 

associated with coal-related sources, although non-coal sources would contribute a notable 

portion of the impact. 

Table 4-12 lists the three Class I areas and two Class II areas where the modeled impacts are the 

greatest. The table compares the modeled impacts to the PSD Class I and sensitive Class II 

increment levels. 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. 

Most modeled impacts for the four pollutants (NO2, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10) analyzed are below 

the Class I increment levels in all coal development scenarios (base year, lower and upper 2015 

and 2020). At the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation and Wind Cave National Park, 

impacts are slightly above the Class I comparative increment levels for 24-hour PM10 in all years 

(baseline, 2015, 2020) and development scenarios (table 4-12). Those impacts are also above the 

Class I increments at the Badlands National Park for both scenarios in 2020. Additionally, the 

SO2 impacts at the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation for the 3-hour and 24-hour averaging 

period exceed the Class I PSD increment levels for one or both development scenarios in 2020. 

In the other Class I areas, only the modeled 24-hour SO2 impacts at Theodore Roosevelt National 

Park and Fort Peck Indian Reservation, and 3-hour SO2 impacts at Theodore Roosevelt National 

Park are above the PSD increment levels for the 2020 development scenarios. However, the 

predicted exceedances for these areas are related to sources outside the PRB study area, 

consequently, neither area is included in table 4-12. 

In the sensitive Class II areas, the only modeled exceedances of the Class II PSD increments 

relate to the 24-hour PM10 levels at the upper 2015 development scenario in the Cloud Peak 

Wilderness Area and Crow Indian Reservation. The modeled annual NO2 impacts at those two 

areas are projected to increase by a factor of 2 to 4, respectively, in 2020 as a result of projected 

CBNG and coal hauling activities. However, modeling results for all sensitive Class II areas are 

far below PSD increment levels for all pollutants for both 2020 development scenarios. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-45 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-12. Maximum Predicted PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Area Impacts (μg/m3) Location Pollutant 

Averaging

Period 

Base Year 

(2004)

Impacts 

2015 Lower Coal 

Development

Scenario 

2015 Upper Coal 

Development

Scenario 

2020 Lower Coal 

Development

Scenario 

2020 Up

Develo

Sce

Class I Areasa 

NO2 Annual 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.1 

Annual 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.3 

SO2 24-hour 3.1 3.4 3.4 7.1 12.8 

Northern Cheyenne 3-hour 9.4 9.6 9.6 23.6 39.7 

Indian Reservation Annual 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 

PM2.5 24-hour 3.4 5.1 5.1 4.5 4.6 

Annual 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.5 

PM10 24-hour 9.6 14.4 14.6 12.9 13.2 NO2 Annual 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 

Annual 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 

SO2 24-hour 3.6 3.1 3.1 4.0 4.0 

Badlands 3-hour 8.1 6.3 6.3 8.2 8.2 National Park Annual 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 

PM2.5 24-hour 2.1 1.6 1.6 3.0 3.1 

Annual 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.0 

PM10 24-hour 5.9 4.6 4.7 8.5 8.8 NO2 Annual 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Annual 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

SO2 24-hour 3.7 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.7 

Wind Cave 3-hour 7.0 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.7 National Park Annual 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

PM2.5 24-hour 3.8 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 

Annual 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 

PM10 24-hour 10.9 13.3 13.6 13.0 13.3 

4-46 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
4.0 Cumulative Environ

Table 4-12. Continued Location Pollutant 

Averaging

Period 

Base Year 

(2004)

Impacts 

2015 Lower Coal 

Development

Scenario 

2015 Upper Coal 

Development

Scenario 

2020 Lower Coal 

Development

Scenario 

2020 Up

Develo

Sce

Sensitive Class II Areasc 

NO2 Annual 0.06 0.6 0.7 0.12 0.12 

Annual 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 

SO2 24-hour 2.0 3.7 4.0 2.5 2.5 

Cloud Peak 3-hour 8.0 14.3 14.3 8.9 9.0 Wilderness Area Annual 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.2 

PM2.5 24-hour 2.6 7.8 11.9 3.2 3.39 

Annual 0.5 1.6 2.1 0.7 0.7 

PM10 24-hour 7.4 22.3 34.1 9.1 9.3 

NO2 Annual 0.9 1.4 1.7 3.6 4.2 

Annual 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.7 

SO2 24-hour 14.4 14.6 14.6 14.8 14.8 

Crow 3-hour 76.8 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 Indian Reservation Annual 0.8 1.0 1.4 0.8 0.8 

PM2.5 24-hour 7.2 9.4 14.3 7.2 7.2 

Annual 2.2 2.9 4.1 2.3 2.4 

PM10 24-hour 20.5 26.9 40.7 20.6 20.6 

PSD = prevention of significant deterioration; μg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in d

matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter 

a Pristine attainment area. b No standard or increment. c Certain federal assets with Class II status for which air quality and/or visibility are valued resources. 

Bold values indicate exceedance of PSD class I or II increment. Source: 2009 update to the Task 3A Report (BLM 2009d). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-13 provides a detailed listing of visibility impacts for all analyzed Class I and sensitive 

Class II areas. 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 Park in South Dakota. For these locations, the base year showed more 

than 200 days of impacts with more than 10% light extinction (i.e., reduction in visibility). A 

10% change in light extinction corresponds to 1.0 dv, which is an expression of visibility 

impairment. 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. 

To provide a basis for discussing the modeled visibility impacts resulting from the projected 

increased production under the lower and upper coal production scenarios for 2015 and 2020, the 

visibility impacts for the base year of 2004 were subtracted from the modeled results for those 

two years. Table 4-13 shows the number of additional days that the projected impacts were 

greater than 1.0 dv (10% change in light extinction) for each site under the upper and lower coal 

production scenarios for each modeled year. Using Badlands National Park as an example, the 

analysis showed 218 days with impacts greater than 1.0 dv in 2004. Under the 2015 and 2020 

coal production scenarios, the modeling analysis projects an additional 26 and 44 days, 

respectively, with impacts greater than 1.0 dv under both the lower and upper development 

scenarios. That equates to a total of 244 to 262 days with impacts greater than 1.0 dv, 

respectively. 

Both the 2015 and 2020 modeled visibility impacts at the identified Class I areas (table 4-13) 

continue to show a similar pattern as exhibited for the baseline year (2004), with the highest 

number of days with a greater than 10% change in visibility predicted at the three most affected 

Class I areas. All but four of the sensitive Class II areas had more than 100 days with greater 

than a 10% change during the base year. The most significant visibility changes to sensitive 

Class II areas in both 2015 and 2020 are predicted for Mount Rushmore National Monument, 

followed by Black Elk Wilderness Area (table 4-13). Class II areas do not have any visibility 

protection under federal or state law. 

For acid deposition, all predicted impacts are below the deposition threshold values for both 

nitrogen and sulfur compounds. There are substantial percentage increases in deposition under 

the lower and upper coal production scenarios for 2015; however, impacts remain well below the 

nitrogen and sulfur levels of concern (1.5 and 5.0 kilograms per hectare per year, respectively). 

The acid-neutralizing capacity of sensitive lakes also was analyzed, and results are summarized 

in table 4-14. The base year study indicated that none of the lakes had predicted significant 

impacts except Upper Frozen Lake; however, the lower and upper development scenarios for 

both 2015 and 2020 show an increased impact at Florence Lake, leading to an impact above the 

10% change in acid-neutralizing capacity. Impacts also are predicted to be above 

1 microequivalent per liter for Upper Frozen Lake. 

4-48 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environ

Table 4-13. Modeled Change in Visibility Impacts at Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas 

Coal Development Scenario 

Base Year (2004) 2015 Lower 2015 Upper 2020 Lowe

Location 

No. of Days >10% Change 

in Visibility Change in No. of Days >10% in visib

Class I Areasa Badlands National Park 218 26 26 44 Bob Marshall Wilderness Area 8 0 0 0 Bridger Wilderness Area 144 2 2 5 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 91 2 2 6 Fort Peck Indian Reservation 105 10 10 20 

Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area 55 0 0 4 

Grand Teton National Park 70 2 2 6 

North Absaroka Wilderness Area 61 3 3 8 

North Cheyenne Indian Reservation 243 32 47 59 

Red Rock Lakes 42 2 2 3 

Scapegoat Wilderness Area 27 1 1 2 Teton Wilderness Area 57 4 4 8 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park 178 5 9 24 

UL Bend Wilderness Area 77 8 10 18 

Washakie Wilderness Area 83 5 5 8 

Wind Cave National Park 262 18 19 28 

Yellowstone National Park 84 2 2 5 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-13. Continued Location 

Base Year (2004) 

No. of Days >10% Change 

in Visibility 

2015 Lower 

Coal Development Scenario 

2015 Upper 2020 Lowe

Change in No. of Days >10% in visib

Sensitive Class II Areasb Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness Area 101 2 3 10 

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 251 20 20 26 

Big Horn Canyon National Rec. Area 331 1 3 1 Black Elk Wilderness Area 236 34 36 47 

Cloud Peak Wilderness Area 126 18 18 29 

Crow Indian Reservation 360 4 4 3 

Devils Tower National Monument 274 25 25 31 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 66 6 7 14 

Fort Laramie National Historic Site 260 10 10 15 

Jedediah Smith Wilderness Area 79 1 1 3 

Jewel Cave National Monument 261 19 21 36 

Lee Metcalf Wilderness Area 97 2 2 2 

Mount Naomi Wilderness Area 51 1 1 1 

Mount Rushmore National Monument 222 36 36 49 

Popo Agie Wilderness Area 139 4 4 6 

Soldier Creek Wilderness Area 268 18 18 19 

Wellsville Mountain Wilderness Area 130 10 10 17 

Wind River Indian Reservation 217 2 5 9 

a Pristine attainment area. b Certain federal assets with Class II status for which air quality and/or visibility are valued resources. 

Source: 2009 update to the Task 3A Report (BLM 2009d). 

4-50 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
4.0 Cumulative Environ

Table 4-14. Predicted Total Cumulative Change in Acid-Neutralizing Capacity of Sensitive Lakes 

Location Lake 

Background

ANC 

(μeq/L) 

Area 

(hectares) 

Base Year 

2004 Change 

(percent) 

2015 Lower Coal 

Development

Scenario Change 

(percent) 

2015 Upper Coal 

Development

Scenario Change 

(percent) 

2020 Lower Coal 

Development

Scenario Change 

(percent) 

2020 

Dev

Scena

(p

Black Joe 67.0 890 4.00 4.11 4.11 4.26 

Bridger Wilderness Area 

DeepHobbs

 60.0 

70.0 

205 293 

4.70 3.95 

4.82 4.03 

4.82 4.03 

4.98 4.14 

Upper Frozen 5.0 64.8 2.42 2.47 2.48 2.55 

Cloud Peak Wilderness Area 

EmeraldFlorence

 55.3 

32.7 

293 

417 

5.24 

9.09 

5.97 

10.41

6.02 

 10.48 

6.69 

11.79 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 

Ross 53.5 4,455 2.72 2.79 2.79 2.89 

Popo Agie Wilderness Area 

Lower Saddlebag 55.5 155 6.28 6.42 6.43 6.65 

μeq/L = microequivalents per liter a Data for Upper Frozen Lake presented in changes in μeq/L rather than percent change (for lakes with less than 25 μeq/L background acid-neutralizing capacity). 

Bold values indicate exceedance of threshold percent. Source: 2009 update to the Task 3A Report (BLM 2009d). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The study also modeled impacts of selected hazardous air pollutant emissions (benzene, ethyl 

benzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane, toluene, and xylene) on receptors with the highest ambient 

impacts. The near-field receptors in Wyoming and Montana were analyzed for annual (chronic) 

and 1-hour (acute) impacts. Model results for the baseline year (2004) and the 2015 and 2020 

development scenarios show that impacts are predicted to be well below the acute reference 

exposure levels, non-carcinogenic reference concentrations for chronic inhalation, and 

carcinogenic risk threshold for all hazardous air pollutants. The maximally exposed individual’s 

carcinogenic risk factor because of benzene exposure is predicted to increase 50% as a result of 

projected development in the PRB; however, even with this substantial increase, the predicted 

risk is well below EPA carcinogenic risk thresholds. 

Comparing the updated Task 3A Report for 2020 (BLM 2009d) to the earlier update for 2015 

(BLM 2008d) shows a similar general increase in air quality effects over time compared to the 

base year. The production from conventional oil and gas and CBNG activities is projected to 

peak at 2010, with slight declines predicted over the following decade. The production from 

CBNG activities was projected to peak at 2015, with slight declines predicted over the following 

decade; however the actual development has been slower than predicted and therefore the peak 

year has been shifted later. Therefore, from these sources, expected impacts have increased 

slightly from 2015 to 2020. The coal mining and CBNG sources would be the major 

contributors to PM10 and PM2.5 impacts in the near-field between 2015 and 2020, and these 

impacts would result from the proximity of the receptors to both the operations. As noted above, 

the general south and westward trend of CBNG activity has lowered NO2 and particulate air 

quality effects projected in Montana by 2020. 

Power plants currently are the major contributors to all SO2 impacts in the near-field 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 coal mine operations and CBNG operations would continue to 

dominate the PM10 and PM2.5 impacts, the power plants would continue to dominate the SO2 

impacts (although they would continue to be below the standards), and the overall source groups 

would continue to contribute to NO2 impacts. Impacts should remain below the annual NO2 

standard for 2015 and 2020 in Wyoming and Montana. 

Based on modeling results, one of the lakes (Florence) in the Cloud Peak Class I area and one 

lake (Upper Frozen Lake) in the Bridger Class I area exceeded the acid deposition thresholds for 

both the lower and upper coal production scenarios for 2015. With the exception of Florence 

and Upper Frozen lakes, the projected increases in coal development (and power plants) are not 

expected to raise the deposition levels above the thresholds extended into 2020. The model 

results showed that the increased deposition, largely from SO2 emissions from power plants, 

exceeded the thresholds of significance for the acid-neutralizing capacity at sensitive (high 

alpine) lakes. The results indicate that with increased growth in power plant operations, the 

reduced acid-neutralizing capacity of the sensitive lakes would need to be addressed carefully for 

each proposed major development project. 

4-52 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The WDEQ 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 on 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. Reservoirs are also used throughout the basin for agricultural water 

supply. Municipal water supply comes from a combination of surface and groundwater. 

Domestic and industrial water supply primarily is from groundwater. 

The updated Task 1B Report (BLM 2009e) describes the baseline year (2002) water resource 

conditions in that study area, which comprises all of Campbell County, all of Sheridan and 

Johnson counties less the Big Horn National Forest lands to the west of the PRB, and the 

northern portion of Converse County (map 4-1). The updated Task 3B Report (BLM 2009f) 

presents potential future cumulative groundwater impacts in the area of CBNG development and 

coal mine expansion in the eastern PRB (map 4-2), and provides a cumulative impact assessment 

of surface water quality and channel stability from surface discharge of groundwater from 

CBNG development. 

4.2.4.1 Groundwater 

Five main aquifers are present in the PRB Coal Review ground water study area (map 4-1) that 

can be used for water supply: 

 Madison Aquifer System; 

 Dakota Aquifer System; 

 Fox Hills/Lance Aquifer System; 

 Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System; and 

 Quaternary Alluvial Aquifer System. 

The Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System includes the coal and overburden aquifers that are 

directly affected by surface coal mining and CBNG development. It is also a major source of 

local water supply for domestic and stock water use. Table 4-15 shows the recoverable 

groundwater in the components of the Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System. The Wasatch 

Formation is more of a local aquifer, while the Fort Union Formation is a regional aquifer. 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% 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% specific yield value for 

coal. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-53 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-15. Recoverable Groundwater in the Fort Union/Wasatch Aquifer System in 

the PRB 

Surface Average Percentage Average Specific Recoverable 

Area Formation of Sand/Coal Yield Groundwater 

Hydrogeologic Unit (acres) Thickness (feet) Sand/Coal Thickness (feet) (percent) (acre-feet)a 

Wasatch-Tongue River 5,615,609 2,035 50.0 1,018 13.0 743,121,790 

Aquifer Sandstones 

Wasatch-Tongue River 4,988,873 2,035 6.2 126 0.4 2,516,519 

Aquifer Coals 

Lebo Confining Layer 6,992,929 1,009 33.0 250 13.0 227,137,339 

Sandstones 

Tullock Aquifer Sandstones 7,999,682 1,110 52.0 430 13.0 447,246,784 

a 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. 

Source: BLM 2003. 

In response to statutory requirements and concerns, several studies and a number of modeling 

analyses have been conducted to help predict the impacts of surface coal mining on groundwater 

resources in the Wyoming portion of the PRB. Some of these studies and modeling analyses are 

discussed below. 

In 1987, the USGS, in cooperation with the WDEQ and 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, Cumulative Potential Hydrologic Impacts of Surface 

Coal Mining in the Eastern Powder River Structural Basin, Northeastern Wyoming, referred to 

herein 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 16 current mines and 6 proposed mines in the PRB 

as of 1987. 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 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. In 

response to these requirements, each existing approved mining permit includes an analysis of the 

hydrologic impacts of the surface coal mining proposed at that mine. If major amendments to 

mining and reclamation permits are proposed, then the potential cumulative impacts of the 

revisions must also be evaluated. If the proposed tract or an alternative tract configuration is 

leased to the respective applicant, the existing mining and reclamation permit for the mine must 

be revised and approved to include the new lease before it can be mined. 

The PRB Oil and Gas Project Final EIS (BLM 2003) includes a modeling analysis of the 

groundwater impacts if an additional 39,000 new CBNG wells are drilled in the PRB by the end 

4-54 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 

Task 1 and Task 2 study areas (map 4-1). 

The coal mine groundwater monitoring data are published each year by the Gillette Area 

Groundwater Monitoring Organization (GAGMO), a voluntary group formed in 1980. Members 

of GAGMO include most of the companies with operating or proposed mines in the Wyoming 

PRB, WDEQ, Wyoming SEO, BLM, USGS, and OSM. GAGMO contracts with an independent 

firm each year to publish the annual monitoring results. GAGMO also periodically publishes 

reports summarizing the water monitoring data collected since 1980 in the Wyoming PRB (e.g., 

Hydro-Engineering 1991, 1996, 2001a, and 2007). 

Another source of data on the impacts of surface coal mining on groundwater is the monitoring 

that is required by the WDEQ and administered by the mining operators. Each mine is required 

to monitor groundwater levels and water quality in the affected coal aquifers, in the shallower 

aquifers (overburden and alluvium), and in the subcoal aquifers in the area surrounding their 

operations. Monitoring wells are also required to record water levels and water quality in 

reclaimed areas. Hydrologic monitoring data and analyses are submitted to the WDEQ annually. 

The cumulative impacts on groundwater resources associated with large-scale surface coal 

mining in the eastern PRB have been identified as five major issues: 

1.	 The extent of the temporary lowering of static water levels in the aquifers around the mines 

due to dewatering associated with removal of aquifers within the mine boundaries. 

2.	 Potential overlapping drawdown due to proximity of coal mining and CBNG development. 

3.	 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. 

4.	 Changes in groundwater quality as a result of mining. 

5.	 The effects of the use of water from the subcoal Fort Union Formation by the mines. 

The first major 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. 

The GAGMO 25-year report provides actual groundwater drawdown information after 25 years 

of mining (Hydro-Engineering 2007). Of the 530 monitoring wells included in the GAGMO 25­

year report, 195 are completed in the Upper Fort Union (or Wyodak) coal beds and 193 are 

completed in the overlying sediments or interburden between the coal beds located within and 

near the mine sites in the eastern PRB. The balance of the monitoring wells are completed in 

local alluvial aquifers or in strata below the lowest coal seam mined. Since 1996, some BLM 

monitor wells have been included in the GAGMO reports. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-55 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The USGS CHIA predicted the approximate area of 5 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 

three applicant mines in the Wright area, 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 8 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 on wells outside the immediate mine area. 

Wells in the Wasatch Formation were predicted to be affected by drawdown only if they were 

within 2,000 feet of a mine pit (Martin et al. 1988). Drawdown occurs farther from the mine pits 

in the coal than in the shallower aquifers because the coal is a confined aquifer that is areally 

extensive. The area in which the shallower aquifers (Wasatch Formation, alluvium, and clinker) 

experience a 5-foot 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 in 1988 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 Upper Fort Union (or 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 that time. 

If the proposed tract or alternative tract configuration is 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. The WDEQ would use the 

revised drawdown predictions to update their cumulative hydrologic impact analysis (WDEQCHIA) for this portion of the PRB. The applicants have installed monitoring wells that would be 

used to confirm or refute drawdown predicted by analysis. These analyses would be required as 

part of the WDEQ mine permitting procedure, which is discussed in chapter 1 of this EIS. 

The updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c) defines the past and present development actions in the 

PRB study area, which comprises all of Campbell County, all of Sheridan and Johnson counties 

less the Bighorn National Forest lands, and the northern portion of Converse County (map 4-2). 

The Task 2 Report also defines the projected reasonably foreseeable development scenarios in 

4-56 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

the PRB for years 2010, 2015, and 2020, and provides the basis for the analysis of potential 

cumulative impacts in the Task 3 component of the study. 

The updated Task 3B Report (BLM 2009f) summarizes the modeled changes in groundwater 

levels projected for 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the eastern PRB within approximately 25 miles of 

the coal mines. The study area for water resources encompasses the groundwater model domain 

(map 4-2), with emphasis placed on the overlap in the groundwater drawdown areas related to 

coal mining and CBNG. Projected groundwater level changes primarily are because of CBNG 

groundwater withdrawal in the Upper Fort Union Formation and to both CBNG pumping and 

discharge along with coal mine pit dewatering in the Wasatch Formation. Near the coal mines, 

coal mine dewatering of the Upper Fort Union also has affected groundwater levels in that 

formation. Groundwater level recovery in the eastern PRB after the cessation of both CBNG 

development and coal mining, and the effect on groundwater flow paths associated with coal 

mine pit backfill and reclamation after the cessation of coal mining in the eastern PRB also were 

modeled and the results are included in the Task 3B Report. For purposes of modeling 

groundwater recovery, it was assumed that CBNG development in the eastern PRB would cease 

by 2030 and surface coal mining would cease by 2050 (BLM 2009f). 

The Task 3B Report describes the modeled cumulative groundwater impacts associated with 

ongoing coal-mine-related groundwater withdrawal in the eastern PRB for the time periods of 

2010, 2015, and 2020, and the base years used for comparison of groundwater impacts were 

2002 (the year used for calibration of the groundwater model) and 1990 (a time period prior to 

CBNG pumpage and before major expansion by the eastern PRB coal mines). The eastern PRB 

study area for water resources comprises the Coal Mine Groundwater Model (CMGM) domain 

as shown in map 4-2 (BLM 2009f). The CMGM was developed specifically for the PRB Coal 

Review study. The GAGMO databases for 1990 to 2002 were used to calibrate the groundwater 

model to best reflect conditions in the basin. 

The primary objective of the Task 3B Report is to provide an estimate of potential future 

cumulative impacts on water resources in the eastern PRB of Wyoming because of CBNG 

development and coal mining for the target years 2010, 2015, and 2020. To accomplish that 

objective, the Task 3B Report evaluated the potential groundwater impacts due only to coal mine 

dewatering. The projected locations of coal mine pits from 2002 to 2020 were used for 

placement of drain cells in the groundwater model that represent pumpage of groundwater by the 

mines. The amount of water removed by the drain cells reflects calibration to GAGMO 

monitoring wells surrounding each mine, rather than estimated or recorded discharge rates (BLM 

2009f). 

Projected groundwater level changes in the Wasatch generally are due to coal mine dewatering 

and CBNG pumping and discharge, which generally result in local mounding of groundwater in 

the Wasatch near CBNG fields and drawdown near the coal mines (BLM 2009e). The Wasatch 

Formation is not a true aquifer in that it has only discontinuous water-bearing sand units not 

consistent and uniform groundwater level over the eastern PRB; therefore, groundwater level 

drawdowns because of mining are very localized and in close proximity to the mine operation. 

For the Upper Fort Union, groundwater level changes are due to CBNG pumpage and coal mine 

dewatering. Between 2002 and 2020, the projected reduction in coal mine dewatering and the 

expected reduction in CBNG pumpage from Wright northward toward Gillette are projected to 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-57 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

result in a rebound of groundwater levels both within the coal mine boundaries and especially 

within the basin west of the coal mines (BLM 2009e). 

Based on the results of the CMGM, the effect of coal mine dewatering on the Upper Fort Union 

from 1990 to 2010 in Subregion1 in the area of the Buckskin Mine is a cumulative drawdown 

ranging from approximately 0 to 25 feet (map 4-3). Using the 2002 baseline data update, it 

shows a recovery of between 0 and 25 feet to the 1990 level in the 12 years between 1990 and 

2002. The 2002 baseline modeling also shows an additional rise in the water level of between 0 

and 25 feet from the 2010 level by the year 2015, with no change between 2015 and 2020 of the 

Upper Fort Union water levels in the area of the Buckskin Mine (map 4-4) (BLM 2009e). 

The second issue of concern is the potential for cumulative impacts on groundwater resources 

because of the proximity of coal mining and CBNG development. The Upper Fort Union 

(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 because 

of 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 Upper Fort Union Formation coal aquifer in 

the PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS (BLM 2003). Modeling was necessary because of the large 

areal extent, variability, and cumulative stresses imposed by mining and CBNG development on 

the Fort Union coal aquifers. Information from earlier studies was incorporated into the 

modeling effort for this analysis. As expected, the modeling indicated that the groundwater 

impacts from CBNG development and surface coal mining would be additive in nature and that 

the addition of CBNG development would extend the area experiencing a loss in hydraulic head 

to the west of the mining area. The GAGMO 25-year Report stated that drawdowns in all areas 

have greatly increased because of the water production from the Wyodak coal aquifer by CBNG 

producers (Hydro-Engineering 2007). 

As previously stated, the updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c) defines the projected reasonably 

foreseeable development scenarios in the PRB for years 2010, 2015, and 2020, and provides the 

basis for the analysis of potential cumulative impacts in the Task 3 component of the study. The 

updated Task 3B Report (BLM 2009f) summarizes the modeled changes in groundwater levels 

projected for 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the eastern PRB within approximately 25 miles of the coal 

mines. Projected groundwater level changes primarily are due to CBNG groundwater 

withdrawal in the Upper Fort Union Formation and to both CBNG pumping and discharge along 

with coal mine pit dewatering in the Wasatch Formation. Groundwater level recovery in the 

eastern PRB after the cessation of both CBNG development and coal mining, and the effect on 

groundwater flow paths associated with coal mine pit backfill and reclamation after the cessation 

of coal mining in the eastern PRB also were modeled and the results are included in that Task 3B 

Report. For purposes of modeling groundwater recovery, it was assumed that CBNG 

development in the eastern PRB would cease by 2030 and surface coal mining would cease by 

2050 (BLM 2009f). 

4-58 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Litt el PowderR

R74W R73W R72W iver R71W R70W

-25

14/16

T52N

100

0

-50

-25

T51N

GILLETTE

-25

WildHorseCreek 

-25

-25

T50N

I-90

0

59

T49N

Coal Mine Groundwater Model (CMGM) Domain 

Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop 

Extent of CMGM Cumulative Drawdown, in feet 

Extent of CMGM Cumulative Mounding, in feet 

Approximate Coal Mined-out Area through 2006 

Wasatch Outcrop Area 

Upper Fort Union Outcrop Area 

Lower Fort Union Outcrop Area 0 5 10 

Miles 

Note: Includes effects of coal mine groundwater pumping only. 

0 5 

Kilometers 

10 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 4-3 

Coal Mine Groundwater Model, Upper Fort Union Formation, Subregion 1—North Gillette 

1990–2010 Coal-Mine-Related Groundwater Level Drawdown 
Litt el PowderR

R74W R73W R72W iver R71W R70W

0

25

14/16

T51N T52N

I-90

WildHorseCreek 

-25

0

-25

T50N

59

T49N

Coal Mine Groundwater Model (CMGM) Domain 

Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop 

Extent of CMGM Cumulative Drawdown, in feet 

Extent of CMGM Cumulative Mounding, in feet 

Approximate Coal Mined-out Area through 2006 

Wasatch Outcrop Area 

Upper Fort Union Outcrop Area 

Lower Fort Union Outcrop Area 0 5 10 

Miles 

Note: Includes effects of coal mine groundwater pumping only. 

0 5 

Kilometers 

10 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 4-4 

Coal Mine Groundwater Model, Upper Fort Union Formation, Subregion 1—North Gillette 

1990–2020 Coal-Mine-Related Groundwater Level Drawdown 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The Task 3B Report describes the modeled cumulative groundwater impacts associated with 

ongoing CBNG-related groundwater withdrawal in the eastern PRB for the time periods of 2010, 

2015, and 2020, and the base years used for comparison of groundwater impacts were 2002 (the 

year used for calibration of the groundwater model) and 1990 (a time period prior to CBNG 

pumpage and before major expansion by the eastern PRB coal mines). 

The primary objective of the Task 3B Report is to provide an estimate of potential future 

cumulative impacts on water resources in the eastern PRB of Wyoming because of CBNG 

development and coal mining for the target years 2010, 2015, and 2020. To accomplish that 

objective, the Task 3B Report evaluated the potential groundwater impacts due only to CBNG 

development by estimating groundwater pumpage rates through analysis of past patterns in 

CBNG development and groundwater pumpage in the eastern PRB. The locations of surface 

discharge of groundwater (outfalls) were represented in the CMGM as recharge cells to allow for 

infiltration of discharge water into the Wasatch Formation (BLM 2009f). 

Projected groundwater level changes in the Wasatch generally are because of coal mine 

dewatering and CBNG pumping and discharge, which generally result in local mounding of 

groundwater in the Wasatch near CBNG fields and drawdown near the coal mines (BLM 2009e). 

For the Upper Fort Union, groundwater level changes are due to CBNG pumpage and coal mine 

dewatering. Between 2002 and 2020, the expected reduction in coal mine dewatering and 

CBNG pumpage from Wright northward toward Gillette are projected to result in a rebound of 

groundwater levels both within the coal mine boundaries and especially within the basin west of 

the coal mines (BLM 2009e). 

Based on the results of the CMGM, CBNG pumpage on the Upper Fort Union from 1990 to 

2010 in Subregions 1 and 3 results in two areas of drawdown. One extensive area is in 

Subregion3, centered just southwest of Wright, and covers nearly 15 townships. Drawdowns in 

that area range from 25 feet on the southern margin to 575 feet in the center of the depression. 

The second drawdown area is much smaller and is located in Subregion 1, approximately 10 

miles west of Buckskin Mine the mines in this subregion (map 4-5). Drawdowns in this area 

range from 25 feet on the eastern margin to 50 feet at the Task 3 study area boundary for the 

water model. The modeled drawdown in the Upper Fort Union because of CBNG pumpage from 

1990 to 2015 in Subregion 1 is projected to decrease to between 0 feet and 20 feet, with the 

center located northwest of the Buckskin Mine and other mines in this subregion by 

approximately 7 miles. The modeled drawdown in the Upper Fort Union because of CBNG 

pumpage for the 1990 data set for 2020 in Subregion 1 (map 4-6) is projected to be similar to the 

2015 projection. Using the updated 2002 data, Subregion 1 for 2015 the projection is for a 

rebound of between 0 and 25 feet centered just north of Gillette, Wyoming. For the 2002–2020 

projection the model predicts a 0 to 10 foot drawdown in the area north of Gillette, Wyoming, 

and a rebound of 0 to 10 feet west of Gillette, Wyoming (BLM 2009e). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-61 
Litt el PowderR

R74W R73W R72W iver R71W R70W

-50

14/16

T51N T52N

-25

GILLETTE

WildHorseCreek 

T50N

I-90

59

T49N

Coal Mine Groundwater Model (CMGM) Domain 

Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop 

Extent of CMGM Cumulative Drawdown, in feet 

Extent of CMGM Cumulative Mounding, in feet 

Approximate Coal Mined-out Area through 2006 

Wasatch Outcrop Area 

Upper Fort Union Outcrop Area 

Lower Fort Union Outcrop Area 0 5 10 

Miles 

Note: Includes effects of coal mine groundwater pumping only. 

0 5 

Kilometers 

10 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 4-5 

Coal Mine Groundwater Model, Upper Fort Union Formation, Subregion 1—North Gillette 

1990–2010 CBNG-Related Groundwater Level Drawdown 
-50

Litt el PowderR

R74W R73W R72W iver R71W R70W

14/16

T51N T52N

GILLETTE

WildHorseCreek 

T50N

I-90

-25

59

T49N

Coal Mine Groundwater Model (CMGM) Domain 

Approximate Wyodak Coal Outcrop 

Extent of CMGM Cumulative Drawdown, in feet 

Extent of CMGM Cumulative Mounding, in feet 

Approximate Coal Mined-out Area through 2006 

Wasatch Outcrop Area 

Upper Fort Union Outcrop Area 

Lower Fort Union Outcrop Area 0 5 10 

Miles 

Note: Includes effects of coal mine groundwater pumping only. 

0 5 

Kilometers 

10 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 4-6 

Coal Mine Groundwater Model, Upper Fort Union Formation, Subregion 1—North Gillette 

1990–2020 CBNG-Related Groundwater Level Drawdown 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

There is a potential for conflicts to occur over who (coal mine or CBNG operators) is responsible 

for replacing or repairing private wells that are adversely affected by the drawdowns; however, 

the number of potentially affected wells completed in the coal is not large. As discussed 

previously, coal companies are required by state and federal law to mitigate any water rights that 

are interrupted, discontinued, or diminished by coal mining. In response to concerns about the 

potential impacts of CBNG development on water rights, a group of CBNG operators and local 

landowners developed a standard water well monitoring and mitigation agreement that can be 

used on a case-by-case basis as development proceeds. All CBNG operators on federal oil and 

gas leases are required to offer this water well agreement to the surface landowners (BLM 2003). 

The effect of replacing the coal and overburden with backfill is the third major groundwater 

issue of concern. The following discussion of recharge, movement, and discharge of water in the 

backfill aquifer is an excerpt 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 (HydroEngineering 1991, 1996, 2001a, and 2007). 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% of the 

51 backfill wells reported at that time (Hydro-Engineering 1991). In the GAGMO 20-year 

report, 79% of the 82 backfill wells measured contained water (Hydro-Engineering 2001a). In 

the GAGMO 25-year report, 86% of the 101 backfill wells measured contained water (HydroEngineering 2007). 

The outcrop areas of the Fort Union coal seams are zones of burned coal referred to as clinker (or 

scoria). These are zones of high secondary permeability and are the main recharge zones for the 

Fort Union Formation (BLM 2009d). Clinker occurs all along the Wyodak-Anderson coal 

outcrop on the eastern side of the PRB (Ellis et al. 1999), and is a major groundwater recharge 

source for the backfill just as it is for the coal aquifer. Some clinker is mined for road-surfacing 

material, but saturated clinker is not generally mined since abundant clinker exists above the 

water table and does not present the mining problems that would result from mining saturated 

clinker. Therefore, the major recharge source for the backfill aquifer is not being disturbed by 

current mining. Clinker occurs along the eastern edge of the Buckskin Mine, and along the 

northeastern edge of the Hay Creek II general analysis area. 

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 proposed tract or alternative 

tract configuration. Because the mined-out areas are being backfilled and the monitoring data 

demonstrate that recharge of the backfill is occurring, substantial additional cumulative impacts 

are not anticipated as a result of the pending leasing actions. 

4-64 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The updated Task 3B Report (BLM 2009f) summarizes the modeled recovery of groundwater 

levels once the CBNG development and coal mining operations have ceased. For CBNG 

development, it was assumed that groundwater pumping in the eastern PRB would end in 2030. 

For coal mining, it was assumed that open-pit dewatering in advance of mining, as well as mine 

reclamation, would end in 2050. Groundwater recovery related to the cessation of coal mining 

started in year 2050, with groundwater discharge rates remaining constant at the projected 2020 

rate from year 2020 to 2050. The Upper Fort Union shows recovery after 50 to 100 years (2100 

to 2150) and substantial recovery after 200 years (year 2250). Both the Wasatch and Upper Fort 

Union are projected to rebound and reach approximately 80% of steady-state after 300 to 500 

years, or between years 2350 and 2550. When the Fort Union and Wasatch formations of the 

eastern PRB recover to near steady-state conditions, based on the resaturation modeling, 

groundwater will flow through the coal mine backfill aquifers and westward into the PRB (BLM 

2009e). 

The fourth issue of concern with respect to cumulative groundwater impacts is the effect of 

mining on water quality. Specifically, what effect mining has on the water quality in the 

surrounding area and the potential water quality problems in the backfill aquifer following 

mining. 

In the Wyoming PRB, the backfill material gradually resaturates with water as groundwater from 

the Wasatch Aquifer and the Fort Union coal bed aquifers enters the backfill material. 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 Fort Union 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). 

Water quality samples from coal mine backfill monitor wells along the eastern PRB typically 

have a pH between 6.0 and 7.8, TDS in the range of 1,000 to 4,000 mg/L, bicarbonate values 

ranging from 500 to 1,300 mg/L, sodium in the range of 200 to 800 mg/L, high sulfate values 

ranging from 1,000 to 3,500 mg/L, and SAR values in the range of 2.0 to 7.0 (HydroEngineering 2001a). The 2000 Annual GAGMO report (Hydro-Engineering 2001b) evaluated 

samples from 48 backfill wells in 1999 and found that the TDS in 75% were less than 5,000 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-65 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

mg/L, TDS in 23% 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% of the wells were within the 

acceptable range for the Wyoming livestock standard, with 25% exceeding that standard (Ogle 

2004). 

The WDEQ calculated a median TDS concentration of 3,293 mg/L for the backfill aquifer in the 

east-central area of the PRB, which includes the four mines located immediately south of 

Gillette, based on 1,384 samples (Ogle et al. 2005). These results suggest that the TDS in the 

backfill aquifer in the middle group of mines meets the requirements for livestock use and is 

similar to TDS found in the undisturbed Wasatch Formation overburden but typically larger than 

TDS found in the Wyodak coal aquifer. 

The 2005 Annual GAGMO Report (Hydro-Engineering 2006) indicates that TDS concentrations 

in 2005 ranged from 656 mg/L at well RW2804 (at the Belle Ayr Mine) to 12,409 mg/L at well 

SP-4-NA (at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine). The GAGMO 25-Year Report (HydroEngineering 2007) reported samples collected from 57 backfill monitoring wells, and of the last 

samples that were collected from those wells in 2005, the TDS concentrations ranged from a low 

of 656 mg/L to and high of 12,409 mg/L, with an average of 3,800 mg/L and a median of 3,670 

mg/L. The WDEQ calculated a median TDS concentration of 3,670 mg/L based on 869 samples 

collected from monitoring wells with at least 15 years of data that are completed in the backfill at 

the three applicant mines included in this analysis, and concluded that the recovered 

concentrations will be suitable for post-mining land use (Ogle and Calle 2006). The incremental 

effect on groundwater quality because of leasing and mining the proposed tract or alternative 

tract configuration would be to increase the total volume of backfill and, thus, the time for 

equilibrium to reestablish. 

The updated Task 3B Report (BLM 2009f) predicts that resaturation of coal mine pit backfill to 

form backfill aquifers may take approximately 100 years after cessation of mining and is 

projected to result in the westward migration of groundwater with elevated TDS levels. 

Modeling of this westward migration indicates that TDS levels should be down to the average 

background value of 1,000 mg/L within 2,000 feet of the final westward extent of the coal mine 

boundaries. Thus, no impact on groundwater quality in either the Wasatch or Upper Fort Union 

aquifers is expected beyond approximately 2,000 feet west of the final coal mine boundaries 

(BLM 2009e). 

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 water-level declines in the subcoal Fort Union wells occur within 1 mile of the pumped 

wells (Crist 1991, Martin et al. 1988). Most of the mines have water supply wells completed in 

zones below the lowest coal seam mined (e.g., subcoal Fort Union Formation and the underlying 

Lance-Fox Hills aquifer), but the mine facilities in the PRB are separated by a distance of 1 mile 

or more, so little interference between mine supply wells would be expected (see section 

3.5.1.2). 

4-66 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 may be similar and are 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 used 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 feet or more, a drawdown of 100 to 200 feet in the vicinity of a pumped well would not 

dewater the aquifer. 

Most of the existing coal mines in the PRB have permits from the Wyoming SEO for subcoal 

Fort Union Formation water supply wells. Two industrial water supply wells within Buckskin 

Mine’s existing permit area are completed in the Fort Union Formation. Extending the life of the 

Buckskin Mine by issuing a new lease would result in additional water being withdrawn from the 

subcoal Fort Union Formation, but no new subcoal water supply wells would be required. The 

additional water withdrawal would not be expected to extend the area of water level drawdown 

over a substantially larger area because of the discontinuous nature of the sands in the Tullock 

Member and the fact that drawdown and yield reach equilibrium in a well because of recharge 

effects. Because of 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 Buckskin Mine. The 

Wyoming SEO is discouraging further development of the lower Fort Union Formation aquifers, 

so the most likely groundwater source for future power plants is the Lance-Fox Hills Aquifer 

System. This would reduce the chances that the power plants would add to cumulative 

hydrologic impacts of mining and CBNG production. 

4.2.4.2 Surface Water 

The Powder River structural basin of Wyoming, often referred to as the PRB, encompasses five 

major drainages. The drainages in the northern portion of the basin include the Powder River, 

Tongue River, and Little Powder River. In the central and southern parts of the basin, the major 

drainages are the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne rivers. Surface water flows to the north into 

Montana in the northern part of the basin and to the east-northeast into South Dakota in the 

southern and central parts of the basin. The discussion of water resources in the PRB focuses on 

two main issues: 1) current water use in the basin and 2) industrial use of water resources by the 

coal mines and CBNG industries. The discussion of water use in the PRB Coal Review for the 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-67 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Wyoming PRB is divided into two major water planning areas: the Powder/Tongue River Basin 

and the Northeast Wyoming River Basins (BLM 2009d). 

The main rivers in the Powder/Tongue River Basin are the Tongue River and the Powder River. 

The basin receives substantial surface water runoff from the Big Horn Mountains, leading to 

major agricultural development along drainages in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. Reservoirs 

are used throughout the basin for agricultural water supply and for municipal water supply in the 

Powder/Tongue River Basin. Water use in the Powder/Tongue River Basin as of 2002 is 

summarized in table 4-16. 

Table 4-16. Water Use as of 2002 in the Powder/Tongue River Basin (acre-feet per year) 

Water Use Dry Year Normal Year Wet Year 

Categories Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground 

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 

Industriala — 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 

a Includes conventional oil and gas production water and CBNG production water. 

Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002a. 

The Little Bighorn River, Tongue River, Powder River, Crazy Woman Creek, and Piney Creek 

carry the largest natural flows in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. Many of the other major 

drainages are affected by irrigation practices to the extent that their flows are not natural (HKM 

Engineering et al. 2002a). Water availability in the major subbasins of the Powder/Tongue River 

Basin is summarized in table 4-17. This table presents the amount of surface water in acre-feet 

that is physically available above and beyond allocated surface water in these drainages. As a 

result of the Yellowstone River Compact, Wyoming must share some of the physically available 

surface water in the Powder/Tongue River Basin with Montana. 

4-68 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-17. Surface Water Availability in the Powder/Tongue River Basin (acre-feet per 

year) 

Surface Water Availability 

Subbasin Wet Years Normal Years Dry Years 

Little Bighorn River 152,000 113,000 81,000 

Tongue River 473,000 326,000 218,000 

Clear Creek 213,000 124,000 80,000 

Crazy Woman Creek 69,000 32,000 16,000 

Powder River 547,000 324,000 16,000 

Little Powder River 48,000 12,000 3,000 

Total 1,502,000 931,000 414,000 

Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002a. 

The main rivers in the Northeast Wyoming river basins are the Belle Fourche in Campbell and 

Crook counties and the Cheyenne River in Converse, Weston, and Niobrara counties. Water in 

these rivers and their tributaries comes from groundwater baseline flow and from precipitation, 

especially from heavy storms during the summer months. Most surface flow in Northeast 

Wyoming River Basins is intermittent to ephemeral and streamflows are typically dominated by 

irrigation practices to the extent that their flows are unnatural (HKM Engineering et al. 2002a). 

Water use in the Northeast Wyoming river basins as of 2002 is summarized in table 4-18. 

Table 4-18. Water Use as of 2002 in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins 

Dry Year Normal Year Wet Year 

(acre-feet per year) 

Water Use Categories Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground 

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 

Industriala — 46,000 — 46,000 — 46,000 

Industrial (Other)b — 4,700 — 4,700 — 4,700 

Recreation Non-consumptive 

Environmental Non-consumptive 

Evaporation 14,000 — 14,000 — 14,000 — 

(Key Reservoirs) 

Evaporation (Stock Ponds) 6,300 — 6,300 — 6,300 — 

Total 85,300 74,400 89,300 80,400 91,300 80,400 

a Includes conventional oil and gas production water and CBNG production water. 

b Includes electricity generation, coal mining, and oil refining. 

Source: HKM Engineering et al. 2002b. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-69 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 subbasins of the northeast Wyoming river basin is 

summarized in table 4-19. 

Table 4-19. Surface Water Availability in the Northeast Wyoming River Basins 

Surface Water Availability 

(acre-feet per year) 

Subbasin 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. 

The updated Task 3B Report (BLM 2009f) summarizes the modeled changes in surface water 

quality as a result of CBNG, conventional oil and gas, and surface coal mining development 

projected for 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the eastern PRB within approximately 25 miles of the coal 

mines. The base year used for comparison of surface water quality impacts was 2003. A stream 

channel stability analysis was also conducted to evaluate the potential effects to stream channels 

because of projected CBNG production water discharge. The surface water resources in the 

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. Projected cumulative surface water impacts 

primarily include the impacts of CBNG production water discharge to ephemeral drainages and 

the surface disturbance and subsequent reclamation of drainages that result from coal mine 

expansion. 

Surface water quality impacts for target years 2010, 2015, and 2020 were estimated using a 

linear model developed by Anderson Consulting Engineers (2009) and the projected water 

discharge volumes presented in the updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c). Projected changes in 

surface water quality are due to mixing of predicted CBNG production water discharge with 

natural flow in the modeled drainages. For CBNG discharge, the direct discharge to ephemeral 

drainages for each drainage basin was used as a guide for modeling water quality or estimating 

impacts on channel stability and channel properties. For the coal mines, most of the water 

produced was expected to be consumed, according to estimates provided by the mine operators 

and included in that Task 2 Report. Where production exceeded estimated consumption for the 

coal mines in any given drainage basin, it was assumed that the discharged water would go first 

to holding ponds and then to nearby ephemeral drainages in accordance with Wyoming Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System permits, thereby minimizing the potential for degradation of water 

quality and impacts on channel stability. 

4-70 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-10 summarizes the cumulative baseline (2003), actual (2007), 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 subwatersheds in the study area (map 4-2). 

Discrete locations for development disturbance and reclamation areas cannot be determined 

based on existing information. However, the projected disturbance would primarily involve the 

construction of additional linear facilities, product gathering lines, and road systems associated 

with conventional oil and gas and CBNG activities, plus additional disturbance associated with 

extending coal mining operations onto lands adjacent to the existing mines. 

Surface-disturbing activities can result in sediment input to local water bodies. This affects the 

water quality parameters such as turbidity and bottom substrate composition. Contaminants also 

can be introduced into water bodies through chemical characteristics of the sediment. Studies 

have shown that TDS levels in streams near reclaimed coal mine areas have increased from 1% 

to 7% (Martin et al. 1988). Typically, sedimentation effects are short-term in duration and 

localized in terms of the affected area. Suspended sediment concentrations would stabilize and 

return to typical background concentrations after construction or development activities have 

been completed. It is anticipated that sediment input associated with development disturbance 

areas would be minimized by implementing appropriate erosion control measures, as would be 

determined during future permitting. 

Future coal mining could remove intermittent or ephemeral streams and stockponds in the Little 

Powder River, Upper Belle Fourche River, Upper Cheyenne River, and Antelope Creek 

subwatersheds. As discussed in section 3.5.2, the Buckskin Mine is in the Little Powder River 

subwatershed. Coal mine permits provide for removal of first- through fourth-order drainages. 

During reclamation, third- and fourth-order drainages must be restored; first- and second-order 

drainages often are not replaced (Martin et al. 1988). 

Coal-mining-related surface water would be discharged into intermittent and ephemeral streams 

in four subwatersheds (Antelope Creek, Little Powder River, Upper Belle Fourche River, and 

Upper Cheyenne River). Based on current trends, it is assumed that most, if not all, of the coalmine-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. 

Of particular importance is the amount of production water that is directly conveyed to the 

receiving drainages. Based on information and data presented in the updated Task 1B and Task 

2 reports (BLM 2009e and 2009b, respectively), it is assumed that the production water 

discharged directly to the receiving drainages would be limited to CBNG water discharge. 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 study area (Antelope Creek, Dry Fork Cheyenne River, Upper Cheyenne 

River, Upper Belle Fourche River, Upper Powder River, and Little Powder River) (map 4-2). 

The Task 3B Report (BLM 2009f) uses the surface water model described in the Surface Water 

Quality Analysis Technical Report (Greystone and ALL Consulting 2003), which was prepared 

in support of the PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS (BLM 2003), to evaluate the cumulative impacts 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-71 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

on surface water quality from surface discharge of CBNG development. The linear model used 

by Anderson Consulting Engineers (2009) to predicted future cumulative surface water quality 

impacts combined stream flows and stream water quality with the predicted CBNG discharge 

water quantity and quality for each subwatershed for 2010, 2015, and 2020, and the base year for 

comparison for surface water quality impacts was 2003. 

Based on past monitoring in receiving streams, most CBNG discharge water (70–90%) either 

infiltrates or evaporates within a few miles of the discharge points and generally is not recorded 

at USGS stream gauge stations. Impacts on surface water flow and quality are, therefore, 

generally limited to within a few miles of the discharge point. In view of this, the updated Task 

3B water quality impact analysis assumes a conveyance loss of 70% 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 agricultural 

irrigation. Consequently, the SAR, and salinity, measured by electrical conductivity (EC), were 

used for this prediction. SAR is a measure of the amount of sodium in the water that can react 

with clays and, thus, reduce infiltration into soils and the ultimate use of the soil for growing 

crops. EC is a measure of the total dissolved solids. The most restrictive proposed limit 

(MRPL) and least restrictive proposed limit (LRPL) regulatory standards for EC and SAR are set 

for each subwatershed by the WDEQ in conjunction with neighboring states that receive flow 

across state boundaries from the specified stream in the watershed. These limits refer to the 

desired concentrations for SAR and EC and are used as guidelines for evaluating potential 

impacts on water quality. The limits presented in table 4-20 were used during the comparison of 

EC and SAR values for resulting mixtures of existing streamflows and discharges from CBNG 

wells under various flow conditions and reasonably foreseeable development projections for 

2010, 2015, and 2020. 

Table 4-20.	 Summary of Proposed Limits for Sodium Absorption Ratios and Electrical 

Conductivity 

Most Restrictive Proposed Limit (MRPL) Least Restrictive Proposed Limit (LRPL) 

Subwatershed SAR EC (μS/cm) SAR EC (μS/cm) 

Little Powder 5.00 2,000 9.75 2,500 

Upper Powder 2.00 2,000 9.75 2,500 

Belle Fourche 6.00 2,000 10.00 2,500 

Cheyenne River & 10.00 2,000 10.00	 2,500 Antelope Creek 

SAR = sodium absorption ratio; EC= electrical conductivity; μS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter 

Source: Wyoming DEQ, Montana DEQ, and South Dakota Legislative Council. 

The cumulative impacts on surface water quality focused on reasonably foreseeable development 

scenarios for normal and dry year conditions to show the difference based on streamflow and 

climate. Wet years were not analyzed because increased runoff and stream flow would result in 

potential water quality impacts considerably less than normal and dry year reasonably 

foreseeable development scenarios. The impact analysis, conducted using monthly flows, 

4-72 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 on 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 study area. 

These general observations are summarized below. 

Normal Year Conditions 

Antelope Creek. Before mixing, 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, from 2003 to 2020, EC is projected to decline, and SAR values are 

projected to increase. The data indicate that the MRPL and LRPL would not be exceeded for 

either EC or SAR after mixing or CBNG production waters. Based on the data, surface water is 

projected to be suitable for irrigation use in all months. 

Dry Fork of the Cheyenne River. Before mixing, 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. There is no projected discharge of CBNG production 

water to the drainage through 2020. Therefore, surface water quality conditions for 2010, 2015, 

and 2020 would be the same as for the base year (2003). 

Upper Cheyenne River. Before mixing, the SAR levels do not exceed the MRPL and the EC 

levels exceed the MRPL for 11 months of the year and the LRPL for 9 months of the year. After 

mixing, from 2003 to 2010, EC is projected to decrease, and SAR values would not change. 

There is no projected discharge of CBNG production water to the drainage in 2015 and 2020. 

Based on the data, EC values would exceed the MRPL, except for August 2010, and exceed the 

LRPL, except for July through September 2010. SAR values would not exceed the MRPL and 

LRPL. Based on the data, surface water would remain suitable for irrigation from 2010 to 2020. 

Upper Belle Fourche. Before mixing, the SAR levels exceed the MRPL from November 

through 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, from 2003 to 2015, EC is projected to decline and SAR is projected to increase slightly. 

There is no projected discharge of CBNG production water to the drainage in 2020; therefore, 

EC and SAR values for this time period would be the same as projected for the base year (2003). 

The data indicate that EC would not exceed the MRPL, except for October in 2010 and October 

through January in 2015, and would not exceed the LRPL. The projected SAR values would 

exceed the MRPL from August to January in 2010 and from September to January 2015, and 

would not exceed the LRPL for all months. Based on the data, surface water is projected to be 

suitable for irrigation to 2020. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-73 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Upper Powder River. Before mixing, 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, from 2003 to 2015, EC is projected to decrease slightly, and SAR values would increase 

slightly. There is no projected discharge of CBNG production water to the drainage in 2020; 

therefore, EC and SAR values for this time period would be the same as projected for the base 

year (2003). The data indicate that EC values would exceed the MRPL, except for May and June 

for 2010 and 2015, and would exceed the LRPL during July through December from 2010 to 

2015. SAR values would exceed the MRPL, except for March in 2010 and 2015 and May in 

2015, and would not exceed the LRPL. Based on the data, surface water is projected to remain 

suitable for irrigation from 2010 to 2015. 

Little Powder River. 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, 

from 2003 to 2020, EC is projected to increase slightly. The data indicate that EC values would 

exceed the MRPL except for March and May during 2010, and March during 2015 and 2020; 

however, it would not exceed the LRPL except for January and August from 2010 to 2020, and 

also in September, November, and December from 2015 to 2020. SAR values are projected to 

exceed the MRPL and not exceed the LRPL. Based on the data, surface water is projected to 

remain suitable for irrigation to 2020. 

Dry Year Conditions 

Antelope Creek. After mixing, from 2003 to 2020, EC values would be reduced because of 

mixing with CBNG waters and SAR values would increase. The data indicate that the MRPL 

and LRPL would not be exceeded for either EC or SAR for all years. Based on the data, surface 

water would remain suitable for irrigation except for June and August from 2010 to 2020. 

Dry Fork of the Cheyenne River. There is no projected discharge of CBNG production water to 

the drainage through 2020. Therefore, surface water quality conditions would be the same as for 

the base year (2003).for all years to 2020. 

Upper Cheyenne River. After mixing, from 2003 to 2010, EC values would decline, and SAR 

values would increase slightly. There is no projected discharge of CBNG production water to 

the drainage in 2015 and 2020. EC values would exceed the MRPL except for August 2010; the 

LRPL would be exceeded except for July to September 2010. For SAR, neither the MRPL nor 

the LRPL would be exceeded. Based on the data, surface water would remain suitable for 

irrigation to 2020. 

Upper Belle Fourche. After mixing, from 2003 to 2015, EC values would decline, and SAR 

values would increase slightly. There is no projected discharge of CBNG production water to 

the drainage in 2020. EC values would not exceed the MRPL or LRPL from 2010 to 2015. SAR 

values would exceed the MRPL in 2010, except for March and July, and also would exceed the 

MRPL from August to January 2015. Based on the data, surface water would be unsuitable for 

irrigation from August to October during 2010 and in October 2015. 

Upper Powder River. After mixing, from 2003 to 2015, EC vales would decrease slightly, and 

SAR values would increase slightly. There is no projected discharge of CBNG production water 

4-74 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

to the drainage in 2020. EC values would exceed the MRPL except for the months of May and 

June 2010 and 2015, and the LRPL would be exceeded July through December for 2010 and 

2015. SAR values would exceed the MRPL, except for May and June 2015, and would not 

exceed the LRPL for all years. Based on the data, surface water would remain suitable for 

irrigation to 2020. 

Little Powder River. After mixing, from 2003 to 2020, the EC would be reduced and the SAR 

would increase. The MRPL would be exceeded for all years for EC during the months of 

February, April, June, and August in 2010; during November through February and during April, 

June, and August in 2015; and all months except March in 2020. EC values would exceed the 

LRPL in September 2010; August 2015; and January, August November, and December 2020. 

SAR values would exceed the MRPL in all months and years except March 2015 and March and 

May 2020. The LRPL for SAR would be exceeded in September 2010. The water would remain 

suitable for irrigation from 2010 to 2020 except for September and October 2010. 

In summary, the suitability of the mixed water for irrigation purposes 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 these six drainages, the 

projected water quality after mixing demonstrated adequate suitability for irrigation in most 

months during normal year conditions. The MRPL and LRPL may be exceeded for EC and SAR 

in 1 or more years and in any given year for 1 or more months, but not for all months in the year. 

During dry year conditions, the suitability of surface waters in the six drainages for irrigation 

generally would be reduced because of the greater percentages of CBNG water in the drainage 

after mixing. Both the EC and SAR values would exceed the MRPL and LRPL more frequently 

compared to normal year flows. Even though the waters’ suitability for irrigation would be 

reduced (except for the Belle Fourche River) surface water generally would remain suitable for 

irrigation during the majority of months of the irrigation season. 

4.2.5 Channel Stability 

In general, cumulative impacts on channel stability largely relate to changes in water quantity 

associated with discharges from existing and projected development activities as compared to the 

natural runoff characteristics of the receiving drainages. For this evaluation, Anderson 

Consulting Engineers (2009) assumed that water discharged directly to the receiving drainages 

would be limited to CBNG activities, which are projected to be the primary source of discharge 

water in the PRB hydrologic study area (see fig 4-2) through 2020. 

To the extent possible, the impact on perennial drainages was addressed quantitatively at the 

subwatershed level using regression equations related to discharge and channel width. 

Geomorphic relationships between mean annual discharge, channel gradient and geometry, bed 

load, and median sediment size also were used to provide a qualitative assessment of potential 

impacts associated with the discharge of CBNG production water. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-75 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

To have an impact on channel stability that is manifested in active channel erosion, CBNG 

production water discharge likely would have to represent a substantial portion of the channelforming discharge in watersheds where the channel slope is steep enough and the width, depth, 

and sinuosity low enough to impact channel morphology. Channel-forming discharge was 

estimated using the peak annual discharge recurrence interval and the common range for 

channel-forming discharge between the 1.5- to 2.0-year recurrence interval. Based on the 

magnitude of the projected CBNG production water discharges compared to the channel-forming 

discharge (1.5- to 2.0-year recurrence interval), the impact more likely would be evident in small 

ephemeral drainages that are characterized by steep channel gradients, lower sinuosity, and 

smaller widths and depths. Overall, as the drainage area increases, the channel slope typically 

decreases along with an increase in sinuosity, thereby reducing the impact of CBNG production 

water discharge on channel stability. 

The channel-forming discharge for both the Little Powder River and Belle Fourche River is 

given in table 4-21. The perennial stream evaluation calculated the change in channel width for 

the Little Powder River as less than 0.3%. For the Belle Fourche River, it was calculated to be 

less than 0.2% (table 4-21) (Anderson Consulting Engineers 2009). 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. These results suggest that for the larger perennial streams the effect of CBNG 

production water discharge would be minimal 

Table 4-21. Impact of CBNG Production Water on Perennial Streams 

Location 

Channel 

Forming 

Dischargea 

(cfs) 

CBNG Discharge 

(cfs) (%) 

Estimated Width (feet) 

Existing 

Conditions 

Combined 

Discharge

Potential Impact 

(Increased Channel Width) 

 (feet) (%) 

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 0.5 66.9 67.0 0.16 

Moorcroft, Wyoming 652 to 789 3.9 to to to to 0.2 

(USGS Gage 06426500) 0.6 72.1 72.2 0.14 

cfs = cubic feet per second 

a 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 ephemeral stream channel. Given the potentially greater increase in stream flow 

due to a lower natural flow, channel geomorphology is more likely to be perceptible. Smaller 

drainages may be more likely to exhibit channel erosion depending on the magnitude of the flow 

contribution from CBNG water production compared to the channel-forming discharge. 

However, field observations in these watersheds found an increase in vegetation diversity and 

density along the channel. 

In the updated Task 3B Report (BLM 2009f), there is a discussion of a special study that was 

done of the Caballo Creek drainage in the Belle Ayr Mine permit area, to see how reclaimed 

4-76 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

drainages were affected by increased CBNG discharges. It was determined that CBNG 

discharge represented less than 1% of the two-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. Based on the relative magnitude of the flow contribution from 

CBNG production water discharge to the flow in Caballo Creek, the minor amount of flow 

increase would not likely result in increased erosion to its channel or 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 because of relatively larger flow increases from 

CBNG discharge, such effects were not observed in the field (BLM 2009e). 

4.2.6 Alluvial Valley Floors 

The identified AVFs for all coal mines in the PRB Coal Review study area are described in the 

2005 Task 1D Report (BLM 2005e), and are 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 administers the AVF regulations for 

coal mining activities in Wyoming. Coal-mine-related impacts on 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 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. No AVFs are present in the Hay Creek II general analysis area. 

4.2.7 Soils 

The updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g) discusses potential cumulative impacts on soils from 

projected development activities in the study area for that report. The area of actual surface coal 

mining disturbance and reclamation for 2003 and 2007 and the projected cumulative areas of 

disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in table 4-2 and table 4-3. The 

area of actual disturbance and reclamation for all development in 2003 and 2007 and the 

projected cumulative total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are 

shown in table 4-10. 

Development activities such as increased vehicle traffic, vegetation removal, soil salvage and 

redistribution, discharge of CBNG produced groundwater, and construction and maintenance of 

project-specific components (e.g., roads, rights-of-way, well pads, industrial sites, and associated 

ancillary facilities) would result in cumulative impacts on soils in the study area. In general, soil 

disturbance and handling from these activities would generate both long-term and short-term 

impacts on soil resources through accelerated wind or water erosion, declining soil quality 

factors, compaction, and the removal and replacement of soil resources at mining sites. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-77 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Of the types of development projects in the study area, coal mining activities would create the 

most concentrated cumulative impacts on soils. This is due to the large acreages involved and 

the tendency of mining operations to occur in contiguous blocks. These factors would encourage 

widespread accelerated wind and water erosion. Extensive soil handling would cause 

compaction and a corresponding loss of permeability to water and air; a decline in microbial 

populations, fertility, and organic matter; and potential mixing of saline and 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 on 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 updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c), a variety of CBNG 

water disposal methods may be employed in the Task 3 study area. The potential impacts on 

soils would depend on the water treatment method, if any, and the nature of the disposal method. 

As discussed in the 2005 Task 3D Report (BLM 2005f), because of 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 

Little Powder River 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 on soils. 

4.2.8 Vegetation, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas 

The updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g) discusses potential cumulative impacts on 

vegetation, wetlands, and riparian areas from projected development activities in the Task 3 

study area. The area of actual surface coal mining disturbance and reclamation for 2003 and 

2007 and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 

2020 are shown in table 4-2 and table 4-3. The area of actual disturbance and reclamation for all 

development, in 2003 and 2007, and the projected cumulative total areas of disturbance and 

reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in table 4-10. 

4.2.8.1 Vegetation 

The PRB is characterized as a mosaic of general vegetation types, including prairie grasslands, 

shrublands, forested areas, and riparian areas. These broad categories often represent several 

vegetation types that are similar in terms of dominant species and ecological importance. 

Fourteen vegetation types were identified within the 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, 

4-78 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

urban/disturbed, barren, and open water. The vegetation types are described in more detail in the 

2005 Task 1D Report (BLM 2005e). 

Impacts on vegetation can be classified as short-term and long-term. Potential short-term 

impacts arise from removing and disturbing herbaceous species during a project’s development 

and operation (e.g., coal mining, CBNG drilling and production), which would cease upon 

project completion and successful reclamation in a given area. Reclaimed mine land is defined 

by the WDEQ as affected land that has been backfilled, graded, topsoiled, and permanently 

seeded in accordance with the approved practices specified in the reclamation plan (Christensen 

pers. comm.). 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). 

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 Forest Service sensitive species, and WGFD species of special concern 

in Wyoming. No lands administered by the USDA Forest Service are located in the Hay Creek 

II general analysis area. Species protected under the ESA, as well as BLM sensitive species, are 

discussed further in appendices J and K of this EIS. Two federally listed plant species (Ute 

ladies’-tresses orchid and blowout penstemon) and three USDA Forest Service sensitive species 

(Barr’s milkvetch, rosy palafox, and lemonscent) are known to occur or may have potentially 

suitable habitat in the updated Task 3 study area. Three BLM sensitive species may occur in the 

Task 3 study area: Nelson’s milkvetch, Laramie columbine (Casper Field Office), and William’s 

wafer-parsnip (Buffalo Field Office). 

Potential direct impacts on 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 Task 3 

study area, depending on their location in relation to development activities. Indirect impacts 

could occur because of increased dispersal and establishment of noxious weeds, which may 

result in the displacement of special-status plant species in the long term. 

4.2.8.3 Noxious and Invasive Weed Species 

Once established, invasive and nonnative 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 following 25 plant species are currently designated as 

noxious weeds by the State of Wyoming: 

 field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), 

 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), 

 leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-79 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

 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), and 

 Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.). 

The following three plant species are currently designated as noxious weeds by Campbell 

County in addition to those listed above. 

 buffalobur (Solanum rostratum Dun.), 

 common cocklebur (Iva xanthifolia Nutt.), and 

 black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger L.). 

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, resulting in 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 rights-of-way, oil- and gas-related road systems) than for site 

facilities (e.g., mines and power plants) due to the potential for dispersal of noxious weeds over a 

larger area. 

4-80 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Chapter 4, section 2(d)(xiv) of the WDEQ rules and regulations requires that surface coal mines 

address weed control on reclaimed areas as follows: 

The operator must control and minimize the introduction of noxious weeds in accordance with 

Federal and State requirements until bond release. 

Accordingly, the reclamation plans for all surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB include steps 

to control invasion by weedy (invasive nonnative) plant species. As discussed in section 3.9.4, 

the Buckskin Mine works with the Campbell County Weed and Pest Department and conducts an 

active noxious weed control program on their existing coal leases. Similar measures to identify 

and control noxious weeds are used at all of the surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB as a 

result of the WDEQ regulatory requirements. 

Mitigation to control invasion by noxious weeds for CBNG developers is determined on a 

site-specific basis and may include spraying herbicides before entering areas and washing 

vehicles before leaving infested areas. BLM reviews weed educational material during 

preconstruction on-site meetings with CBNG operators, subcontractors, and landowners. BLM 

also attaches this educational information to approved applications for permit to drill or plans of 

development (BLM 2003). BLM also participates in a collaborative effort with the South 

Goshen Cooperative Extension Conservation District, the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, private surface owners, WGFD, and the Campbell County 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 2003). 

4.2.8.4 Wetland and Riparian Species 

Operations associated with development activities in the study area would result in the use of 

groundwater. Annually, during 2010 through 2020, between 30,000 and 42,000 million gallons 

per year 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 SAR values of 13 or more could impact existing vegetation 

as discussed in the 2005 Task 1D Report (BLM 2005e). For agricultural uses, the current 

Wyoming water quality standard for SAR is 8 (WDEQ 2009). SAR values of 5 to 10 have been 

observed in discharge waters in the study area (BLM 2003). Once water discharges have peaked 

and subsequently decrease in the long term, the extent of wetlands and riparian areas and species 

diversity would decrease accordingly. After the complete cessation of water discharges, 

artificially created wetland and riparian areas once again would support upland species, and 

previously existing wetland and riparian areas would decrease in area. 

4.2.9 Wildlife and Fisheries 

The updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g) discusses potential cumulative impacts on wildlife 

from projected development activities in that study area. The area of habitat disturbance and 

reclamation for 2003 and 2007and the projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-81 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in tables 4-2 and 4-3. The area of actual habitat disturbance 

and reclamation for all development in 2003 and 2007 and the projected cumulative total habitat 

disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in table 4-10. 

Impacts on 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) 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). 

Direct impacts on wildlife populations from 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 on these species would include the incremental 

loss or alteration of potential forage and ground cover associated with construction and operation 

of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development discussed in section 4.1. 

Development associated with coal mining, drilling for CBNG, ancillary facilities, agricultural 

operations, urban areas, and transportation and utility corridors result in vegetation removal. 

Assuming that adjacent habitats would be at or near carrying capacity and considering the 

variabilities associated with drought conditions and human activities in the study area, the Task 

3D Report concluded that displacement of big game as a result of development activities would 

create some unquantifiable reduction in wildlife populations (BLM 2009g). 

A number of big game habitat ranges have been defined within the 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 updated Task 2 Report 

(BLM 2009c), 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 (BLM 2009g) to provide some level of quantification 

of potential future impacts on big game ranges. 

4-82 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Tables 4-22 through 4-25 summarize the effects on pronghorn, deer, and elk game ranges from 

the predicted lower and upper levels of coal production through 2020. 

Table 4-22.	 Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Pronghorn Ranges from Development 

Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios

 Pronghorn Rangesa (acres/percent affected) 

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% 

N/A = Not Applicable 

a 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 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 2006 disturbance from coal mine 

development. 

Source: Updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g). 

Table 4-23. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to White-tailed Deer Ranges from 

Development Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios 

White-Tailed Deer Rangesa (acres/percent affected) 

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% 

N/A = Not Applicable 

a 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 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 2006 disturbance from coal mine 

development. 

Source: Updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-24. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Mule Deer Ranges from Development 

Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios 

Mule Deer Rangesa (acres/percent affected) 

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% 

N/A = Not Applicable 

a 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 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 2006 disturbance from coal mine 

development. 

Source: Updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g). 

Table 4-25. Potential Cumulative Disturbance to Elk Ranges from Development 

Activities—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios

 Elk Rangesa (acres/percent affected) 

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% 

N/A = Not Applicable 

a 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 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 2006 disturbance from coal mine development. 

Source: Updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g). 

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 coalmine-produced water would be consumed during operation and anticipates that up to 

4-84 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

approximately 31,000 million gallons per year of water would be produced in association with 

oil and gas production in 2010, increasing to about 42,000 million gallons per year by 2020. The 

portion of the water that is produced in association with the CBNG and discharged to 

impoundments or intermittent and ephemeral streams would be available for area wildlife (e.g., 

waterfowl). Although much of the water would evaporate or infiltrate into the ground, it is 

anticipated that substantial quantities of water would remain on the surface and would result in 

the expansion of wetlands, stockponds, 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 on 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 in the PRB Coal Review 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, long-eared owl (Asio otus). Bald eagles and long-eared owls (Asio otus) are rare nesters in 

the area. 

One potential direct impact on raptors is habitat (nesting and foraging) loss because of additional 

surface disturbance in the Task 3 study area. In the event that development activities were to 

occur during the breeding season (February 1 through July 31), these activities could result in 

nest or territory abandonment, or loss of eggs or young. Such losses would reduce productivity 

for the affected species during that breeding season. As discussed above, loss of an active nest 

site, incubating adults, eggs, or young would not comply with the intent of several laws, 

including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Efforts 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-85 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

to minimize impacts on nesting raptors are addressed in each mine’s USFWS-approved avian 

monitoring and mitigation plan. 

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) (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 2006). 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 lines to flight patterns and movement corridors, species composition, 

line visibility, and structure design. Few collisions have been reported in the Task 3 study area 

because of the limited presence of perennial water bodies and other features that would attract 

large numbers of migrating waterfowl or other vulnerable species. 

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 (Avian Power Line 

Interaction Committee 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 on 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 from of development activities in the Task 3 study area 

would be closely related to impacts on ground and surface water resources. In general, 

development activities could affect fish species in the following ways: 1) alteration or loss of 

habitat as a result of surface disturbance; 2) changes in water quality as a result of surface 

disturbance or introduction of contaminants into drainages; and 3) changes in available habitat as 

a result of water withdrawals or discharge. The potential effects of development activities on 

aquatic communities are discussed below for each of these impact topics. 

The predominant aquatic habitat type in the Task 3 study area consists of intermittent and 

ephemeral streams and scattered ponds and reservoirs. In general, perennial streams within the 

study area are limited to the Little Powder River and Belle Fourche River. Warm water game 

fish and non-game species are present in some perennial stream segments and numerous 

scattered reservoirs and ponds. However, the latter features are typically stocked artificially 

either following construction or annually, depending on the depth of the water body. Due to the 

lack of constant water in most of the potentially affected streams and static water bodies, existing 

aquatic communities are mainly limited to invertebrates and algae that can persist in these types 

of habitats. The removal of stockponds would eliminate habitat for invertebrates and possibly 

fish species. This loss would be temporary if the stockponds are replaced during reclamation. 

Development activities could result in the loss of aquatic habitat as a result of direct surface 

disturbance. Table 4-10 summarizes the actual cumulative acres of surface disturbance and 

4-86 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

reclamation as of 2003 and 2007 and the projected cumulative acres of surface disturbance and 

reclamation for 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 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 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 study area 

subwatersheds. 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 were projected to be completed by mid-December 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 right-of-way; 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 stockponds in the 

Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, Upper Belle Fourche River, and Little Powder River 

subwatersheds. 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 Little 

Powder River and its tributaries drain the existing Buckskin Mine permit area and the Hay Creek 

II general analysis area. All streams in and adjacent to the general analysis area are typical for 

the region, in that flow events are ephemeral. Under natural conditions, aquatic habitat is limited 

by that ephemeral nature and seasonal occurrence of surface waters in the general analysis area. 

No uncommon fish species have been documented in baseline aquatics monitoring conducted for 

Buckskin and other mines in the PRB since the mid-1970s. Given the limited nature and extent 

of drainages and water bodies, none would be expected to occur in the Hay Creek II general 

analysis area or at other mines in the north group. Surveys for fish species of concern will be 

conducted as needed in appropriate habitat prior to disturbance. 

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 affected by 

surface disturbing activities through erosion of sediment into water bodies. Contaminants can 

also be introduced into those systems through the chemical characteristics of the eroded 

sediment. Potential related effects on aquatic biota could include physiological stress, movement 

to avoid affected areas, or alterations of spawning or rearing areas (Waters 1995). Studies have 

shown that TDS levels in streams near reclaimed coal lands have increased from 1% to 7% 

(Martin et al. 1988). Typically, sedimentation effects are short-term and localized in terms of the 

affected area. TDS concentrations would stabilize and return to more typical concentrations after 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-87 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 subwatershed. 

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 rights-of-way, 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 energy development activities in the PRB 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 from 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 subwatersheds (Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, Upper Belle Fourche 

River, and Little Powder River). 

The PRB Coal Review assumes that most, if not all, of the coal-mine-produced water would be 

consumed during operation. The review anticipates that approximately 31,000 million gallons 

per year of water would be produced in association with oil and gas production in 2010, 

increasing to approximately 42,000 million gallons per year in 2020; it also 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 Hay Creek II general analysis area, much as is 

currently allowed in the six subwatersheds in the study area. Based on past monitoring in 

receiving streams, no change in surface flows would be expected beyond approximately 2 miles 

from the discharge points (BLM 2003). Water discharged from CBNG wells has supplied some 

drainages and water bodies in the PRB nearly continuously for several years. Within the general 

analysis area, Spring Creek has experienced an influx of CBNG water in recent years but has not 

become perennial. The same is true for other streams elsewhere in the PRB that receive CBNG 

discharge water. 

4.2.9.4 Special-Status Species 

Special-status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional 

level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed and 

federally proposed species (species that are protected under the ESA), BLM sensitive species, 

4-88 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

USDA Forest Service sensitive species, and WGFD species of special concern in Wyoming. No 

USDA Forest Service administered lands are present in the Hay Creek II general analysis area. 

Species that are protected under the ESA, as well as BLM sensitive species, are further discussed 

in appendices J and K. The USFWS also has a list of migratory bird species of management 

concern for surface coal mines in Wyoming, which is discussed in section 3.10. Special-status 

species potentially occurring in the 2005 Task 1 study area are identified in section 2.4.3.5 of 

that Task 1D Report (BLM 2005e). Additional information about the occurrence of these 

species in the general analysis area is contained in the annual wildlife reports for the Buckskin 

Mine, on file with the Sheridan, Wyoming office of the WDEQ. 

Potential impacts on 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 on special-status species would result in a reduction in 

habitat suitability and overall carrying capacity for species currently inhabiting the Task 3 study 

area. Development within potential habitat for special-status species likely would decrease its 

overall suitability, and potentially would reduce or preclude use by some species because of 

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 the common loon (Gavia immer), American bittern (Botaurus 

lentiginosus), white faced ibis (Plegadis chihi), trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator), greater 

sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), mountain plover, upland sandpiper, long-billed curlew, black 

tern (Chlidonias niger), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Lewis’ woodpecker 

(Melanerpes lewis), pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), 

loggerhead shrike, Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), 

Brewer’s sparrow, and greater sage-grouse. Only the Brewer’s sparrow, sage-grouse, upland 

sandpiper, long-billed curlew, loggerhead shrike, and sage thrasher (one sighting) have been 

documented at the Buckskin Mine during 25 years of annual monitoring. Only the Brewer’s 

sparrow is seen with any regularity, and those observations typically occur in a sagebrush stand 

approximately 1.5 miles south of the Hay Creek II general analysis area. 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 from any of these development activities would not comply 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-89 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 the bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, northern goshawk, 

merlin, peregrine falcon, western burrowing owl, and short-eared owl. Species that have been 

documented in the general analysis area are discussed at length in section 3.10.5, with additional 

information in appendix K. Potential direct impacts on raptors would result from the surface 

disturbance of nesting and foraging habitat, as well as injury or mortalities because of collisions 

with vehicles and equipment. Nesting 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 non-compliance with the intent of multiple laws, including the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The implementation of USFWSapproved avian monitoring and mitigation measures at surface coal mines in the Task 3 study 

area has minimized impacts on nesting raptors over the last 30 years. Any impacts that could 

occur would likely be limited to individual pairs and, thus, are not likely to affect populations of 

raptors or other migratory bird species that are known to or can occur in 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 Avian Power Line Interaction Committee guidelines for new 

construction designs and retrofitting measures for new and existing utility structures would help 

mitigate these impacts. 

At least 477 greater sage-grouse strutting grounds (leks) were identified in the six subwatersheds 

in the PRB Coal Review study area through 2008, though not all leks are counted every year 

(WGFD 2008b). As discussed in section 3.10 and in the Task 1D Report (BLM 2005e), the 

trend in the sage-grouse population for the Sheridan region suggests about a 10-year cycle with 

periodic highs and lows. More recent population peaks have been lower than previous highs, 

suggesting a steadily declining sage-grouse population with the Sheridan region (Oedekoven 

2001; WGFD 2008b). Direct and indirect impacts on sage-grouse from 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 disturbancerelated impacts, sage-grouse are susceptible to infection with West Nile virus, and the incidence 

of infection from this disease has been much higher in northeast Wyoming than the rest of the 

state in the past, though fewer cases have been reported in recent years. 

Based on results from annual counts and lek searches conducted for the Buckskin Mine since 

1984, sage-grouse occur but are not abundant in the general analysis area (section 3.10.6). Three 

sage-grouse leks have been identified in the general analysis area. One of those three sites is 

classified by the WGFD as unoccupied (historical/abandoned) due to its consistent lack of use 

over the last 16 consecutive years. The remaining two leks have also been inactive in recent 

years, but are still classified as occupied by the WGFD. The Hay Creek sage-grouse lek is 

within the existing Buckskin Mine permit area, approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the general 

analysis area. This site has been or will be affected by previously permitted disturbance in the 

permit area. The McGee sage-grouse lek is approximately 1.25 miles north of the general 

analysis area, on the far side of multiple ridgelines. Two displaying males and three hens were 

4-90 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

seen at the Hay Creek lek on one morning in 2001, but no grouse were present during subsequent 

checks that year, or in any year since then. The McGee sage-grouse lek is located beyond the 

required annual monitoring area for the Buckskin Mine and, therefore, is not included in that 

monitoring program. A WGFD biologist first recorded the lek in 2001. Three displaying males 

were observed at the McGee sage-grouse lek in 2004. No grouse have been recorded at that lek 

since then, but it was not monitored every year. 

If the proposed tract or an alternative tract configuration is 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 3.10.6.1, no sage-grouse nests or broods have been 

encountered in the general analysis area during specific surveys or incidental to other wildlife 

surveys conducted there annually since at least 1984. The noise associated with mining 

operations may also disrupt sage-grouse breeding and nesting activities that might occur in the 

area. Direct and indirect effects on greater sage-grouse within the general analysis area from 

development activities are outlined in section 3.10.6.2. 

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 on greater sage-grouse. The results of this analysis are summarized 

in table 4-26. The difference in the number of lek sites that would occur within 2 miles of coal 

mining activities under the lower coal production scenario versus the upper coal production 

scenario is because of slight variations in the projected disturbance areas. An unquantifiable 

number of lek sites initially could be affected by CBNG activity, which would occur in advance 

of coal mine development. Potential direct impacts on sage-grouse, if present, could include loss 

of foraging areas, abandonment of a lek site, or loss of eggs or young as a result of development 

activities. 

Table 4-26.	 Potential Cumulative Impacts on Greater Sage-grouse Leks from Coal Mine 

Development—Upper and Lower Coal Production Scenarios 

Lek Categories	 2010/Lower 2010/Upper 2015/Lower 2015/Upper 2020/Lower 2020/Upper 

Number of Directly Affected Leks 3 3 4 4 1 4 

Number of Leks within 2 Miles of 

Coal Mining Activity 30 30 31 35 28 27 

Source: Updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g). 

Seven special-status fish species potentially occur in the Task 3 study area subwatersheds: the 

flathead chub (Platygobio gracilis) (Antelope Creek, Upper Cheyenne River, and Little Powder 

River subwatersheds), plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus) (Upper Cheyenne River), goldeye 

(Hiodon alosoides) (Little Powder River), lake chub (Couesius plumbeus) (Little Powder River), 

mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) (Little Powder River), silvery minnow 

(Hybognathus argyritis) (Little Powder River), and plains minnow (Upper Cheyenne River, 

Upper Belle Fourche River, and Little Powder River). Potential impacts on special-status fish 

species from development activities would be similar to effects discussed above for fisheries. 

Surface disturbance in three subwatersheds (Upper Cheyenne River, Upper Belle Fourche River, 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Little Powder River) could alter habitat or affect water quality conditions for special-status fish 

species. Erosion control measures, as required by existing and future permits, and NPDES 

permit requirements would be implemented for each project. These efforts would help decrease 

disturbance-related sediment input into stream segments that may contain one or more of the 

special-status fish species. Therefore, it is anticipated that impacts on special-status fish species 

would be low. 

4.2.10 Land Use and Recreation 

The updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g) discusses potential cumulative impacts on land use 

and recreation as a result of projected development activities in that study area (map 4-2). The 

area of actual surface coal mining disturbance and reclamation for 2003 and 2007 and the 

projected cumulative areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown 

in tables 4-2 and 4-3. Table 4-10 shows the area of actual disturbance and reclamation for all 

development in 2003 and 2007 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 Task 1 

and Task 2 study area (map 4-1) is tabulated in table 4-27. 

Table 4-27. PRB Land Use by Surface Ownership 

Surface Ownership (acres) Total 

USDA 

Forest 

Use Category BLM Service 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: Task 1D Report (BLM 2005e). 

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. Conflicts with some dispersed rural residences may 

also occur, although specific locations cannot be identified until development is proposed. 

4-92 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Much of the Task 3 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; all surface 

lands in the general analysis area are under private ownership. With nearly 80% of the overall 

study 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 on 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 animal unit months (amount of forage a cow/calf unit or a single bull can 

eat in a month, used to determine stocking rates for livestock); 

 temporary loss of water-related range improvements, such as improved springs, water 

pipelines, and stockponds; 

 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 large structures, that 

would not be reclaimed in the near term. Indirect impacts may include dispersal of noxious and 

invasive weed species within and beyond the surface disturbance boundaries, which decreases 

the amount of desirable forage available for livestock grazing in the long term. 

Development activities could result in short- and long-term impacts on 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 4-28 contains an estimate of the number of animal unit months 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. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-93 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-28. Animal Unit Months and Acres of Cropland Estimated Unavailable on Lands 

Disturbed and Not Yet Reclaimed as a Result of Development Activities 

2003/ 2007/ 2010/ 2010/ 2015/ 2015/ 2020/ 2020/

Category Baseline Actual Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 

Unavailable 

Animal unit monthsa 18,150 22,108 19,820 20,145 22,389 22,905 22,131 22,950 

Unavailable 

Crop Land (acres) 48 —b 59 60 134 139 206 289 

a Based on an average stocking rate of 6 acres per animal unit month. 

b Not reported. 

Source: Updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g). 

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% growth in population (between 2003 and 2020) in 

Campbell County. Section 4.2.13 and the 2005 Task 3C Report (BLM 2005a) 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% 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 used for grazing or agriculture. 

4.2.10.3 Recreation 

Accessible public lands provide diverse opportunities for recreation, including hunting, fishing, 

off-road vehicle use, sightseeing, and wildlife observation. The National System of Public Lands 

generally provides dispersed recreational uses in the study area. Some developed recreational 

facilities occur in special management areas, including recreation areas. While opportunities are 

available on public lands throughout the PRB, the majority of dispersed recreational uses occur 

in the western part of the PRB Coal Review study areas, 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 Forest Service). 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 pers. 

comm.). 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 

4-94 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. 

Off-road vehicle use in the study area is available on most BLM-managed lands. Much of the 

public land in Johnson, Sheridan, and Campbell counties has been inventoried and designated as 

open, limited, or closed to off-road vehicle 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 off-road vehicle use and approximately 867,534 acres were available for 

limited use. Limited use typically means off-road vehicles are restricted to existing roads and 

vehicle routes. 

Recreational use of public lands in the study area has increased substantially over the past two 

decades, and is expected to continue to increase by about 5% every five years for most 

recreational activities (BLM 2003). Total visitor use by residents and nonresident visitors in 

Campbell and Converse counties in 1980 was projected at 1,276,000 visitor days (BLM 1979). 

The total visitor days of 1,881,763 estimated for 1990 was approximately 47% higher than the 

1980 visitor days (BLM 2001). Fewer than 3% of visitor days were estimated to occur on public 

lands. 

Few, if any, of the developed recreation sites in the 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 hunting. It is 

projected that cumulative development activities, especially the dispersed development of CBNG 

and, to a lesser extent, conventional oil and gas, would tend to exacerbate the trend toward a 

reduction in private land available for public hunting, which has been observed by WGFD in 

recent years (Shorma pers. comm.). A reduction in available private land for dispersed 

recreation would contrast with the anticipated increase in demand for recreational opportunities 

and would tend to push more recreationists toward public lands where the BLM has projected a 

5% increase in use every five years (BLM 2001). After coal-related 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 pers. comm.). As noted in the 2005 

Task 1D Report (BLM 2005e), reductions in land available for hunting also make herd 

management more difficult for the WGFD and reduce its hunting-derived revenues (Shorma 

pers. comm.). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-95 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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. Mineral development could be 

permitted within the Fortification Creek Planning area and the stricter Fortification Creek area of 

critical environmental Concern, as long as all applicable qualifications and requirements are met 

or exceeded. 

No Wild and Scenic Rivers would be affected, because the only river segment identified as both 

“eligible” and “suitable” in the Task 1D Report is outside of the Task 3 study area (BLM 2005e). 

4.2.11 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns 

The updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g) discusses potential cumulative impacts on cultural 

resources from projected development activities in that study area. The area of actual surface 

coal mining disturbance and reclamation for 2003 and 2007 and the projected cumulative areas 

of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in tables 4-2 and 4-3. Table 

4-10 shows the area of actual disturbance and reclamation for all development in 2003 and 2007 

and the projected cumulative total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 2010, 2015, and 

2020. 

Cultural sites occur throughout the study area. Surface-disturbing activities can result in the loss 

or destruction of these sites. Table 4-29 contains an estimate of the amount of projected 

disturbance through 2020 for the projected lower and upper levels of coal development activity, 

along with the number of cultural sites estimated to be affected. The sites fall into two 

categories: prehistoric sites and historic sites, as described below. Also below are descriptions 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.) Only a small number of sites 

represent the earliest prehistoric cultural periods—Paleoindian through Early Plains Archaic. 

Archaic and later prehistoric period sites (Archaic to Protohistoric) are represented in increasing 

numbers as 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. Lithic scatters (scatters consisting primarily of stone tools and debris from manufacture or 

maintenance of stone tools) are the primary prehistoric sites in the study area. Lithic scatters 

expressed on the surface are typically not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Sites with buried 

dateable material such as charcoal or bone can yield important information and are often field 

evaluated as eligible 

4-96 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
c 

4.0 Cumulative 

Table 4-29. Square Miles of Projected Cumulative Disturbance and Number of Potentially Affected Cultural Reso

Study Area—Lower and Upper Coal Production Scenarios 

Lower Coal Production Scenario Upper Coal Pr

Average 

Number of Year 2010 Year 2015 Year 2020 Year 2010 Yea

Subwatershed 

Sites per

Square Milea 

Square 

Milesb Sitesc 

Square

Milesb Sitesc 

Square

Milesb Sitesc 

Square

Milesb Sitesc 

Square

Milesb 

Antelope Creek 4.7 59 277 76 357 94 442 61 287 79 

Dry Fork Cheyenne River 8.9 2.2 20 2.7 24 3.1 28 2.2 20 2.7 

Little Powder River 4.6 76 350 85 391 89 409 77 354 86 

Upper Belle Fourche River 4.3 135 580 148 636 156 671 137 589 154 

Upper Cheyenne River 5.2 57 296 66 343 76 395 58 302 68 

Upper Powder River 5.0 160 530 175 875 242 1,210 106 530 175 

Total 435 2,053 553 2,626 660 3,155 441 2,082 565 

a Average number of sites per square mile based on previous surveys in the study area. b Calculated, based on database disturbance acreages prepared for the updated Task 2 Report, Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities (Appendices A and D) (BLM 

The number of sites was calculated by multiplying the average density of known cultural sites per square mile (based on previous surveys) by the number of square miles of projected cumulative d

Source: Updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Five prehistoric sites are documented in the Hay Creek II general analysis area. Site 48CA857 

was originally recorded in 1980 and contained a lithic scatter and a stone circle. The site was not 

relocated during a 1999 inventory and is listed as “destroyed” in the SHPO database. Sites 

48CA 861, 48CA862 and 48CA1828 are lithic scatters containing very few artifacts originally 

recorded in the 1980s. None of these sites were relocated during later inventories and are 

determined not eligible for the NRHP. Site 48CA 2223 was originally recorded in 1985 as a 

lithic scatter containing a Late Prehistoric projectile point and a prehistoric pottery shard. The 

site is in a plowed field and was determined not eligible since buried deposits were not expected. 

A later inventory discovered historic trash at the location, but did not relocate any prehistoric 

artifacts. The Proposed Action and alternatives would destroy the above sites, although none of 

the sites are intact and they are all determined not eligible for the NRHP. On February 12, 2009, 

the BLM notified SHPO that the undertaking would result in no effect on historic properties. 

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 2005 Task 1D Report (BLM 

2005e). Eight historic sites documented in the Hay Creek II general analysis area fall under the 

context of rural settlement. Evaluation of the importance of historic sites, districts, and 

landscapes must consider aspects of both theme and period in assessing the historic character and 

contributing attributes of the resources. 

4.2.11.3 Native American Traditional Cultural Places 

General ethnographies of the tribes that may have had traditional ties to this region do not 

provide information on specific resources in the study area that are likely to be traditional 

cultural concerns because these resources are considered confidential by the tribes. Within this 

region, there are prominent and identifiable places such as the Medicine Wheel to the west in the 

Big Horn Mountains and Devils Tower to the east in the Black Hills area. These known sites 

offer some indication of the types of places valued by the Plains horse cultures in the historic 

period. Any identification of sacred or traditional localities must be verified in consultation with 

authorized tribal representatives. 

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 the surface ownership is private and mineral ownership was retained by the US 

Government, surface resources such as cultural or archeological sites are the property of the 

surface owner. Federal agencies must ensure that undertakings associated with federal minerals 

development adhere to applicable cultural resource laws and regulation, although, the surface 

owner must be consulted about any archeological investigation, mitigation, or monitoring. 

4-98 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.12 Transportation and Utilities 

The updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g) discusses potential cumulative impacts on 

transportation and utilities systems as a result of projected development activities in that study 

area. The area of actual surface coal mining disturbance and reclamation for 2003 and 2007 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 actual disturbance and reclamation for all development 

in 2003 and 2007and the projected cumulative total areas of disturbance and reclamation for 

2010, 2015, and 2020 are shown in table 4-10. 

Generally, transportation systems in the study area would not be directly affected by the 

disturbance associated with projected development. Site-specific instances of disturbance may 

require that segments of highways, pipelines, transmission lines, or railroads be moved to 

accommodate expansion of certain coal mines. In such cases, the agencies authorized to regulate 

such actions would have to approve any proposal to move any segments of any transportation 

systems. 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 million tons per year in the 

baseline year (2003), which was just 22% of the estimated 250 million tons per year capacity of 

the BNSF rail line (BLM 2005b). The coal mines in the South Gillette and Wright subregions 

produced approximately 308 million tons per year in 2003, which was 88% of the estimated 

350 million tons per year capacity of the joint BNSF and 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, varying with the type of development. A power plant or an urban community 

development would be considered long-term, and the demand for transmission line capacity 

would be virtually permanent, lasting for the economic life of the activity. The effects of coal 

production and the related demand for rail capacity would vary with market changes. In recent 

years, coal production has been increasing, and the PRB Coal Review projects that the trend 

would continue, as shown in tables 4-2 and 4-3. Similarly, the demand for pipeline capacity 

would vary with market conditions as well as with the rate of depletion of the oil or gas resource. 

Potential direct effects of projected development on roads and highways would include increased 

vehicular traffic and risk of traffic accidents on existing roadways in the 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. As described in section 3.15, 

Kiewit does not anticipate increasing the current average annual coal production rate or hiring 

additional employees, so no increases in road or rail traffic are anticipated under either action 

alternative. Indirect effects would include potential impacts of the accumulation of coal dust and 

fines blowing or sifting from moving, loaded rail cars. A collaborative effort between the 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-99 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

National Coal Transportation Association, the mines, and the BNSF and UP railroads is resulting 

in measures to reduce coal dust emissions from loaded, moving rail cars. 

The socioeconomic analysis conducted as a part of the 2005 Task 3C analysis projects a 

population increase of approximately 48% between 2003 and 2020 in Campbell County under 

the upper coal production scenario (BLM 2005a). Campbell County accounts for most of the 

population in the 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% by 2020. 

Approximately 60% of the population growth would occur in or near Gillette, which would 

indicate that the same proportion of traffic would originate in the Gillette area. The remainder of 

the traffic growth would be dispersed throughout the study area. Under this scenario, the 

greatest impact on traffic would occur in the Gillette area, where existing traffic volume to 

capacity ratios are highest. The increased traffic would be expected to cause delays in the 

Gillette area and might require widening of some streets and roads or other measures to increase 

traffic capacity. It is anticipated that there would be an increase in the risk of traffic accidents 

approximately proportional to the increase in traffic. Highway capacity on major routes away 

from Gillette would be expected to be sufficient to accommodate the growth without substantial 

constraints. 

Existing rail lines, together with proposed upgrades on the joint BNSF and UP line, would be 

expected to accommodate the projected coal transportation traffic through 2015 (table 4-30). 

The updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c) projects that the proposed DM&E line would be built 

and operational by 2015 (pending completion of additional environmental analysis), which 

would add 100 million tons per year in additional shipping capacity for the South Gillette and 

Wright subregions. 

Table 4-30. PRB Rail Lines Coal Hauling Capacity and Projected Use 

2010 Projected 2015 Projected 2020 Projected 

2010 Rail Use 2015 Rail Use 2020 Rail Use 

Capacity Increasea Capacity Increasea Capacity Increasea 

Rail Line mmtpy mmtpy % mmtpy mmtpy % mmtpy mmtpy % 

North BNSF 250 62–78 25–31 250 74–104 30–42 250 78–121 31–48 

South BNSF 

& UP 450 349–398 79–88 600 381–4,392 64–732 600 417–4,552 70–762 

DM&E 0 0 0 —b —c —c —c —c —c 

mmtpy = million tons per year 

a 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. 

b 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. 

c The BNSF & UP South line figures represent the projected combined traffic and percent capacity on the BNSF & UP South line and the projected DM&E line. 

Source: updated Task 3D Report (BLM 2009g). 

An estimated 1,380 MW of new power plant production capacity and 250 MW of new wind 

energy production capacity are anticipated in the Task 2 study area by 2015. One new 300-MW 

wind energy project and potentially up to 700 MW of additional power generation provided by 

4-100 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

coal-fired power plants is projected for 2020. However, specific location(s), capacities, and 

effects on the existing system cannot be determined at this time. 

4.2.13 Socioeconomics 

The cumulative socioeconomic impact analysis focuses on Campbell County, but also considers 

Converse, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston counties as directly affected and Niobrara and 

Natrona counties as indirectly affected. Recent and projected socioeconomic conditions are 

described in more detail in the 2005 Task 1C and 3C reports (BLM 2005d and 2005a). 

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 PRB 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 2005 Task 3C Report (BLM 2005a) 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% of the coal resources in the PRB 

are federally owned. The surface coal mines that developed during that time are now mature 

operations that provide 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 resource booms in the western United 

States. 

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 coal production 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 effects 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. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-101 
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% 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 a 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% of all jobs in the 

region, while mining and government accounted for 14% and 16% of all jobs, respectively. 

Farm employment in the region, as a share of total employment, declined from 14% in 1970 to 

5.0% in 2004. However, that shift is primarily because of 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) was 

expected to occur by 2010. Under the lower production scenario, employment in 2010 related to 

coal mining, oil and gas production, and oil field services is projected to increase by one-third, or 

more than 2,300 jobs, as compared to 2003 levels. Many of the jobs gained would be the result 

of increased oil and gas development. While the number of coal mining jobs would increase, the 

projected coal-mine-related productivity gains would limit increases in the number of mine 

employees required for operations. 

Beyond 2010, total mining industry employment would decline as major infrastructure 

development (e.g., additional CBNG compression capacity) is completed and the pace of 

conventional oil and gas drilling decreases. Increases in CBNG production and coal mining 

employment would occur thereafter, such that total mining employment would approach 

pre-2010 levels by the end of the forecast period (2020). Under the development scenarios, 

construction of three new power plants, having a combined capacity of 1,000 MW and a peak 

work force of approximately 1,550 in 2007–2008, is assumed to occur concurrently with the 

increases in mining employment. Under the upper production scenario, a second temporary 

construction work force impact would occur between 2016 and 2020 in conjunction with the 

construction of an additional 700-MW power plant. 

The net effects of these activities, including secondary effects on suppliers, merchants, service 

firms, state agencies and local government in the region, would be the creation of more than 

8,700 new jobs between 2003 and 2010. Of those, more than 5,600 jobs (a 22% 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. 

4-102 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 20204. 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 2005 Task 3C Report (BLM 

2005a), because most of the effects would comprise indirect or induced growth that would be 

limited in scale relative to the size of the respective economies. Furthermore, the economic 

outlook for those areas is influenced by factors that are beyond the scope of this study, such as 

the role of the oil and gas support services industry based in Natrona County in supporting 

energy development in the south-central and southwestern portions of Wyoming. 

4.2.13.2 Labor Market Conditions 

Labor market conditions in the PRB reflect a generally healthy economy, with average annual 

county unemployment rates between 2.1% (Campbell) and 3.5% (Weston) in 2006. Statewide 

and national unemployment rates for the period were 3.2% and 4.6%, 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%, 

4	 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, whereby a 16% higher production would be achieved with a 2.5% increase in workforce. Although that assumption 

reflects a continuation of historic productivity gains, it may underestimate population and employment growth and related socioeconomic 

effects if the production levels are achieved but productivity lags. Using the productivity gains from the lower production scenario provides a 

more conservative perspective on potential long-term population growth for purposes of the cumulative analysis. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-103 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

slightly above the corresponding statewide averages. Labor demand associated with CBNG 

development contributed to a decline in unemployment to below 3.0% in the 2001. As the pace 

of CBNG development stabilized, labor demand eased and unemployment rates climbed to 3.7% 

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 on population, housing demand, and other economic and social 

conditions. Similar influences would occur in surrounding counties, although the implications 

are less severe because the scale of effects would be smaller and would be distributed over 

multiple communities and service providers. 

4.2.13.3 Personal Income 

A benefit associated with energy resource development, whether it is mineral mining or oil and 

gas development, is local wages and salaries that are among the highest in the state. Personal 

income registered strong gains across the region, but especially in Campbell County, during the 

late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1981, per capita personal income in Campbell County was 

$17,520, compared to the national average of $11,280 and the statewide average of $12,879. 

Personal income growth was tempered by several years of economic stagnation during the late 

1980s. Renewed economic vitality since then resulted in per capita personal income in Campbell 

County reaching $33,388 in 2004. Those gains notwithstanding, per capita income among 

Campbell County’s residents was below statewide and national norms, as well as that for 

Sheridan ($35,716) County. When measured on a median household or family income basis in 

the 2000 census, Campbell County led statewide, national, and other counties in the PRB by 

considerable margins. That pattern has been maintained because of 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 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% (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 2005a). 

4-104 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 had larger populations. 

By 1980, Campbell County’s population had increased by more than 300%, to 24,367, seventh 

among Wyoming’s counties. Energy development contributed to population growth in Sheridan, 

Converse, Johnson, and Crook counties during that period. Weston County recorded a 

population decline during the period; however, the combined population of the PRB climbed 

from 49,311 in 1960 to 82,598 in 1980. 

Annual coal production in the PRB has increased by nearly 560% 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%, 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% increase over the 2000 census population. Gains were reported for all six counties, ranging 

from 118 persons in Weston County to 5,236 persons in Campbell County (table 4-31). 

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 4-3). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-105 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-31. Recent and Projected PRB Population 

Year 

Campbell

County 

Converse 

County 

Crook 

County 

Johnson 

County 

Sheridan 

County 

Weston 

County 

Six County

PRB Total 

Census 

2000 33,698 12,104 5,895 7,108 26,606 6,642 92,053 

2003a 36,381 12,326 5,971 7,530 27,116 6,665 95,989 

2006a 38,934 12,866 6,255 8,014 27,673 6,762 100,504 

2009a 43,967 13,578 6,653 8,531 29,163 7,009 108,901 

Projected 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 

Projected 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 

a Projected by U.S. Census Bureau based on 2000 data. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2006b) and 2005 Task 3C Report (BLM 2005a). 

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; Kiewit does not anticipate any new hiring under either action alternative. Growth over the 

next three years will maintain pressures on housing and other community resources. The 

projected energy and mineral development in the lower coal production scenario would also 

result in substantial population growth elsewhere in the PRB, with Sheridan, Johnson, and 

Converse counties projected to gain substantial population. Population growth, like employment 

growth, would moderate after 2010. Projected population growth (compounded annual growth 

rate) between 2003 and 2020 ranges from 0.5% in Weston County to 2.0% 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% compounded annual growth rate. 

4-106 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 

YEAR 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 20

Population - Upper Coal Production 

Employment - Upper Coal Production Population - Lower Coal Production Employment - Lower Coal Production 

10,000 

20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 

0 

Source : PRB Coal Review Task 3C Report (BLM 2005f) 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Projected Campbell County Populati
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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 because of 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% 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. The growth would be higher in Wright, 

Douglas, and Newcastle because of the effects of higher coal production, coal transportation, and 

power generation concentrated in the southern portion of Campbell County. 

4.2.13.5 Housing 

While the population grew by 55% in the 1970s, the housing stock in the study area grew by 

almost 78%. Housing growth was especially rapid during the 1970s in Campbell County, where 

population grew by 88% and the housing stock grew by 140%. The expansion in housing 

supply, combined with the slowdown in the rate of population growth, produced double-digit 

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% in five of the six counties, 

and that in Johnson County at only 2.8% (table 4-32). 

Table 4-32. Rental Housing Vacancy Rates 

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. 

4-108 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

In 2000, the housing inventory in the six-county study area was 41,203 units (table 4-33). Total 

housing inventory had expanded to 43,363 units in 2005, a net addition of 2,160 since 2000. 

However, new construction has not kept pace with population growth, resulting in tighter market 

conditions in terms of availability, and higher prices. 

Table 4-33.	 Total Housing Stock in 2000 and 2005 

Campbell Converse Crook Johnson Sheridan Weston Six-County PRB 

Year County County County County County County 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 2006c. 

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% 

below the statewide average. 

Monthly costs for rental housing in the PRB, measured in the fourth quarter of 2006, were 

highest in Campbell County (table 4-34). 

Table 4-34.	 Monthly Housing Rents in 2006a in the PRB Study Area and Percent Change

from 2004 

County 

Apartments Mobile Home Lots Houses Mobile Homes on a Lot 

Rent Change Rent Change Rent Change Rent Change 

Campbell 

Converse 

Crook 

Johnson 

Sheridan 

Weston 

Wyoming 

$697 

$515 

$391 

$477 

$571 

$459 

$567 

25.8% 

31.4% 

17.4% 

-5.4% 

14.0% 

47.1% 

14.1% 

$283 

$152 

$125 

$170 

$285 

$119 

$225 

22.0% 

1.3% 

5.9% 

16.4% 

4.4% 

17.8% 

15.4% 

$975 

$545 

N/A 

$700 

$857 

$567 

$782 

23.0% 

2.8% 

N/A 

15.3% 

27.9% 

36.3% 

13.0% 

$758 

$452 

N/A 

$518 

$650 

$505 

$561 

20.5% 

22.5% 

N/A 

5.5% 

26.7% 

27.5% 

15.2% 

N/A = Information not available because of insufficient sample size. 

a Data are for the fourth quarter of 2006. Change is the percent change since fourth quarter of 2004. 

Source: Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 2006. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-109 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Temporary housing resources are available in the PRB in the form of hotel-motel rooms, private 

and public campgrounds, and vacant spaces in mobile home parks. In all, there are more than 

70 lodging establishments with a total of more than 2,500 rooms. These temporary housing 

resources, supplemented by whatever apartments, townhouses, and mobile home spaces are 

available in Gillette, Wright, and Douglas, have accommodated temporary housing needs 

associated with natural resource and energy projects in the past. 

Both projected coal production scenarios indicate a strong demand for housing across the 

six-county study area through 2020. Net housing requirements under the lower coal production 

scenario are for approximately 9,110 units through 2020, a 21% increase above the 2006 existing 

inventory (figure 4-4). New housing requirements under the upper coal production scenario are 

estimated at 10,900 units, a 25% increase compared to the 2006 inventory and 1,790 units more 

than for the lower coal production scenario. Approximately 60% 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 

proactively 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 be substantial, 

straining public and private sector residential development capacity. Although smaller in scale 

than those in Campbell County, housing demands in the surrounding counties may also strain the 

capabilities of the residential construction sector to respond. Furthermore, residential contractors 

would be competing for available labor, contributing to the population growth and housing 

demand, and fueling increases in construction costs and housing prices. 

The relative scale of the housing needs can be evaluated in comparison to past growth in the 

study area. One benchmark for comparison is the rapid growth that occurred in the PRB in the 

1970s. During that decade, the number of housing units in the six-county study area rose by 

approximately 14,900 units, approximately 1,500 units per year on average compared to the 

850 to 975 new units per year projected under the upper and lower coal production scenarios 

through 2010. The rapid pace of development in the 1970s coincided with a period of economic 

expansion and strained the region’s construction trade and building supply industries. Although 

the underlying economies of the region are now larger, the projected needs would tax the ability 

of communities to respond. Signs of strain are apparent in Gillette and could surface elsewhere 

as greater housing needs arise in the remaining counties of the six-county study area under the 

low coal production scenario. 

Projected housing demands under either coal production scenario, although lower than what 

Campbell County and the region experienced in the “boom” 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. 

4-110 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
YEAR 

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 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Projected Housing Demand in the PRB Study Area under the Lowe
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.13.6 Public Education 

There are 10 school districts in the six-county study area, ranging in size from Campbell County 

School District (CCSD) #1 with 7,337 students in the 2005 school year to Sheridan County 

School District # 3 (based in Clearmont, Wyoming) with fewer than 100 students. CCSD #1, 

based in Gillette, and Converse #1 in Douglas, serve the primary energy and resource 

development region. 

Public school enrollment trends mirrored population trends during the period of rapid population 

growth. Districtwide enrollment in Campbell County grew by more than 4,600 students (131%) 

between 1975 and 1985. Enrollment increased in all districts in Converse and Sheridan counties 

as well. Enrollment in CCSD #1 subsequently peaked, but remained near record high levels for 

nearly a decade. Elsewhere in the region enrollments generally declined with a combined 

enrollment of 9,525 in the other study area districts in 2005, the lowest since 1975 (Wyoming 

Department of Education 2006). Recent natural gas and mining development has tempered, but 

not reversed, the trend of declining school enrollments across the region. 

Communities across the PRB study area would see population growth because of 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 5 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% higher by 

2020 under the upper coal production scenario, with those in the surrounding districts about 1% 

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% 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 

through 8 but only small increases in grades 9 through 12 (figure 4-5). 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. 

4-112 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

1,000 

2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 

0 

Campbell #1, Grades K-8 Campbell #1, Grades 9-12 Other Districts, Grades K-8 Other Districts, Grades 9-12 

YEAR 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Projected School Enrollment Trends to 2020 under the Lowe
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

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, affected school districts need to 

accommodate minor capacity shortages by using temporary facilities such as portable 

classrooms. For larger and more long-term increases, the Commission’s policy is to fund capital 

expansion where warranted by projections developed during updates of school districts’ 

five-year plans. The approved five-year plan for CCSD #1 has a $57.4 million budget covering 

construction of several new schools and numerous major maintenance and facility upgrade 

projects. The approved five-year plans for the other school districts have combined cost of 

$163 million. Capital investment in public education facilities has been a statewide priority in 

Wyoming for the past decade, with taxes and royalties on mineral and energy resources the 

primary source of program funding (Wyoming School Facilities Commission 2007 and 

Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group 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 long-term 

process to maintain and improve facilities and services to meet community needs and to comply 

with various regulations and standards. 

The PRB Coal Review socioeconomic analysis focuses on water supply and wastewater systems 

(two essential services that are costly and have the longest lead times to develop) and law 

enforcement, emergency response, and road maintenance (three services that typically are most 

affected by energy development). 

Water supply and wastewater systems in most communities have the capacity to accommodate 

the cumulative population growth associated with either projected coal production scenario 

through 2020, assuming ongoing or planned improvements are completed. In Gillette, there may 

be a timing issue with planned water supply system expansions, as completion of planned 

improvements would occur when substantial growth is anticipated under both projected coal 

production scenarios. Consequently, Gillette may experience water shortages in the summer 

months for several years, particularly if growth follows that under the upper coal production 

scenario. Douglas is looking to add water treatment capacity to provide additional capacity and 

management flexibility to address needs during times of drought. 

4-114 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The ability to provide desired levels of services to the projected energy-related population and 

development is less clear in Campbell County, Gillette, Wright, and outlying rural communities. 

Campbell County and its communities would experience a 25% increase in population between 

2003 and 2010 under the lower coal production scenario and 30% 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% during the 

period. The populations of Johnson County and Buffalo would increase 10% by 2010, driven 

primarily by CBNG development. 

Growth rates and resultant increases in service demands would slow substantially during both the 

2011– 2015 and 2016–2020 periods under either projected coal production scenario. In most 

communities except Sheridan County and the city of Sheridan, there would be little difference in 

population growth and service demand between the two scenarios. 

4.2.13.8 Fiscal Conditions 

Federal mineral royalties and state and local taxes levied on coal and other mineral production 

are vitally important sources of public revenue in Wyoming. Taxes, fees, and charges levied on 

real estate improvements, retail trade, and other economic activity supported by energy 

development provide additional revenues to support public facilities and services. These 

revenues benefit not only those jurisdictions within which the production or activity occurs, but 

also the federal treasury, state coffers, school districts, and local governments across the state 

through revenue-sharing and intergovernmental transfer mechanisms. 

Coal and other minerals produced in Wyoming, regardless of ownership, are subject to ad 

valorem taxation by local taxing entities and a statewide levy to support public education. 

Statewide ad valorem taxable valuation on coal production in 2005 was $2,280.1 million. Of 

that total, 88% 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% 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% to 10.5% over time. 

The current rate of 7.0% 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 Consensus Revenue 

Estimating Group 2007; Wyoming Department of Revenue 2006). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-115 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Producers pay a 12.5% 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 would climb by 

$3.49 billion (2004 dollars) over 2003 levels, reaching $8.54 billion by 2020, a 69% increase 

over the 2003 value. The aggregate value of energy and mineral resource production under the 

upper coal production scenario would increase to $9.21 billion in 2020. The incremental 

difference, compared to the value under the lower coal production scenario, would be 

$670 million per year, all of which represents the value of higher annual coal output. 

The overwhelming majority of future mineral production value is anticipated to be in Campbell 

County. Over time, the future value of production in Sheridan and Johnson counties would 

climb. Total annual mineral production value by 2020 is projected to reach $6.37 billion in 

Campbell County and $2.17 billion in the surrounding counties. Between 2005 and 2020, total 

royalty and tax receipts derived from the key selected sources range between $21.1 and 

$22.6 billion for the lower and upper coal production scenarios, respectively. Receipts derived 

from coal production would account for the majority of the totals under either scenario, with 

federal mineral royalties on coal at $4.9 to $5.7 billion being the single largest source. 

Severance taxes, ranging from $6.3 to $6.7 billion, also would accrue to the state (tables 4-35 

and 4-36). 

Table 4-35.	 Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated with Energy

Resource Production under the Lower Coal Production Scenario (million $) 

Industry and Taxes 2005–2010 2011–2015 2016–2020 Total 

Coala 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 

a Does not include coal lease bonus bids because of the uncertainty regarding timing. 

Source: 2005 Task 3C Report (BLM 2005a). 

4-116 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-36. Summary of Mineral Development Tax Revenues Associated with Energy 

Resource Production under the Upper Coal Production Scenario (million $) 

Industry and Taxes 2005–2010 2011–2015 2016–2020 Total 

Coala 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 

a Does not include coal lease bonus bids because of the uncertainty regarding timing. 

Source: 2005 Task 3C Report (BLM 2005a). 

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% of the bonus bid revenue. 

Taxes and mineral royalties levied on energy and mineral resource production accruing to the 

state are disbursed to the Permanent Water Development Trust Fund, Wyoming School 

Foundation and Capital Facilities funds, capital construction fund for state and local government 

facilities, and other programs according to a legislatively approved formula. Through these 

funds, the revenues derived from resource development benefit the entire state, not just agencies, 

businesses, and residents of the PRB. 

County governments and school districts would realize benefits from future energy and mineral 

resource development in the form of ad valorem taxes. Such taxes, estimated on the basis of 

future coal, oil, and natural gas production, are estimated to range between $5.4 billion and 

$5.7 billion through 2020. Those sums do not include future property taxes levied on the new 

power plants, expanded rail facilities, or new residential and commercial development associated 

with future growth, or sales and use taxes levied on consumer and 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 because of the large number of jurisdictions and other analytical considerations. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-117 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.13.9 Social Setting 

The past 30 years have seen sweeping social change in the United States and throughout much of 

the world. But in addition to the broad forces that have driven social change in the United States 

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. Coal mine development, 

continued oil and gas drilling, and power plant construction precipitated another round of 

growth. In all, Campbell County population grew by almost 600% 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 created energy, vitality, 

and a sense of economic optimism about the community. Where economic advancement had 

been limited before the boom, there now was 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 pers. comm.; Spencer pers. comm.). 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. 

4-118 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

In the PRB, social conditions in Campbell County, the city of Gillette, and the town of Wright 

are most likely to be affected, because the county would host much of the cumulative energy 

development workforce, and the county and its municipalities would receive the largest 

increments in population growth. Campbell County and its municipalities have a long history of 

energy development, and they have developed infrastructure and management systems to plan 

for and manage growth; consequently, major adverse social effects would not be anticipated. 

However, under either scenario, the county and the two municipalities may face challenges in 

providing adequate housing and expanding community services in anticipation of population 

growth through 2010, particularly if several power plant and coal mine construction projects 

occur simultaneously. As municipalities receive only sales and use tax revenues directly from 

development and purchases made within their boundaries, Gillette and Wright could face 

challenges in securing the necessary funding to improve municipal facilities and services. 

Housing shortages and limitations in public services could contribute to adverse community 

social effects in these communities. 

Many of the people who would immigrate to Campbell County for energy-related jobs are likely 

to share characteristics with much of the current population; therefore, few barriers to social 

integration are anticipated. 

Social effects on other communities in the PRB are likely to be minimal to moderate. 

Energy-related population growth is anticipated to be moderate in other communities. Sheridan 

County, also familiar with coal mining, is the only other county anticipated to host a major 

construction project under the development assumptions used for either projected coal 

production scenario. Converse, Weston, and Crook counties could experience spillover growth 

from projects in Campbell County. 

Johnson, Sheridan, and Campbell counties could experience continued conflict over split estate 

and water issues associated with CBNG development. 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 Emissions and By-Products of Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Plants 

As discussed in chapter 1, the 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 or mining. The use of coal after it is sold is determined by 

the purchaser and end user of the coal; 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. 

As discussed in chapter 2, under the currently approved mining plan, which represents 

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative), from 2009 on, the Buckskin Mine would maintain its 

current average coal production level of 25 million tons per year for another 14 years. Under the 

Proposed Action and Alternative 2, production would continue at an average of 25 million tons 

per year for two years and up to six years, respectively (table 2-5). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-119 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Section 3.18.2 contains estimates of GHG emissions resulting from the mining operations at the 

Buckskin Mine under the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

4.2.14.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Global Warming, and Climate Change 

Climate is both a driving force and a limiting factor for biological, ecological, and hydrological 

processes, and has great potential to influence resource management. Climate change is a 

phenomenon that could alter natural resource and ecologic conditions on spatial and temporal 

scales. The IPCC has stated, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures 

since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic 

GHG concentrations.” The consensus is that as atmospheric concentrations of GHGs continue to 

rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will rise, precipitation patterns will change, and 

climatic trends will change and influence earth’s natural resources in a variety of ways. 

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of anthropogenic (human-made) 

GHG emissions and changes in biological carbon sequestration because of land management 

activities on global climate. 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. Although natural GHG levels have varied for millennia, recent industrialization and 

burning of fossil carbon sources have caused concentrations of these gases to increase 

dramatically, and are likely to contribute to overall global climatic changes (Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change 2007). 

Global mean surface temperatures have increased nearly 1.33 °F from 1906 to 2005. Models 

indicate that average temperature changes are likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere. 

Northern latitudes (above 24° N) have exhibited temperature increases of nearly 2.1°F since 

1900, with nearly a 1.8 °F increase since 1970. Without additional meteorological monitoring 

systems, it is difficult to determine the spatial and temporal variability and change of climatic 

conditions, but increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate 

change. 

In 2001, the IPCC indicated that by the year 2100, global average surface temperatures would 

increase 2.5 to 10.4 °F above 1990 levels. 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 is expected to be greater than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum 

temperatures are more likely than increases in daily maximum temperatures. Increases in 

temperatures would increase water vapor retention in the atmosphere, and reduce soil moisture, 

increasing generalized drought conditions, while at the same time enhancing heavy storm events. 

Although large-scale spatial shifts in precipitation distribution may occur, these changes are 

more uncertain and difficult to predict. 

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 

climate change science are known with virtual certainty, because they are based on well-known 

physical laws and documents trends (EPA 2008b). Several activities contribute to climate 

4-120 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

change, including emissions of GHGs (especially CO2 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. GHGs will have a sustained 

climatic impact over different temporal scales. Recent emissions of CO2 can influence climate 

for 100 years (EPA 2008b; BLM 2005g). 

In some cases it is difficult to discern whether global climate change is already affecting 

resources in the analysis area; however, information is available on potential or projected effects 

of global climate change on resources. It is important to note that projected changes are likely to 

occur over several decades to a century. Therefore, many of the projected changes associated 

with climate change may not be measurable within the reasonably foreseeable future. Unevenly 

distributed effects of climate change include altered weather patterns, sea levels, precipitation 

rates, wildfire occurrences, seasonal timing, desert distribution, and plant and animal distribution 

changes. 

Climate change analyses are comprised of several factors, including GHGs, land use 

management practices, and the effects of reflectivity. The tools necessary to quantify 

incremental climatic impacts of specific activities associated with those factors are presently 

unavailable. Consequently, the impacts of specific anthropogenic activities cannot be assessed. 

Additionally, specific levels of significance have not yet been established. Therefore, climate 

change analysis in this document is limited to accounting and disclosing factors that contribute to 

it. Qualitative and quantitative evaluations of potential contributing factors within the Hay Creek 

II general analysis area are included where appropriate and practicable. 

Chapter 3 identifies the effects of recent global climate change on the environment in the general 

analysis area. It is assumed that existing land and resource conditions within the general analysis 

area have been and would continue to be affected by climate change under all alternatives. 

Existing climate forecast models are not at a high enough resolution to estimate potential impacts 

of climate change within the PRB. Reference has been made to national and regional data that 

are available, including the recent comprehensive report, The Effects of Climate Change on 

Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States (U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program 2008a). 

To the extent that emission data were available or could be inferred from representative type 

data, potential GHG emissions that could result from mining of a tract under the Proposed Action 

or Alternative 2 have been identified, as well as emissions that would result from selection of the 

No Action Alternative. 

The following analysis evaluates the action alternatives and their contribution to cumulative 

effects on the environment of past and projected development activity. This analysis assumes 

that coal mining would proceed in accordance with permit conditions, and that the coal would be 

sold in response to national and international demand. Historically, these users have been 

coal-fired power plants that generate electricity in the United States, although there are recent 

efforts towards sales outside the country; coal from the Buckskin Mine is not sold 

internationally. The coal market is open and competitive, and users can buy from the most costeffective suppliers to meet their needs. The BLM does not determine the destination of this coal, 

and the consumer of the coal determines its use. Power plants in the United States where this 

coal has been used have a variety of coal combustion technologies and emission controls. All 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-121 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

these utility companies are licensed by the appropriate regulatory authorities and operate under 

necessary permit requirements in compliance with regulations. 

Assuming that all coal produced would be burned to generate electricity, GHG emissions that 

could be attributed to coal production resulting from mining the proposed tract or an alternative 

tract configuration, as well as from the forecast coal production from all coal mines in the 

Wyoming PRB, were estimated. This was done by relating the portion of coal mined to the total 

emission of GHG from all coal mined in the United States. Assuming that all PRB coal would 

be used for coal-fired electric generation as part of the total U.S. use of coal for that purpose, 

gives an upper estimate of the GHG expected to result from coal recovered from the proposed 

tract or alternative tract configuration and for total coal production forecast for the entire PRB. 

As mentioned previously, specific levels of significance have not been established for GHG 

emissions. Given the state of the science, it is not possible to associate specific actions with the 

specific climate impacts. Since tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes 

associated with GHG emissions are unavailable, conclusions as to the magnitude or significance 

of the emissions cannot be reached. The specific effects of this action are somewhat speculative 

given the current state of the science. The impacts of climate change represent the cumulative 

aggregation of all worldwide GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the effect of 

reflectivity. This analysis provides a meaningful context and measure of the relative significance 

of coal use from the mining a maintenance coal lease and overall projected PRB coal production 

on total GHG emissions. 

The National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, an 

interagency effort initiated by Congress under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public 

Law 101-606), has confirmed that climate changes can also affect other aspects of the 

environment. The Synthesis Report, the final part of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC 

(available 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. The report included the following observations and 

projections. 

 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. 

The term global warming refers to surface air temperature changes that are a response to 

increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations, along with other climate-influencing factors 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007). From 1850 to present, historic trend 

data show an increase of 1 ° Celsius (C) (1.8 °F) in global mean temperature. However, the 

warming is not uniform throughout the world, and it is not the same during all seasons of the 

year. 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 an average 

of about 20 centimeters (7.9 inches) and has resulted in changes in climate patterns on land. In 

some areas near the equator, temperatures have cooled by about 5 °C (8.75 °F), while closer to 

the poles, temperatures have risen by equal amounts (Hansen and Lebedeff 1987). In northern 

4-122 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

latitudes (above 24° N), temperature increases of nearly 1.2 °C (2.1 °F) have been documented 

since 1900. 

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report found that the “...projected warming in the twenty-first 

century shows scenario-independent geographical patterns similar to those observed over the 

past several decades. Warming is expected to be greatest over land and at most high northern 

latitudes, and least over the Southern Ocean and parts of North Atlantic Ocean.” Observations 

and computer models agree that arctic surface air temperatures are warming twice as fast as the 

global average, which is due partly to what is called the ice-albedo5 feedback (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration 2007). Because temperature is a part of climate, global 

warming is both an element of and a driving force behind climate change. 

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. 

Human population doubled to 2 billion from 1780 to 1930, and then doubled again by 1974. The 

atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased as human populations have increased. 

More land and resources were used to provide for the needs of these populations. As human 

activities have increased, carbon-based fuels have been used to provide for those additional 

energy needs. Forests and vegetation were cleared in order to provide for food production and 

human use. 

CO2, methane, water vapor, ozone, and nitrous oxide are the major GHGs, although there are 

other gases that are considered GHGs. These GHGs are released into the atmosphere and 

prevent the escape of reflected solar radiation and heat from the earth’s surface. Through 

complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these GHG emissions and net losses of 

biological carbon sinks (i.e., forests) cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by 

decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by the earth back into space. In this way, the 

accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere exerts a “greenhouse effect” on the earth’s 

temperature. 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. The present CO2 concentration of about 

385 parts per million is about 30% above its highest level over at least the last 800,000 years. 

The average temperature in the United States has increased by about 2 °F over the last 50 years, 

which is more than the global average temperature increase (U.S. Global Change Research 

Program 2009). 

The IPCC reports the following in its Synthesis Report (Bernstein et al. 2007). 

 Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased 

markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed preindustrial values 

determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. 

 Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379 parts per million) and methane (1,774 parts per 

billion) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases 

in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land use change providing 

another significant but smaller contribution. 

5 Albedo is a term used to describe the fraction of sunlight reflected by an object. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-123 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

 Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth 

century is very likely because of the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG 

concentrations. It is possible that this type of warming has been significant 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 GHG emissions will continue 

to grow over the next few decades. 

 Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce 

many changes in the global climate system during the twenty-first century that would be 

larger than those observed during the twentieth 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 semiarid areas (e.g., Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and northeast 

Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources as a result of climate change. 

 Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries as a result of the time 

scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if GHG 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. 

 A high level of agreement and much evidence support 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. 

Relatively steep elevation gradients between valley floors and adjacent mountain ranges in the 

western United States 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. Patterns of 

historic climatic variation in these areas have occurred for more than 25,000 years, during which 

plant communities gradually shift to higher or lower elevations and north and south depending 

on the direction of temperature and precipitation changes (Tausch et al. 2004; Jackson and 

Overpeck 2000). 

Temperature changes can result in shifts of weather patterns (rainfall and winds), which may 

affect vegetation and habitat. If climate change trends continue into the foreseeable future, 

Chambers (2006) and the 2008 report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program indicate that 

the following changes may be expected to occur in the West. 

 The amount and seasonal variability of precipitation would increase over most areas. IPCC 

(2001) climate model scenarios indicate that by the year 2100, precipitation would increase 

about 10% in summer, about 30% in fall, and 40% in winter. Less snowfall would 

accumulate in higher elevations, more precipitation would occur as rain, and snowmelt would 

occur earlier in the spring because of higher temperatures. 

4-124 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

 Streamflow patterns would change in response to reduced snowpack and increased 

precipitation. Peak flows in spring would occur earlier and be of lower magnitude because of 

snowpack changes. Runoff from greater amounts of winter rainfall would cause higher 

winter flows. Summer flows would be lower, but with higher variability depending on the 

severity of storm events. 

 Some populations of native plants, invasive species, and pests would increase. Increasing 

amounts of atmospheric CO2 and precipitation during the growing season would provide 

favorable growth conditions for native grasses, perennial forbs, woody species, and invasive 

annuals such as cheatgrass. Insect populations also would increase because milder winter 

temperatures would improve reproduction and survival rates. 

 Fire frequency, severity, and extent would increase or decrease because of the changed 

availability of fine fuels (grasses, forbs, and invasive species) and altered accumulation of 

fuels from previous growing seasons. Higher temperatures could extend the length of fire 

seasons. Expansion, constriction and shifting of species ranges and changes in plant 

communities and densities will change the number and location of wildfires. Higher rates of 

insect damage and disease also may increase fuel accumulations. 

 Sensitive species and overall biodiversity would be reduced. High-elevation habitats would 

shrink in area or disappear as lower-elevation plant communities expand. Some mammalian, 

avian, and other species that currently occupy these high-elevation habitats could become 

extinct. Higher rates of disease and insect damage also may pose threats to other sensitive 

plant and animal species. 

Global climate models exist that project/predict future temperature changes under various 

scenarios. For example, atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing by 1% per year would be an 

idealized scenario. The sensitivity of any climate model is calculated as the amount of 

temperature change the model produces for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Most 

recent models have sensitivities of more than 2 °C for a doubling of CO2 concentration (U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program 2008b). Scenarios cannot include unknowable events such as 

volcanic eruptions and variations in solar activity. Perhaps the single largest uncertainty in 

determining the climate sensitivity to either natural or anthropogenic changes is clouds; their 

effects on radiation and their role in the hydrological cycle (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 2007). The rate of heat uptake by the oceans is also an uncertainty when considering 

climate responses on time scales shorter than 100 years (U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

2008b). Despite such uncertainties, models are however consistent in their prediction of climate 

warming under GHG increases (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). 

Climate change models cannot be used to predict future climate changes at any particular scale 

less than globally. According to IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), there is considerable 

confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, 

particularly at continental scales and above, but the changes projected by global models 

decreases at smaller scales. Models are becoming more comprehensive and sophisticated in 

representing observed climate and past climate changes; however, models continue to have 

significant limitations that lead to uncertainties in magnitude and timing, as well as the regional 

details of predicting climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). By 

taking the average of all models, known as the ensemble approach, a more accurate 

representation of the climate emerges (U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2008b). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-125 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

4.2.14.2 Cumulative Effects of Combustion of PRB Coal by Power Plants 

Historically, the coal mined in the PRB has been used as one of the sources of fuel to generate 

electricity in power plants located nationwide. Relatively little PRB coal, about 2%, is burned in 

Wyoming. 

In 2008, Wyoming coal went to 36 states besides Wyoming, although it can also be shipped 

overseas. Over 95% 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. 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 

because of its low sulfur content, providing a way for electric generators to achieve acid rain 

(SO2) reduction requirements as well as lowering competitive mining costs when compared to 

delivered costs of coal from other coal-producing areas. 

Wyoming coal production has increased more rapidly than other domestic coal. Coal coming out 

of the PRB is mined using surface mining methods which are generally safer, less labor 

intensive, and are easier to reclaim than underground mining. Rural rangelands are the areas that 

are predominately mined; they are reclaimed according to WDEQ’s standards (section 3.9.4). 

PRB coal reserves are in thick seams, resulting in more production from the same disturbance 

area, and lower mining and reclamation costs. 

During the coal leasing EIS process, it is difficult to predict who might purchase future PRB 

coal, how it would be used, and where it might be transported to. In the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation power regions where PRB coal is sold, coal use ranges from 74.2% in the 

upper Midwest, to 15.6% in the northeast United States (EPA 2007d). 

Some methods of generating electricity (e.g., natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and 

geothermal resources) result in fewer GHG emissions than burning coal. The demand for power 

is increasing in the United States and throughout the world. According to a recent report by the 

North American Electric Reliability Council, peak demand for electricity in the United States is 

expected to double in the next 22 years (Associated Press 2007). Many developing countries, 

including China and India, rely heavily on coal to meet their rapidly increasing power demands, 

as coal is more economical and more available than other sources of electrical generation. Coalburning power plants currently supply about 44.5% of the electric power generated in the United 

States as of 2009 (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2009c). The demand for power is 

increasing in the United States and throughout the world. In the International Energy Outlook 

2010, the EIA is projecting electrical generation from coal by the year 2035 to be 44% (U.S. 

Energy Information Administration 2010). 

The regulatory mechanisms proposed under the Climate Security Act of 2008, as well as 

regulation of pollutants under the CAA, are imposed at the point when coal is burned and 

converted to electric energy. 

Coal-fired power plants have been identified as principal sources of anthropogenic CO2 

emissions. The Task 2 analysis assumed that all PRB coal is part of the total U.S. consumption 

for electric generation. Under that assumption, CO2 emissions attributed to PRB coal were 

calculated based on the percentage of coal production in that area compared to total coal 

production in the United States. This approach provided estimates of CO2 emissions from the 

4-126 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

use of the PRB coal to produce electricity under upper and lower projections for coal production 

scenarios in that region. 

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% (U.S. 

Department of Energy 2007a). Wyoming coal production increased from 184.0 million tons in 

1990 to 444.9 million tons in 2006, an increase of 242% (Wyoming Department of Employment 

1990 and 2006). The share of electric power generated by burning coal was consistently around 

50% during the 16 years between 1990 and 2006. The percentage of total U.S. CO2 emissions 

related to coal consumption was consistently around 36% during that same time. The percentage 

of U.S. CO2 emissions related to the coal electric power sector increased from about 30% in 

1990 to about 33% in 2006 (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2009d). 

In 2008, the Wyoming PRB coal mines produced approximately 451.7 million tons of coal. 

Using factors derived from laboratory analyses, an estimated 749.6 million metric tons of CO2 

would be generated from the combustion of all of this coal before CO2 reduction technologies 

were applied. This number is based on an average Btu value of 8,600 per pound of Wyoming 

coal using a CO2 emission factor of 212.7 pounds of CO2 per million Btu (U.S. Energy 

Information Administration 1994). The estimated 749.6 million metric tons of CO2 represents 

approximately 35.3% of the estimated 2,125.2 million metric tons of U.S. CO2 emissions from 

coal combustion in 2008 (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2009d). In 2008, Wyoming 

PRB mines accounted for approximately 38.5% of the coal produced in the U.S. (U.S. Energy 

Information Administration 2009a). 

The EIA’s 2008 Emissions of GHGs in the U.S. report (U.S. Energy Information Administration 

2009d) and EIA’s 2008 U.S. Coal Report (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2009a) 

report the following. 

 CO2 emissions represent about 83% of the total U.S. GHG emissions. 

 Estimated CO2 emissions in the United States totaled 5,839.3 million metric tons in 2008, 

which was a 1.5% decrease from 2006 (which was 5,928.7 million metric tons). 

 Estimated CO2 emissions from the electric power sector in 2008 totaled 2,359.1 million 

metric tons, or about 40.6% of total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions in 2008 (which was 

5,814.4 million metric tons). 

 Estimated CO2 emissions from coal electric power generation in 2008 totaled 1,945.9 million 

metric tons or about 33.5% of total energy-related CO2 emissions and about 82.5% of CO2 

emissions from the U.S. electric power sector in 2008. 

 Coal production from the Wyoming PRB represented approximately 43.4% of the coal used 

for power generation in 2008, which means that combustion of Wyoming PRB coal to 

produce electric power was responsible for about 12.8% of the estimated U.S. CO2 emissions 

in 2008. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-127 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the Task 2 Report projects coal development for 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. In the low scenario, the 

percentage of coal use for electric generation would stay about the same, assuming that all forms 

of electric generation would grow at a proportional rate to meet forecast electric demand. In the 

high scenario, percentage of coal use would also remain about the same, but with PRB coal 

displacing coal from other domestic coal regions. Table 4-37 shows the estimated annual CO2 

emissions that would be produced from the combustion of all of this coal (before CO2 reduction 

technologies are applied). 

Table 4-37.	 Estimated Annual CO2 Emissions from Projected PRB Coal Production Levels 

According to Task 2 Report 

Coal Production Rate CO2 Emissions 

(million U.S. tons (million metric tons Projected Coal Production Scenario Year per year)a	 per year)b 

2010 411 682 

Lower 2015 467 775 

2020 495	 821 

2010 479 795 

Upper 2015 543 901 

2020 576 956 

a US tons (2000 pounds per ton). b Metric tons (2204 pounds per ton).
 

Source: Updated Task 2 Report (BLM 2009c).
 

In the following analysis, the contribution of the pending LBAs (table 1-2) to cumulative effects 

on the environment by historic and projected development activity is evaluated. To do this, it is 

assumed that coal mining would proceed in accordance with existing permit conditions and 

would be sold to coal users in response to forecasts of demand. Historically these users have 

been electric utilities in the United States, although there is potential for sales outside the 

country. This coal market is open and competitive and users can buy from the most cost 

effective suppliers that meet their needs. 

The BLM does not determine the destination of this coal, and the use of the coal is determined 

by the coal consumer. The electric utilities where this coal has historically been used are located 

throughout the United States and have a variety of coal combustion technologies and emission 

control systems. These systems are licensed by the appropriate regulatory authorities in their 

locale and operate under necessary permit requirements in compliance with regulation. 

4-128 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-38 shows the estimated cumulative annual CO2e emissions produced by all mines in the 

PRB that currently have LBAs pending (listed in table 1-2). The cumulative emissions calculated 

are those associated with the actual mining operations and not from the combustion of the coal 

produced and sold on the open coal market. 

Table 4-38.	 Estimated Annual CO2 Equivalent Emissionsa from Coal Production at 

PRB Mines with Pending LBAs 

Source 2007 With LBA Tracts 

Four South Gillette Area Coal Mines/Four LBA Tracts 0.716 1.182 

Three Wright Area Coal Mines/Six LBA Tracts 1.245 2.503 

Antelope Mine/West Antelope II Tract 0.225 0.348 

Buckskin Mine/Hay Creek II Tract 0.197 0.197 

Total 2.535 4.229 

LBA = lease by application 

a CO2e in million metric tons. 

Source: Love pers. comm.; Jones & Stokes 2009, WWC Engineering 2009. 

Individual LBA tracts are addressed in the following EISs: West Antelope II Coal Lease 

Application FEIS (BLM 2008e); South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications FEIS (BLM 

2009h); Wright Area Coal Lease Applications FEIS (BLM 2010); and Hay Creek II Coal Lease 

Application FEIS (this document). 

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 2, the Buckskin Mine anticipates producing coal 

included in the proposed tract or alternative tract configuration, respectively, at currently 

permitted levels using existing production and transportation facilities. Estimates of GHG 

emissions resulting from current and projected operations at the mine under the Proposed Action 

and Alternative 2 are included in section 3.18.3. 

The CO2 emissions from coal purchased from the Buckskin Mine and used to generate electricity 

in other states would be extended; the mine does not sell coal to any foreign entities at this time. 

Table 4-39 shows the current (No Action) average annual coal production for the Buckskin Mine 

and the estimated CO2 emissions related to burning coal at that existing level of production. The 

estimated annual CO2 emissions that would be produced from burning coal recovered from the 

proposed tract and from an alternative tract configuration under Alternative 2 are also shown. 

Those estimates are based on the average current rate of annual coal production, which is not 

expected to change under either action alternative, and the assumption that mining would occur 

at that maximum permitted level until all coal resources in the leased tract are depleted. As 

expected, the estimate for total CO2 emissions associated with burning new coal reserves would 

be greatest under Alternative 2 because of the larger potential tract size and longer mine life. 

Under this alternative, the Buckskin Mine could extend production by up to six years. In 

contrast, the average annual estimate for CO2 emissions under Alternative 2 would be slightly 

lower than under the Proposed Action. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-129 
 

 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-39. Estimated Annual CO2 Emissions Produced from Combustion of Coal 

Produced from the Proposed Tract or BLM Study Area 

Applicant 

Mine/LBA Tract 

Current (No Action) and Anticipated Average Annual Coal Production by Applicant Minea (million tons per year) 

CO2 Emissions Related to Annual

Coal Productionb (million metric tons) 

Recoverable Coal Added under Proposed Actiona (million tons) 

Mine Life Added under Proposed Actiona (years) 

CO2 Emissions

Added by ProposedActionb

(million metric tons)

Recoverable Coal Added under Alternative 2a (million tons) 

Mine Life Added under Alternative 2a 

(years) 

CO2 Emissions

Added by Alternative 2b

(million metric tons) 

Total for Proposed TractAverage per Year for Proposed Tract Total for BLMStudy AreaAverage per Year for BLM Study Area 

Buckskin/Hay 25.0 41.5 54.1 2 89.8 44.9 149.7 6 Up to 248.4 41.4 

Creek II 

a Anticipated coal production rates at the Buckskin Mine, coal tonnages within the proposed tract and BLM study area, and anticipated number of years added 

to the life of the mine under each alternative are addressed in chapter 2. 

b Determined using emission factor of 1.659 metric tons CO2/ton of coal burned (U.S. Energy Information Administration 1994). 

Despite these estimates, the actual level of CO2 emissions produced from burning coal recovered 

from the proposed tract or an alternative tract configuration under Alternative 2 cannot be 

predicted with complete accuracy due to uncertainties about emission limits that would be in 

place when the new coal is mined, as well as where and how that coal would be used. As shown 

under the No Action Alternative in table 2-4, the Buckskin Mine projects that, after 2008, 

approximately 14 years of currently permitted mine life remains. More rapid improvements in 

technologies that provide for less CO2 emissions, new CO2 mitigation requirements, or an 

increased rate of voluntary CO2 emissions reduction programs could result in significantly lower 

CO2 emissions levels than are projected here. 

The Buckskin Mine produced approximately 25 million tons of coal in 2008, or about 4% of the 

coal produced in the Wyoming PRB that year. Combustion of those 25 million tons of coal to 

produce electricity generated approximately 41.5 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, or about 

0.6% of the total estimated anthropogenic CO2 emissions produced in the United States in 2008 

(about approximately 7,052.6 million metric tons) (U.S. Department of Energy 2009d). Under 

the No Action Alternative, CO2 emissions attributed to burning coal produced by the mine would 

continue at this approximate level for up to 14 years beyond 2008, while the mine recovers the 

remaining estimated 460.9 million tons of currently leased coal reserves. 

Selection of the No Action Alternative would probably not result in a decrease of U.S. CO2 

emissions attributed to coal mining and coal-burning power plants in the longer term, because 

multiple other sources of coal are available. Although this coal does not have the cost, 

environmental, or safety advantages of PRB coal, it could supply the demand beyond the time 

that the Buckskin Mine completes coal recovery in its existing leases. 

In 2006, transportation sources accounted for approximately 29% of total U.S. GHG emissions 

(EPA 2008c). This is the fastest growing source of U.S. GHGs, accounting for 47% of the net 

4-130 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

increase in total U.S. emissions since 1990. Transportation is also the largest end-use source of 

CO2, which is the most prevalent GHG (EPA 2008c). 

CO2 is not the only GHG of concern. Methane is a component of CBNG that is released into the 

atmosphere when coal is mined. The other major sources of U.S. methane emissions are from 

agriculture and waste management. The EIA (2007a and 2007b) reports the following. 

 Anthropogenic methane emissions in the U.S. totaled 737.4 million metric tons CO2e in 2008 

and 722.7 million metric tons CO2e in 2007. 

 Methane emissions from coal mining across the nation were estimated at 82.0 million metric 

tons CO2e, or approximately 11.1% of the U.S. total anthropogenic methane emissions in 

2008. 

 Surface coal mining operations were estimated to be responsible for methane emissions of 

about 15.7 million metric tons of CO2e in 2008 in the United States. This represents about 

2.1% of the estimated anthropogenic methane emissions in 2008, and about 19.1% of the 

estimated methane emissions attributed to coal mining of all types. 

 The Wyoming PRB produced approximately 55.5% of the coal mined in the United States in 

2008 using surface mining techniques, which means that Wyoming PRB surface coal mines 

were responsible for approximately 1.7% of the estimated U.S. anthropomorphic methane 

emissions that year. The Buckskin Mine contributed about 4% of the Wyoming PRB coal 

production in 2006. Since 1990, when the BLM began using the LBA process, total U.S. 

anthropogenic methane emissions declined from 783.5 million metric tons CO2e to 737.4 

million metric tons CO2e in 2008. Total coal mining related emissions declined from 106.4 

million metric tons CO2e to 82.0 million metric tons CO2e during the same period. The EIA 

attributes the overall decrease in emissions of methane to increases in coal production from 

surface coal mines that produce relatively little methane (U.S. Energy Information 

Administration 2009d). 

CBNG is commercially produced on a large scale by oil and gas operators from wells located 

within and near the Hay Creek II general analysis area. CBNG that is not recovered prior to 

mining is vented to the atmosphere during the mining process. Selection of the No Action 

Alternative would allow more complete recovery of the CBNG from the general analysis area in 

the short term (roughly 14 years), during the time that the applicant mine’s currently leased coal 

is being recovered. Under Alternative 2, a large portion of the CBNG resources in the BLM 

study area would be recovered prior to mining as discussed in Section 3.3.2.2. Selection of the 

No Action Alternative would not likely directly decrease U.S. methane emissions attributed to 

coal mining in the long term because multiple other sources of coal are available that could 

supply the coal demand beyond the time that the Buckskin Mine recovers the coal in its existing 

leases. 

Nitrous oxide is the other GHG of concern that is associated with coal mining; however, the 

largest source in the United States is agricultural (about 76% comes from fertilization of soils 

and about 24% from management of animal waste) (U.S. Energy Information Administration 

2009d). 

Although the effects of GHG emissions and other contributions to global climate change can be 

estimated, given the current state of science it is impossible to determine what effect any amount 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-131 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

of GHG emissions from an activity might have on global warming, climate change, or the 

environmental effects stemming from it. Thus, it is not currently possible to associate any 

particular action and its specific project-related emissions with the creation or mitigation of any 

specific climate-related effects at any given time or place. However, certain actions and the 

effects of that action may contribute to the effects of climate change, even though specific 

climate-related environmental effects cannot be directly attributed to them. 

4.2.14.3 U.S. Actions and Strategies to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Potential regulatory policies to address climate change are in various stages of development at 

the federal, state, and regional levels (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2009e). A 

number of bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress related to global climate change. At 

this time, no national policy or law is in place to regulate GHG emissions. 

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-andtrade within the United States. In short, the “cap” would set a legal limit on the quantity of 

GHGs that a region can emit each year and “trade” would allow companies to exchange the 

permission (or permits) to emit GHGs. The cap would get tighter over time, and by 2050, 

emissions would be reduced by 63% below 2005 levels. The Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee approved the bill in December, 2007 (http://www.pewclimate.org, accessed 

12/21/2007). The bill was introduced in the Senate and read the first time on May 20, 2008. The 

Boxer-Lieberman-Warner substitute amendment to the Climate Security Act of 2008 was 

released by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on May 21, 2008. The bill 

was read a second time and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, 

Calendar No. 742. In June 2008, the U.S. Senate voted to invoke cloture on the Boxer 

amendment but did not pass the cap-and-trade legislation. 

On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed The American Clean Energy and 

Security Act of 2009. The legislation includes a federal GHG emissions cap-and-trade program 

that would take effect in 2012. The declining emissions cap requires that total GHG emissions 

be 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. In November 2009, the 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a GHG cap-and-trade bill that borrows 

much from the House American Clean Energy and Security Act and tightens the GHG emissions 

cap to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. Several other committees are expected to weigh in 

before the final bill is crafted and brought before the Senate floor (U.S. Energy Information 

Administration 2009d). 

On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court found that GHGs are air 

pollutants covered by the CAA. The Court held that the administrator of the EPA must 

determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air 

pollution that may endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to 

make a reasoned decision. The court directed the EPA to review the latest science on climate 

change in order to make a determination. On April 17, 2009, the EPA administrator signed the 

Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 

202(a) of the CAA. On December 7, 2009, the administrator signed two distinct findings 

regarding GHGs. The Administrator found that current and projected concentrations of the six 

key well-mixed GHGs—CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 

4-132 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public 

health and welfare of existing and future generations and that the combined emissions of these 

GHGs from new motor vehicles contribute to climate change. The findings do not impose any 

emission reduction requirements but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed 

earlier in 2009 (EPA 2009d). The agency can now regulate CO2 as a pollutant and begin 

regulating GHG emissions from power plants, factories and major industrial polluters, although 

the details of that regulation have yet to be worked out. An endangerment finding under one 

provision of the CAA alone would not automatically trigger regulation under the entire Act. 

Because of the Supreme Court’s decision in 2007, the EPA drafted the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration/Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. The draft rule, published in the Federal 

Register on October 27, 2009, limits the applicability of CO2 emissions standards to new and 

modified sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons CO2e annually, rather than applying the 

threshold of 250 tons per sources for triggering the regulation of criteria pollutants specified in 

Title V of the CAA. At the 25,000 metric tons CO2e annual level, the EPA expects that 14,000 

large industrial sources, which are responsible for 70% of the U.S. GHG emissions, will be 

required to obtain Title V operating permits. That threshold would cover large power plants, 

refineries, and other large industrial operations (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2009d). 

The EPA signed the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule on September 22, 

2009 (EPA 2010). The rule requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers 

of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG 

emissions to submit annual reports to the EPA. The gases covered by the rule are CO2, nitrous 

oxide, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and 

hydrofluorinated ethers (HFE). The EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better 

understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible 

policies and programs to reduce emissions. Reporters were required to began monitoring their 

emissions on January 1, 2010, and the first annual emissions reports will be due in 2011 (EPA 

2010). 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“The Stimulus Bill”) was signed into 

law by President Obama on February 17, 2009, and under the Act, the DOE received $36.7 

billion to fund renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, energy efficiency, and smart grid 

projects. The projects are expected to provide reductions in both energy use and GHG emissions 

(U.S. Energy Information Administration 2009d). 

Federal, state, and local governments are also developing programs and initiatives aimed at 

reducing energy use and emissions. The 2002 Clear Skies and Global Climate Change Initiative 

is a voluntary national program to reduce GHG emissions. There are federal tax incentives for 

energy efficiency and conservation, and some states have renewable energy and energy 

efficiency policies. Regional initiatives have started in the northeast (Northeast Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative) as well as the Western Climate Initiative in the western states. 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. 

A number of U.S. financial and corporate interests have acknowledged that enactment of federal 

legislation limiting the emissions of CO2 and other GHGs seems likely (National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners 2007). There is uncertainty about anticipated CO2 emission 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-133 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

limits and carbon capture/sequestration regulations. This has led some proponents to cancel or 

delay proposed projects that use existing and emerging technologies to produce electricity from 

coal (Bleizeffer 2007a and 2007b). Capacity planning decisions for new generating plants and 

investment behavior in the electric power sector are being affected by the potential impacts of 

policy changes that could be made to limit or reduce GHG emissions (U.S. Energy Information 

Administration 2009e). 

Based on the coal-related and oil- and gas-related development in the PRB study area, future 

development of geologic carbon sequestration could occur in the area. 

4.2.14.4 Current and Future Energy Sources and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases 

in the U.S. 

The key determinant of energy consumption is population. Population influences demand for 

goods, services, housing, and travel. The population in the United States has increased by about 

20% and energy consumption by a comparable 18% since 1990, with variations in energy use per 

capita depending on factors such as weather and the economy. To meet the nationwide 

consumer demand and requirement for energy, coal is burned in power plants to produce 

electricity. Coal is an important component of the U.S. energy supply partly because it is the 

most abundant domestically available fossil fuel (U.S. Geological Survey 2002b). One-quarter 

of the world’s coal reserves are found within the United States; the energy content of U.S. coal 

resources exceeds that of all the world’s known recoverable oil; and coal resources supply more 

than half of the electricity consumed by Americans (U.S. Energy Information Administration 

2008c and U.S. Department of Energy 2009). Many countries are even more reliant on coal for 

their energy needs than is the United States. More than 70% of the electricity generated in China 

and India comes from coal (U.S. Geological Survey 2000). The value of coal is partially offset 

by the environmental impacts of coal combustion (U.S. Geological Survey 2000). 

In the DOE’s 2007 Annual Energy Outlook, energy-related CO2 emissions were projected to 

grow by about 35% from 2006 to 2030 (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2007b). By 

comparison, the DOE’s 2008 Annual Energy Outlook projected energy-related CO2 emissions to 

grow by 16%, from 5,890 million metric tons in 2006 to 6,851 million metric tons in 2030 (U.S. 

Energy Information Administration 2008c). However, the DOE’s 2009 Annual Energy Outlook 

projects energy-related CO2 emissions to grow by 7%, from 5,991 million metric tons in 2007 to 

6,414 million metric tons in 2030. The mix of sources for these generation projections include 

coal, natural gas, nuclear, liquids (petroleum), hydro-power, and non-hydro renewables (e.g, 

wind, solar). The most recent, lower projected emissions growth rate is the result of a slower 

demand growth combined with increased use of renewables and a declining share of electricity 

generation that comes from fossil fuels (U.S. Department of Energy 2009b). 

Total U.S. anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2008 were 2.2% below the 2007 total. The decline 

in total emissions—from 7,209.8 million metric tons CO2e in 2007 to 7,052.6 million metric tons 

in 2008—was largely the result of a 177.8 million metric tons CO2e drop in CO2 emissions. 

Emissions of other GHGs increased by small percentages, but those increases were more than 

offset by the drop in CO2 emissions. The decrease in U.S. CO2 emissions in 2008 resulted from 

higher energy prices, economic contraction, and lower demand for electricity (U.S. Energy 

Information Administration 2009e). 

4-134 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Energy-related CO2 emissions dominate (about 81% in 2008) the total U.S. GHG emissions. 

Petroleum is the largest fossil fuel source for energy-related CO2 emissions, contributing 41.9% 

of the total, whereas coal is the second-largest fossil fuel contributor, at 36.5%. Petroleum made 

up 44.6% of total fossil fuel energy consumption in 2008, as compared with coal’s 26.8%. 

Natural gas accounted for 28.5% of the fossil fuel energy use in 2008, but only 21.4% of total 

energy-related CO2 emissions. Energy-related CO2 emissions account for 98% of the total U.S. 

CO2 emissions (U.S. Department of Energy 2009a). 

The United States emits about 1,900 million metric tons annually from coal-fired power plants, 

33% of total energy-related CO2 emissions, and 81% of CO2 emissions from the U.S. electric 

power sector (U.S. Department of Energy 2009a). If public sentiment results in changed electric 

demand, or if GHG emissions are regulated, the demand forecast for coal for electric generation 

could change. The potential impacts of policy changes that could be made to limit or reduce 

GHG emissions will affect planning decisions for new power plants, particularly coal-fired 

facilities. 

To assess the national electric generation portfolio (mix of electric generation technologies) and 

the mix of future electric generation technologies, the BLM reviewed the Annual Energy 

Outlook 2010 Report (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2009b). An independent study 

representing a forecast to the year 2035, it examined the ability of the domestic electric 

generation industry to alter the present electric generation portfolio. This report compares the 

2035 projection to the electric generation mix that existed in 2008. This most recent report 

incorporates the 2009 downturn in electric demand, which resulted from lowered electric 

demand for manufacturing in the depressed domestic economy of 2009. This forecast estimated 

the coal-fired domestic electric generation at 44% by 2035, based on a slowing in electric 

demand through 2035, and a doubling, to 17%, of renewable electric generation by 2035. Based 

on this study, even with a considerably more optimistic projection for renewable sources, coal 

use continues to be projected as the largest portion of the domestic electric fuel mix. 

Technologies are available for producing cleaner, more efficient, and more reliable power from 

coal. These include advanced pulverized coal, circulating fluidized bed, coal gasification or 

integrated gasification combined cycle, and carbon sequestration or carbon capture and storage 

technologies. Systems that use carbon capture technologies are designed to capture at least 90% 

of emitted CO2, which would be stored within geological formations (i.e., oil and gas reservoirs, 

saline formations, unmineable coal seams). These technologies are not used commercially 

because of the extremely high capital costs and low system reliability—the biggest obstacles to 

integration of these technologies into the power market. However, regulatory uncertainties are 

affecting planning decisions, for example, unless new coal-fired power plants are equipped with 

carbon capture and storage equipment they could incur higher costs as a result of higher 

expenses for siting and permitting. Nuclear and renewable power plants would not be directly 

affected by regulatory uncertainties because they do not emit GHGs 

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has also attempted to identify a scenario of how 

the full portfolio of technologies to provide for electric energy would respond if a national policy 

required CO2 emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels (James 2007). EPRI updated this research 

in an October 2009 report, The Power to Reduce CO2 Emissions: The Full Portfolio (EPRI 

2009), which used the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Report for comparison. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-135 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The EPRI study predicts that a national policy that forces a reduction of CO2 emissions to 1990 

levels would promote increased energy efficiency, and the growth of “non carbon” sources such 

as nuclear and renewable. Renewable sources include wind and solar, as well as emerging 

technologies like tidal power, river turbines, and others reported in the media. Hydropower is 

limited because most opportunities for hydropower have been used or require large 

infrastructure. Use of carbon based sources such as gas and petroleum are less than forecasted 

by the EIA, while coal use remains about the same in the EPRI forecast, mostly due to forecasted 

improvement in GHG emission reduction in coal fueled generation. Both the EIA and EPRI 

forecast an increase in electricity cost. 

Figure 4-6 shows the 2008 electric generation mix, compared to the 2035 EIA forecast (U.S. 

Energy Information Administration 2009b) as well as the older 2030 EPRI forecast (EPRI 2009). 

Both forecasts agree that the amount of coal-fueled electric generation is expected to drop from 

nearly 50% of the present total to about 40% of the total in future years. Coal is forecast to 

remain as the major electric generation component until at least 2035. Renewable energy (other 

than hydroelectric) and nuclear are forecast to increase, while natural gas and other fossil fuels 

(i.e., oil) are forecast to remain stable or decrease to a degree. 

In 2003, the DOE initiated the FutureGen project, a first of its kind, commercial-scale coal-fired, 

near-zero-emissions power plant incorporating integrated gasification combined cycle with 

carbon capture and storage. This is the first facility of its kind to combine and test several 

cutting-edge technologies. FutureGen is a public-private partnership between the DOE and the 

FutureGen Alliance, a non-profit organization representings some of the world’s largest coal 

producers and electric utilities. The FutureGen Alliance and the DOE reached an agreement in 

June 2009 to proceed with the project, which will be located at Mattoon, Illinois. The project 

proposes to produce electricity by turning coal into gas, remove impurities, extract CO2 from the 

waste stream, and then sequester the CO2 underground. The Alliance is responsible for design, 

construction, and operation of the facility, and the DOE is responsible for independent oversight 

and coordinating participation of international governments. The DOE’s financial contribution 

will come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The DOE issued a NEPA ROD 

on July 14, 2009, to move forward (U.S. Department of Energy 2009b). The ROD allows the 

Alliance to proceed with site-specific activities, and over the following 8 to 10 months the 

project design, costs and funding plan will be refined. When operational the FutureGen facility 

will produce 275 MW of power and capture 90% of the carbon emissions; however, it may be 

operated at a 60% capture rate in the first three years to validate plant integration and 

sequestration capability, as well as manage the startup risks and costs. This technology should 

sequester a million tons of CO2 annually (U.S. Department of Energy 2009b). 

Other methods of generating electricity that result in fewer GHG emissions than burning coal 

include natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal resources. 

Natural gas plays a key role in meeting U.S. energy demands. Natural gas, coal and oil supply 

about 85% of the nation’s energy, with natural gas currently supplying about 22% of the total. 

The percentage contribution of natural gas to the U.S. energy supply is expected to remain 

constant for the next 20 years. According to EIA’s 2010 Annual Energy Outlook (U.S. Energy 

Information Administration 2009b), concerns about GHG emissions have little effect on 

construction of new capacity fueled by natural gas. 

4-136 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Other Fossil 

(1.5%) 

Renewable 

(9.1%) 

Nuclear 

(19.6%) 

Natural Gas
 

(21.4%)
 

Current (2008) 

(USDOE 2008) 

Renewable 

(21%) 

Nuclear
 

(28%)
 

2030 Forecast 

(EPRI 2009) 

Other Fossil 

(1.4%) 

Renewable
 

(17.0%)
 

Nuclear 

(17.1%) 

Natural Gas
 

(20.8%)
 

2035 Forecast 

(USDOE 2009e) 

Coal 

(48.5%) 

Coal 

(38%) 

Natural Gas 

(13%) 

Coal 

(43.8%) 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Figure 4-6 

Current and Forecast Mix of Electric Generation Sources 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Unconventional natural gas resources are expected to play a larger role in the demand for natural 

gas for electricity generation (U.S. Department of Energy 2009b). Natural gas production from 

hydrocarbon rich shale formations, known as “shale gas” is one of the most rapidly expanding 

trends in onshore domestic oil and gas exploration and production today. Analysts estimate that 

by 2011, most new natural gas reserves will come from unconventional shale gas reservoirs 

(NETL 2009). From 2007 to 2030, domestic production of natural gas is expected to increase by 

22% (U.S. Department of Energy 2009b). 

EPRI (2009) projects the nuclear share of power generation to increase to about 28% by 2030 as 

the addition of new power plants and upgrades at existing units increases overall capacity and 

generation. The nuclear power share of total electricity generation remains somewhat constant 

between 17 and 19% by 2035 according to EIA (2009b). 

The nation’s total electricity generation from renewable resources, hydroelectricity, geothermal, 

solar, wind, ethanol, bio-fuels, and bio-mass, supported by federal tax incentives and state 

renewable programs, was expected to increase from 9% in 2008 to 17% in 2035 (U.S. 

Department of Energy 2009d). EPRI (2009) is more optimistic with renewable sources reaching 

21% by 2030. 

The estimated cumulative CO2 emissions that would be produced annually from the conventional 

combustion of the coal produced from the proposed tract or an alternative tract configuration 

under Alternative 2 (see 4.2.14.2) is based on the Buckskin Mine’s projected future mining rates. 

That estimate presents a scenario that assumes the demand for coal in the future would not differ 

from current demand. The scenario also assumes, technologies for producing cleaner, more 

efficient and more reliable power from coal (i.e., advanced pulverized coal, circulating fluidized 

bed, integrated gasification combined cycle, and carbon capture and storage) would not yet be 

commercially established, and an explicit federal policy would not yet have been enacted to limit 

or reduce U.S. GHG emissions. However, if generation shifted strongly toward natural gas, 

nuclear, and renewable power, as well as fossil technologies using carbon capture and storage 

equipment, those estimates of CO2 emissions from the combustion of coal produced from the 

PRB would be lower than estimated in the prior discussion (Section 4.2.14.2). 

4.2.14.5 Mercury, Coal Combustion Residues, and Other By-Products 

One of the concerns associated with burning coal to produce electricity is the release of elements 

from coal to the environment (U.S. Geological Survey 2002b). When coal is burned, GHGs as 

well as mercury and other compounds and elements, including lead and cadmium, that may have 

direct or indirect effects on human health, are released (EPA 2009e). The principal pollutants 

generated by coal combustion that can cause health problems are particulates, sulfur and nitrogen 

oxides, trace elements (including arsenic, fluorine, selenium, and radioactive uranium and 

thorium), and organic compounds generated by incomplete burning (U.S. Geological Survey 

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 

(U.S. Geological Survey 2000). Some coal mined in China contained high levels of arsenic, 

fluorine, selenium, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This coal has caused severe, life4-138 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

threatening health impacts on some residents that burned the coal in unvented stoves in their 

homes (U.S. Geological Survey 2000). 

Coal that is burned in the United States generally contains low to modest concentrations of 

potentially toxic trace elements and sulfur (U.S. Geological Survey 2000). Specifically, PRB 

coal is recognized as being a clean burning coal because of its low sulfur and low ash properties. 

An analysis conducted by the USGS (2002b) found that PRB coal contained, on average, 

approximately eight times less sulfur than coals being used 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 parts per million), seven times less arsenic (17 parts per million), five 

times less lead (19 parts per million), and three times less cadmium (1.1 parts per million) when 

compared to Appalachian and Illinois basin feed coals. When burned, PRB coal produced, on 

average, 38% less fly ash than Appalachian and Illinois basin coals (U.S. Geological Survey 

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 

(U.S. Geological Survey 2002b). 

Additionally, many U.S. coal-burning power plants use sophisticated pollution-control systems 

that efficiently reduce the emission of hazardous elements (U.S. Geological Survey 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 (U.S. 

Geological Survey 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 (U.S. Geological Survey 2000). 

Mercury is a naturally occurring element and enters the atmosphere from 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% of the current worldwide mercury air emissions; 

anthropogenic (human-caused) mercury emissions account for the remaining 67%, though these 

estimates are highly uncertain (EPA 2009f). 

When fossil fuels burn, mercury vapor is released into the atmosphere where it may drift for a 

year or more, spreading with air currents over vast regions of the globe (U.S. Department of 

Energy 2006). In 1995, an estimated 5,500 tons of mercury was emitted globally from both 

natural and human sources (U.S. Department of Energy 2006). Coal-fired power plants in the 

United States contributed to less than 1% of that total (U.S. Department of Energy 2006). 

Mercury is a global problem. It can travel thousands of miles in the atmosphere before it is 

deposited back to the earth in rainfall or in dry gaseous forms. The EPA estimates that about 

one-third of the U.S. anthropogenic mercury emissions are deposited within the contiguous 

United States and the remainder enters the global cycle (EPA 2009f). 

Table 4-40 summarizes how the various continents contributed to worldwide human-caused 

mercury emissions in 2004. The 2004 emissions were estimated to account for about 3% of the 

global total (EPA 2009f). The EPA (2009e) estimates that 83% of the mercury deposited in the 

United States originates from international sources, with the remaining 17% coming from the 

United States and Canada. These figures include mercury from natural and anthropogenic 

sources. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-139 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-40. 2004 Percent Contribution to Worldwide Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions 

Continent Percent 

Asia 53 

Africa 18 

Europe 11 

North America 9 

Australia 6 

South America 4 

Source: EPA 2009f. 

In 2006, the EPA estimated that 50% to 70% of global atmospheric emissions came from fuel 

combustion, and much of it came from China, India, and other Asian countries. Coal 

consumption in Asia is expected to grow significantly over the next 20 years. 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 the EPA. Overall U.S. mercury air emissions have been reduced by 45% since 1990. 

The EPA is most concerned with methyl mercury, a potent form of mercury to which humans are 

primarily exposed. (EPA 2006b.) 

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 about a million times the methyl mercury concentration in the water (EPA 2006b). 

The primary way humans are exposed is by eating fish containing methyl mercury (EPA 2006b). 

Other animals that consume fish and shellfish can also be adversely affected. Birds and 

mammals that eat fish may be more exposed to mercury than other animals in water ecosystems 

(EPA 2008d). Exposure to high levels of methyl mercury 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 2006b). 

The 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 (U.S. Department of Energy 2006). The Office of Fossil Energy manages the largest 

funded program for developing an understanding of mercury emissions and developing emission 

control technologies for the coal-fired electric generating industry in the United States (U.S. 

Department of Energy 2006). Research on advanced and improved mercury control technology 

is ongoing (U.S. Department of Energy 2006). 

In the United States, coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury 

emissions being released into the air, accounting for about 40% of all domestic human-caused 

4-140 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

mercury emissions (EPA 2008d). However, these emissions contribute little to the global 

mercury pool. The EPA estimated that mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants 

account for about 1% of the global total (EPA 2009f). 

Coal production from the Wyoming PRB represented approximately 42% of the coal used for 

power generation in 2006, or about 0.4% of the global anthropogenic mercury emissions. The 

Buckskin Mine produced about 5.2% of the coal produced in the Wyoming PRB in 2006, which 

would represent about 0.005% of the global mercury emissions. Under the No Action 

Alternatives, mercury emissions attributable to burning coal produced by the Buckskin Mine 

would be extended at current levels up to approximately 14 years, while the mine recovers the 

remaining estimated 344.3 million tons of currently leased coal reserves. Under the Proposed 

Action or Alternative 2, the Buckskin Mine’s contribution to global mercury emissions would be 

extended from two to six additional years, respectively. Uncertainties about future regulatory 

requirements and the use of the coal mined under either of the action alternatives make it 

difficult to project the impacts of mercury emissions produced by burning the coal. 

Additionally, burning coal in electric utility boilers generates residual materials called coal 

combustion residues. These residues include non-combustible 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 the site-specific characteristics of 

where the coal originated. Coal-fired boilers are required to have control devices to reduce the 

amount of emissions that are released into the atmosphere (EPA 2007e). The use of air pollution 

control equipment at power plants has resulted in fewer emissions but has also increased the 

amount of solid residues. 

In the past, coal combustion residues have been recycled or disposed of in landfills or surface 

impoundments. More recently, these residues have been disposed of in mines as part of the 

reclamation process. 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 2002c). Buckskin Mine does not dispose of 

combustion residues. 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. 

As stated, the Buckskin Mine produced about 5.2% of the coal produced in the Wyoming PRB in 

2006. Under the No Action Alternative, production of coal combustion residue attributed to 

burning coal from the Buckskin Mine would be extended at about current levels for 

approximately 14 years, while the mine recovers the remaining estimated 344.3 million tons of 

currently leased coal reserves. Coal combustion residue related to burning coal mined under the 

Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would be extended from two to six additional years, 

respectively. Uncertainties about future regulatory requirements and the use of the coal mined 

under either action alternative make it difficult to project the impacts of disposing of the related 

coal combustion residues. 

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 (e.g., sand, gravel, or gypsum) (EPA 2007e). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-141 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Coal combustion products (CCPs) are produced primarily from the combustion of coal in 

coal-fired power plants (EPA 2007e) and can include the following materials: fly ash, bottom 

ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization material (EPA 2007e). Studies and research 

conducted or supported by the EPA, EPRI, other government agencies, and universities have 

indicated that the beneficial uses of CCPs have not been shown to present significant risks to 

human health or the environment (EPA 2009g). 

Fly ash is a by-product of burning finely ground coal in a boiler to produce electricity. 

Physically, fly ash is a fine, powdery material composed mostly of silica and nearly all particles 

are round. Fly ash is a siliceous material that, in the presence of water, reacts with calcium 

hydroxide at ordinary temperatures to produce cement-like compounds. Because of its shape and 

properties, fly ash can be useful in cement and concrete applications. (EPA 2007h.) 

Bottom ash is agglomerated ash particles, formed in furnaces burning pulverized coal that are too 

large to be carried in the flue gases. Bottom ash is coarse with grain sizes from fine sand to fine 

gravel. It can be used as a replacement for aggregate and is usually sufficiently well-graded in 

size to avoid the need for blending with other fine aggregates. (EPA 2007g.) 

Boiler slag is the molten bottom ash collected at the base of slag tap and cyclone type furnaces. 

Boiler slag particles are uniform in size, hard, and durable with a resistance to surface wear. The 

permanent black color of this material is desirable for asphalt applications and aids in melting 

snow. (EPA 2007h.) 

Flue gas desulfurization material is a product of a process typically used for reducing SO2 

emissions from the exhaust gas system of a coal-fired boiler. These materials can be used as 

embankment and road base material, wallboard manufacturing, and in place of gypsum to 

produce cement. Currently, the largest single market for flue gas desulfurization material is in 

wallboard manufacturing. (EPA 2007i.) 

Using CCPs can generate significant environmental and economic benefits (EPA 2009f). 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 2009f). 

Using CCPs can reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions and can help reduce the need 

for landfill space. Economic benefits include reduced costs associated with managing coal ash 

and slag disposal, potential revenue from the sale of CCPs, and savings from using CCPs in 

place of other more costly raw materials (EPA 2009f). 

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 2009g). High coal ash content concrete is used for building pavements designed to last 

50 years—twice the lifetime of conventional pavements. Coal fly ash can create superior 

products because of its self-cementing properties (EPA 2007f). Using coal fly ash in concrete 

can also produce stronger and longer-lasting buildings (EPA 2007f). This not only reduces the 

costs of maintaining buildings, but also 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 2007f). 

4-142 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

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 2005d). The EPA estimated that by using 15 million tons of coal fly 

ash, the United States reduced its GHG emissions equivalent to the annual emissions of nearly 

2.5 million passenger vehicles (EPA 2008e). 

Because of the many potential uses of CCPs, the EPA has sponsored the Coal Combustion 

Products Partnership (C2P2) Program to further the beneficial use of these coal combustion byproducts (EPA 2003b). With more than 170 private and public partners (EPA 2009c), the C2P2 

Program is a cooperative effort between the EPA and various organizations to 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 2009c). 

In 2007, the United States used approximately 43% of its CCPs (EPA 2009c). The C2P2 

program aims to reduce adverse effects on air and land by increasing the use of CCPs to 50% in 

2011 from 32% in 2001 (EPA 2009d). The program also plans to increase the use of CCPs as a 

supplementary cement-like material in concrete by 50%, from 12.4 million tons in 2001 to 18.6 

million tons in 2011 (EPA 2009d). This would decrease GHG emissions by avoiding cement 

manufacturing of approximately 5 million tons of cement (EPA 2009d). 

Table 4-41 summarizes the magnitude and duration of cumulative impacts in the PRB based on 

the upper and lower estimates for coal production in the region. The Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 are within the upper and lower coal production estimates used to project reasonably 

foreseeable impacts for the PRB Coal Review and to provide a basis for quantification of related 

impact-causing parameters. As described in section 4.0, the PRB Coal Review is not an analysis 

of the impacts associated with the development of a specific project in the PRB, such as the Hay 

Creek II coal lease application discussed in this EIS. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 4-143 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-41. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impactsa,b 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource Magnitude, Type, and Duration of Impact Resource Name Alternative 1 (No Action) Proposed Action, ATopography and Physiography Alteration of topography following reclamation of coal disturbance areas Alteration of topography to accommodate coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related facilities Geology and Mineral Resources 

Permanent topographic moderation following reclamation Long-term to permanent limited changes in discrete, scattered areas 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Recovery of coal resulting in reduction in coal resources and disturbance and replacement of overburden and topsoil Surficial disturbance and reclamation on oil and gas well sites and associated facilities Paleontology Coal, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development disturbance of PFYC Class 5 Wasatch and Class 3 Fort Union formations 

Moderate, permanent Moderate, long-term Permanent potential adverse effects to scientifically significant fossils that are present but not visible prior to disturbance 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Air Quality Impacts to Wyoming near-Field Receptors 

24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 

Maximum modeled impacts occurring at isolated receptors show localized exceedances of the WAAQS and NAAQS for the base year (2004) as well as for both coal production scenarios for 2015 and 2020 

Same as Alternative 1 

Annual PM10 Maximum modeled impacts at peak receptors show 20% increase 

from base year (2004); exceed the WAAQS for both coal production scenarios for 2015 but in compliance with WAAQS for both coal production scenarios for 2020 

Same as Alternative 1 

Annual PM2.5 Maximum modeled impacts at peak receptors show 20% increase 

from base year (2004) and localized exceedances of the WAAQS and NAAQS for both coal production scenarios for 2015 and 2020 

Same as Alternative 1 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-41. Continued 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource Magnitude, Type, and Duration of Impact Resource Name Alternative 1 (No Action) Proposed Action, A

All other parameters Modeled impacts in compliance with WAAQS and NAAQS for both Same as Alternative 1 

coal production scenarios for 2015 and 2020 

Impacts to Montana near-Field Receptors 

All parameters 

Impacts at all Montana receptors would be in compliance with NAAQS and Montana AAQS (MAAQS) for most pollutants and averaging periods. 1-hour NO2 concentrations for all years and 

development scenarios were predicted to exceed NAAQS. 1-hour NO2 concentrations were predicted to exceed MAAQS in 2015 at 

isolated locations because of CBNG development in Wyoming but drop below MAAQS by 2020. Impacts are predicted to decrease for annual NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 relative to the base year (2004) 

because of anticipated southward progression of nearby CBNG wells 

Same as Alternative 1 

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-hour PM10 

for all years and coal production scenarios; for 24-hour SO2 for both 

coal production scenarios for 2020; for 3-hour SO2 for upper coal 

production scenario for 2020 

Same as Alternative 1 

Class I Badlands National Park Modeled impacts above Class I increment levels for 24-hour PM10 

for both coal production scenarios for 2020 

Same as Alternative 1 

Class I Wind Cave National Park Modeled impacts above Class I increment levels for 24-hour PM10 

for all years and coal production scenarios 

Same as Alternative 1 

All Sensitive Class II Areas (including Cloud Peak Wilderness Area and Crow Indian Reservation) 

Modeled impacts below Class II increments for all Sensitive Class II areas for base year (2004) and both coal production scenarios for 2020 

Same as Alternative 1 

Visibility Impacts 

Class I Areas 

Modeled impacts show 200 or more days a year during the base year (2004) with a change of 1.0 dv or greater at the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Badlands National Park, and Wild Cave National Park.; the same three Class I areas have the highest predicted visibility change in 2020 

Same as Alternative 1 

Sensitive Class II Areas All but four areas have more than 100 days a year during the base 

year (2004) with a change of 1.0 dv or greater 

Same as Alternative 1 

Acid Deposition Impacts All modeled impacts below the deposition threshold values for 

nitrogen and sulfur compounds 

Same as Alternative 1 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-41. Continued 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource Magnitude, Type, and Duration of Impact Resource Name Alternative 1 (No Action) Proposed Action, A

Florence Lake Modeled impact above 10% ANC threshold for both coal production Same as Alternative 1 

scenarios for 2015 and 2020 

Upper Frozen Lake Modeled impact above 1 μeq/L ANC for both coal production Same as Alternative 1 

scenarios for 2015 and 2020 

All other modeled sensitive lakes Modeled impact below 10% ANC threshold values for both coal Same as Alternative 1 

production scenarios for 2015 and 2020 

Groundwater Resources Removal of coal aquifer and replacement with backfill material Moderate, long-term to permanent for mining areas Same as Alternative 1 

Lowering of water levels in aquifers around the mines Moderate, long-term in area immediately west of mines Same as Alternative 1 Water level decline in sub-coal aquifers as a result of all development 

No cumulative impacts anticipated Same as Alternative 1 

Change in groundwater quality as a result of all development No cumulative impacts anticipated Same as Alternative 1 Overlapping drawdown in the coal aquifer caused by surface Additive, long-term in area immediately west of surface coal mines Same as Alternative 1 mining and CBNG development 

Surface Water Resources Surface disturbance of intermittent and ephemeral streams and Moderate, short-term Same as Alternative 1 

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 Alternative 1 intermittent and ephemeral streams Sediment input into intermittent and ephemeral streams and Moderate, short term Same as Alternative 1 

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 agriculture 

Not permitted by regulation Same as Alternative 1 

Coal mining disturbance of AVFs determined not to be significant AVFs disturbed by mining must be restored to essential hydrologic Same as Alternative 1 

to agriculture function; no cumulative impacts anticipated 

4-146 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-41. Continued 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource Magnitude, Type, and Duration of Impact Resource Name Alternative 1 (No Action) Proposed Action, ASoils Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-reldisturbance and replacement of soil resources CBNG water disposal impacts to soil resources Wetland and Riparian Vegetation Removal of jurisdictional wetlands and loss of wetland fununtil reclamation occurs 

ated Moderate, short-term and long-term impacts through accelerated 

wind or water erosion, declining soil quality factors through compaction, reduced microbial populations and organic matter, and potential mixing of soil zones 

Potential increase in soil alkalinity depending on SAR levels in water 

and method of water disposal 

ction Moderate, short-term; no net loss 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Same as Alternative 1 

CBNG-related discharge of produced water Vegetation Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-relremoval and replacement of native vegetation 

Moderate, short- to long-term creation of wetlands in areas that 

previously supported upland vegetation 

ated Moderate, short- to long-term impacts because of potential 

differences in species composition and presence and size of woody species on reclaimed lands 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 

Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-relimpacts to Special Status Plant Species 

ated Potential incremental loss or alteration of potential or known habitat Same as Alternative 1 

Coal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-reldispersal of noxious and invasive species 

ated Potential displacement of native species and changes in species 

composition 

Same as Alternative 1 

Wildlife and Fisheries Direct and indirect coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, aand gas-related development impacts to game and non-game species, including direct mortality, habitat fragmentation, adisplacement, noise and increased human presence 

nd oilnimal Moderate, short-term Same as Alternative 1 

Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-reldisturbance of game and nongame species habitat during development and operation 

ated 

project 

Moderate, short-term loss of all types of habitat present in disturbed areas 

Same as Alternative 1 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-41. Continued 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource Magnitude, Type, and Duration of Impact Resource Name Alternative 1 (No Action) Proposed Action, ACoal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related Moderate, long-term change in habitat with potential changes in Same as Alternative 1 habitat changes after reclamation associated wildlife populations Alteration or loss of habitat because of coal mining, coal-related, Negligible to moderate, short- to long-term Same as Alternative 1 

oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Changes in water quality as a result of surface disturbance or Minor to moderate, short- to long-term Same as Alternative 1 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 Alternative 1 

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- No effect on threatened or endangered species; moderate, short- to Same as Alternative 1 and gas-related development impacts, including direct mortality, long-term effects on candidate vertebrate species breeding area, nest or burrow abandonment, sage-grouse lek abandonment, noise and increased human presence Coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related No effect to moderate, short- to long-term loss of all types of special Same as Alternative 1 disturbance of habitat (breading and nesting) during project status species habitat present in disturbed areas development and operation Coal mining, coal related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related No effect to moderate, short- to long-term change in habitat with Same as Alternative 1 habitat changes after reclamation potential changes in associated populations of special status 

species 

Land Use and Recreation Loss of forage and range improvements and restriction of Moderate, short-term Same as Alternative 1 

livestock movement because of 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 No additional impacts, related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development 

4-148 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-41. Continued 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource Magnitude, Type, and Duration of Impact Resource Name Alternative 1 (No Action) Proposed Action, AReduction or degradation of opportunities for dispersed recreation Moderate, short-term on existing mine areas No additional impacts, 

activities related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oiland gas-related development Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns Disturbance of cultural resource sites Ineligible sites could be destroyed without protection or further work; 

no impact on known sites; impacts on eligible sites discovered during operations would be avoided or mitigated through data recovery prior to mining; no impact on known unevaluated sites; impacts on unevaluated sites are not permitted; unevaluated sites would be evaluated prior to mining 

Same as Alternative 1 

Transportation and Utilities Movement of segments of existing public roads, pipelines, transmission lines, or railroads to accommodate coal development 

mining 

Moderate, long-term to permanent, disruptive effects would be minimized 

Same as Alternative 1 

Increased vehicular traffic on roads and highways because of coal 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 

Moderate, short-term Same as Alternative 1 

Construction and operation of additional railroad and pipeline facilities and transmission lines to transport coal, oil and gas, and electricity 

Moderate, short- to long-term Same as Alternative 1 

Socioeconomics Increases in employment related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development 

Significant, short- to long-term Negligible added with H

Increases in personal income because of employment increases related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gasrelated development 

Significant, beneficial, short- to long-term Negligible added with H

Increase in population because of employment increases related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development 

Significant, short- to long-term Negligible added with H

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
4.0 Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Table 4-41. Continued 

Description of Potential Impact by Resource Magnitude, Type, and Duration of Impact Resource Name Alternative 1 (No Action) Proposed Action, AExpansion of housing supply because of employment increases Significant, short- to long-term Negligible added with Hrelated to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gasrelated development Increases in school enrollment because of employment Moderate, short-term Negligible to minor addeincreases related to coal mining, coal-related, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Need for additional local government facilities and services Moderate, short- to long-term No impacts added with 

because of employment increases related to coal mining, coalrelated, oil and gas, and oil- and gas-related development Increased federal, state, and local revenues related to coal Significant, beneficial, short- to long-term Same as Alternative 1 

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

a Cumulative impacts discussion and table are based on the PRB Coal Review analyses (BLM 2005a–f, 2006c–e, 2008a, 2009c–g). The Proposed Action and alternatives fall within thob All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise. 

4-150 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

As part of the EIS process, the BLM notifies the general public when the draft and final 

documents, and the ROD, are available for review and comment. In addition to accepting public 

comments, the BLM consults with multiple state and federal agencies and entities regarding 

impacts on various resources. This collective input plays a major role in the BLM’s decision on 

proposed lease applications. The public notification and consultation processes are described 

below. 

5.1. Regional Coal Team Consultation 

The Hay Creek II LBA included in this EIS was reviewed and discussed at a PRRCT public 

meeting held on April 19, 2006, in Casper, Wyoming. The applicant presented information 

about the existing mine and lease application at that meeting. Voting and nonvoting members of 

the PRRCT include the governors of Wyoming and Montana; Northern Cheyenne Tribe and 

Crow Tribal Council; USDA Forest Service and USFWS; and National Park Service, OSM, and 

USGS. The PRRCT determined that the land in the Hay Creek II LBA met the qualifications for 

processing as a production maintenance tract and recommended that the BLM continue to 

process the coal lease application. 

5.2. Governor’s Consultation 

On September 18, 2006, the BLM Wyoming State Director notified the Governor of Wyoming 

that the Buckskin Mine had filed a coal lease application with the BLM for the Hay Creek II 

tract. 

5.3. Public Notice 

The BLM published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and notice of scoping in the Federal 

Register, the Gillette News-Record, and a BLM news release on January 17, 2008. The 

publication served as public notice that the Hay Creek II coal lease application had been 

received, announced the time and location of a public scoping meeting, and requested public 

comment on the LBA. 

Parties on the distribution list were sent letters announcing the time and location of a public 

scoping meeting on January 31, 2008, in Gillette, Wyoming. At the public meeting, the 

applicant presented information about their mine and their need for the coal. The presentation 

was followed by a question and answer period, during which no oral comments were made. The 

scoping period was extended from December 21, 2007, through March 29, 2008, during which 

time the BLM received written, e-mailed, and telephoned comments from interested individuals 

and entities. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 5-1 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

The EPA published a notice in the Federal Register on March 12, 2010, announcing the 

availability of the draft EIS. A 60-day comment period on the draft EIS commenced with 

publication of that notice. The BLM also published a notice of availability/notice of public 

hearing in the Federal Register on March 12, 1010. That notice announced the date and time of 

a public hearing to be held during the 60-day comment period. The purpose of the hearing, held 

in Gillette, Wyoming on April 22, 2010, was to solicit public comments on the draft EIS and on 

the fair market value, the maximum economic recovery, and the proposed competitive sale of 

federal coal from the proposed tract. The BLM also published a notice of public hearing in the 

Gillette News-Record and other local newspapers. 

All substantive written comments received on the draft EIS have been included, with 

corresponding responses from the BLM, in appendix D of this final EIS. Both the BLM and the 

EPA will publish a notice of availability of the final EIS in the Federal Register, and all parties 

on the distribution list will be sent copies of that document immediately following the 

publication date. After a 30-day availability period, the BLM will make a decision to hold or not 

to hold a competitive lease sale for the federal coal in the LBA tract and a ROD will be signed. 

Copies of the ROD will be sent to all parties on the mailing list and others who commented on 

this LBA during the NEPA process. An appeal of the BLM’s decision must be filed within 30 

days from the date that the notice of availability for the ROD is published in the Federal 

Register. The decision can be implemented at the end of the 30-day appeal period, if no appeal 

is received. If a competitive lease sale is held, it will follow the procedures set forth in 43 CFR 

3422, 43 CFR 3425, and BLM Handbook H 3420 1 (Competitive Coal Leasing). 

5.4. Department of Justice Consultation 

After a competitive coal lease sale, but before the lease is issued, the BLM must solicit the 

opinion of the U.S. Department of Justice on whether the planned lease issuance creates a 

situation inconsistent with federal antitrust laws. The Department of Justice has 30 days to make 

this determination. If the Department of Justice has not responded in writing within the 30 days, 

the BLM can issue the lease. 

5.5. Other Consultations 

Other federal, state, local, and Native American government agencies that were consulted in 

preparation of this EIS or will be consulted prior to making a decision to hold or not hold a 

federal coal lease sale are listed in Table 5-1. 

5-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-1. Federal, State, and Local Government Agencies Consulted in Preparation of the 

Environmental Impact Statement 

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 (NOW AECOM) (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 Groundwater Modeling 

Brad Anderson Surface Water 

Ron Dutton, George Blankenship Socioeconomics 

Bernhard Strom Land Use, Transportation, and Utilities 

William Berg Topography, Geology, and Minerals 

James Burrell, James Nyenhuis Soils and Alluvial Valley Floors 

Jon Alstad Vegetation, Wetlands, and Grazing 

Charles Johnson Wildlife 

Rollin Daggett Fisheries 

Kim Munson Native American Concerns and Paleontological Resources 

5.6. List of Contributors, Reviewers, and Preparers 

This EIS was prepared by ICF International, 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 WDEQ interdisciplinary team and the 

third-party consultant personnel who contributed to, reviewed, and prepared this EIS. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 5-3 
5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-2. List of Contributors and Reviewers 

Name Project Responsibility 

BLM WYOMING STATE OFFICE 

Brenda Neuman Coal Program Coordination 

Bob Janssen Coal Program Coordination 

Janet Kurman NEPA Coordination 

Mavis Love Land Adjudication 

Larry Jensen Socioeconomics 

Dale Hansen Paleontology 

Brent Breithaupt Paleontology 

Steve Hageman Minerals Appraiser 

Susan Caplan Air Quality and Climate Change 

John Zachariassen Air Quality and Climate Change 

Melissa Hovey Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas 

Robert Means Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change 

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 Senior Geologist 

BLM BUFFALO FIELD OFFICE 

Buck Damone Cultural Resources 

Leigh Grench Cultural Resources 

Clint Cargo Cultural Resources 

B.J. Earle Cultural Resources 

Patrick Cole Wildlife, T&E Species, BLM Sensitive Species 

Don Brewer Wildlife 

Gerald Queen Geology, Minerals, Mining Claims 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT WESTERN REGIONAL COORDINATING CENTER 

Foster Kirby Archaeologist, EIS Cooperating Agency Representative 

Heather Erickson EIS Project Coordinator 

WYOMING STATE PLANNING OFFICE 

Steve Furtney Coal Issues Coordination, Cooperating Agency Representative 

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Dan Clark Ombudsman, EIS Liason 

5-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-2. Continued 

Name Project Responsibility 

LAND QUALITY DIVISION 

Don McKenzie Administrator 

Kathy Muller Ogle CHIA Program Supervisor 

Doug Emme Blasting Program Principal 

Mark Rogaczewski District III Supervisor 

AIR QUALITY DIVISION 

Kelly Bott Engineer, EIS Cooperating Agency Division Representative 

Paige Smith Planning Section Manager 

WATER QUALITY DIVISION 

John Wagmer Water Resources 

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Larry Konetzki EIS Cooperating Agency Representative 

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

John Emmerich Deputy Director – External Programs 

Table 5-3. List of Preparers 

Name Education/Experience Responsibility 

BLM CASPER FIELD OFFICE 

Teresa Johnson M.S. course work in Ecosystem Management, B.S. Earth Systems EIS Project Manager 

Ecology, Native American Cultural Emphasis Phase, 11 years 

professional experience 

Mike Karbs M.S., B.S. Mineral Engineer, Public Policy, 34 years professional Assistant District Manager Solid Mineral 

experience 

Sarah Bucklin M.S. Zoology, B.S. Biology, Nationally Certified Wildlife Biologist, 11 Wildlife, T&E Species – Environmental 

years professional experience Protection Specialist 

Ginger Vickers B.A. Resource Management, 3 years of professional experience Public Involvement, Distribution List – 

Legal Assistant 

ICF INTERNATIONAL (THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTOR) 

Gwyn McKee M.S. Wildlife Management/Ecology, B.S. Wildlife Management, EIS Project Manager,Wildlife, T&E 

21 years professional experience Species,Report Preparation, Document 

Review 

Kim Stevens B.S. Geography, 8 years professional experience	 Project Coordinator, Report Preparation 

Bryan Morse B.S. Urban Planning, 5 years professional experience Project Assistant, Report Preparation 

Jim Wilder M.S. Environmental Engineering, B.S. Civil Engineering, 32 years Noise Assessment, Report Preparation 

professional experience 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 5-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-3. Continued 

Name Education/Experience Responsibility 

Rose Difley M.S., B.S. Geology, 6 years professional experience Paleontology Survey, Report 

Preparation 

Deborah Bartley B.A. Political Science, U.D. International Relations, 11 years Lead Editor 

professional experience 

Brent Bouldin M.A. Communications, B.S. Communications, 32 years professional Technical Editor, Document Production 

experience 

Corrine Ortega A.A. Communications, 20 years professional experience Document Production 

Kate Walsh B.A. History, B.A. Photography, 9 years professional experience Document Production 

Bobby Tuttle M.S. Biology, B.S. Planning, 18 years professional experience Wetlands Survey, Project Director 

SUBCONTRACTORS FOR ICF INTERNATIONAL 

Ron Dutton M.S. Economics, B.S. Economics, 33 years professional experience Socioeconomic Evaluation 

Sammons/Dutton LLC 

Brenda Schladweiler Ph.D. , M.S. Soil Science, B.S. Range Mgt (Land Rehabilitation), 31 Soil Survey, Report Preparation 

years professional experience 

Jamie Eberly B.S. Range Management, 6 years professional experience Report Preparation 

BKS Environmental 

Associates, Inc. 

Gregory S. Newberry M.A. Anthropology, B.A. Anthropology, 31 years professional Cultural Resource Survey, Report 

Antiquus Cultural experience Preparation 

Resource Consulting 

SUBCONTRACTORS FOR BUCKSKIN MINE 

Julie Gerlach Manager Lands & Permitting, 32 years professional experience Land Use Assessment, Water 

Steve Stresky Geologist, 31 years professional experience Resources Analysis, Geology and 

Robert Tilden Geologist, 6 years professional experience Minerals Evaluation, Alluvial Valley 

Aqua Terra Floor Assessment, Report Preparation 

Consultants, Inc. 

Richard Bonine, Jr. B.S. Agronomy, 23 years professional experience Vegetation Survey, T&E Vegetation 

Habitat Management, Survey, Report Preparation 

Inc. 

Richard Bonine, Jr. B.S. Agronomy, 23 years professional experience Vegetation Survey, T&E Vegetation 

LandTrak Resources, Survey, Report Preparation 

Inc. 

Ronn Smith MBA, B.S. Engineering Physics, 32 years professional experience Air Quality Assessment, Report 

Inter-mountain Preparation 

Laboratories, Inc. 

5.7. Distribution List 

This EIS was distributed to Congressional offices, federal agencies, state governments, local 

governments, Native American government agencies, industry representatives, interest groups, 

and individuals for their review and comment (Table 5-4). 

5-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4. General BLM Information Distribution List for Coal Leasing 

FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICIALS 

Governor of Montana - Honorable Brian Schweitzer Senator John Hines 

Governor of Wyoming - Honorable Matt Mead Senator Michael Von Flatern 

Representative Gregg Blikre US Senator John Barrasso 

Representative Norine Kasperik US Senator Mike Enzi 

Representative Thomas Lubnau US Congresswoman Cynthia M. Lummis 

Representative Sue Wallis 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

BLM - Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming OEPC - Denver, CO 

BLM - Montana State Office, Billings, MT OSM - Casper, WY 

BLM - Buffalo, WY OSM - Denver, CO 

BLM - Casper, WY OSM - Washington, DC 

BLM - Miles City, MT OSM Library - Denver, CO 

BLM - Washington, DC Rocky Mountain Region Solicitor 

BLM Library - Denver, CO US Army Corps of Engineers - Cheyenne, WY 

Bureau of Indian Affairs - Washington, DC US EPA - Washington, DC 

National Park Service - Washington, DC US EPA Region VIII - Denver, CO 

Department of Natural Resources & Conservation - Helena, MT US Fish & Wildlife Service - Arlington, VA 

Department of Energy - Casper, WY US Fish & Wildlife Service - Cheyenne, WY 

Department of Energy – Washington, DC US Fish & Wildlife Service - Buffalo, WY 

Department of the Interior - Denver, CO US Geological Survey - Cheyenne, WY 

DOI Natural Resource Library - Washington, DC US Geological Survey - Denver, CO 

MMS - Denver, CO US Geological Survey - Reston, VA 

MMS - Helena, MT US Government Printing Office - Washington, DC 

MMS - Herndon, VA USDA Forest Service - Golden, CO 

MMS Solid Min/Geothermal CAM - Denver, CO USDA Forest Service - Douglas Ranger District, Douglas, WY 

National Park Service - Denver, CO USGS Water Resources Division - Cheyenne, WY 

STATE AGENCIES 

Department of Transportation Game & Fish Department - Lander, WY 

Office of State Lands & Investments Game & Fish Department - Sheridan, WY 

Office of the State Treasurer Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

WDEQ - Air Quality Division - Cheyenne, WY Parks and Cultural Resources Department 

WDEQ - Land Quality Division - Sheridan, WY Public Service Commission 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 5-7 
 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4. Continued 

WDEQ - Water Quality Division - Cheyenne, WY State Engineer's Office 

WDEQ Land Quality Division - Cheyenne, WY State Geological Survey 

Department of Agriculture State Historic Preservation Office 

Department of Education State Planning Office 

Department of Employment, Research & Planning Water Development Commission 

WDEQ - Industrial Siting Division Economic Analysis Division 

Game & Fish Department - Cheyenne, WY 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

Big Horn County Commission, MT Converse County School District, WY 

Campbell County Deptartment of Public Works, WY Converse County Special Projects, WY 

Campbell County Board of Commissioners, WY Devils Tower National Monument, WY 

Campbell County Conservation District, WY Gillette Department of Community Development, WY 

Campbell County School District 1, WY Medicine Bow National Forest, WY 

City of Douglas, WY Rosebud County Commission, MT 

City of Gillette, WY Town of Wright, WY 

Converse County Commission, WY Weston County Board of Commissioners, WY 

Converse County Joint Powers Board, WY 

TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Council 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Tribal Chairman Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

Arapahoe Business Council Northern Arapaho Business Council 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Northern Arapaho Tribe 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe THPO Northern Cheyenne Cultural Commission 

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

Comanche Nation Oglala Sioux Tribe 

Comanche Nation Tribal Chairman Oglala Sioux Tribe THPO 

Comanche Tribe NAGPRA Office Rosebud Sioux THPO 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe THPO Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, South Dakota Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

Crow Tribe, Montana Santee Sioux Tribe 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe Shoshone Business Council 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Office of Cultural Preservation Standing Rock Sioux Tribe THPO 

Kiowa Business Committee Environmental Director 

5-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4. Continued 

ORGANIZATIONS 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

Campbell County Economic Development Corporation 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Foundation for North American Wild Sheep 

National Resource Defense Council 

National Wildlife Federation 

NWU Policy Research Institutes 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Sierra Club 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 

COMPANIES/BUSINESSES 

American Colloid Company 

All American Equipment 

Alpha Coal West, Inc. 

Antelope Coal, LLC 

Ark Land Company 

Belle Fourche Pipeline Company 

Bill Barrett Corporation 

Bitter Creek Pipelines, LLC 

Bjork Lindley Little PC 

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. 

Blackstone Energy Inc. 

BNSF Railway Company 

Bridgeview Coal Co. 

Buckskin Mining Company 

Burns & McDonnell 

CANDO 

Carbon Recovery Technology 

CH Snyder Company 

Cloud Peak Energy Resources LLC 

Thunder Basin Coalition 

Trout Unlimited 

Wyoming Association of Professional Archaeologists 

Wyoming Bankers Association 

Wyoming Business Alliance 

Wyoming Business Council/NE Region 

Wyoming Mining Association 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Wyoming Public Service Commission 

Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Wyoming Wool Growers Association 

JIREH Exploration and Consulting LLC 

Kenneth R Paulsen Consultants 

Kiewit Mining Properties Inc., Omaha 

LandTrak Resources, Inc. 

LE Peabody & Associates 

M & K Oil company Inc. 

Majestic Petroleum Operations, LLC 

Marston & Marston 

McGraw-Hill 

McVehil-Monnett Associates Inc. 

Meineadair Consultants 

National Mining Association 

NM Doelger Consulting, LLC 

Norwest Corporation 

NRCS 

P & M Coal 

P & M Coal Mining Co 

Peabody Energy 

Peabody Powder River Mining, LLC 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 5-9 
 

 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4. Continued 

CONSOL Inc Expl & Land Dept. Powder River Energy Corporation 

Cordero Rojo Mine Preston Reynolds & Co., Inc., Denver 

Cucker, Montgomery, Aronstein & Bess, PC QWEST Corporation (PKA) 

Devon Energy Production Co. LP Redstone Resources Inc. 

Dry Fork Coal Company Resolute Wyoming 

Ducker Montgomery et al. Riverside Technology Inc. 

Economic Analysis Division Storm Cat Energy (Power RVR) LLC 

EDE Consultants Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 

ENSR Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Environmental Solutions Inc., Beulah, WY TRC Environmental 

Environmental Solutions Inc., Sedalia, CO Union Pacific Railroad 

EOG Resources Inc. US West Communications 

Great Points Energy Western Energy Company 

Harden & Associates Western Fuels Association 

HQ-USAF/CEVP Woodward Enterprises LLC 

ICF International WWC Engineering 

Intermountain Resources Yates Petroleum Corporation 

Interwest Mining Company Mining Associates of Wyoming 

Jacobs Ranch Coal Company 

PRESS 

Associated Press Gillette News-Record 

Casper Star Tribune Platts 

Douglas Budget Wyoming - Tribune Eagle 

EDUCATIONAL INTUITIONS 

CSU Library University of Wyoming Libraries 

Northwestern University URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Library 

INDIVIDUALS 

Barbero, Ralph McGee, Carl 

Belden, Scott McGee, John 

Benson, Scott McGee, Keith 

Bierman, Sheldon McGee, Russell 

Brown, Geraldine Miller, Faustine 

Brown, Maurice Nichols, Jeremy 

Bullock, Van Nyenhuis, Jim 

5-10 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 

Table 5-4. Continued 

Carter, Wilma Oedekoven, Byron & Marjorie 

Chase, Dorothy Persson, Irene 

Chase, Russel Phoenix (aka Phoenix), Donna Jean 

Chase, William Saulcy, Bill 

Collins, Kristina Semple, William 

Couch, Marion Turner, Dr., Jenny 

Couch, Tom Turner, Dr., Wendy 

Craft, Lecia Turner, Dan 

Glustrom, Leslie Turner, LJ 

Greub, Twyla Turner, Mike 

Heisner, Bill Ukeiley, Robert 

Kass Dr., Thomas Wanke (aka Vincent), Jeanie 

Long, Robert Ward, Linda 

Maurice, Brown W. Williams, John 

McAfee, Paul Williams, Keith 

McCormick, Betty Jo & John J. Williams, Monica 

McGee Harlow, Helen Marie Winland, Mark 

TRUSTS 

Avis Harrod Trust Frank Ford, Trustee 

Cecle L & Laverne L. Cook Trust Joe W. King RevocableTrust 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 5-11 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

6.0 REFERENCES CITED 

6.1. Printed References 

All Business. 2008. STB Approves Canadian Pacific’s Bid for DM&E Railroad, Extending U.S. 

Reach. Available: <http://www.allbusiness.com/environment-natural-resources/ 

environmental/11672161-1.html>. Accessed: February 11, 2009. 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. 2008. Operations: Enhanced Oil Recovery. Available: 

<http://www.anadarko.com/operations_by_region/u.w._rockies/enhanced_oil_recovery.a 

sp>. Accessed: May 2008. 

Anderson Consulting Engineers (ACE). 2009. Task 3B Report Water Resources Cumulative 

Impact Assessment Water Quality and Channel Stability. Prepared in support of PRB 

Coal Review. Prepared for ENSR International. November 2009. 

Argonne National Laboratory, Environmental Assessment Division. 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. 

Argonne, IL. Prepared for the BLM, Montana and Wyoming State Offices. 

Associated Press. 2007. Market Spotlight: Coal Producers, by Samantha Bomkamp. 

December 5. Available: <http://www.forbes.com>. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: 

The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington, D.C., 78 pp. 

———. 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 

2006. Edison Electric Institute, Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, and the 

California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, CA, 207 pp. 

Barry, J. 2008. Uranium Update. Available: <http://www.uraniumseek.com/news/ 

UraniumSeek/ 1208186646.php>. Accessed: May 23, 2008. 

Bernstein, L., P. Bosch, O. Canziani, Z. Chen, R. Christ, O. Davidson, W. Hare, S. Huq, 

D. Karoly, V. Kattsov, Z. Kundzewicz, J. Liu, U. Lohmann, M. Manning, T. Matsuno, 

B. Menne, B. Metz, M. Mirza, N. Nicholls, L. Nurse, R. Pachauri, J. Palutikof, M. Parry, 

D. Qin, N. Ravindranath, A. Reisinger, J. Ren, K. Riahi, C. Rosenzweig, M. Rusticucci, 

S. Schneider, Y. Sokona, S. Solomon, P. Stott, R. Stouffer, T. Sugiyama, R. Swart, 

D. Tirpak, C. Vogel, and G. Yohe. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, 

Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth 

Assessment Report. November 17. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-1 
 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

Bison Pipeline. 2009. Bison Pipeline LLC. Available: <http://www.bisonpipelinellc.com/>. 

Accessed: December 2009. 

Bleizeffer, Dustin. 2007a. Clean-Coal Investors Plead for Regulations. Casper Star Tribune. 

October 11. 

______. 2007b. Utility Snuffs Coal Projects. Casper Star Tribune. December 11. 

Borden G.W., R.R. Fletcher, and D.T. Taylor. 1994. Economic Impact of Coal on Wyoming’s 

Economy. January. Laramie, WY: Cooperative Extension Service, Department of 

Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, B-987. 

Boyles, J.M. and K. vant Veld. 2006. Preliminary CO2 Demand Analysis for the Powder River 

Basin. Wyoming Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute presentation to the Wyoming Pipeline 

Authority. January 4, 2006. Available: <http://www.wyopipeline.com/ 

presentations.asp>. Accessed: May 2008. 

Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage Grouse Declines in Western North America: What Are the Problems? 

Proceedings in Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78:139–156. 

Breckenridge, R.M. 1974. Campbell County Wyoming: Geologic Map Atlas and Summary of 

Land, Water, and Mineral Resources. County Resource Series. Laramie, WY: 

Geological Survey of Wyoming. 

Brown, Matthew. 2007. Federal Board OKs Final Segment of Tongue River Railroad. Billings 

Gazette. October 10. Available: <http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/10/ 

news/state/17rail.txt>. 

———. 2008. Coal’s Future: Environmentalist Groups Threaten to Tie Up New Coal-Burning 

Power Plants, Even as the Nation’s Demand for Energy Skyrockets. Gillette NewsRecord. January 15. 

———. 2009. Montana Considers Cashing in on 1.2 Billion Tons of Coal. Billings Gazette 

(Associated Press). July 5. 

Buckskin Mining Company. 2000. Hay Creek Amended Area WDEQ-LQD Permit 500. 

Appendix D-11, Alluvial Valley Floors. Housed at LQD District III Office in Sheridan, 

WY. 

———. 2001. Buckskin Mine Quality Assurance Project Plan. Submitted: March 2001. 

Updated: April 2008. 

———. 2002. 2001 Buckskin Mine Annual Report. Submitted to Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 

———. 2003. 2002 Buckskin Mine Annual Report. Submitted to Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 

6-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

———. 2004. 2003 Buckskin Mine Annual Report. Submitted to Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 

———. 2005. 2004 Buckskin Mine Annual Report. Submitted to Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 

———. 2006. 2005 Buckskin Mine Annual Report. Submitted to Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 

———. 2007. 2006 Buckskin Mine Annual Report. Submitted to Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 

———. 2008. 2007 Buckskin Mine Annual Report. Submitted to Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 

———. 2009a. 2008 Buckskin Mine Annual Report. Submitted to Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 

———. 2009b. Air Emissions Inventory for Non-Oil and Gas Minor Sources. Submitted to 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division on September 15, 

2009. 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). 2008. Advisory Board. July 9. 

Campbell County. 2008a. 2007 Campbell County Annual Report. Available: 

<http://ccg.co.campbell.wy.us/commissioners/forms/CC2007AnnualRpt.pdf>. Accessed: 

April 25, 2008. 

———. 2008b. Campbell County Zoning Regulations, Section 11. “RVP” Recreational 

Vehicle Park. Available: <http://ccg.co.campbell.wy.us/commissioners/forms/ 

Zoning%20Sec11.pdf>. Accessed: May 2008. 

Center for Climate Strategies. 2007. Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case 

Projections 1990–2020. Spring. 

Cerovski, A., M. Gorges, T. Byer, K. Duffy, and D. Felley (eds.). 2001. Wyoming Bird 

Conservation Plan, Version 1.0. Wyoming Partners in Flight. Lander, WY: Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. 

Cerovski, A., M. Grenier, B. Oakleaf, L. Van Fleet, and S. Patla. 2004. Atlas of Birds, 

Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Lander, WY: Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department Nongame Program, 206 pp. 

Chambers, J.C. 2006. Climate Change and the Great Basin. Prepared for the Collaborative 

Watershed Research and Management Conference: November 28–30, 2006. Reno, NV. 

Available: <http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/GreatBasinWatershed/Issues_Papers.pdf.>. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-3 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Christiansen, Tom. 2004. Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Population Trend Relative to the 

2005 Hunting Season – A Summary Report and Recommendation. Available: 

<http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife.wildlife_management/sagegrouse/index.asp>. 

City of Gillette. 1978. City of Gillette/Campbell County Comprehensive Planning Program. 

June. Updated March 1994. Gillette, WY. 

———. 2008a. Developing Gillette, The Development Summary for January–December 2007. 

Department of Community Development. Available: 

<http://www.ci.gillette.wy.us/about/DevelopingGillette.pdf>. Accessed: April 8, 2008. 

———. 2008b. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 

2007. Available: <http://www.ci.gillette.wy.us/fin/FY07CAFR.pdf>. Accessed: 

April 25, 2008. 

———. 2009. Developing Gillette, The Development Summary for January–December 2008. 

City of Gillette Planning Department. January. Available: 

<http://www.ci.gillette.wy.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx? documentid=4967>. 

Clayton, K.M., J.D. Berry, P. Farmer, B. Waage, C. Yde, and J.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, Lexington, KY. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of 

Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, WY. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 

Office. 

Crist, M.A. 1991. Evaluation of Groundwater-level Changes near Gillette, Northeastern 

Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 88-4196. 

Curtis, J. 2004. Wyoming Climate Atlas. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Water Development 

Commission, 328 pp. 

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad (DM&E). 2009. PRB: Rail Upgrade Background. 

Available: <http://www.dmerail.com/About_Us/PowderRiverBasin/ProjectBackground>. Accessed: December 2009. 

De Bruin, R.H. and R.M. Lyman. 1999. Coal Bed Methane in Wyoming in Coal Bed Methane 

and Tertiary Geology of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana. Wyoming 

Geological Association 50th Field Conference Guidebook. Pp 61–72. 

Delbridge, Rena. 2007. Coal Dust Concerns Converse. Casper Star Tribune. March 12. 

6-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Dennison, Mike. 2009. Land Board OKs Leasing Otter Creek Coal – but at a Relatively High 

Price. Billings Gazette. December 21. 

Dillon, P.J., D.S. Jeffries, W. Snyder, R. Reid, N.D. Yan, D. Evans, J. Moss, and W.A. Scheider. 

1978. Acid Precipitation in South-central Ontario: Recent Observations. Journal of the 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35:809–815. 

Duke Energy. 2009. Duke Energy to build ninth U.S. wind farm. Last updated: August 31, 

2009. Available: <http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2009083101.asp>. 

Accessed: December 2009. 

EPRI. 2009. The Power to Reduce CO2 Emissions: The Full Portfolio—2009 Technical Report. 

Last updated: October 2009. Available: <http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?>. 

Accessed: April 2010. 

Estes, R. 1975. Lower Vertebrates from the Fort Union Formation, Late Paleocene, Big Horn 

Basin, Wyoming. Herpetologica 31(4):365–385. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2004. Major Pipeline Projects on the Horizon as of 

February 2004. Available: <http://www.ferc.gov/forcitizens/projectsearch/ 

SearchProjects aspx>. Accessed: February 2004. 

Federal Railroad Administration. 2008. Freight Railroads Background. Office of Policy and 

Communications. Available: <http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/policy/ 

freight2006%20final.pdf>. Accessed: November 14, 2008. 

Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 

FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May. 

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver, 

CO: Denver Museum of Natural History. 

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. In Fort 

Union Coal Assessment Team 1999 Resource Assessment of Selected Tertiary Coalbeds 

and Zones in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region. U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1625-A, Chapter PF, pp.1–40. 

Flores, R.M., G.D. Stricker, J.F. Meyer, T.E. Doll, P.H. Norton, Jr., R.J. Livingston, and M.C. 

Jennings. 2001. A Field Conference on Impacts of Coalbed Methane Development in the 

Powder River Basin. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-126. 

Frankel, A.C., C. Mueller, T. Barnhand, D. Perkins, E.V. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, 

and M. Hopper. 1997. Seismic-hazard Maps for the Coterminous United States. Map F, 

Horizontal Spectral Response Acceleration for 0.2-second Period (5% of critical 

damping) with 10 % Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years. U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 97-131-F. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-5 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

Frison, George. 1978. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. New York, NY: Academic 

Press. 

———. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. New York, NY: Academic Press. 

———. 2001. Hunting and Gathering Tradition: Northwestern and Central Plains. In Raymond 

J. DeMaille (ed.) Plains, pp. 131–145, in William C. Sturtevant (gen. ed.) Handbook of 

the North American Indians, Vol. 13, Part I. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 

Gardiner, S. (ed.). 1985. Rumblings from the Razor City: The Oral History of Gillette, 

Wyoming, an Energy Boomtown. 

Gartrell, Peter. 2007a. Railway Officials Focus on Coal Dust Solutions. Gillette News-Record. 

July 1. 

———. 2007b. Will Wright Boom? Gillette News-Record. October 19. 

———. 2008. The Quest to Harness the Wind. Gillette News-Record. March 29. 

Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2003. Surface Water Quality Analysis Technical 

Report. Surface Water Modeling of Water Quality Impacts Associated with Coalbed 

Methane Development in the Powder River Basin. January. 

Hansen and Lebedeff. 1987. Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature, 92 J. 

Geophysical Res. 345. 

Heinecke, B. 1985. Rumblings from the Razor City: The Oral History of Gillette, Wyoming, an 

Energy Boomtown. S. Gardiner (ed.). 

HKM Engineering, Inc., Lord Consulting, and Watts and Associates. 2002a. Powder/Tongue 

River Basin Plan. February. Prepared for Wyoming Water Development Commission 

Basin Planning Program. 

______. 2002b. Northeast Wyoming River Basin Plan. February. Prepared for Wyoming 

Water Development Commission Basin Planning Program. 

Hodges, Richard. 2007. Plant Promises Regional Impact. Casper Star Tribune. September 13. 

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, CO. June 10. 

Hydro-Engineering. 1991. GAGMO 10-year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater 

Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC. Casper, WY. 

______. 1996. GAGMO 15-year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring 

Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC. Casper, WY. 

6-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

______. 2001a. GAGMO 20-year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring 

Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC. Casper, WY. 

______. 2001b. 2000 GAGMO Annual Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater 

Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC. Casper, WY. 

______. 2005. 2004 GAGMO Annual Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater 

Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC. Casper, WY. 

———. 2006. 2005 Annual GAGMO Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater 

Monitoring Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC. Casper, WY. 

———. 2007. GAGMO 25-year Report. Prepared for Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring 

Organization by Hydro-Engineering, LLC. Casper, WY. 

ICF Jones & Stokes. 2008. Wetland Delineation Report: Buckskin Mining Company – Buckskin 

Mine Nationwide Permit 21 Renewal Project. October. Portland, OR. Prepared for 

Buckskin Mining Company. 

IHS Energy Services. 2004. Oil and Gas Production and Well History Database. 

IMPROVE. 2005. IMPROVE Summary Data – Summary Data through 2003. Updated: 

February 2005. Available: <http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improveData/IMPROVE/ 

summary _data.htm>. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 

2001. Available: <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm>. Accessed: March 2009. 

———. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Models and Their Evaluation. Available: 

<http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf>. 

Interline Resources. 2008. Interline Announces Completion of NorthCut Refinery and Interline 

Purchases Expansion Property (news releases). Available: 

<http://www.interlineresources.com/News>. Accessed: May 2009. 

Jackson, S.T. and J.T. Overpeck. 2000. Responses of Plant Populations and Communities to 

Environmental Changes of the Late Quaternary. Paleobiology 26(4):194–220. 

James, R. 2007. Electricity Technology in a Carbon-Constrained Future. In Electric 

Perspectives. November. Carnegie-Mellon University. 

Jones & Stokes. 2007. Paleontological Reconnaissance Survey Report for the Proposed Hay 

Creek II Lease by Application. December 30. Prepared for the BLM, Wyoming State 

Office, Cheyenne, WY. 

———. 2009. Wildlife Supplementary Baseline Information Report on the Affected 

Environment for the North and South Porcupine Coal Lease Applications. Prepared for 

Powder River Coal. On file at BLM High Plains District Office, Casper, WY. January. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-7 
6.0 References Cited 

LandTrak Resources, Inc. 2009. Buckskin Mining Company Hay Creek II LBA Threatened and 

Endangered Species Survey. BLM Data Adequacy Report. 

Law, B.E., D.D. Rice, and R.M. Flores. 1991. Coalbed Gas Accumulations in the Paleocene 

Fort Union Formation, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. In Schwochow, S. D., D. K. 

Murray, and M. F. Fahy, (eds.) Coalbed Methane of Western North America. Rocky 

Mountain Association of Geologists Guidebook. Pp. 179–190. 

Le Compte, J., and J.L. Anderson. 1982. History of Northern Campbell County and the 

Rawhide Mine Permit Area, Wyoming. Pioneer Archaeological Consultants, Longmont, 

CO. Report on file at the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality 

Division, Cheyenne, WY. 

Love, J. D., and A. C. Christiansen. 1985. Geologic Map of Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey 

(three sheets). 

Martin, W. 1999. Archaeological Investigations along the Wyoming Segment of the Express 

Pipeline. In William Martin and Craig S. Smith (eds.) Contributions to Archaeology, 

Volume 5, pp. 4-1 and 4-22. Project Synthesis. Laramie, WY: TRC Mariah Associates 

Inc. 

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, WY. 

Mine Safety and Health Administration. 1997. The 645 Database, Wyoming Summary 

Employment and Injury Information. 

Minerals Management Service. 2006. Mineral Revenue Management. Federal Mineral Royalty 

Revenue Reported and Disbursed by State and Commodity. Available: 

<http://ww.mrm.mms.gov/MRMwebStats>. 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (MDNRC). 2010. Trust Land 

Management Division. Available: <http://dnrc.mt.gov/trust/MMB/otter_creek/ 

Default.asp>. 

National Academy of Science. 2006. Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines. National 

Academies Press. Available: <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11592.html>. 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 2007. Summer Meeting. Available: 

<http://www.naruc.org/>. 

6-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

National Coal Transportation Association. 2007. Ballast Fouling Initiative on the PRB Joint 

Line. February 13. PowerPoint presentation. Available: 

<http://www.nationalcoaltransportation.org/events/BallastFoulingMitigation 

_2_13_07.pdf>. Accessed: July 23, 2008. 

———. 2008. Mission Statement. Available: <http:// www.nationalcoaltransportation.org>. 

Accessed: July 23, 2008. 

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2009. Modern Shale Gas Development in the 

United States: A Primer. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy. Final EIS, Wright 

Area Coal Lease Applications. Pp 6–17. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 2005. Pocket Guide to Chemical 

Hazards. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1969. Climatography of the United States: 

Asheville, North Carolina. National Climatic Center, Climatological Summaries, 

No. 20–48. 

———. 1985. Narrative Summaries, Tables, and Maps for Each State, with Overview of State 

Climatologist Programs. Third Edition. Volume 2: New York–Wyoming. Gale 

Research Company. Available: <http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/sco/climate/ 

wyoclimate.html>. 

———. 2007. Patterns of Greenhouse Warming. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory 

Climate Modeling Research Highlights:1(6). Available: <http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/ 

cms-filesystem-action/user_files/kd/pdf/gfdlhighlight_vol1n6.pdf>. Accessed: January 

2010. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2004. Soil Survey of Northern Campbell County. 

———. 2008. Web Soil Survey 2.0. Available: <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>. Accessed: May 15, 2008. 

Naugle, D. E., C. L. Aldridge, B. L. Walker, T. E. Cornish, B. J. Moynahan, M. J. Holloran, K. 

Brown, G. D. Johnson, E. T. Schmidtmann, R. T. Mayer, D. 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: Pending Crisis for Greater Sage-grouse. Ecology Letters 7:704– 

713. 

Naugle, D. E., K. E. Doherty, and B. L. Walker. 2006. Sage-grouse Winter Habitat Selection 

and Energy Development in the Powder River Basin: Completion Report. Available: 

<http://www.voiceofthewild.org/sagegrousestudies>. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-9 
6.0 References Cited 

Newberry, G. S. 2008. Buckskin Mining Company Hay Creek II Amendment Sections 7, 9, 18, 

and 19 T52N R72W and Sections 12, 13, and 24 T52N R73W Cultural Resource 

Inventory Report. Gillette, WY: Antiquus Cultural Resource Consulting. Prepared for 

ICF Jones & Stokes. 

Oedekoven, O. O. 2001. Sage-grouse Job Completion Report, Sheridan Region. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. 

Office of Fossil Energy. 2009. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer. 

Available: <http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/EPreports/ 

Shale_Gas_Primer_2009.pdf>. Accessed: January 2010. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM). 1984. Correlation and effect of 

mine facility wells on the Tullock Aquifer in the Gillette, Wyoming, vicinity. Prepared 

by G.E. McIntosh, C.A. Harrison and J.V. Wilcox. 

Office of the Governor of Wyoming. 2008. Executive Order 2008-2: Greater Sage-grouse Core 

Area Protection. Available: <http://governor.wy.gov/Media.aspx?MediaId=588>. 

Accessed: January 2009. 

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, Atlanta GA. 

Ogle, K.M. and M. Calle. 2006. Cumulative Hydrological Impact Assessment (CHIA) of Coal 

Mining in the Southern Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, WDEQ-CHIA-19. 122 pp. 

Ogle, K.M., M. Calle, G. Mooney, and D.N. Dornak. 2005. Cumulative Hydrological Impact 

Assessment of Coal Mining in the Middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. WDEQ-CHIA-14. 

PacifiCorp. 2007. Wyoming Industrial Development Information and Siting Act, 

109 Application Permit, Glenrock/Rolling Hills Wind Energy Project. Available: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/isd/downloads/Glenrock%20ISA%20Final_1125-07.pdf>. 

Accessed: May 2008. 

Pitchford, M.L., and W.C. Malm. 1994. Development and Applications of a Standard Visual 

Index. Atmospheric Environment 28(5):1,049–1,054. 

Quick, J.C., T.C. Brill, and D.E. Tabet. 2003. Mercury in U.S. Coal: Observations Using the 

COALQUAL and ICR Data. In Environmental Geology 43:247–259 

Reuters. 2007. CONSOL Energy, Pittsburg & Midway Coal Announce Venture to Develop New 

Powder River Basin Coal Mine. April 24. 

6-10 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

Rice, D.D. 1993. Compositions and Origins of Coalbed Gas. In B. E. Law, D. D. Rice (eds.) 

Hydrocarbons from Coal. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in 

Geology 34:159–184. 

Rice, D.D. and G.E. Claypool. 1981. Generation, Accumulation, and Resource Potential of 

Biogenic Gas. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 65:5–25. 

Robinson, P., G.F. Gunnell, S.L. Walsh, W.C. Clyde, J.E. Storer, R.K. Stucky, D.J. Froehlich, 

I. Ferrusquia-Villafranca, and M.C. McKenna. 2004. Wasatchian through Duchesnean 

Biochronology. In M. O. Woodburne (ed.) Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of 

North America, pp. 106–155. NY: Columbia University Press. 

Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC. 2008. Rockies Express Pipeline. Available: 

<http://www.rexpipeline.com>. Accessed: May 2008. 

Roehler, H.W. 1991. Revised Stratigraphic Nomenclature for the Wasatch and Green River 

Formations of Eocene Age, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1506-B. 

Rogers, Andrew. 2008. Wind farm may take longer, cost more. Gillette News-Record, Gillette, 

WY. September 24. 

ROMCOE. 1982. Center for Environmental Problem Solving, Rapid Growth Communities 

Project, Community Profiles. July. Boulder, CO. 

Rosenberg, R.G. 1990. A Historical Synthesis of the Eastern Powder River Basin, Campbell 

and Converse Counties, Wyoming. Prepared for the Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office. Cheyenne, WY: Archives, Museum, and Historical Department, 

Barrett Building. 

Schneider, E.A., J. Johnston, and J. Lowe. 2000. Buckskin Mine Expansion Permit. Appendices 

D-2 and D-3A. Laramie, WY: TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. Prepared for Triton Coal 

Company’s Buckskin Mine. 

Scire, J.S., D.S. Strimitis, and R.J. Yamartino. 1999. A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF 

Dispersion Model (version 5.0). October. Concord, MA: Earth Tech, Inc. 

Secord, R. 1998. Paleocene Mammalian Biostratigraphy of the Carbon Basin, Southeastern 

Wyoming, and Age Constraints on Local Phases of Tectonism. In Rocky Mountain 

Geology 33(1):119–154. 

Shelley, K.J. 1992. Habitat Reclamation for Birds and Small Mammals on Surface-mined 

Lands in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Master’s thesis. Laramie, WY: University 

of Wyoming. 

Sundstrom, C., W.G. Hepworth, and K.L. Diem. 1973. Abundance, Distribution, and Food 

Habits of Pronghorn. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Bulletin No. 12, 51 pp. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-11 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Surface Transportation Board. 2008. Surface Transportation Board Approves Canadian Pacific 

Railway’s Acquisition of Control of the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, Subject 

to Conditions. Available: <http://www.stb.dot.gov/__85256593004F576F.nsf/0/ 

92E608894122E 673852574D40051052C?OpenDocument>. Accessed: February 2009. 

Tausch, R.J., C.L. Nowak, and S.A. Mensing. 2004. Climate Change and Associated 

Vegetation Dynamics during the Holocene: The Paleoecological Record. In Great Basin 

Riparian Ecosystems: Ecology, Management, and Restoration, J. C. Chambers and 

J. R. Miller (eds.). Island Press. 

Thunder Basin Coal Company. 2002. Black Thunder Mine Report for Development of SAE 

Setback Distances for Blasting Activities at the Black Thunder Mine. July. 

Ulrich and Bower. 2008. International Journal of Coal Geology. 76(25):1–2. 

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: <http://www.bea.gov/regional/ index.htm#state>. 

———. 2009. Gross Domestic Product by State, 2008. Available: 

<http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/>. Accessed: March 30, 2009. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. Local Area Unemployment Statistics, 1997–2006, Not 

Seasonally Adjusted. Available: <http://data.bls.gov/>. 

———. 2009. Local Area Unemployment Statistics—1997 to 2009, Not Seasonally Adjusted. 

Available: <http://data.bls.gov/>. Accessed: March 30, 2009. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1974. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Eastern 

Powder River Basin of Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY. 

______. 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Development of the Coal 

Resources in the Eastern Powder River of Wyoming. Washington, D.C. 

______. 1981. Final Powder River Regional Coal Environmental Impact Statement. Cheyenne, 

WY. 

______. 1984. Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Round Coal II Coal Lease Sale in the 

Powder River Region. Cheyenne, WY. 

———. 1985. Buffalo Resource Area Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement. Casper, WY. 

———. 1987. Data Adequacy Standards for Powder River Coal Region. Casper, WY. 

———. 1989. Manual 3420, Competitive Coal Leasing. Washington, D.C. 

______. 1991. Powder River Regional Coal Team Operational Guidelines for Coal Lease-byApplications. Cheyenne, WY. 

6-12 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

______. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment for the Eagle Butte Coal Lease Application. 

———. 2001. Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office. Buffalo, WY. Available: 

<http://www.wy.blm.gov>. 

______. 2003. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the 

Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. January. Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, WY. 

______. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Hay Creek Coal Lease 

Application, Federal Coal Lease Application WYW151634. June. Wyoming State 

Office, Casper Field Office. 

———. 2005a. Task 3C Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review—Cumulative Social 

and Economic Effects. December. Prepared for the BLM State Office and BLM 

Wyoming Casper Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, CO. Available: 

<http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs.html>. 

———. 2005b. Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review—Past and Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. December. Prepared for the BLM 

Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles 

City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, CO. 

———. 2005c. Task 1A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review—Current Air Quality 

Conditions. September. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming 

Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, 

Fort Collins, CO. 

———. 2005d. Task 1C Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review—Current Social and 

Economic Conditions. March. Prepared for the BLM State Office and BLM Wyoming 

Casper Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, CO. Available: 

<http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs.html>. 

———. 2005e. Task 1D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review—Current 

Environmental Conditions. June. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM 

Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR 

Corporation, Fort Collins, CO. 

———. 2005f. Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review—Cumulative 

Environmental Effects. December. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM 

Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR 

Corporation, Fort Collins, CO. 

———. 2005g. Appendix F of the Land Use Planning Handbook, BLM Handbook H-1601-1. 

March 11. Available: <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/planning/ 

planning_general.Par.65225.File.dat/blm_lup_handbook.pdf X>. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-13 
 

 

 

6.0 References Cited 

———. 2006a. Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-153. Policy and Guidance on Conflicts 

between Coalbed Natural Gas and Surface Coal Development in the Powder River Basin. 

Reissued: May 11, 2006. 

———. 2006b. Powder River Basin Coal Leases by Application Data Sheets. Available: 

<http://www.wy.blm.gov/minerals/coal/prb/LBA_title.htm>. Accessed: January 2009. 

———. 2006c. Task 1B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review—Current Water 

Resource Conditions. September. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM 

Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR 

Corporation, Fort Collins, CO. 

———. 2006d. Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review—Cumulative Air 

Quality Effects. February. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM 

Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR 

Corporation, Fort Collins, CO. 

———. 2006e. Task 3B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review—Cumulative Water 

Effects. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field 

Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, 

Colorado, August 2006. 

———. 2007a. Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles, Approved Master Title Plats. 

Available: <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/resources/public_room/mtps.html >. 

Accessed: December 20, 2007. 

———. 2007b. Memorandum Regarding Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System 

for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands. October 15. Available: 

<http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/CRM/paleontology/paleontological_laws.html>. 

Accessed: June 26, 2008. 

______. 2007c. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Eagle Butte West Coal Lease 

Application, WYW155132. August. Casper Field Office, Casper, WY. 

______. 2008a. Update of Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative 

Air Quality Effects for 2015. October. Prepared for the BLM Wyoming State Office, 

BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office by 

ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, CO. 

______. 2008b. NEPA Handbook H-1790-1. Washington, D.C. 

———. 2008c. Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles, Approved Coal Plat. 

Available: <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/resources/public_room/mtps.html >. 

Accessed: February 28, 2008. 

———. 2008d. Invited Field Survey. Observations and measurements by BLM Casper Field 

Office staff. July 7. 

6-14 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

———. 2008e. West Antelope II DEIS Public Hearing. March 24. Gillette, WY. 

———. 2008f. Powder River Basin Coal Sales—2008 News Releases. Available: 

<http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/news_room/2008.html>. Accessed: May 24, 2008. 

———. 2009a. Powder River Basin Coal Leases by Application. Last updated: April 7, 2009. 

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

lba_title.html>. Accessed: May 14, 2009. 

———. 2009b. Split Estate. Available: <http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/ 

oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/split_estate.html>. 

———. 2009c. Update of the Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Past 

and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. Prepared for the BLM 

High Plains District Office and Wyoming State Office by AECOM, Inc., Fort Collins, 

CO. Available: <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/ 

Coal_Resources/ PRB_Coal/prbdocs.html>. 

———. 2009d. Update of the Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Cumulative Air Quality Effects for 2020. December. Prepared for the BLM High Plains 

District Office and Miles City Field Office by AECOM, Inc., Fort Collins, CO. 

Available: <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/ 

PRB_Coal/prbdocs.html>. 

———. 2009e. Update of the Task 1B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Current Water Resources Conditions. November. Prepared for the BLM High Plains 

District Office and Wyoming State Office by AECOM, Inc., Fort Collins, CO. 

Available: <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/ 

PRB_Coal/prbdocs.html>. 

———. 2009f. Update of the Task 3B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – 

Cumulative Water Resources Effects. December. Prepared for the BLM High Plains 

District Office and Wyoming State Office by AECOM, Inc., Fort Collins, CO. 

Available: <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/ 

PRB_Coal/prbdocs.html>. 

———. 2009g. Task 3D Report. Update of the Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin 

Coal Review – Cumulative Environmental Effects (w/track changes). December. 

Prepared for the BLM High Plains District Office by AECOM, Inc., Fort Collins, CO. 

Available: <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/ 

PRB_Coal/prbdocs.html>. 

———. 2009h. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal 

(SGAC) Lease Applications. August. High Plains District Office, Casper, WY. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-15 
6.0 References Cited 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Summary File 3, Matrices P53, P77, P82, P87, P90, PCT47, and 

PCT52. Available: <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-

context=gct&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-

mt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_GCTP14_ST2&-CONTEXT=gct&-tree_id=403&-

geo_id=04000US56&-format=ST-2&-_lang=en>. 

———. 2001. 2000 Census of Population and Housing – Wyoming. Available: 

<http://www.census.gov>. 

———. 2006a. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program. Available: 

<http://www.census.gov//did/www/saipe/index.html>. 

———. 2006b. Annual Estimates of Population for Counties of Wyoming: April 1, 2000, to 

July 1, 2006 (CO-EST2006-01-56). Available: <http://www.census.gov/popest/ 

counties/CO-EST200601.html>. Accessed: August 2006. 

______. 2006c. Annual Estimates of Housing Unit Counts in Wyoming: April 1, 2000, to July 1, 

2005 (HU-EST2005-04-56). Available: <http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/ 

HUEST2005-4.html>. Accessed: August 21, 2006. 

———. 2007. Annual Estimates of Population for Counties of Wyoming: April 1, 2000, to July 

1, 2007 (CO-EST2007-01-56). Available: <http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/ 

CO-EST2007-01.html>. Accessed: August 2008. 

———. 2008a. Annual Estimates of Population for Incorporated Places in Wyoming: April 1, 

2000, to July 1, 2007 (CO-SUB-EST2007-04-56). July 10. Washington, D.C. Available: 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/SUB-EST2008-01.html>. Accessed: March 30, 

2009. 

———. 2008b. Annual Estimates of Housing Unit Counts in Wyoming: April 1, 2000, to July 1, 

2007 (HU-EST2007-04-56). August 21. Washington, D.C. Available: 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/HU-EST2007-4.html>. Accessed: March 30, 

2009. 

———. 2009. Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties of Wyoming: 

April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (CO-EST2009-01-56). 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2008a. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, 

Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. Available: 

<http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/finalreport/default.htm>. Accessed: 

May 2009. 

———. 2008b. Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations. Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 3.1. July. Available: <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/ 

sap3-1/final-report/sap31-final-all.pdf>. Accessed: February 2010. 

6-16 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

USDA Forest Service. No date. Land Use Summary Report for Project LA-WY-1. Land 

Acquisitions File, Forest Service Permanent Records, Douglas District Office, 

Resettlement Program, Homestead Files. 

———. 2009. Ecoregions. Updated: June 9, 2009. Available: 

<http://www.fs.fed.us/re/ecoregions>. Accessed: September 30, 2009. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 2006. Mercury Emission Control R&D. Available: 

<http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/ 

overview_mercurycontrols.ht ml>. Accessed: July 2008. 

———. 2007. Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada, 87 pp. Office of 

Fossil Energy, NETL, Washington D.C. Note: This document is intended to be 

continuously updated. 

———. 2009a. Coal. Available: <http://www.energy.gov/energysources/coal.htm>. 

Accessed: February 2009. 

———. 2009b. Department of Energy Takes Another Step Forward on FutureGen Project in 

Matton, IL. Record of Decision issued on first U.S. commercial-scale carbon capture and 

storage project. Press release. July 14. Available: <http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/ 

technologies/2009/09045DOE_signs_FutureGen_ROD.html>. Accessed: August 2009. 

U.S. Department of Labor. 2009. Mine Safety and Health Administration Mission. Available: 

<http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/MISSION.HTM>. Accessed: July 2009. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 1994. Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal. 

August. Available: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html>. 

Accessed: May 2009. 

———. 2007a. 2006 Annual Coal Report. Available: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelcoal.html>. 

Accessed: February 2009. 

———. 2007b. Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030. February. Available: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/ issues.html>. Accessed: January 2010. 

———. 2008a. Coal News and Markets, A Report Series on Coal Production and Prices. 

Available: <www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews>. Accessed: November 17, 

2008. 

———. 2008b. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States, 2007. DOE/EIA0573(2007). December. Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Washington, 

D.C. 

———. 2008c. Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 2030. April. Available: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/aeo/ index.html>. Accessed: February 

2009. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-17 
 

6.0 References Cited 

———. 2009a. 2008 Annual Coal Report. DOE/EIA 0584(2008). September. Available: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr.pdf>. 

———. 2009b. Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Early Release. December. 

———. 2009c. Electric Power Industry 2009: Year in Review. Figure ES 1, U.S. Electric 

Power Industry Net Generation. November 23. Available: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html>. Accessed: December 12, 

2010. 

———. 2009d. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2008. DOE/EIA 

0573(2008). December. Available: <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ 

ggrpt/0573(2008).pdf>. Accessed: February 2010. 

———. 2009e. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030. March. Available: 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009).pdf>. Accessed: January 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. 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. 

———. 1999. Regional Haze Regulations. Federal Register Volume 64, Number 126. July 1. 

———. 2001a. Region 8 comment letter to Nancy Doelger, BLM, on the North Jacobs Ranch 

Coal Lease Application DEIS. 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. 

______. 2002a. EPA AQS Database, EPA Air Explorer, AQS Site ID’s: 56-005-0808, 56-005-

0900, 56-005-0906, Parameter: PM10, AQS Site Name: Eagle Butte Mine, Campbell 

County, WY. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/mxplorer/index.htm>. 

______. 2002b. EPA AQS Database, EPA Air Explorer, AQS Site ID: 56-005-0899, Parameter: 

PM2.5, AQS Site Name: WDEQ-AQD Buckskin Mine, Campbell County, WY. Available: 

<http://www.epa.gov/mxplorer/index.htm>. 

______. 2002c. Characterization and Management of Residues from Coal-Fired Power Plants. 

Interim Report, EPA-600/R-02-083. December. 

———. 2003a. Region 8 comment letter to Nancy Doelger, BLM, on the South Powder River 

Basin Coal DEIS. April 16. 

______. 2003b. Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2) Fact Sheet. EPA530-F-03-

004. January. 

6-18 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

______. 2004. Methane Release from Coal Mining: Methane Tracking and Mitigation Options, 

version 1.0. October 15. Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP). Available: 

<www.epa.gov/methane/excel/MethaneSubModelInputData_Final.xls>. 

______. 2005a. AQS Database, EPA Air Explorer, AQS Site ID: 56-005-0123, Parameter: 

ozone, AQS Site Name: THUNDER BASIN GRASSLAND SITE 35 MI N-NE, Campbell 

County, WY. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/mxplorer/index.htm>. 

———. 2005b. Effects of Acid Rain: Lakes and Streams. Available: <http:// www.epa.gov/ 

airmarkets/ acidrain /effects/surfacewater.html>. Accessed: April 2005. 

———. 2005c. Metrics for Expressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Equivalents and 

Carbon Dioxide Equivalents. No. EPA420-F-05-002. February. 

———. 2005d. News Release: Coal Waste Becomes Viable Product. Available: 

<http://www.circainfo.ca/pdf/ US%20EPA%20Press%20Release.pdf>. Accessed: May 

2008. 

______. 2006a. AQS Database, EPA Air Explorer, AQS Site ID: 56-005-0123, Parameter: 

ozone, AQS Site Name: THUNDER BASIN GRASSLAND SITE 35 MI N-NE, Campbell 

County, WY. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/mxplorer/index.htm>. 

______. 2006b. EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury. EPA-HQOPPT-2005-0013. Available: 

<http://www.epa.gov/mercury/ roadmap.htm>. Accessed: July 29, 2008. 

______. 2007a. AQS Database, EPA Air Explorer, AQS Site ID: 56-005-0123, Parameter: 

ozone, AQS Site Name: THUNDER BASIN GRASSLAND SITE 35 MI N-NE, Campbell 

County, WY. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/mxplorer/index.htm>. 

———. 2007b. NOx—How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe – Chief 

Causes for Concern. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/chf.html. 

———. 2007c. Particle Pollution, Health, and Environment. Available: 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/health.html>. 

______. 2007d. Clean Energy, eGRID, 2007. 2006 version 2.1. April. 

———. 2007e. About Coal Combustion Products. Available: 

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/imr/ccps/index.htm>. Accessed: May 2009. 

———. 2007f. Fly Ash. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/imr/ 

ccps/flyash.htm>. Accessed: May 2009. 

———. 2007g. Bottom Ash. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/imr/ 

ccps/bottomash.htm>. Accessed: May 2009. 

———. 2007h. Boiler Slag. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/imr/ 

ccps/boilslag.htm >. Accessed: May 2009. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-19 
 

6.0 References Cited 

———. 2007i. Flue Gas Desulfurization Material. Available: 

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/imr/ccps/fgd.htm>. Accessed: May 2009. 

______. 2008a. AQS Database, EPA Air Explorer, AQS Site ID: 56-005-0123, Parameter: 

ozone, AQS Site Name: THUNDER BASIN GRASSLAND SITE 35 MI N-NE, Campbell 

County, WY. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/mxplorer/index.htm>. 

———. 2008b. Climate Change—Science—State of Knowledge. Available: 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html>. Accessed: May 

2009. 

———. 2008c. Transportation and Climate. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate>. 

Accessed: May 2009. 

———. 2008d. Mercury: Basic Information. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/mercury/ 

about.htm>. Accessed: May 2009. 

———. 2008e. EPA Recognizes Leadership in Beneficial Uses of Industrial Materials. 

Available: <http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/ 

4F3C92C9741B1827852 5747A00632626>. Accessed: May 2009. 

______. 2009a. AQS Database, EPA Air Explorer, AQS Site ID: 56-005-0123, Parameter: 

ozone, AQS Site Name: THUNDER BASIN GRASSLAND SITE 35 MI N-NE, Campbell 

County, WY. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/mxplorer/index.htm>. 

———. 2009b. AQS Database, EPA Air Explorer, AQS Site ID’s: 56-009-0819 (Antelope 

Mine), 56-005-0892 (Belle Ayr Mine), 56-005-0123 (Thunder Basin Grassland Site), 56-

005-0456 (Campbell County), and 56-005-0789 (Tracy Ranch); Parameter: NO2. All 

sites are in Campbell County, WY, except Antelope Mine, which is in Converse County, 

WY. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/mxplorer/index.htm>. Accessed: 2009. 

———. 2009c. Reducing Acid Rain. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/reducing/>. 

———. 2009d. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under 

the Clean Air Act. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html>. 

Accessed: December 2009. 

———. 2009e. Clean Energy, Air Emissions. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/solar/ 

energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html>. Accessed: February 2009. 

———. 2009f. Mercury Emissions: The Global Context. Available: 

<http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/global.htm>. Accessed: February 2009. 

———. 2009g. Benefits of Using CCPs. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/ 

partnerships/c2p2/use/benefits.htm>. Accessed: May 2009. 

———. 2009h. Coal Combustion Products Partnership, C2P2. Available: 

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/c2p2/index.htm>. Accessed: February 2009. 

6-20 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

———. 2010. Email Hotline, GHG Reporting Rule and Coal Mines. January 27. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Coal Mine List of Migratory Bird Species of Management 

Concern in Wyoming, based on Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, version 1.0. Report 

available from Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, WY. 

———. 2004. Letter to Interested Parties Regarding Black-footed Ferret Surveys in Wyoming. 

File ES-61411/BFF/WY7746. February 2. 

———. 2007. Wetlands Online Mapper. Available: <http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/ 

NWI/index.html>. Accessed: November 10, 2007. 

———. 2008. Mountain/Prairie Region Endangered Species Program – Mountain Plover. 

Available: <www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/birds/mountainplover>. 

Accessed: January 2008. 

———. 2010. Twelve-month Finding on a Petition to List the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog as 

Threatened or Endangered. Endangered Species of the Mountain-Prairie Region. 

Federal Register, Volume 74, No. 231, p. 63344. Available: <http://www.fws.gov/ 

mountain-prairie/species/mammals/btprairiedog/74FR63343.pdf>. Accessed: May 2010. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. Health Impacts of Coal Combustion. U.S. Geological Survey 

Fact Sheet FS-094-00. July. 

______. 2002a. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Powder River Basin 

Province of Wyoming and Montana, 2002. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS–146– 

02. November. 

______. 2002b. Characterization and Modes of Occurrence of Elements in Feed Coal and Fly 

Ash—An Integrated Approach. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet-038-02. May. 

______. 2004. Total Petroleum System and Assessment of Coalbed Gas in the Powder River 

Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 69-C. 

______. 2006. Gas Desorption and Adsorption Isotherm Studies of Coals in the Powder River 

Basin, Wyoming and Adjacent Basins in Wyoming and North Dakota. Open-File Report 

2006-1174. 

______. 2008. State-by-State List of Mining Region – Wyoming. Available: 

<http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/mineblast/source.html>. Accessed: August 2008. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States. Available: <http://www.globalchange.gov/images/cir/pdf/20pagehighlightsbrochure.pdf>. Accessed: December 2009. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2009. Locations of Uranium Recovery Facilities. 

Available: <http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/uranium/>. Accessed: December 

2009. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-21 
 

 

6.0 References Cited 

U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM). 1984. Correlation and 

Effect of Mine Facility Wells on the Tullock Aquifer in the Gillette, Wyoming, Vicinity. 

Prepared by G.E. McIntosh, C.A. Harrison, and J.O. Wicox. 

———. 2007a. Questions and Answers for the Announcement of Decisions Needed to 

Distribute Funds for FY2008 under the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA. Available: 

<http://www.osmre.gov/news/120607QA.pdf>. Accessed: April 13, 2007. 

———. 2007b. The 2006 Amendments to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. 

Fact Sheet to Accompany News Release. Available: <http://www.osmre.gov/ 

news/120607FactSheet.pdf>. Accessed: April 13, 2007. 

———. 2008. Annual Revaluation (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008). Available: 

<http://www.osmre.gov/Reports/EvalInfo/2008/WY08-reg.pdf>. Accessed: January 

2009. 

Union Pacific Railroad. 2005. Southern Powder River Updates—2005. Available: 

<http://www.uprr.com/customers/energy/sprb/updates_2005.shtm>. Accessed: January 

2008. 

———. 2006. Southern Powder River Updates—2006 Year-end Review. Available: 

<http://www.uprr.com/customers/energy/sprb/updates.shtm>. Accessed: January 2008. 

Wang, J.X.L. and J.K. Angell. 1999. NOAA/Air Resources Laboratory ATLAS No. 1, Air 

Stagnation Climatology for the United States (1948–1998). April. Air Resources 

Laboratory Environmental Research Laboratories, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research, Silver Spring, MD. 

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams, Sources, Biological Effects and Control. In American 

Fisheries Society Monograph 7. 251 pp. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2008. Agency web page. Available: 

<http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wy3855>. Accessed: March 4, 2008. 

WWC Engineering. 2009. EIS Technical Support Document for CO2e Emissions Calculations. 

Using known CO2e emission source values to estimate the unknown source values and 

the combined CO2e emission source values expected at the Black Thunder, Jacobs 

Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines if the North Hilight Field, South Hilight 

Field, West Jacobs Ranch, North Porcupine and South Porcupine LBA Tracts are added 

to the mines’ operations. Available on request from BLM Casper Field Office. March. 

World Information Service on Energy. 2007. New Uranium Mining Projects Wyoming, USA. 

Available: < http://www.wise-uranium.org/upusawy.html>. Accessed: May 2009. 

Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group. 2007. Wyoming State Government Revenue 

Forecast, Fiscal Year 2008–Fiscal Year 2012. Available: <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/ 

creg/GreenCREG_Oct07.pdf>. Accessed: November 7, 2007. 

6-22 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

———. 2008. Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast, Fiscal Year 2008–Fiscal Year 

2012. Available: <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/creg/GreenCREG_Jan08.pdf>. Accessed: 

April 7, 2008. 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. 2006. Economic Analysis Division, 

Wyoming Population, Cost of Living, Economic, and Demographic Data. Available: 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. 

———. 2008. Wyoming Cost of Living for the Fourth Quarter 2007. Available: 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us>. Accessed: April 7, 2008. 

Wyoming Department of Education. 2006. Statistical Report Series, Report No. 1, 2 and 3. 

Available: <http://www.k12.wy.us/statistics/index.html>. 

———. 2008. Statistical Report Series, Report No. 1, 2, and 3. Available: 

<http://www.k12.wy.us/statistics/index.html>. Accessed: April 2008. 

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. 

______. 2000. Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year Ending 

December 31, 2000. 

______. 2003. Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year Ending 

December 31, 2003. 

______. 2007. Office of the State Inspector of Mines, Annual Report for the Year Ending 

December 31, 2006. 

———. 2009a. Annual Report of the State Inspector of Mines of Wyoming, Year Ending 

December 31, 2008. Rock Springs, WY. 

———. 2009b. Labor Market Information—Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, First 

Quarter 2008. Casper, WY. Available: <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/08Q1_QCEW>. 

Accessed: March 30, 2009. 

———. 2009c. 2003 Labor Market Information—Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 

1st Quarter 2003. Casper, WY. Available: <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/03Q1_202>. 

Accessed: March 30, 2009. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2003. Wyoming’s Long-Term Strategy for 

Visibility Protection. Final 2003 Review Report. May 29. Air Quality Division. 

Available: <http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/prop/2003%20LTSReview.pdf>. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-23 
 

6.0 References Cited 

———. 2005a. Wyoming Visibility Monitoring Network. Land Quality Division. Available: 

<www.wyvisnet.com/all.html>. 

———. 2005b. Water Quality Rules and Regulations. Water Quality Division. 

———. 2006. Buckskin Mining Company, AP-4972. Application analysis, p. 25. 

December 13. 

———. 2007. Industrial Siting News: Basin Electric Awarded Permit. Industrial Siting 

Division. Available: <http://deq.state.wy.us/isd/isdnews.htm>. Accessed: March 2007. 

———. 2008. Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan 2008. Available: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/downloads/AirMonitor/Network%20Plan_ 2008.pdf>. 

Accessed: May 2009. 

———. 2009. Wyoming Visibility Program. Available: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/visibility.asp>. Accessed: December 2009. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Industrial Siting Division (WDEQ/ISD). 2008. 

Industrial Siting News. Available: <http://deq.state.wy.us/isd/isdnews.htm>. Accessed: 

May 2008. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2006. Annual Report 2006. Available: 

<http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&ta bid=10>. 

______. 2007. Aggregated Sales and Use Tax Report for Fiscal Year: 2007. Cheyenne, WY. 

Available: <http://revenue.state.wy.us>. Accessed: April 10, 2007. 

———. 2008. Annual Report 2008. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available: 

<http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/uploads/2008%20DOR%20Annual%20Report.p 

df>. Accessed: March 30, 2009. 

Wyoming Department of Transportation and Foundation Coal Company. 2008. Background 

Information and Other Materials Presented at a Public Open House and Information 

Meeting on the Proposed Location of U.S. Highway 14-16 North of Gillette. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2006. Wyoming Sage-GROUSE Definitions. December 

8. Available from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 

———. 2008a. Casper and Sheridan Region 2007 Annual Big Game Herd Unit Report. 

———. 2008b. Northeast Wyoming Working Group 2007 Annual Sage-grouse Completion 

Report. Buffalo, WY. Available: <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/ 

sagegrouse/pdf/2007sgjcrsbyregion/2007NortheastJCR.pdf>. 

———. 2008c. Statewide 2007 Annual Sage-grouse Completion Report. Cheyenne, WY. 

Available: <http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sagegrouse/pdf/ 

2007sgjcrsbyregion/2007StatewideJCR.pdf>. 

6-24 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

Wyoming Housing Database Partnership. 2007. The 2007 Wyoming Housing Needs Forecast – 

Final Report. Available: 

<http://www.wyomingcda.com/Homebuyer/Home_Demographics.html>. 

______. 2008. A Profile of Wyoming Demographics, Economics and Housing, Semi-Annual 

Report, Ending December 31, 2007. Available: 

<www.wyomingcda.com/files/Profile07b_Vol_I_FNL.pdf>. Accessed: April 10, 2008. 

Wyoming Mining Association. 2006. Wyoming Bentonite Page. Available: 

<http://www.wmaminelife.com/bent/bentmine.htm>. 

———. 2009. Wyoming Coal. Available: <http://www.wma-minelife.com/coal/ 

coalhome.html>. Accessed: May 2009. 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2004. Wyoming Statistics. Available: 

<http://WOGCC.state.wy.us/cfdocs/2002stats.html>. 

———. 2005. Rules and Statutes. Available: <http://wogcc.state.wy.us>. Accessed: March 

2005. 

———. 2007. Oil and Gas Well Information. Updated daily. Available: 

<http://wogc.state.wy.us>. Accessed: November 20, 2007. 

———. 2008. Oil and Gas Well Information. Updated daily. Available: 

<http://wogcc.state.wy.us>. Accessed: May 11, 2008. 

———. 2009. Oil and Gas Well Information. Updated daily. Available: 

<http://wogcc.state.wy.us>. Accessed: May 2009. 

Wyoming Pipeline Authority. 2008. Projects. Available: <http://www.wy.wyopipeline. 

com/projects.asp>. Accessed: May 2008. 

Wyoming School Facilities Commission. 2007. 2007–2008 Biennium Budget Request and 

Approved Five Year Plans. Available: <http://sfc.state.wy.us/DMPInfo.aspx>. 

Accessed: November 2007. 

———. 2008. 2009-2010 Prioritized Projects List and 5-Year Plan. Available: 

<http://sfc.state.wy.us/index.aspx>. Accessed: May 2008. 

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. 

———. 2006. Review of Coalbed Natural Gas Resources, Production, and Economics, Powder 

River Basin, Wyoming. Unpublished internal report. May. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-25 
 

6.0 References Cited 

Wyoming State Board of Equalization. 2007. Wyoming Abstract & Mill Levy Report, 2006. 

Available: <http://tasappeals.state.wy.us/s26abs1valueonly.htm>. 

Wyoming State Board of Equalization. 2008. Wyoming Abstract and Mill Levy Report, 2008. 

Available: <http://taxappeals.state.wy.us/2008%20Annual%20Report.xls>. Accessed: 

March 30, 2009. 

Wyoming State Geological Survey. 2002. Wyoming Geo-Notes, No. 73, April, 44 pp. 

______. 2003. Wyoming Geo-Notes, No. 78, November, 47 pp. 

———. 2004. Digital Industrial Minerals and Construction Materials Map of Wyoming, by 

R.E. Harris. WSGS Map Series MS-47. 

———. 2009. Uranium Production in Wyoming. Available: 

<http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/WSGSgroups/Uranium/Default.aspx>. Accessed: 

December 2009. 

Wyoming State Inspector of Mines. 2007. Annual Report for the Year Ending December 31, 

2007. 

Wyoming Travel and Tourism Division. 2007. Wyoming Official Travel Web Site—Places to 

Stay, by Town. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available: <http://www.wyomingtourism.org>. 

Accessed: April 13, 2008. 

6.2. Personal Communication 

Ackermann, Laura, Permit Coordinator. Buckskin Mine Environmental Affairs Office, Gillette, 

WY. April 2008—e-mail and telephone call with R. Dutton, Principal, Sammons/Dutton 

LLC. 

Anderson, Steve, Building Official and Zoning Administrator. Campbell County Building and 

Planning Office, Gillette, WY. May 15, 2008—telephone interview by Aqua Terra 

Consultants, Inc. 

Bigelow, S., Executive Director. Campbell County Economic Development Corporation, 

Gillette, WY. July 9, 2004—communication with D. Blankenship, Blankenship 

Consulting, LLC. 

Boger, William. Belle Ayr Mine, now Alpha Natural Resources. August 7, 2009—letter to 

Mike Karbs of the BLM High Plains District Office, Casper, WY. 

Chancellor, Rick, Director. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Cheyenne State 

Office, Cheyenne, WY. June 16, 2003—communication with Nancy Doelger, BLM, 

Casper Field Office. 

6-26 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
6.0 References Cited 

Christensen, R.. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division, 

Cheyenne, WY. July 31, 2002—communication with C. Florian, Greystone 

Environmental Consultants regarding summary report of coal permit totals to date: 

Active Coal Mine Permits, Powder River Basin, 1999–2001. 

DeBruyn, Roland. LUCA Technologies Inc, Golden, CO. August 19, 2009— telephone 

conversation and email exchanges with Teresa Johnson, BLM, Casper Field Office. 

Emme, Doug. Blasting Program Principal. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 

May 7, 2003. 

Hanson, Dale. Regional Paleontologist. Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 

Cheyenne, WY. July 15, 2008—telephone conversation with Rose Difley. 

Jahnke, L., Wildlife Management Coordinator, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Sheridan, WY. May 20, 2005—email communication with WWC Engineering. 

Langston, Tom, Director. Gillette Department of Community Development, Gillette, WY. 

2005—telephone conversation with R. Dutton, Sammons/Dutton LLC. 

O’Brien, Heather, District Wildlife Biologist. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Gillette, 

WY. May 5, 2008—telephone interview by Aqua Terra Consultants, Inc. 

Petersen, Steve, Assistant City Engineer. City of Gillette Engineering Department, Gillette, WY. 

April 20, 2007—telephone conversation with G. Blankenship, Blankenship Consulting 

LLC. 

Shamley, J., Senior Engineering Analyst. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air 

Quality Division, District 3. April 24 and May 3, 2008—communications with J. Berry, 

WWC Engineering. 

Shorma, G., Regional Supervisor. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Sheridan, WY. May 

20, 2005—communication with B. Strom, ENSR. 

Spencer, D.R., Northeast Region Director. Wyoming Business Council. April and July 2004— 

communication with G. Blankenship, Blankenship Consulting, LLC. 

Stratham, A., Wyoming Game and Fish Department. May 12, 2005—communication with B. 

Strom, ENSR. 

Unknown, staff member. Wyoming Department of Education, Cheyenne, WY. April 2008— 

telephone conversation with Ron Dutton, Sammons/Dutton LLC, regarding fall 2007 

enrollment counts. 

Williams, M., CEO, Interline Resources. June 9, 2008—communication with R. Dutton, 

Sammons/Dutton LLC. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 6-27 
6.0 References Cited 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. April 14, 2005—communication with W. 

Berg, ENSR, regarding Application for Permit to Drill approvals. 

6-28 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
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. 

air stagnation event – When air is trapped by poor ventilation due to persistent light or calm
 

winds, and by the presence of inversions. 

aliquot – An exact portion.
 

alkalinity – The degree to which the pH of a substance is greater than 7 (on a scale of 1 to 14).
 

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 floodplain 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 – Postmining surface configuration achieved by backfilling and 

grading of mined-out areas so that the reclaimed land surface resembles the general surface 

configuration of the land prior to mining (see 30 CFR 701.5). 

aquatic – Living or growing in or on the water. 

aquifer – A layer of permeable rock, sand, or gravel that stores and transmits water in sufficient 

quantities for a specific use. 

aquitard – A confining bed that retards but does not totally prevent the flow of water to or from
 

an adjacent aquifer; a leaky confining bed. 

area source – A plant site that does not emit any single HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutant) 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.
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 7-1 
7.0 Glossary 

arithmetic mean – The sum of the values of n numbers divided by n. It is usually referred to as 

simply the “mean” or “average”. 

ash – The residual non-combustible matter in coal that comes from included silt, clay, silica, or 

other substances. The lower the ash content, the better the quality of the coal. 

avian – Of, relating to, or derived from birds. 

backfill – The operation of refilling an excavation. Also, the material placed in an excavation 

when it is refilled. 

baseline – Conditions, including trends, existing in the human environment before a proposed 

action is begun; a benchmark state from which the environmental consequences of an action are 

forecast; the no-action alternative. 

beneficial impact – An apparent direct or indirect advantageous effect. 

bentonite – A clay formed by the decomposition of volcanic ash which has the ability to absorb 

large amounts of water and to expand to several times its normal volume; used in adhesives, 

cements and ceramic fillers. 

BLM study area – The area, encompassing the proposed tract and adjacent unleased federal 

coal reserves identified by the BLM, from which coal would be mined under Alternative 2. 

bonus – That value in excess of the rentals and royalties that is paid to the United States as part 

of the consideration for receiving a lease for publicly owned minerals (see 43 CFR 3400.0-5(c)). 

braided stream – A stream flowing in several dividing and reuniting channels resembling the 

strands of a braid. 

buffer zone – An area between two different land uses that is intended to resist, absorb, or 

otherwise preclude development or intrusion between the two use areas. 

bypass coal – An isolated part of a coal deposit that is not leased and that can only be 

economically mined in an environmentally sound manner as a part of continued mining by an 

existing adjacent operation (see 43 CFR 3400.0.5(d)). 

clinker (scoria) – Baked and fused rock resulting from in-place burning of coal deposits. 

coal bed natural gas (CBNG) – Natural gas (methane) that is generated during the coal-forming 

process. 

coal combustion products (CCPs) – the materials produced primarily from the combustion of 

coal in coal-fired power plants. 

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. 

7-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

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 point. 

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 non-federal) 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). 

decertification process – During the 1970s and early 1980s, the PRB emerged as a major coal 

production region, and coal leasing in the PRB operated as a certified federal coal production 

region during that period. Under this process, coal leases were sold in parcels of sufficient size 

to open a new mine or make significant contributions to expanding existing mine operations, as 

described under 43 CFR 3420. Leasing was developed through this regional process through the 

1980s. 

In 1982, the BLM temporarily halted coal leasing in the PRB. However, the existing mines 

continued producing coal, which depleted their leased federal coal reserves. As a result, interest 

in leasing federal coal to extend mining operations at existing mines in the PRB increased in the 

late 1980s, but little to no interest in a regional sale to obtain sufficient reserves to open new 

mines was expressed during that period. The PRB had reached a point where sufficient mining 

operations had been established to meet expected coal demand. 

This “maintenance” lease approach by the operators resulted in an insufficient interest in coal 

leasing to justify a continued regional leasing approach. In 1990, based on the advice of the 

Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT), the BLM decertified the region for coal leasing. 

That decertification process allowed the BLM to begin processing applications by existing mines 

to lease smaller, individual maintenance tracts of federal coal using the lease by application 

(LBA) process under the rules of 43 CFR 3425. Many of the federal coal production regions 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 7-3 
 

7.0 Glossary 

were decertified in the later 1980s, in large part because of a decline of interest in leasing federal 

coal throughout the country. 

decibel – A unit of sound measurement. In general, a sound doubles in loudness for every 

increase of 10 decibels. 

deciview (dv) – A general measure of view impairment (13 deciview equals a view of 

approximately 60 miles) caused by pollution. A 10% change in extinction corresponds to 1.0 dv. 

Desorb/desorption – A phenomenon whereby a substance is released from or through a surface. 

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 consists of a large bucket and cable ropes suspended 

out over a long boom arm. The bucket of this apparatus collects the targeted material by pulling 

the bucket toward itself on the ground with a second rope or cable, elevates the bucket, and 

dumps the material either on a backfill bank, pile or various mode of transport such as a transport 

truck. A dragline operation is typically used to remove over burden above coal or for tar-sand 

mining. 

drawdown – The reduction in groundwater quantity in the aquifers as a result of seepage into 

and dewatering from mine excavations. 

eolian/aeolian deposit – Sand and other loose materials carried, formed, or deposited by the 

wind. 

ephemeral stream – A stream or portion thereof that flows occasionally because of surface 

runoff, and is influence nominally by natural springs and is not influenced by continuous 

permanent ground water flow from snow melt or other sources. 

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. 

7-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

excavation (archeological) – The scientifically controlled recovery of subsurface materials and 

information from a cultural site. Recovery techniques are relevant to research problems and are 

designed to produce maximum knowledge about the site's use, its relation to other sites and the 

natural environment, and its significance in the maintenance of the cultural system. 

fair market value – The amount in cash, or terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which a 

coal deposit would be sold or leased by a willing seller to a willing buyer. 

fixed carbon – In coal, the solid combustible material remaining after removal of moisture, ash, 

and volatile matter. It is expressed as a percentage. 

floodplain – The relatively flat area or lowland adjoining a body of flowing water, such as a 

river or stream that is covered with water when the river or stream overflows its banks. 

forage – Vegetation used for food by wildlife, particularly big game wildlife, and domestic 

livestock. 

formation (geologic) – A rock body distinguishable from other rock bodies and useful for 

mapping or description. Formations may be combined into groups or subdivided into members. 

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 

that are not considered to be fossils (e.g., oil, gas, asphalt, limestone). 

fugitive dust – Small particles that become airborne as a result of natural factors (i.e., wind 

blowing across unvegetated areas) or in response to surface disturbance (e.g., vehicles, wildlife 

and livestock movements). 

general analysis area – The BLM study area and a 0.25-mile-wide buffer to the north and west, 

a total of approximately 2,847.3 acres. This area represents the maximum surface area that could 

be disturbed by the alternatives analyzed in this EIS. 

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 

similar to acclimation. 

hazardous materials – Substance which, because of its potential for corrosivity, toxicity, 

ignitability, chemical reactivity, or explosiveness, may cause injury to persons, damage to 

property or the environment. 

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. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 7-5 
7.0 Glossary 

heterogenous – Made up of dissimilar constituents. 

human environment – The natural and physical environment and the relationship of people 

with that environment (see 30 CFR 1508.14). 

hydraulic conductivity – The capacity of a medium to transmit water when a hydraulic gradient 

is present; permeability coefficient. Expressed as the volume of water at the prevailing 

temperature that will move in unit time under a unit hydraulic gradient through a unit area. Units 

include gallons per day per square foot, centimeters per second. 

hydraulic – Pertaining to fluid in motion, or to movement or action caused by water. 

hydric soil – A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season 

to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic (waterloving) 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 movement and disturbance of any groundwater 

along with its interaction with the soil and rocks of the earth’s crust. 

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 an area of soil that is frequently 

inundated or saturated with moisture (i.e., water). This area periodically is deficient in oxygen as 

a result of the excessive moisture content of the soil. When hydrophytic vegetation comprises a 

community where indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology also occur, the area has 

wetland characteristics. 

impermeable – Not capable of transmitting fluids or gasses in appreciable quantities. 

incised – Having a margin that is deeply and sharply notched/cut. 

indirect (or secondary) impact – A reasonably foreseeable impact resulting from an action but 

occurring later in time than or removed in distance from that action (see 40 CFR 1508.8). 

in-place coal reserves – The estimated volume of all of the coal reserves in a lease without 

considering economic or technological factors that might restrict mining. 

in-situ leach mining – Removal of the valuable components of a mineral deposit through 

chemical leaching without physical extraction of the rock. 

interbedded – Layers of one type of rock, typically thin, that are laid between or that alternate 

with layers of another type of rock. 

interburden – A layer of sedimentary rock that separates two mineable coal beds. 

7-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

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 centimeter thick) layers. 

land and resource management plan (LRMP) – A land use plan that directs the use and 

allocation of USDA 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 in or adjacent to sagebrush dominated habitat where five or 

more males engage in competitive mating displays of strutting to obtain a mate for the purpose of 

breeding. 

lek complex – A grouping of individual leks that are in close proximity to each other that the 

male sage-grouse may move between on a daily basis. At the present time a criteria to determine 

the distance between leks within a lek complex does not exist. 

lek count – A lek count is a way of documenting the actual number of breeding male-grouse 

within a particular lek or lek complex. The criteria to conduct a lek count are available from the 

WGFD. 

lek survey – Lek surveys are conducted when a lek count is infeasible to complete do to location 

or weather deterrents. Lek surveys are not nearly as thorough as lek counts and can be done via 

a plane or helicopter when time, weather and or terrain prohibits a comprehensive lek count. Lek 

surveys do not take exact count of the number of grouse within a lek but are meant as an overall 

snapshot of a lek or lek complex to determine if a lek is active or inactive as well as to monitor 

the population and to see if a lek count is needed. This survey can require as little as one visit to 

a suspected lek. Lek surveys are conducted from early March to early to mid May based on 

terrain and weather. 

lek annual status – Lek annual status is determined by the following: 

 active – Any lek where there have been male grouse seen strutting or there are recent signs 

of strutting by male sage-grouse during the mating season. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 7-7 
7.0 Glossary 

 inactive – There are insufficient indicators of a site being used by grouse during the strutting 

season. A minimum of two surveys separated by seven days need to be completed in 

optimum strutting conditions. The results of the survey must be devoid of any evidence of 

strutting in other words no birds, droppings, feathers or scratch marks can be present. The 

survey to determine that a lek is inactive cannot be completed aerially. 

 unknown – Where the status of a lek has not been determined/documented during a strutting 

season as active or inactive. 

 management status – The management status is determined based on what the annual status 

is determined to be, once the management status is determined a lek is placed in one of the 

following categories for management. 

 occupied lek – As stated by the WDEQ and USFWS an occupied lek is “a lek that has been 

active during at least one strutting season within the prior ten years. Occupied leks are 

protected through prescribed management actions during surface disturbing activities.” 

 unoccupied lek- An unoccupied lek falls under one of the following and are not protected 

during any surface disturbing activities. 

–	 destroyed lek – A destroyed lek is an area that had once been an active lek site including 

appropriate habitat that is no longer suitable for sage-grouse breeding. A destroyed lek 

area is not monitored unless the site has been reclaimed and the habitat is considered 

once again considered suitable for sage-grouse mating. 

–	 abandoned lek –An area of habitat that would be considered appropriate habitat for 

breeding but has not see any measurable activity for a period of 10 consecutive years. 

During the 10 consecutive years a lek has to be considered “inactive” for a minimum of 

four non- consecutive strutting seasons. The area in which a lek is labeled as abandoned 

must be surveyed a minimum of once every ten years to maintain the abandoned lek 

status and to ensure that no new grouse activity has begun. 

–	 undetermined lek – An undetermined lek is a lek in which there is insufficient data over 

the preceding 10 years to determine its actual status as either unoccupied or active. An 

undetermined lek will be protected as if it is active during all surface disturbance activity 

or until such time enough data has been compiled to determine its status as inactive. 

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 of the two parts of a fold (syncline or anticline) on either side of an axis. 

limestone – A sedimentary rock consisting chiefly of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). 

lineament – A linear topographic feature of regional extent that is believed to reflect the hidden 

architecture of the rock structure below the surface. 

loadout facilities – The mine facilities used to load the mined coal for transport out of the mine. 

loam – A rich, permeable soil composed of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, and organic matter. 

7-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

long-term impact – An impact that persists through the time the reclamation bond is released—

minimum of 10 years beyond active reclamation. 

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 inflammable gas; the simplest hydrocarbon; chemical 

formula = CH4. It is the principal constituent of natural gas and is also found associated with 

crude oil and coal. 

mineable coal – Coal that can be economically mined using present day mining technology. 

mineral rights – The rights of one who owns the mineral estate (subsurface). 

mine-related activities – Activities that occur outside a mine lease including, but not limited to, 

topsoil stripping, stockpile storage, highwall back-sloping (including catch benches), highwall 

reduction after mining to match undisturbed topography, and construction of flood- and 

sediment-control structures. 

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, silt, siltstone, claystone, shale and 

argillite. It is similar to shale but lacks distinct layers. This term is also used when there is doubt 

as to the precise identification of a deposit. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 7-9 
7.0 Glossary 

National Register of Historic Places – A list of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects 

significant in American history, architecture, archeology and culture maintained by the Secretary 

of the Interior. Expanded as authorized by Section 2(b) of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 

U.S.C. 462) and Section 101(a)(1) (A) of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

natural gas – Combustible gases (such as hydrocarbons) or mixtures of combustible gases and 

non-combustible gases (such as helium) that are in a gaseous phase at atmospheric conditions of 

temperature and pressure. 

NEPA process – All measures necessary for compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (see 40 CFR 1508.21). 

No Action Alternative – An alternative where no activity would occur. The development of a 

no action alternative is required by regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy 

Act (40 CFR 1502.14). The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects 

of other alternatives. 

operationally limited – Lands around or between those features that are inaccessible for mining 

within a lease area. 

outcrop – A rock formation that appears at or near the surface; the intersection of a rock 

formation with the surface. 

overburden – Material of any nature, consolidated or unconsolidated, that overlies a coal or 

other useful mineral deposit, excluding topsoil. 

overlap area – The area between the general analysis area and existing mine permit boundary; 

represents the area where activities related to mining existing coal leases would occur. 

paleontological resource – A site containing evidence of plant or non-human animal life of past 

geological periods, usually in the form of fossil remains. 

peak discharge or flow – The highest discharge of water recorded over a specified period of 

time at a given stream location; also called maximum flow. Often thought of in terms of spring 

snowmelt, summer, fall or winter rainy season flows. 

perennial species (vegetation) – Vegetation that lives over from season to season. 

perennial stream – A stream or part of a stream that flows continuously during the calendar 

year as a result of groundwater discharge or surface runoff. 

permanent impact – An impact that persists indefinitely. 

permeability – The ability of rock or soil to transmit a fluid. 

7-10 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

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 the systematic classification and description of natural 

physical features. 

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. 

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. 

proposed tract – The proposed tract is a maintenance coal lease adjacent to existing federal coal 

leases; the proposed tract represents the area from which coal would be mined under the 

Proposed Action. 

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: 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 7-11 
7.0 Glossary 

1.	 Hold legal or equitable title to the surface of split estate lands; 

2.	 Have their principal place of residence on the land, or personally conduct farming or 

ranching operations upon a farm or ranch unit to be affected by surface mining operations; or 

received directly a significant portion of their income, if any, from such farming and 

ranching operations; and 

3.	 have met the conditions of (1) and (2) above for a period of at least three years, except for 

persons who gave written consent less than three years after they met the requirements of 

both (1) and (2) above (see 43 CFR 3400.0-5(gg)). 

raptor – Bird of prey, such as an eagle, falcon, hawk, owl, or vulture. 

recharge – The processes by which groundwater is absorbed into a zone of saturation. 

reclamation – Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it acceptable for designated uses. This 

normally involves regrading, replacement of topsoil, revegetation and other work necessary to 

restore the disturbed area for postmining use. 

record of decision (ROD) – A document separate from, but associated with, an environmental 

impact statement that publicly and officially discloses the responsible official's decision on the 

proposed action (see 40 CFR 1505.2). 

recoverable coal – The amount of coal that can actually be recovered for sale from the 

demonstrated coal reserve base. 

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. 

rental payment – Annual payment from a lessee to a lessor to maintain the lessee’s mineral 

lease rights. 

resource management plan (RMP) – A land use plan, as prescribed by FLPMA, that directs the 

use and allocation of public lands and resources managed by BLM. Prior to selection of the 

RMP, different alternative management plans are compared and evaluated in an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) to determine which plan will best direct the management of the public 

lands and resources. 

revegetation – The reestablishment and development of self-sustaining plant cover following 

land disturbance. This may occur through natural processes, or the natural processes may be 

enhanced by human assistance through seedbed preparation, reseeding, and mulching. 

right-of-way – 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. 

7-12 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

royalty (mineral) – A share of production that is free of the expense of production. It is 

generally paid by a lessee to a lessor of a mineral lease as part of the terms of the lease. 

runoff – That portion of rainfall that is not absorbed; it may be used by vegetation, lost by 

evaporation, or it may find its way into streams as surface flow. 

salinity – Refers to the solids, such as sodium chloride (table salt) and alkali metals, that are 

dissolved in water. Often in non-saltwater areas, total dissolved solids is used as an equivalent 

term. 

sandstone – A common sedimentary rock primarily composed of sand grains, mainly quartz, 

that are cemented together by other mineral material. 

scoping – A public informational process required by the National Environmental Policy Act to 

determine private and public concerns, scope of issues, and/or questions regarding a proposed 

action to be evaluated in an environmental impact analysis. 

scoria (clinker) – Baked and fused rock resulting from in-place burning of coal deposits. 

sedimentation pond – An impoundment used to remove solids from water in order to meet 

water quality standards or effluent limitations before the water leaves the permit area 

(see 30 CFR 701.5). 

selenosis – Selenium poisoning; chronic (long-term) exposure to high levels of selenium in food 

and water. 

semi-arid – A climate or region characterized by little yearly rainfall and by the growth of a 

number of short grasses and shrubs. 

severance tax – A tax imposed by the government on the extraction of minerals and other 

natural resources from the ground. 

shale – A very fine-grained clastic rock or sediment consisting predominately of clay-sized 

particles that is laminated; lithified, layered mud. 

short-term impact – An impact associated with operations, persisting during active mining and 

reclamation. 

significant impact – A qualitative term used to describe the anticipated importance of impacts to 

the human environment as a result of an action. 

siltstone – A fine-grained clastic rock consisting predominately of silt-sized particles. 

slope wash – A general term to refer to colluvium found along the bottom slopes of hills and in 

channel bottoms as a result of soil erosion and the down-slope movement of sediment; reworked 

sediment deposited by flow over the ground surface (e.g., runoff). 

socioeconomics – The social and economic situation that might be affected by a proposed action. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 7-13 
7.0 Glossary 

soil survey – The systematic examination, description, classification, and mapping of soils in an 

area, usually a county. Soil surveys are classified according to the level of detail of field 

examination. Order I is the most detailed and Order V is the least detailed. 

spontaneous combustion – The heating and slow combustion of coal and coaly material 

initiated by the absorption of oxygen. 

stipulations – Requirements that are part of the terms of a mineral lease. Some stipulations are 

standard on all Federal leases. Other stipulations may be applied to specific leases at the 

discretion of the surface management agency to protect valuable surface resources or uses 

existing on those leases. 

storage coefficient – The volume of water that can be released from storage per unit surface area 

of a saturated confined aquifer, per unit decline in the component of hydraulic head normal to the 

surface. It is calculated by taking the product of the specific storage and the aquifer thickness. 

stratigraphic – Of, relating to, or determined by stratigraphy, which is the branch of geology 

dealing with the study of the nature, distribution, and relations of layered rocks in the earth’s 

crust. 

stream-laid deposits – A loose mix of sand, gravel, and silt deposited by stream flow within a 

stream channel. 

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% carbon) with a heating value between that of 

bituminous and lignite, usually 8,300–11,500 Btu per pound. Subbituminous coal contains a 

high percentage of volatile matter and moisture. 

support area – A 0.25-mile-wide area north and west of the proposed tract and of the BLM 

study area, where activities necessary for coal mining (e.g., topsoil stripping) would occur; no 

coal extraction would occur in the support areas. 

surface disturbance – Any disturbance by mechanical actions that alters the soil surface. 

surface rights – Rights to the surface of the land, does not include rights to oil, gas, or other 

subsurface minerals or subsurface rights. 

suspended solids – The very fine soil particles that remain in suspension in water for a 

considerable period of time without contact with the stream or river channel bottom. 

tectonic fracture – Fractures caused by deformation of the earth’s crust. 

7-14 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

threatened and endangered species – These species of plants or animals classified as 

threatened or endangered pursuant to Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. Any species that 

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 (USFWS). 

topography – Physical shape of the ground surface; the configuration of land surface including 

its relief, elevation, and the position of its natural and manmade features. 

topsoil – The surface layer of a soil, generally the top 2–6 inches and generally having more 

organic material and nutrients. 

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 bucket-equipped digging and loading machines 

(shovels) and large dump trucks to remove overburden instead of using a dragline for overburden 

removal. 

typic – Typical. 

unconfined aquifer – An aquifer where the water table is exposed to the atmosphere through 

openings in the overlying materials. 

unsuitability criteria – The 20 criteria described in 43 CFR 3461, the application of which 

results in an assessment of federal coal lands as suitable or unsuitable for surface coal mining. 

uranium – A very hard, heavy, metallic element that is crucial to development of atomic energy. 

vegetation type – A kind of existing plant community with distinguishable characteristics 

described in terms of the present vegetation that dominates an area. 

vertebrate fossils – The remains of animals that possessed a backbone; examples are fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals. 

vesicular – Rock containing many small cavities that were formed by the expansion of a bubble 

of gas or steam during the solidification of the rock. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 7-15 
7.0 Glossary 

visual resources – The physical features of a landscape that can be seen (e.g., land, water, 

vegetation, structures, and other features). 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) – The systematic means to identify visual values, 

establish objectives which provide the standards for managing those values, and evaluate the 

visual impacts of proposed projects to ensure that objectives are met. 

volatile matter – In coal, those substances, other than moisture, that are given off as gas or 

vapor during combustion. 

waterfowl – A bird that frequents water, especially a swimming bird. 

wetlands – Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency 

and duration sufficient, under normal circumstances, to support a prevalence of vegetative or 

aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and 

reproduction. Wetlands include marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, river overflows, mud flats, 

wet meadows, seeps, and springs (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)(7)(b)). 

wild and scenic river – Rivers or sections of rivers designated by Congressional actions under 

the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as wild, scenic, or recreational by an act of the Legislature 

of the state or states through which they flow. Wild and scenic rivers may be classified and 

administered under one or more of the following categories: 

 wild river areas – Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters 

unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

 scenic river areas – Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with 

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places 

by roads. 

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. 

winter concentration area – Areas of winter habitat consistently used by sage-grouse. The 

determination of a winter concentration area is based on repeated observations of an area 

including the number of sage-grouse (typically 25 or more) and the quantity/quality of winter 

habitat characteristic. Coordination with the WGFD is necessary prior to any area being listed as 

a winter concentration area. 

7-16 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7.0 Glossary 

winter habitat – Areas where the sagebrush consistently provides forage (leaves and buds) for 

sage-grouse under any winter conditions. Sagebrush stands in this habitat are either tall enough 

(at least 10 to 14 inches) to maintain some branches above snow level, or they are located in 

windblown areas that are not regularly buried or drifted over by snow. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 7-17 
8.0 Index of Keywords 

8.0 INDEX OF KEY WORDS 

air quality
 

ES-12, ES-20–21, ES-24, ES-38, ES-40, 

ES-42 

1-1, 1-10, 1-11, 1-13, 1-24 

2-6, 2-13, 2-16 

3-1, 3-9, 3-31, 3-42–3-47, 3-49–50, 

3-53, 3-54, 3-60, 3-62, 3-63, 3-66–67, 

3-69–71, 3-73–75, 3-78, 3-81, 3-215, 3-

217–219, 3-222 

4-1–2, 4-4, 4-13, 4-15, 4-37, 4-41–45, 

4-47, 4-50, 4-52, 4-144 

Appendix A: A-1 

Appendix D: D-19–20, D-22, D-32, D61–62, D-66, D-108, D-110–114 

Appendix G (Air Quality), Appendix G, 

Attachment A 

blasting 

ES-18, ES-20–21, ES-24, ES-34 

1-13, 1-24 

2-7, 2-17 

3-10, 3-26, 3-32, 3-41, 3-44, 3-57, 3-60, 

3-63–66, 3-68–70, 3-77, 3-80, 3-120, 

3-219, 3-222 

4-38, 4-65, 4-142 

Appendix D: D-19 

Appendix G: G-8, G-11–14 

Appendix G, Attachment A: 2, 4 

Appendix J: J-12 

bond release 

1-14, 1-15, 1-16 

2-7, 2-18 

3-110, 3-118, 3-169 

4-6, 4-81 

Appendix D: D-4–5, D-35, D-63–64 

bonus bid payment/bonus payment 

ES-11 

1-6, 1-19 

2-14, 2-21 

3-167, 3-198–199, 3-201, 3-203 

4-116–117 

coal bed natural gas (CBNG) 

ES-9, ES-12, ES-19–20, ES-27, ES-33–
 

34,ES-39, ES-43 

1-11, 1-22, 1-24 

2-14, 2-15 

3-9, 3-16, 3-28, 3-33–38, 3-44, 3-61–62, 

3-84–85, 3-88, 3-90, 3-92, 3-94, 3-101, 

3-103–105, 3-111, 3-114, 3-120, 3-153, 

3-155–157, 3-162, 3-166–167, 3-169, 

3-174, 3-179, 3-184–185, 3-192, 3-216, 

3-220, 3-223, 3-225 

4-1, 4-4, 4-16, 4-18, 4-20–25, 4-37–41, 

4-33, 4-45, 4-52–58, 4-61–79, 4-81–82, 

4-85–89, 4-91, 4-95, 4-102–105, 4-115–
 

117, 4-119, 4-131, 4-145–47 

Appendix D: D-67–68, D-107
 

Appendix F: F-1 

Appendix G: G-8, G-10, G-11 

Appendix H: all 

Appendix J: J-11–12, J-18–20, J-35–36 

decertification 

ES-38 

1-3, 1-6 

4-4, 4-6 

7-3 

Appendix D: D-3, D-114–115 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 8-1 
8.0 Index of Keywords 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

ES-5, ES-21, ES-24, ES-38, ES-40 

1-1, 1-17, 1-25 

2-16, 2-19 

3-43, 3-45–46, 3-53, 3-61–67, 3-71–73, 

3-75, 3-78, 3-101, 3-185, 3-215, 3-219, 

3-221–225 

4-42–45, 4-52, 4-120–121, 4-126, 4-

130–133, 4-138–143 

Appendix D: D-19–20, D-22, D-30, D61–62, D-108–109, D-111–114 

Appendix G: G-1–4, G-7, G-12, G-14 

Appendix G, Attachment A: 4, 7, 11 

fair market value 

ES-4 

1-6, 1-25 

2-1, 2-6, 2-11, 2-14 

3-167 

Appendix D: D-3, D-30 

fugitive dust 

ES-20, ES-21 

1-11 

3-44, 3-61 

4-42, 4-99 

Appendix D: D-19, D-111 

Appendix G: G-6, G-11; 

Appendix G, Attachment A: A-11, A-14 

grazing 

ES-24, ES-25, ES-28 

1-11, 1-15 

2-18 

3-12, 3-14, 3-98, 3-107–108, 3-150, 

3-156–157, 3-159–202 

4-6, 4-77–80 

Appendix I: I-13, I-16, I-19, I-20 

greenhouse gas (GHG) 

ES-36–37 

1-25 

3-64, 3-220–225 

4-18, 4-41, 4-120–124, 4-126–127, 4-

129–136, 4-138, 4-142–143 

Appendix D: D-6–8, D-60, D-65–67, 

D107–109 

hazardous 

ES-12, ES-36 

1-16, 1-17 

2-19 

3-2, 3-18, 3-196–197, 3-210, 3-218, 

3-220 

4-52, 4-139 

Appendix A: A-1 

Appendix G: G-6 

human health 

1-24 

3-9–10, 3-57, 3-60, 3-68, 3-213, 3-215, 

3-218 

4-138–142 

Appendix D: D-61 

Appendix G: G-2, G-12 

hunting 

ES-37 

3-129, 3-155–156, 3-158–159, 3-203 

4-78, 4-80–81 

migratory birds 

3-129, 3-139, 3-148 

Appendix I: I-5 

8-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
8.0 Index of Keywords 

mining plan 

ES-4, ES-6, ES-10 

1-1, 1-20 

2-2, 2-6, 2-13, 2-15, 2-16, 2-19 

3-38, 3-104, 3-161, 3-174, 3-177, 3-217, 

3-221 

4-119 

Appendix A: A-1 

Appendix D: D-32 

Appendix J: J-5–6, J-12 

mitigation
 

ES-1, ES-4, ES-10, ES-13, ES-20, ES21, ES-32, ES-33, ES-37, 

1-1, 1-20, 1-24 

2-2, 2-13, 2-15–20 

3-2–3, 3-27–28, 3-33, 3-37, 3-41–42, 

3-47, 3-60–62, 3-69, 3-77–78, 3-81, 

3-87, 3-92, 3-95, 3-100, 3-106–107, 

3-109, 3-117, 3-128–132, 3-140, 3-148, 

3-150, 3-155, 3-156, 3-159, 3-161, 

3-170, 3-174, 3-177–178, 3-182, 3-188, 

3-194, 3-196–197, 3-215, 3-219, 3-224–
 

225 

4-40, 4-43, 4-53, 4-64, 4-81, 4-86, 4-90, 

4-98, 4-124, 4-130, 4-132 

Appendix D: D-6, D-19, D-27, D-61, D66, D-76, D-108, D-110, D-113 

Appendix E: E-1–2 

Appendix G: G-6–7 

Appendix G, Attachment A: 3, 12 

Appendix J: J-5–6, J-20, J-23, J-37 

monitoring plan 

ES-4, ES-10, ES-13, ES-21, ES-24, ES27-ES-33, ES-37, ES-44 

2-19 

3-30 

Appendix F: F-1, F-2, F-6, F-8–14 

Appendix I: I-5–6, I-12, I-23 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) 

ES-21–24, ES-27, ES-38, ES-40, ES-43 

3-9–11, 3-19, 3-43–45, 3-53–56, 3-63–
 

72, 3-77–78, 3-80, 3-215, 3-218–219, 

3-225 

4-42–47, 4-52, 4-138, 4-145 

Appendix D: D-19, D-22–23, D-61–63, 

D-111–113 

Appendix G: G-2–4, G-7–8, G-10–13 

Appendix G, Attachment A: all 

particulates (PM10, PM2.5) 

ES-20–23, ES-34, ES-38, ES-40 

2-12–13, 2-16, 2-19 

3-43–47, 3-51–57, 3-60–62, 3-73, 3-77, 

3-215, 3-219 

4-42–47, 4-52, 4-138, 4-144–145 

Appendix D: D-22–23, D-66, D-61, D110–111, D-113–114 

Appendix G: G-2–11 

Appendix G, Attachment A: all 

power plant 

ES-6, ES-21, ES-37, ES-43 

1-13, 1-18, 1-24 

2-14 

3-11, 3-44, 3-66, 3-73, 3-174, 3-194, 

3-208, 3-221, 3-224 

4-8, 4-13, 4-15–16, 4-18–19, 4-29, 4-38, 

4-41–42, 4-52, 4-67, 4-79–80, 4-82, 

4-93, 4-99, 4-100–103, 4-110, 4-117–
 

119, 4-121, 4-126, 4-130, 4-133–136, 

4-138–143 

Appendix D: D-108 

Appendix G: G-8, G-11, G-13 

Appendix G, Attachment A: 3, 5 

Appendix J: J-35, J-36 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 8-3 
8.0 Index of Keywords 

reclamation plan
 

ES-1, ES-4, ES-37 

1-1, 1-13, 1-15–16, 1-20 

2-12–13, 2-16–17, 2-19 

3-26–27, 3-87, 3-95, 3-115–116, 3-118, 

3-154, 3-156, 3-160, 3-170 

4-54, 4-56, 4-79, 4-81 

Appendix B: B-2–4, B-32, B-64 

Appendix J: J-6, J-37 

recreation
 

ES-10, ES-28, ES-35 

3-3, 3-14, 3-66, 3-149, 3-155, 3-156, 

3-158, 3-194, 3-203 

4-30, 4-43, 4-55–56, 4-77–78, 4-80–81 

Appendix B: B-1 

Appendix I: I-18, I-21 

royalty 

ES-6, ES-11 

1-6, 1-19 

2-14–15, 2-19, 2-21 

3-38, 3-198–199, 3-201–202, 3-215 

4-1116 

Appendix E: E-3–4 

sage-grouse
 

ES-31–33 

1-24 

2-18 

3-15–16, 3-121, 3-133–148, 3-151–155, 

3-158, 3-160, 3-217–218 

4-89–91, 4-94, 4-148 

Appendix B: B-3 

Appendix D: D-75 

Appendix J: J-5, J-14, J-20–28, J-30–32, 

J-38–40 

Appendix K: K-5, K-7 

threatened and endangered species 

ES-12, ES-33, ES-43 

1-24 

2-18 

3-1, 3-16, 3-110, 3-117, 3-126, 3-128, 3-

140, 3-151–152, 3-158–160, 3-162 

4-148 

Appendix B: B-2 

Appendix D: D-75–76 

Appendix E: E-2–3 

Appendix J: J-1, J4–7, J-10, J-14–15, J17, J-22, J-33, J-35–37, J39–40 

Appendix K: K-1, K-5, K-9 

total dissolved solids (TDS) 

3-11, 3-29, 3-83, 3-85, 3-90, 3-97 

4-65–66, 4-71–72, 4-87 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

ES-24 

2-16 

3-90–91, 3-96, 3-108 

Appendix A: A-1 

Appendix I: I-16 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
 

ES-24, ES-26 

1-1 

2-16–17 

3-13, 3-90–92, 3-109–110, 3-115, 

3-117–119, 3-129, 3-136, 3-139–140, 

3-147, 3-149 

4-70–71, 4-74–75 

Appendix B: B-2–4 

Appendix I: I-4–6, I-11–14, I-16, 

I-18–20, I-2
 

8-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 APPENDIX A 

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES AND PERMITTING 

REQUIREMENTS 
 

 

 

Appendix A 

APPENDIX A: FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES AND 

PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS 

Agency Lease/Permit Action1 

FEDERAL 

Bureau of Land Management  Coal Lease 

 Resource Recovery & Protection Plan 

 Scoria Sales Contract 

 Exploration Drilling Permit 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement  Preparation of MLA Mining Plan Approval Document SMCRA Oversight 

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

Mine Safety and Health Administration  Safety Permit and Legal ID 

 Ground Control Plan 

 Major Impoundments 

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

 Explosives Use and Storage Permit 

Federal Communication Commission  Radio Permit: Ambulance 

 Mobile Relay System Radio License 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Radioactive By-Products Material License 

 Radioactive Material Certificate of Registration 

Army Corps of Engineers  Authorization of Impacts to Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation  Hazardous Waste Shipment Notification 

Federal Aviation Administration  Radio Tower Facilities Construction Permits 

STATE 

Land Commission  Coal Lease 

 Scoria Lease 

Department of Environmental Quality-Land Quality 

Division 





Permit and License to Mine 

Permit to Construct Sedimentation Pond 

Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division  Air Quality Permit to Operate 

 Air Quality Permit to Construct 

Department of Environmental Quality-Water Quality 

Division 

 Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Water Discharge 

Permits 

 Authorization to Construct Septic Tank & Leach Field 

 Authorization to Construct and Install a Public Water Supply and 

Sewage Treatment System 

Department of Env

Management 

ironmental Quality-Solid Waste 

Program 

 Solid Waste Disposal Permit-Permanent and Construction 

Engineer’s Office  Appropriation of Surface Water Permits 

 Appropriation of Ground Water Permits 

Industrial Siting Council  Industrial Siting Certificate of Non-Jurisdiction 

MLA = Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; SMCRA = Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

1 All individual lease/permit actions may not be required at all mines. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application A-1 
APPENDIX B 

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 
 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

APPENDIX B: UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 

General Recommendations 

Unsuitability Criteria for Buffalo Resources Area1 Findings for General Analysis Area 

1. Federal Land Systems. With certain 

exceptions that do not apply to this tract, 

all federal lands included in the following 

systems are unsuitable for mining: 

National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, 

National System of Trails, National 

Wilderness Preservation System, National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, National 

Recreation Areas, Lands acquired 

through the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund, National Forests and Federal lands 

in incorporated cities, towns and villages. 

Portions of federal lands located None of the federal lands determined to be 

around Gillette, Sheridan, and unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present in the 

Wright were determined to be general analysis area. Therefore, no unsuitable 

unsuitable under this criterion. findings under Criterion 1 apply to the general 

analysis area. 

2. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. Federal 

lands that are within ROWs or easements 

or within surface leases for residential, 

commercial, industrial, or other public 

purposes, on federally owned surface, are 

unsuitable for mining. 

Portions of the BNSF and UP 

railroad ROWs, the Tri-County 

230-kV transmission line ROW, 

the Wyoming 450 ROW, and the 

I-90 ROW were found to be 

unsuitable under this criterion 

within the general review area. 

The portions of the Tri-County 230-kV transmission 

line ROW, the Wyoming 450 ROW, the I-90 ROW, 

and the BNSF and UP railroad ROWs that were 

determined to be unsuitable are not located within 

the general analysis area. Therefore, no unsuitable 

findings under Criterion 2 apply to the general 

analysis area. 

3. Buffer Zones for Rights-Of-Way, 

Communities, and Buildings. Federal 

lands within 100 feet of a ROW of a public 

road or a cemetery; or within 300 feet of 

any public building, school, church, 

community or institutional building, or 

public park; or within 300 feet of an 

occupied dwelling are unsuitable for 

mining. 

Portions of Wyoming 450, I-90, 

and one cemetery were found to 

be unsuitable under this criterion. 

Decisions were deferred on other 

highways/roads, occupied 

dwellings, and one school until 

an application to lease is filed. 

Wyoming 450, I-90, and the cemetery are not 

located in the general analysis area. No schools are 

located in the general analysis area. One occupied 

dwelling is located west of the McGee Road in the 

BLM study area. Therefore, the area within the 300­

foot buffer zone surrounding the occupied dwelling 

is designated as unsuitable for mining under 

Criterion 3 and the lease will be stipulated to 

exclude mining within this area. Portions of the 

Collins and McGee Roads, both Campbell County 

roads, are located within the general analysis area. 

Therefore, the portions of the general analysis area 

within the Collins and McGee road ROWs and their 

associated 100-foot buffer zones are designated 

unsuitable for mining under Criterion 3 and the 

lease will be stipulated to exclude mining within 

these areas unless a permit to move the roads is 

approved by the Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners. 

4. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal lands No lands in the general review No unsuitable findings under Criterion 4 apply to the 

designated as wilderness study areas are area are within a wilderness general analysis area. 

unsuitable for mining while under review study area. 

for possible wilderness designation. 

5. Scenic Areas. Scenic federal lands No lands in the general review No unsuitable findings under Criterion 5 apply to the 

designated by visual resource area meet the scenic criteria as general analysis area. 

management analysis as Class I outlined. 

(outstanding visual quality or high visual 

sensitivity) but not currently on National 

Register of Natural Landmarks are 

unsuitable. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application B-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

General Recommendations 

Unsuitability Criteria for Buffalo Resources Area1 Findings for General Analysis Area 

6. Land Used for Scientific Study. Federal Two vegetation monitoring study The vegetation monitoring sites and the Hoe Creek 

lands under permit by the surface 

management agency and being used for 

sites on the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland (NE1⁄4 of Sec. 

site are not located in the general analysis area. 

Therefore, no unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 

scientific studies involving food or fiber 1, T.41N., R.71W. and NW1⁄4 apply to the general analysis area. 

production, natural resources, or NW1⁄4 of Sec. 30, T.41N., 

technology demonstrations and R.69W.), and the Hoe Creek Site 

experiments are unsuitable for the (Sec. 7, T.47N., R.72W.) were 

duration of the study except where mining found to be unsuitable under this 

would not jeopardize the purpose of the criterion. 

study. 

7. Cultural Resources. All publicly or On the basis of the consultation No unsuitable findings under Criterion 7 apply to the 

privately owned places which are included with the State Historic general analysis area. The “Standard Archeological 

in or are eligible for inclusion in the Preservation Office, there are Stipulation” should be applied if a lease is issued. 

National Register of Historic Places and sites within the general review 

an appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable. area that are listed in the 

National Register of Historic 

Places. Continue using the 

“Standard Archeological 

Stipulation” on all new coal 

leases. 

8. Natural Areas. Federal lands designated 

as natural areas or National Natural 

Landmarks are unsuitable. 

No lands in the general review 

area are designated as natural 

areas or as National Natural 

No unsuitable findings under Criterion 8 apply to the 

general analysis area. 

Landmarks. 

9. Critical Habitat for Threatened or 

Endangered Plant and Animal Species. 

Federally designated critical habitat for 

threatened or endangered plant and 

animal species, and scientifically 

documented essential habitat for 

No federally designated critical 

habitat for threatened or 

endangered plant or animal 

species is present within the 

general review area. 

No unsuitable findings under Criterion 9 apply to the 

general analysis area. 

threatened or endangered species are 

unsuitable. 

10. State Listed Threatened or 

Endangered Species. Federal lands 

Wyoming does not maintain a 

state list of threatened or 

No unsuitable findings under Criterion 10 apply to 

the general analysis area. 

containing habitat determined to be endangered species of plants or 

critical or essential for plant or animal animals. Therefore, this criterion 

species listed by a state pursuant to state does not apply. 

law as threatened or endangered shall be 

considered unsuitable. 

11. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An active 

bald or golden eagle nest and appropriate 

Defer suitability decisions and 

evaluate bald and golden eagle 

No bald or golden eagle nests (active or inactive) are 

in the general analysis area. Evaluate suitability prior 

buffer zone are unsuitable unless the nests on a case by case basis at to lease issuance during consultation with the 

lease can be conditioned so that eagles the time of leasing. Establish USFWS. 

will not be disturbed during breeding buffer zones around nests during 

season or unless golden eagle nests will mining and reclamation planning 

be moved. after consultation with USFWS. 

12. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and 

Concentration Areas. Bald and golden 

Defer suitability decisions and 

evaluate bald and golden eagle 

No identified roost sites are within the general 

analysis area. Evaluate suitability prior to lease 

eagle roost and concentration areas on roost areas on a case by case issuance during consultation with the USFWS. 

federal lands used during migration and basis prior to lease issuance. 

wintering are unsuitable unless mining Establish buffer zones after 

can be conducted in such a way as to consultation with USFWS. 

ensure that eagles shall not be adversely 

disturbed. 

B-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix B 

General Recommendations 

Unsuitability Criteria for Buffalo Resources Area1 Findings for General Analysis Area 

13. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer 

Zones. Federal lands containing active 

Defer suitability decisions on 

falcon nesting sites and evaluate 

No falcon nesting sites have been identified within 

the general analysis area. No unsuitable findings 

falcon (excluding kestrel) cliff nesting sites on a case by case basis prior to under Criterion 13 apply to the general analysis 

and a suitable buffer zone shall be lease issuance. Establish buffer area. 

considered unsuitable unless mining can 

be conducted in such a way as to ensure 

zones around nesting sites after 

consultation with USFWS. 

the falcons will not be adversely affected. 

14. Habitat for Migratory Bird Species. Defer suitability decisions on high Evaluate suitability during consultation with the 

Federal lands which are high priority priority habitat for migratory bird USFWS. 

habitat for migratory bird species of species of management concern 

management concern in Wyoming shall in Wyoming and evaluate on a 

be considered unsuitable unless mining case by case basis prior to lease 

can be conducted in such a way as to issuance. Establish buffer zones 

ensure that migratory bird habitat will not for nesting areas during mining 

be adversely affected during the period it and reclamation planning after 

is in use. consultation with USFWS. 

15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for Resident 

Species. Federal lands which the surface 

Defer suitability decisions on 

grouse leks and evaluate on a 

No sage-grouse leks are present in the general 

analysis area. One abandoned and two occupied 

management agency and state jointly case by case basis prior to lease sage-grouse leks are within 3 miles of the general 

agree are fish, wildlife and plant habitat of issuance. Establish buffer zones analysis area. Evaluate this criterion prior to lease 

resident species of high interest to the 

state, and which are essential for 

maintaining these priority wildlife species, 

after consultation with Wyoming 

Game & Fish Department. 

issuance. Establish buffer zones during mining and 

reclamation planning after consultation with the 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department. 

shall be considered unsuitable unless 

mining can be conducted in such a way 

as to ensure no long-term impact on the 

species being provided will occur. 

16. Floodplains. Federal lands in riverine, The BLM and United States Site-specific stipulations and resource protection 

coastal, and special floodplains shall be 

considered unsuitable where it is 

Department of Agriculture-Forest 

Service have determined that the 

safeguards will be applied if necessary during mining 

and reclamation planning. No unsuitable findings 

determined that mining could not be identified floodplains in the under Criterion 16 apply to the general analysis 

undertaken without substantial threat of 

loss of life or property. 

general review area could 

potentially be mined. Therefore, 

area. 

all lands within the general 

review area are considered 

suitable. 

17. Municipal Watersheds. Federal lands 

which have been committed by the 

surface management agency to use as 

municipal watersheds shall be considered 

unsuitable. 

No designated municipal 

watersheds are present in the 

general review area. 

No unsuitable findings under Criterion 17 apply to 

the general analysis area. 

18. National Resource Waters. Federal No designated national resource No unsuitable findings under Criterion 18 apply to 

lands with national resource waters, as waters are present within the the general analysis area. 

identified by states in their water quality general review area. 

management plans, and 1/4-mile buffer 

zones shall be unsuitable. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application B-3 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

Unsuitability Criteria 

19. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal lands 

identified by the surface management 

agency, in consultation with the state, as 

AVFs where mining would interrupt, 

discontinue or preclude farming, are 

unsuitable. Additionally, when mining 

federal lands outside an AVF would 

materially damage the quality or quantity 

of water in surface or underground water 

systems that would supply AVFs, the land 

shall be considered unsuitable. 

General Recommendations 

for Buffalo Resources Area1 

Consider areas determined to 

contain AVFs significant to 

farming as unsuitable. Defer 

decisions on other AVFs and 

analyze on a case-by-case basis 

prior to lease issuance. 

Findings for General Analysis Area 

No AVFs or potential AVFs have been identified in 

the general analysis area with characteristics 

indicating potential significance to farming. No 

unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 apply to the 

general analysis area. 

20. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. Federal 

lands to which is applicable a criterion 

proposed by the state or Indian tribe 

located in the planning area and adopted 

by rulemaking by the Secretary are 

unsuitable. 

No criterion proposed by state or 

Indian tribes has been approved 

by the Secretary of the Interior. 

No tribal lands are located in or 

near the general review area. 

No unsuitability findings under Criterion 20 apply to 

the general analysis area. 

BNSF = Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad; UP = Union Pacific Railroad; ROW = right of way; Wyoming 450 = Wyoming Highway 450;
 

I-90 = Interstate Highway 90; BLM = U.S. Bureau of Land Management; USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service; AVF = alluvial valley floor;
 

kV = kilovolt
 

1 BLM 1985. Buffalo Resource Area Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. Casper, Wyoming. 

BLM 2001. Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office. Buffalo, WY. 

Available: <http://www.wy.blm.gov>. 

B-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
APPENDIX C 

COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION FLOW CHART
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 

COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION FLOW CHART 

FM prepares Environmental 

Analysis of LUP amendment 

District Manager (DM) notifies 

Governor and Regional Coal Team 

of application 

Field Office Manager (FM) ensures 

that application is in conformance 

with Land Use Plan (LUP) 

Minerals Staff receives application 

and prepares report on maximum 

economic recovery 

BLM STATE OFFICE 

RECEIVES APPLICATION 

Conformance with LUP: 

FM prepares site-specific 

Environmental 

Analysis 

Non-Conformance with LUP: 

FM recommends amendment 

of LUP and/or modification of 

application area 

and application 

Adjudicator evaluates 

applicant’s qualifications 

FM HOLDS PUBLIC 

HEARING 

Applicant submits/ 

Adjudicator reviews surface owner 

consent agreement(s) (if necessary) 

DM 

DECISION 

HOLD 

SALE 

REJECT 

APPLICATION 

DM consults with 

Surface Management Agency, Governor, 

Attorney General, and Indian Tribes 

Applicant is successful bidder 

Applicant submits detailed permit 

amendment package to WDEQ/OSM 

for approval of permit expansion 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application C-1
APPENDIX D 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS AND BLM RESPONSES 
1 

Appendix D 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-1
1 

Appendix D 

D-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

1 

Appendix D 

BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 1 

A) Lease by Application Process 

Although the applicant modified the size of the lease application, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) did not change the size of the study area. The applicant had modified their 

original application to a size, shape, and location that best allowed them to circumvent an area of 

sand influence that presented an increased hazard to employees. Due to delays in processing this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the applicant had to change the mine plan and requested 

that the BLM delineate a larger tract than the proposed action, but still within the BLM study 

area. The BLM identifies Alternative 2 in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) as 

the Preferred Alternative. Under this alternative BLM delineated a tract for consideration from 

within the study area that is in the public interest and which considers the current mining 

situation. 

Using the LBA process (43 CFR 3425) to maintain production at existing mines has been the 

practice since the Powder River Basin (PRB) Coal Production Region was decertified in 1990. 

Decertification recognized the area as a mature coal production region where the proper leasing 

mechanism was production maintenance leasing in order for the mines to replace reserves as 

available leased reserves were depleted. Decertification does not mean that the region is not a 

significant national coal producing region. Management of coal leasing in the PRB by this 

method has been an issue first raised in comments on the South Gillette Area Coal DEIS, and the 

issue was presented to the Powder River Basin Regional Coal Team (RCT) at the team’s meeting 

in November 2009. At that meeting, a petition was made to the Secretary of Interior and BLM 

Director to recertify the Powder River Basin Coal Production Region. In January 2011, this 

petition was denied. The PRB RCT meetings are public and provide an opportunity for public 

comment and statements. You are welcome to present, in person or in writing, your issues to the 

team at any future meeting. The meetings are published in the Federal Register and a press 

release is posted on the BLM web site. 

Processing the Hay Creek II LBA is consistent with the practice we follow in the decertified 

PRB coal region. This is a production maintenance tract; it has been reviewed by the Powder 

River Regional Coal Team, and is being reviewed under the LBA process (43 CFR 3425). 

B) Reclamation 

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) is the federal law regulating 

surface coal mining. BLM has no authority under SMCRA to prescribe or enforce the 

reclamation of coal mined lands in Wyoming. The Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality (WDEQ), Land Quality Division (LQD) permits, regulates, and monitors coal mining 

and reclamation. Three acts regulate coal mining and reclamation in Wyoming: 1) Wyoming’s 

Open Cut Reclamation Act of 1969; 2) Wyoming State Environmental Quality Act of 1973; and, 

3) SMCRA. The state of Wyoming has the overall authority and enforces these federal and state 

acts through the WDEQ/LQD. Under the federal coal leasing program, BLM has primary 

authority to make decisions regarding the leasing of federal coal resources, ensuring receipt of 

fair market value, achieving maximum economic recovery of the coal resource, and evaluating 

coal tracts so those offered for lease are in the public interest. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-3
1 

Appendix D 

The WDEQ statutory and regulatory requirements outline strict parameters for coal mine 

reclamation procedures, species composition, final land surface contour, and environmental 

sustainability. The SMCRA requires sufficient bonding to cover anticipated reclamation costs. 

When mining is permitted, the WDEQ/LQD sets the bond amount for reclamation of all 

disturbed lands, and the operator posts an acceptable bonding instrument for this amount with the 

state of Wyoming. The reclamation bond is not released until a minimum of 10 years have 

elapsed from the date of final seeding, and the WDEQ/LQD has determined that all reclamation 

verifications have occurred. 

The WDEQ/LQD monitors monthly all lands within the mining permit boundary, and these lands 

must pass requirements set by state law. Until the mines terminate their permit, the WDEQ does 

not require them to complete final bond release as long as contemporaneous reclamation is 

proceeding at the required rate and to the required standards set by state and federal laws. A 

percentage assessment of lands that have been released from final bonding requirements is not an 

accurate assessment of contemporaneous reclamation. 

In the interim period between initial reclamation and final bond release, the condition and status 

of the lands are monitored by the WDEQ/LQD, and that information is publically available from 

their Cheyenne office. Reclaimed lands, regardless of the bond release status, are used by 

wildlife and often grazed by livestock (regulated and monitored by the WDEQ). 

The mines submit reclamation plans for approval by the WDEQ during the permitting process. 

These plans are based on the individual mining company’s mining progression. The WDEQ 

approves or rejects these plans based on the mining progression of the individual mine and the 

space needed for long-term facilities, sedimentation reservoirs, haul roads, diversions, and 

topsoil stockpiles. The reclamation plan is evaluated against the individual mine progression by 

the WDEQ to ensure reclamation is directly following the mining extraction process. 

Tables 4-2 and 4-3 in the FEIS (pages 4-11 and 4-12) summarize a detailed review and 

projection of actual and projected disturbance and reclamation through the year 2020. This 

review reflects the total disturbance (including land under active mining, mined but unreclaimed 

land, and disturbed land that is unavailable for reclamation as a result of being occupied by longterm structures or facilities) as well as areas permanently reclaimed. The trend is that the 

acreage including active mining and mined but unreclaimed is expected to increase slowly, less 

than 1% per year, as is the acreage of land disturbed but unavailable for reclamation. The rate of 

permanent reclamation will be more rapid (about 4% per year). The ratio of total land 

reclamation to total land disturbance was around 30% in 2003, and is expected to be 45% by 

2010, and approaching 60% by 2020. As of 2008, the actual ratio of total land reclamation to 

total land disturbance was about 45% (29,100 acres permanently reclaimed out of a total 

disturbance of 64,100 acres) for the Wyoming PRB mines. Of the total unreclaimed disturbance, 

about 23,000 acres were unavailable for reclamation (stockpiles, facilities, and sediment control) 

and 35,000 acres were in active mining operations (active pits and haul roads). 

It is important not to equate contemporaneous reclamation with final bond release. There is a 

difference between lands that are in various stages of reclamation and those that have been 

reclaimed and released from final bonding requirements. There are several phases of bond 

release that the mine operators may apply for that represents every task from replacing the 

backfill and achieving the approved contour, to placing topsoil and permanently reseeding the 

D-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
1 

Appendix D 

area. Final bond release on reclaimed lands indicates that the reclamation meeting permit 

standards has been in place in accordance with permit standards for at least 10 years and that an 

application for final bond release was submitted to the WDEQ. 

C) Ute Ladies’-Tresses 

Ute ladies’-tresses are addressed in the EIS section 3.9.3 and in appendix J. Because this species 

can persist below or above ground without flowering, single season surveys that meet the current 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) survey guidelines may not detect populations. Surveys in 

the general analysis area have been conducted during the last five consecutive flowering seasons 

(2006 through 2010). Six surveys were conducted for Ute ladies’-tresses in the general analysis 

area between 2004 and 2010. The surveys were completed consistent with current USFWS 

guidelines. No orchids were located during surveys conducted in appropriate habitats within the 

general analysis area in 2004 or annually from 2006 through 2010. Potential habitat for Ute 

ladies’-tresses is extremely limited throughout the general analysis area. No new potential Ute 

ladies’-tresses habitat has been added by the Proposed Action or by Alternative 2. It is BLM 

policy to consult on Ute ladies’- tresses with the USFWS. The consultation process was 

completed in August of 2010 and the USFWS stated that concurrence from the Service is not 

required as it was found that the leasing action would have no impact on this species. 

D) Interpretation of the BLM Multiple Use Mandate 

As part of the Department of Agriculture’s Organic Act of 1944, the Multiple-use SustainedYield Act of 1960 (16 USC §531(a)) which you cite, applies to “the management of all the 

various renewable surface resources of the national forests (emphasis added)....” 

The BLM was established within the Department of the Interior (DOI) in 1946 with 

consolidation of the General Land Office (created in 1812) and the US Grazing Service (formed 

in 1934). The General Land Office oversaw surveying, platting, mineral leasing, and the sale of 

public lands, while the US Grazing Service managed the public rangelands. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), considered BLM’s organic 

act, defines multiple use as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so 

that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the 

American people." Thus, BLM lands are managed for such purposes as grazing and natural 

resource development. In the 2009 secretarial order 3289 the Secretary of the Interior Ken 

Salazar stated, “To fulfill our nation’s vision for a clean energy economy, Interior is now 

managing America’s public lands and oceans not just for balanced oil, natural gas, and coal 

development, but also – for the first time ever – to promote environmentally responsible 

renewable energy development.”. 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 called for leasing, exploration, and production of such minerals 

as coal, oil, and gas on behalf of the American public with revenue collected for the greater 

public good. Many of the responsibilities and functions of the General Land Office and the 

Grazing Service were retained in the BLM. Also within the DOI another agency was formed in 

1916 - the National Park Service. This agency managed lands that were set aside to be preserved 

from settlement and natural resource development. The BLM and other federal agencies such as 

the National Park Service have many issues in common, but differ in their mandates and major 

functions. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-5
1 

Appendix D 

The National Park Service mandate is more familiar to many people. The agency’s fundamental 

purpose was “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life 

therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will 

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." Both agencies are part of the 

Department of the Interior. Both agencies manage national public lands. But the lands that each 

agency manages were set aside by the President of the United States and by Congress to serve 

different functions. 

E) Golden Eagles, Raptor Nests, and Raptor Roosting Areas 

The protection of raptors, raptor nest sites, and roosting areas is a functional responsibility of the 

WDEQ. That agency addresses the subject during the mine permitting process, which takes 

place after coal leasing by the BLM. The USFWS must approve a Migratory Bird Species of 

Management Concern in Wyoming Monitoring and Mitigation Plan which covers all raptors, 

including eagles, before the permit to mine is approved by the WDEQ. 

F) Past, Present, and Future Reliance on Coal as an Energy Source 

BLM prepared this EIS in response to a lease by application received by the agency under the 

precepts of the Mineral Leasing Act. The BLM leases federal coal to private interests which, in 

the case of the PRB mine operators, supply coal primarily as fuel used to generate electricity for 

the American people. The demand for electricity in the US is still rising annually. Other energy 

sources for electric power have been and continue to be developed, but are not developing to the 

extent necessary to replace coal as a fuel for electrical generation during the time the Hay Creek 

II tract would be sold and mined, if leased. The most recent energy projections by the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) to the year 2035 show that although renewable energy 

production increases, in order to meet projected public demand for electricity, coal use is still 

expected. The Hay Creek II tract, if leased, is expected to be mined and sold over a two-year 

period between approximately 2012 and 2018, well within the period projected by the EIA for 

use of coal as an energy source. 

G) Climate Change 

The EIS estimates the direct emission of green house gasses (GHG) from the continued operation 

at the four mines as a result of proposed leasing. The EIS also estimates the potential GHG 

volumes resulting from the assumed use of this coal at electric generation facilities throughout 

the US. Policies regulating specific levels of significance have not yet been established for GHG 

emissions as mentioned in the EIS. Given the state of the science, it is not possible to associate 

specific actions with the specific global impacts such as potential climate effects. Since there are 

no tools available to quantify incremental climate changes associated with these GHG emissions, 

the analysis cannot reach conclusions as to the extent or significance of the emissions on the 

global climate. 

The potential impacts of climate change represent the cumulative aggregation of all worldwide 

GHG emissions. The EIS provides a meaningful context and measure of the relative significance 

of coal use from the proposed LBA and overall projected PRB coal production on total GHG 

emissions, and the EIS recognizes the effects of historic warming on the western US. 

We have assumed that existing land and resource conditions within the analysis area have been 

and will continue to be affected by climate change under all alternatives including the No Action 

D-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
1 

Appendix D 

Alternative. Existing climate prediction models are not at a scale sufficient to estimate potential 

impacts of climate change within each analysis area. We have referenced available national and 

regional data, most recent being the report, The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land 

Resources, Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States (US Climate Change Science 

Program 2008). A recent (June 2009) report defined the relative degree of climate change effects 

that could be experienced in the future in the various regions of the US (Global Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States, Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, (eds.), 

Cambridge University Press). The report uses two scenarios to bracket potential climate effects 

and is broken into regions which divide up the US. 

H) Pending Leases, Cumulative Impacts, Climate Change, BLM Options 

The EIS cumulative impacts section references available national and regional data, most recent 

being the report, The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water 

Resources and Biodiversity in the United States (US Climate Change Science Program 2008). 

The recent Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (Karl et al. 2009) defined the 

relative degree of climate change effects that could be experienced in the future in the various 

regions of the United States. The report uses two scenarios to bracket potential climate effects 

and is broken into regions which divide up the US. The Wyoming PRB is in the Great Plains 

region, which is characterized by strong seasonal climate variations. Historically the area has 

been subject to prolonged drought followed by wetter conditions. Average temperature increases 

have been predicted in the region with the greatest changes being in the winter such that 

commonly very cold days would become less common and warmer wetter weather more 

common. Under the higher heat trapping emission scenario temperatures are projected to 

increase over the next 100 years more so than under the lower heat trapping emission scenario. 

The milder winters and longer growing season is expected to favor larger numbers of insects that 

appear earlier and persist longer into the season. The change in climate is expected to cause a 

shift in wild plant and animal distributions favoring those species which are better suited for the 

warmer wetter climates that both the lower emission and higher emission scenarios predict for 

the Powder River Basin. With increasing precipitation, soil erosion in drainages and sheet flow 

across the land surface is expected to increase. 

In chapter 4, the contribution of the site-specific alternatives to cumulative effects on the 

environment is evaluated. To do this, we assume that coal mining will proceed in accordance 

with permit conditions. We further assume that this coal will be sold to coal users in response to 

forecasts of demand for this coal. Historically these users have been electric utilities in the 

United States, although there is potential for sales outside the US. This coal market is open and 

competitive, and users can buy from the most cost-effective suppliers that meet their needs. 

In section 4.2.14.1 and section 4.2.14.2 of the final EIS, we estimated the amount of GHG 

emissions that could be attributed to coal production as a result of leasing federal coal reserves 

under the Proposed Action and alternatives, as well as from the forecast coal production from all 

coal mines in the Wyoming PRB. We assumed that all PRB coal was used for coal fired electric 

generation as part of the total US use of coal. This gives an upper estimate of the GHG resulting 

from use of the coal that would be produced from the proposed LBAs and for forecast total PRB 

coal production. The estimate was calculated by relating the portion of coal produced in the 

Wyoming PRB to national steam coal totals, and then applying that ratio to the total emission of 

GHG estimated in the US as a result of coal fired electric generation. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-7
1 

Appendix D 

The options in the EIS of the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, and Alternative 2, 

represent a wide range of options for BLM to choose from. The BLM could lease none of the 

coal within the study area, all of the coal in the study area, or any amount in between contained 

within the study area. The BLM will choose the option which is deemed best for the public 

interest with environmental input from the EIS. 

D-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

Appendix D 

"McKenzie, Don" <dmcken@wyo.gov> 

03/18/2010 11:44 AM

To 

2 "teresa_johnson@blm.gov" <teresa_johnson@blm.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject

Hay Creek II EIS 

Teresa, 

I have one comment on the EIS for Hay Creek II. On page 4-6, second to the

last paragraph on that page, sentence number 8 within the paragraph: 

“Operations at these sites are completed and the disturbed areas have been 

reclaimed, and monitoring of the reclaimed areas is no longer ongoing.” A

Wyoming is still monitoring the three permitted mine sites referenced via

field inspections and groundwater monitoring at Ash Creek. 

E-Mail to and from me, in connection with the transaction of public

business, is subject to the Wyoming Public Records Act and may be

disclosed to third parties. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-9
2 

Appendix D 

BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 2 

A) Edit 

The incorrect sentence on page 4-6, second to last paragraph, sentence 8 within that paragraph, 

has been corrected with the information you have provided. The sentence is now in the last 

paragraph on page 4-6 and reads: Operations at these sites are completed and the disturbed areas 

have been reclaimed. Nevertheless, the WDEQ continues to monitor all three mines with field 

inspections; Groundwater monitoring is also conducted at the Ash Creek Mine. 

Thank you for reviewing the EIS. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-11
Appendix D 

3 

, 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-13
Appendix D 

3 

D 

C 

A 

B 

D-14 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

3 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-15
Appendix D 

3 

F 

H 

G 

E 

D-16 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

3 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-17
Appendix D 

3 

J 

K 

L 

M 

J 

I 

C 

D-18 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3 

Appendix D 

BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 3 

A) Mitigation to Reduce Fugitive Dust 

This EIS discloses the mitigation measures that are already in place through enforcement by 

regulation or which are already being done voluntarily by the operator as part of the current 

adjacent mining operation on existing leases. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) is not as stringent as the Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standard (WAAQS). 

Therefore, the state standard must be met. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ), Air Quality Division (AQD) permits for, regulates, and approves mitigation plans for 

air pollution. WDEQ has stated that they will not permit mining operations that do not comply 

with the WAAQS. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does not authorize mining 

operations by issuing a lease and does not regulate mining operations after a lease is issued. 

Mining activities and the air quality mitigation plan is part of the WDEQ permitting process, 

which is initiated after leasing by the successful bidder. Any LBA offered because of this EIS 

would have a condition placed on the lease requiring the lessee to comply with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and applicable regulations (see appendix E, coal lease form, part II, section 14). 

B) NO2 Control Measure 

Blasting by surface coal mines is conducted in accordance with chapter 6 of the WDEQ, Land 

Quality Division (LQD), Coal Rules and Regulations. Specific control measures for blasting 

would be developed during the permitting process, when mining operations are authorized by 

WDEQ/LQD. 

Voluntary administrative controls are currently in place and are common components of the 

mines’ operating procedures to mitigate and reduce blasting-related NOx emissions. The 

adjacent Buckskin Mine does not use cast blasts to move overburden; overburden removal is the 

most common source of the NO2 clouds of greatest concern to local residents. The primary 

control measure for mitigating exposures to offsite residents is to avoid cast blasting when wind 

directions or atmospheric conditions are unfavorable. Weather and atmospheric conditions are 

closely monitored prior to the decision to detonate a blast. If unfavorable conditions prevail, 

Buckskin Mine’s policy is to postpone the blast until conditions have become favorable. 

Blasting at the Buckskin Mine is permitted and regulated by the WDEQ. 

Your suggested mitigation methods are included in section 3.4.3.3 of the EIS, which is 

comprehensive and has been reviewed by WDEQ/AQD. 

As noted in response A above, BLM does not authorize mining operations by issuing a lease and 

does not regulate mining operations after a lease is issued. Section 1.3 of the EIS, discusses the 

fact that the WDEQ is authorized by the Secretary of the Interior to regulate surface coal mining 

operations on federal and non-federal lands within Wyoming. 

C) Air Quality Working Groups 

The Powder River Basin Coal Review (PRCR) Air Quality Protocol Group is an interagency 

peer group initiated with the PRCR (and continued into phase 2 of the PRCR in 2010) which 

provides input and review for the PRCR air resources efforts. The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) became involved with the Powder River Basin protocol group in 2004 for the first 

Coal Review reports. Currently the EPA, along with BLM and others, is part of the Phase II 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-19
3 

Appendix D 

Stakeholder Group for the air quality portion of the Phase II Powder River Basin Air Quality 

Coal Review. EPA, as well as other agencies, is looking at the new modeling effort for the 

analysis of ozone as well as the traditional air quality issues facing the PRB region. The analysis 

that EPA is currently reviewing and helping to design will be used to better define the 

cumulative effects of ongoing development activity in the Powder River Basin to the year 2030. 

D) Coordination with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Ensure Compliance 

This discussion is located in sections 3.7.1 through 3.7.4. If an action alternative is 

implemented, a wetland delineation will be completed according to approved procedures. This 

delineation will be submitted to the Corps for verification of the amounts and types of 

jurisdictional wetlands and other waters present. If a lease is offered and issued, the lessee 

would mitigate for all impacted jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act. Mitigation is required at a minimum one-to-one ratio for jurisdictional 

wetlands. The wetland replacement plan, which must be approved by the Corps, requires no net 

loss of wetland area and function. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act does not cover nonjurisdictional wetlands; however, 

Executive Order 11990 requires that all federal agencies protect all wetlands. Mitigation for 

impacts on nonjurisdictional wetlands will be specified during the permitting process as required 

by the authorized state or federal agency (which may include the WDEQ/LQD and the Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM). 

Text has been added to the Affected Environment (section 3.7.1) as further explanation. The last 

half of the paragraph now reads: 

Based on the NWI maps, approximately 64.44 acres of wetlands (map 3.7-1) have been 

identified in the general analysis area. Of these, 30.7 acres were considered potentially 

jurisdictional wetlands based on field observations (table 3.7-1); the remaining 33.74 acres were 

either classified as potentially nonjurisdictional wetlands (e.g., borrow pits, old impoundments) 

or were not found to be present during the field visit (table 3.7-2). As described above, only the 

Corps, in conjunction with the EPA, can make an official determination of jurisdiction. 

Text has also been added to section 3.7.3, Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring. 

The first paragraph now reads: 

Since the 2007 NWI-based wetland determination was completed, a portion of the general 

analysis area was formally delineated by ICF wetland biologists. The results of this study are 

currently being reviewed by the Corps and the issuance of an approved jurisdictional 

determination is pending. Because the jurisdictional status of the delineated wetlands and other 

non-wetland waters has yet to be determined, the results of the post-2007 delineation are not 

presented in this document. 

If an action alternative is implemented, a wetland delineation will be completed for all areas 

outside of the area recently delineated. That report will be submitted to the Corps for 

verification and an approved jurisdictional determination will be requested. If unavoidable 

impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. are proposed under either action 

alternative, a Section 404 Permit Application will be prepared. Kiewit will mitigate for all 

affected jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

D-20 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3 

Appendix D 

Mitigation is required at a minimum one-to-one ratio for jurisdictional wetlands. The wetland 

replacement plan, which must be approved by the Corps, requires no net loss of wetland area and 

function. 

E) Purpose and Need 

The purpose of this EIS is to analyze and disclose the potential effects to the natural and human 

environment from the proposed leasing of a maintenance tract of federal coal in the Wyoming 

PRB. A mining operator applied to the BLM to lease a tract of federal coal in order to have 

sufficient coal reserves to continue to operate an already existing mine (see section 1.1.1 of the 

EIS). Although leasing this tract would not authorize mining operations, the potential impacts of 

mining the tract as a logical consequence of issuing the lease are evaluated (described in section 

1.1.2 of the EIS). The EIS presents BLM’s analysis of environmental impacts under the 

authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and associated rules and guidelines. 

The original purpose and need of providing a feasible method of avoiding or bypassing a sand 

channel area to reach the Spring Draw lease has been modified because the time between the 

lease application and release of the FEIS was so great as to no longer offer a sand channel 

mining solution. Buckskin Mine has requested that BLM consider a tract delineation based on 

the configuration in the original application. The BLM study area that was analyzed under 

Alternative 2 fully encompasses the tract identified in the original application; therefore, the 

purpose and need statement has been only modified in the final EIS to delete the sand channel 

information. 

F) Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Under the No Action Alternative, BLM would determine not to offer the lease. This generally 

results in a rejection of the lease application and BLM closing the case; whereas, under 

Alternative 4, the BLM would offer a lease but delay the lease to a later date when resources or 

economics indicate a greater return to the American public. This alternative would result in 

impacts identical to those under the No Action Alternative during the period of delay. In the 

event that BLM later determined a sale was appropriate, including a determination that NEPA 

analysis is adequate, and provided that the lease application case had not been closed or 

withdrawn, a delayed decision to offer a tract could be issued. 

G) Misplaced Decimal Point 

Thank you for reviewing the draft EIS. The decimal point placement error has been corrected in 

the final document. 

H) Nomenclature Used to Identify Coal Tonnage Estimates 

BLM does not estimate the coal tons in the study area. BLM uses the coal ton numbers provided 

by the applicant for the estimated study area tons in the EIS. BLM will estimate the tons of coal 

in the preferred tract if a tract is offered for lease, and BLM will disclose this estimate of coal 

tons in the Record of Decision. 

The coal tons estimated by the applicant are calculated based upon the physical characteristics of 

the study area. In-place coal, mineable coal, and recoverable coal calculations result in different 

number estimates because the amount of coal in each is different. Some factors that can affect 

the coal tons estimate are features such as geologic sand areas, roads, buildings, environmental 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-21
3 

Appendix D 

considerations, rights-of-way, and other things that fall into the unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 

3461 and appendix B of the FEIS). The in-place coal tons number is highest because it is an 

estimate of how much coal is in the ground. The mineable coal number represents the amount of 

coal that can be mined economically using today’s technology. The recoverable coal number 

represents the amount of coal that can be actually recovered from the mineable coal reserves and 

sold to market. 

I) Air Quality Monitors 

The EPA delegated authority to the WDEQ/AQD to implement federal programs of the CAA 

amendments of 1990. To ensure ongoing compliance, the WDEQ/AQD also implements an 

operating permit program that can require ongoing monitoring of emissions sources and/or 

source control systems. The Wyoming PRB mines are required by WDEQ/AQD to collect air 

quality data. The agency has, by statute, the authority and responsibility to require mitigation for 

air quality impacts. 

As the delegated authority for implementing the CAA, WDEQ is best able to ensure proper 

placement of public or individual mine air quality monitors. Ambient air quality and air pollution 

emissions are regulated under federal and state law and regulations. WDEQ manages air quality 

through the WAAQS and regulations and the Wyoming state implementation plan. 

The memorandum of agreement (MOA) of January 24, 1994 between EPA Region VIII and the 

State of Wyoming allows WDEQ/AQD to conduct monitoring in lieu of short-term modeling for 

assessing coal mining-related impacts in the PRB. This agreement remains in effect, and each 

coal mine is required to monitor ambient particulates according to conditions of their respective 

permits. The 1994 MOA also requires WDEQ/AQD to implement “Best Available Work 

Practice” mitigation measures at any mine where an exceedance of the PM10 air quality standard 

has occurred (Federal Register, September 12, 1995, Volume 60, Number 176). 

WDEQ/AQD monitors air quality through an extensive network of air quality monitors 

throughout the state. That agency uses the monitoring data to document the air quality at all of 

the PRB mines, and ensures that the coal mine network monitoring schedule is consistent with 40 

CFR 58.12. Data from this monitoring network is also used to identify potential air quality 

issues and to calculate compliance with the NAAQS. With this information, the WDEQ/AQD 

can stop or reverse trends that negatively affect the ambient air quality. 

The eastern portion of the PRB has an extensive network of PM10 monitors operated by the 

mining industry due to the density of coal mines in the region. This network is sited to measure 

ambient air quality and to infer impacts from specific sources. Source-specific monitors may 

also be used for developing trends in PM10 concentrations. Continuous PM10 monitoring in the 

PRB began in 2001, and the number of continuous monitors has increased steadily since. In 

2001, each mine monitored PM10 for a 24-hour period every six days at multiple monitoring sites 

through the end of the year. This frequency was increased by the WDEQ/AQD to one in every 

three days at many sites beginning in 2002. As a result, the eastern PRB is one of the most 

densely monitored areas in the country (appendix G figure G-1 in the EIS). Table G-2 in 

appendix G of the EIS uses the annual arithmetic average of all sites to summarize these data. 

J) NO2 1-hour standard 

A discussion of the 1-hour NO2 standard presented in table 3.4-1 has been added to the FEIS. 

D-22 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
3 

Appendix D 

K) Table 3.4.2 PM10 

The table, figure, and discussion have been updated between the draft EIS (data through 2007) 

and the final EIS (data through 2009). 

L) The Exceptional Event Rule 

A discussion of the Exceptional Event Rule has been added to the FEIS in section 3.4.2.1. 

M) NAAQS for NO2 

A discussion on the newly promulgated NO2 NAAQS in relation to NO2 emissions in the EIS 

general analysis area has been added to section 3.4.3.3. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-23
4 

Appendix D 

A
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-25
4 

Appendix D 

BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 4 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II draft EIS. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-27
----- 

 

 

Appendix D 

Lesley Collins/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI 5 03/18/2010 04:45 PM 

To 

Teresa Johnson/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI@BLM 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

Fw: public commentFW: no mountaintop explosions 

Lesley A. Collins 

Public Affairs 

High Plains District 

Office: 307-261-7603 

Cell: 307-262-0716 

----- Forwarded by Lesley Collins/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI on 03/18/2010 04:45 PM 

jean public <usacitizen1@live.com> 

03/18/2010 12:14 PM 

To 

<hay_creek_iii_wymail@blm.gov>, <woinfo@blm.gov>, <casper_wymail@blm.gov>, 

<foe@foe.org> 

cc 

Subject 

public commentFW: no mountaintop explosions 

on federal register - i ioppose the ocnstructoin of this mine. we should move to solar or wind 

power. not these mines. A

jean public 8 winterberry court, whitehouse station nj 08889 

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:36:33 -0800 

From: jeanpublic@yahoo.com 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-29
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

5 

Appendix D 

Subject: no mountaintop explosions 

To: usacitizen1@live.com 

[Federal Register: March 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 48)] 

[Notices] 

[Page 11906-11907] 

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] 

[DOCID:fr12mr10-100] 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLWYP00000-L51100000-GA0000-LVEMK09CK380, WYW172684] 

Notice of Availability and Notice of Hearing for the Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II Coal Lease by 

Application Draft Environmental Impact Statement, WY 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 

Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II Coal Lease by Application (LBA) and by this Notice is announcing 

a public hearing requesting comments on the Draft EIS, the Maximum Economic Recovery 

(MER), and the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the Federal coal resources. 

DATES: To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on 

the Hay Creek II Coal LBA Draft EIS, MER, and FMV within 60 days following the date that 

the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. 

The public hearing will be held at 7 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, on April 22, 2010, at the 

Campbell County George Amos Memorial Building, 412 South Gillette Avenue, Gillette, 

Wyoming. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: 

 E-mail: Hay_Creek_II_WYMail@blm.gov. Please include ``Hay Creek II Draft EIS--Teresa 

Johnson'' in the subject line. 

Fax: 307-261-7587, Attn: Teresa Johnson. 

D-30 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
5

Appendix D 

 Mail: Wyoming High Plains District Office, Bureau of Land 

Management, Attn: Teresa Johnson, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, Wyoming 82604. 

 Written comments may also be hand-delivered to the BLM Wyoming High Plains District 

Office in Casper.

 Copies of the Draft EIS are available at the following BLM office locations: BLM Wyoming 

State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; and BLM Wyoming High 

Plains District Office in Casper, 2987 Prospector Lane, Casper, Wyoming 82604. The Draft EIS 

is available electronically at the following Web site: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/cfodocs/HayCreekII.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa Johnson or Mike Karbs, BLM Wyoming 

High Plains District Office, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, Wyoming 82604. Ms. Johnson or 

Mr. Karbs may also be reached at (307) 261-7600 or by e-mail at casper_wymail@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft EIS analyzes the potential impacts of issuing 

a lease for the Hay Creek II Federal maintenance tract, serial number WYW172684. 

 The BLM is considering issuing a coal lease as a result of a March 24, 2006, application made 

by Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. to lease the Federal coal in the Hay Creek II Tract. The Hay 

Creek II LBA is located in Campbell County, Wyoming, northwest of the Buckskin Mine, 

approximately 12 miles north of Gillette, Wyoming. 

 Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. applied for the tract to extend the life of the existing Buckskin 

Mine in accordance with 43 CFR part 3425. On two occasions, May 19, 2008, and November 28, 

2008, Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. modified the LBA. As a result of the second modification, 

the Hay Creek II Tract now contains 419.04 acres. The applicant estimates that the current tract 

includes approximately 54.1 million tons of recoverable coal underlying the following lands in 

Campbell County, Wyoming: 

T. 52 N., R. 72 W., 6th PM, Wyoming 

 Section 19: Lots 5 (W \1/2\), 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 (W \1/2\), 13(W \1/2\), 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 (W 

\1/2\).

 Containing 419.04 acres more or less. 

 Consistent with Federal regulations under NEPA and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), 

as amended, the BLM must prepare an environmental analysis prior to holding a competitive 

Federal coal lease sale. The Powder River Regional Coal Team recommended that the BLM 

process the Hay Creek II LBA after it reviewed the tract at a public meeting held on April 19, 

2006, in Casper, Wyoming. 

 Lands in the Hay Creek II Tract contain all private surface estate which overlies the Federal 

coal.

 The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the 

Draft EIS. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-31
5

Appendix D 

 The Buckskin Mine is adjacent to the LBA and is operating under an approved mining and 

reclamation plan from the WDEQ Land Quality Division and an approved air quality permit 

from the WDEQ Air Quality Division that 

[[Page 11907]] 

allows Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc., to mine up to 42 million tons of coal per year.

 If the tract is leased to the existing Buckskin Mine, the new lease must be incorporated into the 

existing mining and reclamation plan for the mine. Before the Federal coal in the tract can be 

mined, the Secretary of the Interior must approve the revised MLA mining plan for the Buckskin 

Mine. The OSM is the Federal agency that is responsible for recommending approval, approval 

with conditions, or disapproval of the revised MLA mining plan to the Office of the Secretary of 

the Interior.

 The Draft EIS analyzes and discloses to the public direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts associated with issuing a Federal coal lease in the decertified Powder 

River Federal Coal Production Region, Wyoming. A copy of the Draft EIS has been sent to 

affected Federal, state, and local government agencies; persons and entities identified as 

potentially being affected by a decision to lease the Federal coal in this tract; and persons who 

indicated to the BLM that they wished to receive a copy of the Draft EIS. The purpose of the 

public hearing is to solicit comments on the Draft EIS, on the proposed competitive sale of the 

Federal coal lease maintenance tract, and on the FMV and MER of the Federal coal. 

 The Draft EIS analyzes leasing the tract as the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, a 

competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for Federal coal contained in the tract as 

applied for by Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. As part of the coal leasing process, the BLM is 

evaluating adding Federal coal to the tract to avoid bypassing coal or to prompt competitive 

interest in unleased Federal coal in this area. 

An alternate tract configuration that BLM is evaluating is described and analyzed as a separate 

alternative in the Draft EIS. Under the BLM Preferred Alternative, a competitive sale would be 

held and a lease issued for Federal coal resources contained in a tract configured by the BLM 

from the lands included within the study area. The tract could be larger or smaller than the 

Proposed Action. The Draft EIS also analyzes the alternative of rejecting the application to lease 

Federal coal as the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action and alternatives being 

considered in the Draft EIS are in conformance with the approved Resource Management Plan 

for Public Lands Administered by the BLM Buffalo Field Office (2001). 

 Requests to be included on the mailing list for this project, for copies of the Draft EIS, or to be 

notified of the dates of the comment period and public hearing, may be sent in writing, by 

facsimile, or electronically to the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES section above. For those 

submitting comments on the Draft EIS, please make the comments as specific as possible with 

reference to page numbers and sections of the document. Comments that contain only opinions 

or preferences will not receive a formal response; however, they will be considered and included 

as part of the BLM decision-making process. 

 Please note that public comments and information submitted to the BLM --including the 

commenter's name, street address, and e-mail address--will be available for public review and 

D-32 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
5 

Appendix D 

disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. 

 Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your 

personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask 

us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Ruth Welch, 

Associate State Director.
 

[FR Doc. 2010-5257 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P 

The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. 

Get started.
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-33
5 

Appendix D 

BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 5 

A) Mountain-Top Removal 

This environmental impact statement (EIS) is not evaluating a lease to a coal mine that uses 

mountain top removal to access coal deposits. Rather, the document presents an analysis of 

impacts that would result from leasing federal coal because mining is a logical consequence of 

issuing a maintenance lease to an existing operation 

Section 1.1.3.3 of the EIS contains a full disclosure of the mining methods at the Buckskin mine. 

Note the dissimilarities between Powder River Basin surface coal mining and mountain top 

removal mining. 

Chapter 3 of the EIS also describes the environmental consequences of mining the coal. The 

Powder River Basin (PRB) coal mines are surface coal mines which have some different issues 

than coal mines elsewhere in the country. Because of the topography and environment in 

northeast Wyoming, many of the public’s concerns related to mountain top removal mining such 

as clear cutting, water pollution, flooding, cultural devastation, stream destruction, insufficient 

reclamation, and lack of good data collection and monitoring, do not directly correlate. The PRB 

area is semi-arid with primarily intermittent or ephemeral drainages such that surface water is not 

plentiful. The topography is generally rolling hills covered in open grass and sagebrush 

grassland plant communities. Reclamation bonding and monitoring by the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) requires that the bond be sufficient to cover the 

cost of full reclamation. Reclamation must be completed and self-sustaining before the bond is 

released. Drainages are reestablished; water quality monitored, topography returned to premining contours with the exception of elevation, and cultural and socioeconomic evaluations are 

completed prior to bond release. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, human population density 

in Wyoming ranks second as the least populated state per square mile of land area with 2.3 

humans per square mile. Mining and reclamation data is publically available through the WDEQ 

beginning in 1977 when Congress passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Annual Evaluation Summary Report for 

the Wyoming Regulatory Program Administered by the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality for Evaluation Year 2009 can be found at: 

http://www.osmre.gov/Reports/EvalInfo/2009/WY09-reg.pdf 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-35
6 

Appendix D 

Byron and Marge Oedekoven 

PO Box 605 

Gillette, WY 82717 

SENT VIA FAX – MAY 12, 2010 

May 12, 2010 

Wyoming High Plains District Office 

Bureau of Land Management 

Attn: Teresa Johnson 

2987 Prospector Drive 

Casper, Wyoming 82604 

RE: Hay Creek II Draft EIS 

Dear Ms. Johnson: 

The draft Hay Creek II EIS points out that the location of the Collins and McGee roads in the 

middle of the study area creates a conflict that will need to be addressed. It is apparent to us that 

any relocation of the roads would involve our property. The Campbell County Commissioners 

have demonstrated a willingness to relocate county roads for mine development when effected 

land owners and the public agree. We recognize that it is in our best interest to have early input 

and would welcome an opportunity to discuss and negotiate the re-routing of both roads. A

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. 

Sincerely, 

Byron Oedekoven 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-37
6 

Appendix D 

BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 6 

A) Campbell County 

Thank you for taking the time to review the Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II draft EIS. We have 

forwarded your letter to Campbell County Road and Bridge Director Gary Lowry. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-39
Appendix D 

7 

A 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-41
Appendix D 

7 

A 

B 

D-42 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

7 

B 

C 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-43
Appendix D 

7 

C 

D 

D-44 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

7 

D 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-45
Appendix D 

7 

E 

D 

D-46 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

7 

E 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-47
Appendix D 

7 

E 

D-48 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7 

Appendix D 

E
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-49
Appendix D 

7 

E 

D-50 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

7 

E 

F 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-51
Appendix D 

7 

F 

G 

D-52 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7 

Appendix D 

G
 

H
 

I
 

J
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-53
Appendix D 

7 

D-54 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

7 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-55
Appendix D 

7 

D-56 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

7 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-57
Appendix D 

7 

D-58 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

7 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-59
7 

Appendix D 

BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 7 

A) Purpose and Need—U.S. Energy Portfolio—Range of Alternatives 

Section 1.2 of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) clearly states the purpose and 

need of the document as well as the proposed action. The purpose of this EIS is to analyze and 

disclose the potential effects to the natural and human environment from the proposed leasing of 

a maintenance tract of federal coal in the Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB). A mining 

operator applied to lease a tract of federal coal in order to have sufficient coal reserves to 

continue to operate an already existing mine (FEIS at 1.1.1). Although leasing this tract would 

not authorize mining operations on those lands, the EIS evaluates the potential impacts of mining 

because it is a logical consequence of issuing a lease for a maintenance tract of federal coal 

(FEIS at 1.1.2). The EIS presents BLM’s analysis of environmental impacts under the authority 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and associated rules and guidelines. 

The FEIS explains the extent of BLM’s decision-making authority to lease coal on federal lands 

and our mission under the various mineral leasing laws, which is to encourage the development 

of domestic coal reserves and to reduce US dependence on foreign sources of energy. 

The EIS is not intended to be an environmental analysis of the numerous technologies that are 

capable of producing electricity. We have revised the FEIS to include additional information 

regarding the projected electric generation portfolio of the United States. Studies have indicated 

that even with a considerably more optimistic projection for renewable sources, coal use 

continues to be projected as the largest portion of the domestic electric fuel mix until at least 

2035. 

The population in the US has increased by about 20 percent and energy consumption by a 

comparable 18 percent since 1990, with variations in energy use per capita depending on 

weather, the economy, etc. As population and activities have increased, carbon-based fuels 

(coal) have been used to provide for these additional energy needs. 

As stated in chapter 4, ongoing scientific research is working to identify the potential impacts of 

greenhouse gases (GHG) on global climate. Our analysis recognizes that the addition of noncarbon fueled electric generation sources could reduce future GHG emissions. Further, the 

addition of alternate sources of electric generation would potentially help to conserve carbonbased fuels and provide a broader portfolio of electric sources. However, the environmental 

effects and impacts associated with the wide variety of renewable electric generation 

technologies are well beyond the scope of this EIS. Individual projects associated with 

alternative electric generation technologies would be evaluated and analyzed on their own merit 

separately under the NEPA process. In order for an alternative energy project to come to 

fruition, there must first be a valid proponent to propose, support, and fund the project. 

BLM has wide discretion in determining the extent and identification of lands to consider 

offering in response to a coal lease application. The FEIS addresses a full range of alternatives to 

the lease by application (LBA) submitted by the applicant. The range includes an alternative 

which would represent all lands that include coal reserves that are comparable to those applied 

for, which may be efficiently recovered with the LBA, which may enhance competitive interest 

in the tract, and which could be bypassed if not leased. On the other end of the range is the No 

D-60 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7 

Appendix D 

Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, ongoing mining activities would continue 

and no new coal reserves would be leased to Kiewit. 

B) Human Health and the Environment 

In the FEIS, noise impacts are covered in section 3.14.2, Human health is covered in section 

3.18.2, and environmental justice is covered in section 3.17.7.2. 

BLM does not have expertise regarding conducting human health assessments. During 

preparation of the EIS, BLM contacted the Wyoming Department of Health/ Environmental 

Health Section and invited them to review and provide comment on the EIS. BLM has also 

contacted the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Both agencies declined to participate. 

The FEIS identifies both site-specific (i.e., specific to the Buckskin Mine) and cumulative 

impacts to air quality. This is done by including monitoring data for a variety of regulated air 

pollutants, as well as predictive models that estimate pollutant concentrations and other air 

quality parameters based on emission and climate models. The analysis discloses actual and 

modeled air quality impacts and is available to anyone wishing to see it. 

Air pollution is controlled by state and federal air quality regulations and standards established 

under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments of 1990, administered by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) under the authority of the CAA. The Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(WAAQS) for the PM10 annual, the SOx annual, and 24-hour levels are more stringent than the 

NAAQS and are enforced by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), Air 

Quality Division (AQD). State implementation plans are in place to ensure that proposed actions 

like coal mining comply with all associated air quality regulations and criteria. WDEQ/AQD 

issues permits to mine coal under the authority delegated to them by the EPA under the CAA. In 

Wyoming, mines in the PRB are permitted under the CAA as regulated emission sources. 

Permits issued by the WDEQ identify mitigation measures that the permittee must implement in 

order to comply with the permit. These measures, currently in place at the Buckskin Mine as 

well as other PRB mines, are described in section 3.4.2.3 of the EIS. The WDEQ/AQD is 

authorized to condition permits as necessary for mitigation, and they will not permit an activity 

that does not comply with the WAAQS. 

Large surface coal mines in the PRB have the potential to become particulate emission sources 

contributing to air quality degradation. As stated in section 3.4.2.1 and section 3.4.2.3 of the 

EIS, the WDEQ/AQD requires the Wyoming PRB mines to collect air quality data. The eastern 

Powder River Basin is one of the most intensely monitored areas in the world for air quality. As 

explained throughout the EIS, WDEQ/AQD has, by statute, the authority and responsibility to 

require mitigation for air quality impacts. 

Ozone is included in the EIS discussion regarding NOx emissions since NOx is one of the main 

components involved in the formation of ground level ozone. As previously discussed, EPA is 

the agency chiefly responsible for national air quality regulations and authorities concerning 

ozone, CO2, and the development of national standards. 

Ozone monitoring is not required by WDEQ at the PRB coal mines; however, the agency has 

been monitoring ozone at sites in the PRB since 2001. An exceedance of the O3 8-hour standard 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-61
 

7 

Appendix D 

occurs if the fourth-highest daily maximum value is above the level of the standard. On January 

6, 2010, EPA proposed to strengthen the NAAQS for ground-level ozone. The agency is also 

proposing to strengthen the 8-hour “primary” ozone standard to a level within the range of 0.060­

0.070 ppm. Comments received on the proposed monitoring requirements are being accepted, 

and the WDEQ plans to issue a final rule in coordination with the final ozone standards by the 

end of July 2011. 

Table 3.4-4 shows the O3 standard has not been exceeded at the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland north ozone monitor (the monitoring site closest to the Buckskin Mine, about 20 miles 

northeast of the mine) when evaluated under the standard in place at the time the values were 

recorded. For the PRB region, exceedances of the current standard (75 ppm) have been recorded 

at Thunder Basin and some high values (greater than 65 ppm) have been recorded at the South 

Campbell County and Devils Tower stations in recent years. Although the northern PRB is still 

considered an ozone attainment area, there is potential for this area to be designated “nonattainment” if a new lower standard is established. 

Determining if an area could be deemed "non-attainment" for ozone after the new standard is 

issued requires air monitoring results in the area to show that the three-year average of the fourth 

highest daily maximum 8-hour average exceeds the standard. This determination requires three 

years of monitoring data, documented exceedances of the standard, and the state designating a 

geographic area around the monitored area. EPA has to approve this geographic area, and the 

state would then prepare a SIP (state implementation plan) outlining how the area is to be 

brought back into compliance. The resulting SIP would outline regulatory measures that would 

pertain to all air quality permits in that area. If a new standard is issued, it would immediately 

become effective. Wyoming may adopt the new standard into its rules, but until it does, there 

would be two standards in effect (state and federal). Compliance would be determined in 

accordance with the more stringent standard. 

The comment submits the statement that ozone levels in the PRB are very close to noncompliance. BLM cannot make that assertion based on the limited data that are currently 

available, both temporally and spatially, for the PRB. For example, the highest recorded value 

occurred in 2003, seven years in the past. Additional data from these two sites and preferably a 

larger ozone air quality monitoring network that covers more of the basin is needed before any 

trends can be clearly defined. 

Section 3.17.7 in the EIS addresses environmental justice and the impacts related to the proposed 

leasing of the Hay Creek II tract. The cumulative visibility impacts resulting from projected 

development within the Powder River Basin would be no more acute for Native American 

populations than for the general public. The Northern Cheyenne have been included in the 

scoping and public review of this EIS. 

C) Contemporaneous Reclamation 

Section 1.1.3.4 discusses reclamation activities, and table 1-3 provides a summary of land status 

acreage at the Buckskin Mine. Contemporaneous reclamation required by the state of Wyoming 

is also occurring at the mine. The Buckskin Mine meets or exceeds the reclamation requirements 

set forth. BLM is not aware of “the lack of contemporaneous reclamation at the mine,” or any 

documentation concerning the reclamation procedures leading to “the spread of noxious weeds 

and reduced acreage for livestock and wildlife habitat,” and “reduced air quality” due to 

D-62 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7 

Appendix D 

improper reclamation practices. The mine’s annual Monitoring Report (on file with the WDEQ 

in Sheridan, Wyoming) goes into detail on stock and wildlife grazing areas and noxious weed 

control. 

The Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) is the federal law regulating surface 

coal mining. BLM has no authority under SMCRA to prescribe or enforce the reclamation of 

coal-mined lands in Wyoming. The WDEQ, Land Quality Division (LQD) permits, regulates, 

and monitors coal mining and reclamation. Three acts regulate coal mining and reclamation in 

Wyoming: 1) Wyoming’s Open Cut Reclamation Act of 1969; 2) Wyoming State Environmental 

Quality Act of 1973; and, 3) the federal act, SMCRA. The state of Wyoming has the overall 

authority and enforces these federal and state acts through the WDEQ/LQD. 

As thoroughly detailed in the “Reclamation Activities” section of the EIS, the WDEQ statutory 

and regulatory requirements outline strict parameters for coal-mine reclamation procedures, 

species composition, final land surface contour, and environmental sustainability. The SMCRA 

requires sufficient bonding to cover anticipated reclamation costs. When mining is permitted, 

the WDEQ/LQD sets the bond amount for reclamation of all disturbed lands, and the operator 

posts an acceptable bonding instrument for this amount with the state of Wyoming. The 

reclamation bond is not released until a minimum of 10 years have elapsed from the date of final 

seeding, and the WDEQ/LQD has determined that all reclamation verifications have occurred. 

The WDEQ/LQD monitors monthly all lands within the mining permit boundary, and these lands 

must pass requirements set by state law beyond the mine’s termination of their permit. The 

WDEQ does not require the mines to complete final bond release as long as contemporaneous 

reclamation is proceeding at the required rate and to the required standards set by state and 

federal laws and reclamation has met permit standards. A percentage assessment of lands that 

have been released from final bonding requirements is not an accurate assessment of 

contemporaneous reclamation. 

In the interim between initial reclamation and final bond release, condition and status of the 

lands are monitored by the WDEQ/LQD, and that information is publically available from their 

Cheyenne office. Reclaimed lands, regardless of the bond release status, are used by wildlife and 

often grazed by livestock (regulated and monitored by the WDEQ). 

Tables 4-2 and 4-3 in the EIS summarize actual and projected disturbance and reclamation 

through 2020. The total disturbance (including active mining and mined but unreclaimed, as 

well as disturbed but unavailable for reclamation, due to being occupied by long term structures 

or facilities) as well as areas permanently reclaimed is displayed. The trend is that the acreage 

(including active mining and mined but unreclaimed) is expected to increase slowly, less than 

one percent per year, as is the acreage of land disturbed but unavailable for reclamation. The 

rate of permanent reclamation will be more rapid (about 4% per year). The ratio of total land 

reclamation to total land disturbance was around 30% in 2003, and is expected to be 45% by 

2010, and approaching 60% by 2020. As of 2008, the actual ratio of total land reclamation to 

total land disturbance was about 45% (29,100 acres permanently reclaimed out of a total 

disturbance of 64,100 acres) for the Wyoming PRB mines. Of the total unreclaimed disturbance, 

about 23,000 acres were unavailable for reclamation (stockpiles, facilities, and sediment control) 

and 35,000 acres were in active mining operations (active pits and haul roads). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-63
7 

Appendix D 

We believe the comment may be incorrectly equating contemporaneous reclamation with final 

bond release. There is a difference between lands that are in various stages of reclamation and 

those that have been reclaimed and released from final bonding requirements. Several phases of 

bond release the mine operators may apply for represents every task from replacing the backfill, 

to the approved contour, to placing topsoil, and permanent seeding. Final bond release on 

reclaimed lands indicates that the reclamation meeting permit standards has been in place for at 

least 10 years and that an application for final bond release was submitted to WDEQ. 

Reclamation plans are submitted during the permitting process for approval by the WDEQ. 

These plans are based on the individual mining company’s mining progression. The WDEQ 

approves or rejects these plans based on the mining progression of the individual mine and the 

space needed for long-term facilities, sedimentation reservoirs, haul roads, diversions, and 

topsoil stockpiles. The reclamation plan is evaluated against the individual mine progression by 

the WDEQ to ensure reclamation is directly following the mining extraction process. 

D) Analyze and Mitigate Impacts to Groundwater Quantity 

Water resources specific to the Hay Creek II study area are covered in section 3.5, with 

groundwater being specifically covered in section 3.5.1. The Buckskin Mine’s annual report 

discusses water issues within the mine permit boundary. There is also a cumulative water 

modeling study, completed by BLM as part of the Powder River Basin Coal Review that 

provides further information on how surface and groundwater resources have been and would be 

affected by regional development activities. This report, completed in December 2009, can be 

found on the BLM Wyoming web site at 

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

The SMCRA and Wyoming state law require that the surface coal-mine operator provide the 

owner of the affected water right with water of equivalent quantity and quality. 

For the purposes of identifying and disclosing potential impacts, the FEIS assumes that: 1) the 

LBA is offered for lease, 2) that the successful lessee is the applicant mine, and 3) that the mine 

applies for, and is granted, a permit to mine the LBA in a manner similar to mining already 

permitted on other lands at the applicant mine. The EIS includes an evaluation of these potential 

impacts in chapter 3 (sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7) and in chapter 4 (sections 4.2.4.1, 4.2.5, and 

4.2.6). 

Under SMCRA and Wyoming law, a number of specific studies would be done. The results of 

those studies would be the deciding factor as to whether or not a permit to mine any lands that 

might be leased in the Hay Creek II LBA would be approved. At that time, the specific plan to 

develop the LBA would be known. The WDEQ/LQD would develop a cumulative hydrologic 

impact assessment (CHIA) to look at how mining the LBA, along with any other already 

approved mining, would affect groundwater and the recharge contribution. Also a system of 

wells to monitor groundwater would be specified. The management of surface water flows 

during mining, as well as the restoration of surface water flow systems post mining would be 

specified in any mining permit to develop the LBA, if leased. 

The EIS includes a thorough evaluation of water resources in section 3.5, 4.2.4, and 4.2.5. 

Please review these sections, and in particular, see section 4.2.4.1 for the groundwater 

cumulative impact analysis which includes coalbed methane/natural gas development. 

D-64 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7 

Appendix D 

E) Analyze and Mitigate Climate Change Impacts 

The EIS discloses the potential effects to the natural and human environment from the proposed 

leasing of a tract of subsurface coal which will be used to maintain production at the Buckskin 

mine in the PRB of Wyoming. Although leasing this tract would not authorize mining 

operations on the tract, the EIS evaluates the potential impacts of mining because it is a logical 

consequence of issuing a lease for a maintenance tract of coal. The EIS assesses the site-specific 

impacts resulting from a range of alternative actions to the proposed action of leasing a specific 

tract of land. The EIS also assesses the cumulative impacts on the environment, which results 

from the incremental impact of the proposed LBA when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that would add to the impact of the proposed action. 

Climate change as it relates to coal mining is addressed in chapter 3 (section 3.18.3), and in 

chapter 4 (section 4.2.14.1) as it relates to coal mining and coal use. In chapter 4, the 

contribution of the site-specific alternatives to cumulative effects on the environment is 

evaluated. To do this, we assume that coal mining will proceed in accordance with permit 

conditions and that coal from the Buckskin Mine will be sold on the open market. We further 

assume that this coal will be sold to coal users in response to forecasts of demand for this coal. 

Historically these users have been electric utilities in the United States, although there is 

potential for sales outside the US. This coal market is open and competitive, and users can buy 

from the most cost-effective suppliers that meet their needs. 

Section 4.2.14.1 and section 4.2.14.2 of the FEIS provide estimates of the amount of GHG 

emissions that could be attributed to coal production because of leasing the proposed LBA, as 

well as from the forecast coal production from all coal mines in the Wyoming PRB. We 

assumed that all PRB coal was used for coal-fired electric generation as part of the total US use 

of coal for electric generation. This gives an upper estimate of the GHG resulting from using the 

coal produced from the proposed LBA and for forecast total PRB coal production. The estimate 

was calculated by relating the portion of coal produced in the Wyoming PRB to national steam 

coal totals, and then applying that ratio to the total emission of GHG estimated in the US from 

coal-fired electric generation. 

Additionally the EIS states that policies regulating specific levels of significance have not yet 

been established for GHG emissions. Given the state of the science, it is not possible to 

associate specific actions with the specific global impacts such as potential climate effects. 

Since there are no tools available to quantify incremental climate changes associated with these 

GHG emissions, the analysis cannot reach conclusions as to the extent or significance of the 

emissions on global climate. The potential impacts of climate change represent the cumulative 

aggregation of all worldwide GHG emissions. The EIS provides a meaningful context and 

measure of the relative significance of coal use from a lease under the Proposed Action and 

alternatives and overall projected PRB coal production on total GHG emissions. 

The use of carbon-based fuels as a primary fuel for electric generation results in the release of a 

large quantity of CO2, a greenhouse gas, as estimated and disclosed in the EIS. A large portion 

of our existing domestic electric generating capacity is designed for carbon fuels. While there is 

presently substantial interest and potential public policy and regulation to move from carbon 

fuels for electric generation, the demand for electric power is not forecast to decrease. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-65
7 

Appendix D 

Focus is on the amount of CO2 resulting from the historic burning of PRB coal as though any 

continuation of PRB coal use would be a new impact, and thereby significant. The EIS states 

that the continued release of CO2 for electric generation is uncertain, and depends on economics 

and future regulation of coal users. Further, the assumed mining and use of this coal in the future 

depends on sustained, but uncertain, demand for PRB coal and coal in general. The EIS applied 

published forecasts of coal use to establish the likely continuation of coal for electric generation 

into the foreseeable future. On this basis, it is forecast that there would be some reduction in 

coal-fired electric generation, which may or may not affect the historic ratio of PRB coal in the 

national or international market. 

The EIS addresses the environmental effects of leasing coal and the logical result that the coal is 

mined by an operator of an existing, adjacent mine. The EIS further discloses the indirect 

emissions based on the presumption the mined coal is burned to produce electricity. The EIS 

does not address regulation of GHGs or set standards for carbon fuel use. In a regulatory 

structure where GHG control costs factor into electric generation costs, coal users would likely 

weigh these costs into capital and operating decisions. Electric generation activity is directly 

influenced by consumer demand. If electricity cannot be supplied to meet demand, power prices 

rise until the demand falls. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from coal burning are applied 

where the coal is consumed, because the coal consumer must comply with regulatory and price 

constraints, which will bear on fuel choices. Infrastructure, equipment availability, incentives, 

and cost also determine the potential for switching to noncarbon-based electric generation. 

Mining the leased coal and the continued operation of a Powder River Basin mine is not directly 

tied to any existing or proposed electric generation facility. Limiting one or even several points 

of fuel supply will not affect coal use because of the diverse group of national and international 

suppliers. 

The effects of black carbon as a particulate are included in the discussion of the effects of 

particulates on air quality. State-enforced mitigation procedures for the effects of black carbon 

are already in place at coal mines and coal combustion facilities. 

The FEIS recognizes the effects of historic warming on the western US. We have assumed that 

existing land and resource conditions within the analysis area have been and will continue to be 

affected by climate change under all alternatives including the No Action Alternative. Existing 

climate prediction models are not at a scale sufficient to estimate potential impacts of climate 

change within the analysis area. We have referenced available national and regional data, most 

recent being the report, The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water 

Resources and Biodiversity in the United States (US Climate Change Science Program 2008). A 

recent report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, defined the relative degree of 

climate change effects that could be experienced in the future in the various regions of the United 

States. (Karl et al. 2009). The report uses two scenarios to bracket potential climate effects and 

is broken into regions which divide up the US. The Wyoming PRB is in the Great Plains region, 

which is characterized by strong seasonal climate variations. Historically the area has been 

subject to prolonged drought followed by wetter conditions. Average temperature increases have 

been predicted in the region with the greatest changes being in the winter such that commonly 

very cold days would become less common and warmer wetter weather more common. Under 

the higher heat trapping emission scenario temperatures are projected to increase over the next 

100 years more so than under the lower heat trapping emission scenario. The milder winters and 

D-66 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7 

Appendix D 

longer growing season is expected to favor larger numbers of insects that appear earlier and 

persist longer into the season. The change in climate is expected to cause a shift in wild plant 

and animal distributions favoring those species which are better suited for the warmer wetter 

climates that both the lower emission and higher emission scenarios predict for the Powder River 

Basin. With increasing precipitation, soil erosion in drainages and sheet flow across the land 

surface is expected to increase. 

BLM recognizes that methane or CBNG is a valuable energy resource, and has policies 

encouraging methane development, where economically feasible, in advance of coal mining. 

The analysis in the EIS (section 3.3.2.1) states that CBNG has been commercially produced in 

the PRB since 1989. The document goes on to say that coal seams were already substantially 

depleted of CBNG in the vicinity of the mines in 2000 as a result of mining. By 2005, drilling 

activity in the areas adjacent to the coal mines declined significantly, and little to no interest has 

occurred in this area since. 

Methane was identified as a GHG in the section (4.2.14.1) on climate change and global 

warming. The potential release of methane as a direct result of mining and other activities in the 

PRB has been discussed. The EIS gives estimates of GHG emissions resulting from specific 

operations at the Buckskin Mine as projected under the proposed action and alternatives over the 

life of the lease. The projections reflect general mining activity in the PRB region and specific 

estimates derived by CO2e foot printing of the Buckskin Mine operation. 

Surface mines vent methane to the atmosphere in varying amounts as the coal is exposed, 

depending on the amount of methane extraction that has occurred or is occurring in advance of 

mining. We have recognized that large volumes of methane have been recovered in advance of 

mining, and that by the time the coal is mined, methane in commercial quantities has been 

depleted. The calculated amount for methane release at the Buckskin Mine’s exposed coal face 

is included in the FEIS CO2e calculations. 

Pre-mining drainage of coal seam gas in front of surface mines in the Powder River Basin by 

CBNG operators is a common practice where the geology is favorable and gas is present in 

sufficient quantities. Less common is the pre-mine drainage of non-commercial methane and/or 

flaring of low quality gas as a part of emission reductions (ER) programs. Such programs might 

be supported by protocols adopted by a voluntary carbon market registry, like the voluntary 

carbon standard (VCS). A flaring project provides the benefit of destroying large volumes of 

potent greenhouse gas (methane) and releasing the much weaker by-product of combustion 

(carbon dioxide). The economics to sustain an ER flare project are solely based on the revenue 

received by the operator from the resulting sale of carbon offset credits in the voluntary market. 

Consequently, project financing is determined based on future market pricing for carbon credits. 

For example, estimates for a prospective flare ER project at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

require a price greater than $4.00/ton CO2e, just to cover development and operating costs. 

In order to qualify for carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market, among other things, a 

project must meet two essential requirements. First, the project must be voluntary (i.e. not be 

required by applicable law or regulation), and second the project must overcome one or more 

financial, technological, or institutional barriers to its implementation (as defined by the 

applicable carbon registry). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-67
7 

Appendix D 

Several factors must be in place before a pre-mine drainage of non-commercial methane gas 

project (such as a flare project) can be implemented. 

 The geologic conditions for eligible mining operations must favor the presence and retention 

of coal seam gas. At many of the active mining operations in the Powder River Basin, the 

major coal seams are interrupted by faulting, ribbon splits, or the presence of paleolithic sand 

channels which have removed part or all of the coal seam in limited zones in the active mine 

and proposed lease areas. At the Buckskin Mine, for instance, there are significant sand 

channels present within and surrounding the mine. These discontinuities in the coal seam 

have had the effect of “drying” the coal seam locally. This means that the methane was 

naturally released from the coal seam in the distant past, and there is little gas remaining to 

be captured from the impacted area. Where commercially recoverable methane did exist, it 

has already been removed by CBNG operators working the Hay Creek II LBA general 

analysis area and by methane operators working out in front of the mining operations in the 

PRB. 

 If gas remains in sufficient quantities for flare project operations, the mine operator must be 

able to obtain land and mineral use authorizations for the remaining non-commercially 

recoverable methane. 

 The quality and quantity of the methane gas within the coal seam must be considered. In 

some cases there is not enough methane gas remaining after CBNG operators have 

completed their operations to support flaring. Further, methane may be present in sufficient 

quantities to support an ER operation, but has been so contaminated by introduction of air 

(nitrogen) that it will not support combustion without assistance, making it costly and 

impractical to flare. 

Oil, gas, and coal leases are subject to different regulations, depending on whether the leases are 

state, federal, or privately owned. Some action has been taken authorizing development and 

operation of flare ER projects on state regulated minerals. On federally regulated minerals, the 

regulatory framework necessary to support flare ER operations has not yet been developed. 

Flaring is not reasonable at the Buckskin Mine, because: 

 The federal gas leases on lands in the Hay Creek II LBA study area cannot be permitted for 

methane flaring. This condition, therefore, is not met. 

 The Buckskin Mine must own the oil and gas rights associated with any methane under 

consideration and have the requisite infrastructure in place to operate a flaring project. This 

condition is not met. 

 The Hay Creek II LBA does not contain state or fee coal. 

At the Buckskin Mine, the requirements for flaring methane currently cannot be met. 

Managers of coal and oil/gas (including CBNG) at the BLM Wyoming State Office and the 

Buffalo Field Office are aware of the issue regarding venting of methane vs. the flaring of 

methane in order to reduce CO2e on federal coal leases before mining. 

D-68 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
7 

Appendix D 

F) Analyze Impacts from Coal Burning Such as Mercury and Combustion Waste Disposal 

The EIS addresses mercury and combustion waste disposal in a cumulative context in chapter 4 

(4.2.14.5). There is only one mine in the Wyoming PRB currently accepting coal combustion 

by-products from coal mined on site. The Buckskin mine is not permitted to dispose of coal 

combustion by-products and so does not accept them. 

G) White Energy Coal Drying Proposed Project 

White Energy Coal North America, Inc. (WECNA) a U.S. subsidiary of White Energy Company 

Limited based in Sidney, Australia has proposed the facility. Buckskin anticipates leasing 

property and an access right-of-way to WECNA. The mine also proposes to sell coal to the 

White Energy facility should they meet market value. Final negotiations have yet to be 

completed. Since the mine is not proposing the project, they are neither responsible for the 

permitting applications associated with the project nor do they have access to any of the data 

required to conduct an analysis of the proposed project for this EIS. 

White Energy is responsible for all permitting associated with this project. The company is in 

the process of developing a CO2e footprint for the facility. 

WDEQ received an application for the project on December 3, 2010. The White Energy project 

is solely under the jurisdiction of the WDEQ and information concerning it can be found through 

the WDEQ. 

The proposed Ambre facility in Montana (if this is the facility referred to in the comment) is not 

similar to White Energy’s proposal. The Ambre facility is a coal to liquids process, which is 

quite different from White Energy’s proposal of a coal drying to briquettes process proposed at 

the Buckskin Mine. 

The facility proposed by White Energy is not in any way connected to the Hay Creek II lease or 

dependent upon it. Regardless of whether the Hay Creek II tract is offered for lease, and 

regardless of the BLM preferred tract configuration should BLM offer a tract, the White Energy 

proposed facility is expected to succeed or fail of its own accord. 

Correction: Kiewit does not have a proposed coal drying facility. White Energy Coal North 

America, inc. has proposed a coal drying facility on surface owned by Buckskin Mine. If such a 

facility is built it is proposed to be outside the mine’s permit area. 

H) DM&E Railroad 

The paragraph in section 4.1.1.2 discussing the DM&E rail line is accurate. The decision is still 

contingent on the listed conditions. The eminent domain suit does not change the facts 

presented. No changes will be made to the paragraph. 

I) Wygen III Addition to EIS 

Wygen III has been added to the discussion in section 4.1.1.2. 

J) Two Elk Unit #2 

North American Power Group (NAPG) has had permits for Two Elk Unit #1 since 1997, but has 

yet to construct any facilities. Wyoming Power Company (a subsidiary of NAPG) has a proposal 

for Two Elk Unit #2, a new project. Some paperwork had been filed with the WDEQ/AQD, 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-69 
7 

Appendix D 

which was returned in March 2010. We have found no further formal information available. 

The paragraphs on Two Elk units #1 and #2 have been modified in section 4.1.1.2 the final EIS 

to reflect currently known information. Thank you. 

D-70 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

8 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-71
 

Appendix D 

8 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

D-72 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

F 

G 

H 

J 

8 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-73

I 
Appendix D 

8 

D-74 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
8 

Appendix D 

BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 8 

A) Updated Species Status 

The status of threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed species has been updated in the 

final EIS as requested by biologist Pauline Schuette, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming. 

B) Sage-grouse and Sagebrush 

BLM understands and agrees that sage-grouse need to receive protection as set by the U.S. 

Department of the Interior and the state of Wyoming. Sections 3.10.6.1 (“Affected 

Environment”) through 3.10.6.2, (“Environmental Consequences”) in the final EIS contain a 

thorough discussion on upland game birds, particularly sage-grouse in the Hay Creek II LBA 

general analysis area. Given the dominant vegetation types in the general analysis area (upland 

grasslands and agricultural fields), and the lack of regular sightings over the last 26 years of 

monitoring, especially outside the breeding season, it is unlikely that either the sharp-tailed 

grouse or the sage-grouse is a yearlong resident. 

C) Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) was contacted at the beginning of the EIS 

process and invited to be a cooperator but declined that opportunity. The agency was also 

contacted and consulted on this project during scoping, again during the draft document review 

process, and will be sent the final document for review. In a letter to the BLM, dated May 6, 

2010, the WGFD stated that it has no concerns about terrestrial or aquatic species pertaining to 

the Hay Creek II LBA coal lease application. 

D) Surveying and Mapping Greater Sage-grouses Habitat 

Greater sage-grouse habitats within the EIS general analysis area and for several miles outside 

the general analysis area have been mapped, plotted, reviewed, and analyzed for all vegetative 

communities, including sagebrush and other important habitats.. Please see section 3.10.6 

(“Upland Game Birds”), and appendix J (“Biological Assessment”) for sage-grouse discussions. 

Due to its proximity to the existing Buckskin Mine permit area, the southern third (33%) of the 

general analysis area was included in annual wildlife surveys for sage-grouse from 1984 through 

2001. Approximately 95% of the general analysis area was surveyed annually from 2002 

through 2006 in conjunction with a previous permit amendment at the mine. The entire (100%) 

general analysis area and additional lands within 2.0 miles of that area were included in targeted 

baseline surveys conducted for the Hay Creek II EIS from late 2007 through 2010. All baseline 

and annual monitoring reports for the Buckskin Mine are part of the public record and are 

available at the Sheridan WDEQ office. All such reports and surveys have been used in the 

sage-grouse evaluation in this EIS. 

E) Mountain Plover Protective Measures 

Please see section 3.10.7.1 and section 3.10.10 of the EIS. No mountain plovers have been 

documented in the general analysis area during wildlife monitoring conducted for the Hay Creek 

II tract or the adjacent Buckskin Mine through 2010. Nevertheless, the existing Buckskin Mine 

permit document already includes species-specific protective measures for the mountain plover. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-75
8 

Appendix D 

Should the mine acquire the Hay Creek II coal lease, all existing species-specific protective 

measures and monitoring and mitigation requirements for mountain plovers and other species of 

concern would automatically be applied to all newly leased and permitted lands. 

The BLM does not issue permits for surface disturbance activity for coal mining, nor does the 

BLM manage mine operations or approve mitigation measures for animal species on private 

lands in Wyoming being considered for subsurface coal leasing. The WDEQ and the Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) issue permits and approve mitigation and 

monitoring measures for coal mining based on input from the FWS and WGFD. Therefore, 

assurance of implementation of species-specific protective measures and monitoring and 

mitigation requirements would be the responsibility of these agencies during their review of 

annual monitoring reports and periodic renewals of avian monitoring and mitigation plans. 

However, mountain plovers have been addressed in a memorandum from the FWS to BLM’s 

Wyoming State Director (April 5, 2007), available at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/wildlife/mtnplover.Par.50309.File.dat/finalMountain 

Plover.pdf as well as in the Final Report: Mountain Plover (Charadrius Montanus) Biological 

Evaluation and the Species Assessment for Mountain Plover (Charadrius Montanus) in 

Wyoming (Smith and Keinath 2004) Both documents are available at 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Wildlife/mtn-plover.html. 

F) Missing Sensitive Plant Species Discussion 

A summary of the discussion in appendix K has been summarized as section 3.9.3 in chapter 3 of 

the final EIS. 

G) Raptor Mitigation Plan for Buckskin Mine 

The text for raptors in sections 3.10.5.2 (“Affected Environment”) and section 3.10.10 

(“Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring”) has been revised to clarify that the 

current FWS-approved avian monitoring and mitigation plan for the Buckskin Mine would be 

updated. The update would incorporate mitigation measures to minimize impacts to nesting 

raptors prior to any new disturbance associated with new leasing actions, if the tract is offered 

for lease and if Buckskin mine is the lessee. This, of course, depends on whether the tract is 

offered for lease and if Buckskin Mine were the lessee Raptor mitigation would be addressed as 

part of a mine permit regardless of the lessee. 

H) Edit 

The sentence has been edited as requested. 

I) Black-footed Ferrets 

Although the black-footed ferret is no longer included on the Campbell County list of threatened 

and endangered species, it remains as a federally listed species. Therefore, this species is 

addressed in Appendix J (“Biological Assessment”) of the EIS, as per BLM policy. 

J) Citation Recommendation 

The citation “APLIC (2006)” has been added to page J-7 of the Biological Assessment (appendix 

J of the final EIS) and a full reference has been added to page J-37. 

D-76 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
9 

Appendix D 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-77
9 

Appendix D 

BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 9 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II Draft EIS. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-79
Appendix D 

10 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-81
Appendix D 

10 

D-82 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

10 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-83
Appendix D 

10 

A 

D-84 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

10 

A 

B 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-85
10 

Appendix D 

B
 

D-86 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
10 

Appendix D 

B
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-87
10 

Appendix D 

B
 

D-88 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

10 

B 

C 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-89
Appendix D 

10 

C 

D-90 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
10 

Appendix D 

B
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-91
10 

Appendix D 

B
 

D-92 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

10 

B 

D 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-93
Appendix D 

10 

D 

E 

D-94 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
10 

Appendix D 

E
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-95
Appendix D 

10 

E 

D-96 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
10 

Appendix D 

E
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-97
Appendix D 

10 

E 

F 

D-98 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

10 

E 

G 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-99
Appendix D 

10 

G 

D-100 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

10 

G 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-101
Appendix D 

10 

G 

D-102 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

10 

G 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-103
Appendix D 

10 

G 

B 

D-104 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix D 

10 

B 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-105
Appendix D 

10 

D-106 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
10 

Appendix D 

BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 10 

A) Purpose and Need 

Please review Section 1.2; the BLM has stated the purpose and need of the EIS and the proposed action. 

The purpose of this EIS is to analyze and disclose the potential effects to the natural and human 

environment from the proposed leasing of a maintenance tract of federal coal in the Wyoming Powder 

River Basin (PRB). A mining operator made application to lease a tract of federal coal in order to have 

sufficient coal reserves to continue to operate an already existing mine (FEIS at 1.1.1). Although leasing 

this tract would not authorize mining operations on those lands, the EIS evaluates the potential impacts 

of mining the tract because mining is a logical consequence of issuing a lease for a maintenance tract of 

federal coal (FEIS at 1.1.2). The EIS presents the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) analysis of 

environmental impacts under the authority of the National environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

associated rules and guidelines. 

Sections 1.3 and 1.4 of the EIS – immediately following the section on purpose and need – describe the 

regulatory framework and responsibilities for federal coal development, as well as enumerating BLM’s 

relevant guidelines and regulations. These include compliance with the 43CFR 3400 regulations cited in 

the comment. 

The final EIS explains the extent of BLM’s decision-making authority to lease coal on federal lands and 

our mission under our various mineral leasing laws which is to encourage the development of domestic 

coal reserves and reduction of US dependence on foreign sources of energy. 

The EIS is not intended to be an environmental analysis of the numerous technologies that are capable 

of producing electricity. The FEIS has been revised to include additional information regarding the 

projected electric generation portfolio of the United States. Studies have indicated that even with a 

considerably more optimistic projection for renewable sources, coal use continues to be projected as the 

largest portion of the domestic electric fuel mix until at least 2035. 

BLM does have wide discretion in determining the extent and identification of lands to consider offering 

in response to a coal lease application. The FEIS addresses a full range of alternatives to the lease by 

application (LBA) submitted by the applicant. The range includes an alternative which represents all 

lands that contain coal reserves that are comparable to those applied for and which may be efficiently 

recovered with the LBA, an alternative which contains lands that may enhance competitive interest in 

the tract, and an alternative which contains lands that could be bypassed if not leased. On the other end 

of the range is the No Action Alternative. 

B) Global warming and GHG 

Global warming, GHGs, and climate change were thoroughly discussed in chapters 3 and 4. In 

chapter 3, specifically section 3.3.2.1, there is a discussion of methane and CBNG. The EIS estimated 

direct emission of GHG because of continuing operations at the Buckskin mine in section 3.18.3 and 

table 3.18-2. The potential GHG volumes resulting from the assumed use of this coal at dispersed 

electric generation facilities was also discussed. Further, section 4.2.14.1 in chapter 4 of the EIS 

discusses GHGs and climate change in depth including the observed and projected effects of global 

warming, sea level changes, differential temperature changes, and changes to vegetation and habitat. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-107
10 

Appendix D 

In chapter 4 (section 4.2.14.1 and section 4.2.14.2), we estimated the amount of GHG emissions that 

could be attributed to coal production from leasing the proposed LBAs, as well as from the forecast coal 

production from all coal mines in the Wyoming PRB. It was assumed that all PRB coal would be used 

for coal-fired electric power generation. This gives an upper estimate of GHG emissions resulting from 

use of the coal that would be produced from the proposed LBA and for forecast total PRB coal 

production. The estimate was derived by relating the portion of coal produced in the Wyoming PRB to 

national steam coal totals, and then applying that ratio to the total emission of GHG estimated in the 

U.S. from coal-fired electric generation. 

The potential impacts of climate change represent the cumulative aggregation of all worldwide GHG 

emissions. The EIS provides a meaningful context and measure of the relative significance of coal use 

from the proposed LBAs and overall projected PRB coal production on total GHG emissions. 

Additionally the EIS states that policies regulating specific levels of significance have not yet been 

established for GHG emissions. Given the state of the science, it is not possible to associate specific 

actions with the specific global impacts such as potential climate effects. Since there are no tools 

available to quantify incremental climate changes associated with these GHG emissions, the analysis 

cannot reach conclusions as to the extent or significance of the emissions on the global climate. 

The EIS addresses the environmental effects of leasing federal coal and the potential mining of that coal. 

The EIS addresses the environmental effects of leasing and potentially mining federal coal. The 

document also discloses the indirect emissions presuming the coal will be burned at utility power plants. 

The EIS neither attempts to estimate the cost of GHG emissions from coal combustion at power plants 

nor does it assert that the cost of GHG is zero or any particular value, as there is no known threshold or 

context for this value. In a regulatory structure where GHG control costs factor into electric generation 

costs, coal users would likely weigh these costs into capital and operating decisions. Electric generation 

activity is directly influenced by consumer demand. If electricity cannot be supplied to meet demand, 

power prices rise until the demand falls. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from coal burning are 

applicable at the place where the coal is consumed because the coal consumer must comply with 

regulatory and price constraints and this will bear on fuel choices. Infrastructure, equipment 

availability, incentives, and cost also determine the potential for switching to non-carbon based electric 

generation. Mining the lease reserves and the continued operation of a Powder River Basin mine is not 

directly tied to any existing or proposed electric generation facility. Limiting one or even several points 

of fuel supply will not affect coal use because of the diverse group of national and international 

suppliers. 

A number of broad alternatives such as mitigation funds, taxes, and specific conditions exist that could 

be applied to any coal mining operator. However, revenues from coal leases are dispersed in a fixed 

formula specified in the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA). The Department of the Interior (DOI) has no 

discretion in this dispersion. Specific lease conditions apply only to that lease and are not a workable 

mechanism to regulate mining operations. These proposals would be programmatic or legislative in 

nature, and while considered, are beyond the scope and authority of the coal leasing actions addressed in 

this EIS. Coal mining companies do not burn coal and so do not purchase carbon offsets for burning 

coal. Facilities that burn coal would be required to purchase carbon offsets if the state that those 

facilities are in, or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requires such offsets to be purchased. 

In the US, such offsets are not required, although companies, individuals, and governments can purchase 

carbon offsets through voluntary programs. The Buckskin Mine voluntarily uses electric powered heavy 

equipment (such as haul trucks and shovels) whenever possible as part of their air quality mitigation 

D-108 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
10 

Appendix D 

plans. All other vehicle standards are regulated by the Department of Transportation through which the 

EPA is taking measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles nationwide. Please see the 

following website for more information on vehicle emission standards: 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations.htm. 

BLM has estimated GHG emissions tied to the projected use of PRB coal as a fuel for electric 

generation. These emission levels are significantly large, but not new and not due to the proposed 

leasing of the Hay Creek II LBA, or presently proposed leasing cumulatively. Our analysis recognizes 

that the addition of non-carbon fueled electric generation sources could reduce future GHG emissions. 

Further, the addition of alternate sources of electric generation would potentially help to conserve 

carbon-based fuels and provide a broader portfolio of electric sources. The EIS discloses that the rate of 

consumption of coal in general, and PRB coal specifically, is not driven by leasing actions but is driven 

by future electric demand, regulatory frameworks, and relative costs and efficiencies of electric 

generation. 

Please review the BLM National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Handbook H-1790-1 online at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/nepa.html. As described in the handbook, proposed federal projects 

that are externally generated actions, like coal lease applications filed by a proponent, include the 

formulation of a range of alternatives encompassing denial of the request (No Action), approval of the 

request as proposed by the proponent, and approval of the request with modifications as made by BLM 

to the proponent’s proposal. As exemplified in H-1790-1, the Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II coal EIS 

range of alternatives carry out the intent and spirit of NEPA. 

The EIS is not an environmental analysis of the numerous technologies that are capable of producing 

electricity. The document was prepared pursuant to the NEPA and other applicable regulations and 

statutes to address possible environmental and socioeconomic impacts that could result from the Hay 

Creek II coal lease application. The environmental effects and impacts associated with the wide variety 

of renewable electric generation technologies are well beyond the scope of this EIS. 

C) Cumulative Impacts of DOI-authorized Activities 

Regionally connected actions have been addressed in chapter 4. That chapter addresses current and 

planned development and describes cumulative development and environmental consequences of that 

development in the PRB. Both low and high production scenarios with projections to 2020 are 

discussed. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development and the cumulative environmental 

consequences of that development are also detailed. The years 2010, 2015, and 2020 were selected for 

the analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in chapter 4. This is the duration of the 

expected production as related to the LBA coal reserves. 

This comment suggests that the EIS should examine a wide variety of actions with the only connection 

being that all the actions are under the jurisdiction of the DOI. The suggested approach in this comment 

does not recognize that each of these proposals are federal actions in their own right, and must be 

evaluated in light of the effects of that action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such 

other actions. 

The EIS addresses the environmental effects of leasing coal in the PRB and the logical result that the 

coal would potentially be mined by adjacent operating mines. The document goes on to disclose 

indirect emissions with the assumption that coal would be mined and burned to produce electricity. It is 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-109
Appendix D 

beyond the scope of this EIS to analyze all the DOI-authorized projects and proposed activities that 

occur in the United States. 10 

The BLM began a regional technical study in 2003. The Powder River Basin Coal Review is a dynamic, 

expanding body of information. Data is added continuously as it becomes available. The Review has 

been available to the public since 2006 and was the subject of an open house in May of that year to 

explain and demonstrate the modeling and report products. The Review is available online at: 

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

The intent of the review was to evaluate the current condition of environmental and socioeconomic 

aspects in the PRB for a base year, to project reasonably foreseeable development for future years, and 

to develop models as well as other quantitative and qualitative tools to estimate future effects on 

environmental and socioeconomic aspects. The PRB coal review is not a NEPA document. It is a 

planning tool, a set of environmental impact analysis tools, and, when maintained through the years, is a 

method to calibrate development projections and related estimations of effects. 

The coal review products were delivered and posted for public access in 2005, 2006, and 2009. Many of 

the initial reports have been updated. For example, the 2010 air quality modeling report has been 

supplemented by adding 2015 modeling and, most recently, 2020 modeling. BLM has also tracked 

annual development activity and has updated that work through 2008; the 2009 data will be added as it 

becomes available. With the 2009 completion of the groundwater model and the 2020 air quality 

modeling work, the reports have been issued and incorporated into the Hay Creek II FEIS cumulative 

analysis. 

Modeling and report updates and revisions are posted to the website as they are completed and used as a 

tool for cumulative impact analysis and planning. BLM recognizes that the PRB coal review is not the 

only source for cumulative impact analysis which is why land use plans, WDEQ’s Cumulative 

Hydrologic Impact Assessments, and other sources and tools are used in addition to the Coal Review. 

D) Background PM10 (particulate matter measuring 10 micrometers or less in diameter) Impacts 

The BLM neither permits, nor authorizes, mining operations and does not have the authority to regulate 

mining activities or mitigate air quality impacts. As discussed in detail in section 1.3 of the EIS, the 

WDEQ is authorized by the Secretary of the Interior to regulate surface coal mining operations and 

surface effects of mining on federal and non-federal lands within Wyoming. 

It is stated in section 3.4.2.1 and section 3.4.2.3 of the EIS that the WDEQ/AQD requires the Wyoming 

PRB mines to collect air quality data. WDEQ/AQD has, by statute, the authority and responsibility to 

require mitigation for air quality impacts. 

Air quality modeling for the Buckskin Mine is discussed in section 3.4.2 and appendix G. If the mine 

acquires the LBA tract, their current air quality permit will have to be amended to include the new lease 

before mining activities can proceed into the new lease area. New air quality modeling would need to 

be conducted in support of that permit application demonstrating on-going compliance with all 

applicable ambient standards. 

The WDEQ conducts regularly scheduled mine inspections. The control measures identified as “best 

available control measure (BACM) that are employed at each of the mines are directed at transient 

problem areas or sites that are unique to the particular operation and are typically action measures rather 

than devices or installations. However, the actions employed by the mines during “natural events” can 

D-110 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
10 

Appendix D 

be observed and noted during the agency’s inspections. We describe Wyoming’s natural events action 

policy (NEAP), including two lists of control measures designed to prevent exceedances during high 

wind events. Included in the lists are the measures that the mines can implement continuously so that 

they are in place before a high wind event occurs. These measures primarily address the principal minecontrolled sources of fugitive dust, which are large contiguous disturbed areas. The second list is an 

additional category of control measures that include actions that can be taken during a high wind event, 

depending on site-specific conditions. The implementation of best available control technology 

(BACT), BACM, and reactionary control measures assure that anthropogenic dust emissions from the 

coal mines in the PRB are controlled to the greatest extent possible. PM10 regulatory enforcement, 

monitoring and control is regulated by the WDEQ by agreement with EPA. 

E) Ozone (O3), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and Wyoming 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) 

Section 3.4.3 contains the discussion of ozone, NO2 and NAAQS in the general analysis area. Section 

3.4.3.3 contains the discussion of the new 1-hour NO2 and NAAQS. 

Section 4.2.3 continues the discussion of NO2, and appendix G at G-12 has additional discussion of 

NO2. Section 3.4.3.1 addresses the analysis and impacts of short-term NO2 NAAQS. 

The BLM neither permits, nor authorizes, mining operations and does not have the authority to regulate 

mining activities or mitigate air quality impacts. As discussed in detail in section 1.3 of the EIS, the 

WDEQ is authorized by the Secretary of the Interior to regulate surface coal mining operations and 

surface effects of mining on federal and non-federal lands within Wyoming. 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air; it but is created by sources of nitrogen oxide 

(NOx), which in the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), reacts to form ground-level ozone. 

Therefore, the statement made in the EIS that measures to reduce mine-related NOx emissions should 

also reduce the potential for the formation of ground-level O3 in the PRB is entirely reasonable. 

Section 3.4.3 (Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone) has been updated and revised in the FEIS. The 

EIS discloses all sources for these gas emissions and the monitoring efforts of the WDEQ in the PRB. 

The WDEQ does not currently require the PRB coal mines to ozone monitor or model ozone. 

Therefore, the applicant mines’ current air quality permits do not address impacts to the ozone 

standards, and ozone monitoring data for the eastern PRB are limited. BLM has disclosed the sources of 

ozone emissions from the mining operations and the environmental consequences related to it. 

However, ozone levels have been monitored by WDEQ/AQD at its ambient air quality monitoring sites 

in the PRB since 2001. An exceedance of the O3 8-hour standard occurs if the fourth-highest daily 

maximum value is above the level of the standard. Table 3.4-4 shows that no exceedances of the O3 

standard have occurred at the monitoring site closest to the Buckskin Mine when evaluated under the 

standard in place at the time the values were recorded. The EIS discloses that BLM expects a stricter O3 

standard of between 0.06 and 0.07 parts per million (ppm) to be announced, and that such a standard 

could trigger non-attainment for ozone in the northern PRB. 

The comment suggests that ozone levels in the PRB are trending upward. BLM cannot make that 

assertion based on the limited data that are currently available. Additional data from these two sites and 

preferably a larger ozone air quality monitoring network covering more of the basin are needed before 

any trends can be clearly defined. Based on data collected at WDEQ’s Thunder Basin National 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-111
 

Appendix D 

Grassland ozone monitoring site from 2005 through 2009, the background ozone level is estimated as 

134 μg/m3

 (0.069 ppm). The Forest Service operates this monitor and reports to the EPA's national 10 

database (AQS), accessible through Air Explorer on the web at http://www.epa.gov/airexplorer/. 

Note that on January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to strengthen the 8-hour “primary” standard NAAQS for 

ground-level ozone to a level within the range of 0.060-0.070 ppm. For the primary standard, ozone 

concentrations are averaged over 8-hour periods. The fourth highest 8-hour value at a particular monitor 

in the most recent year is averaged with the fourth-highest 8-hour values from the previous 2 years. 

This produces a 3-year average. To meet the standard, the 3-year average must be less than or equal to 

the level of the standard. In light of EPA’s proposed ozone standard, additional ozone monitors would 

be needed in the PRB before a quantitative assessment of ozone impacts in the PRB could be made. 

Therefore, there is potential for this area to become designated non-attainment if a new lower standard is 

promulgated. Promulgation of a revised ozone standard has been delayed. The standard may now be 

issued sometime in 2011. If a new standard is issued, it would immediately become effective. Wyoming 

may adopt the new standard into its rules, but until it does, there would be two standards in effect (state 

and federal). Compliance will be determined in accordance with the more stringent standard. 

An area could be deemed "non-attainment" for ozone after the new standard is issued, if air monitoring 

results in the area show that the three year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

exceeds the standard. This determination requires three years of monitoring data, documented 

exceedances of the standard, and the state designating a geographic area around the monitored area. 

EPA has to approve this geographic area, and the state would then prepare a state implementation plan 

(SIP) outlining how the area is to be brought back into compliance. The resulting SIP would outline 

regulatory measures that would pertain to all air quality permits in that area. 

To date, the WDEQ air quality permitting process has not required Buckskin to perform short-term 

modeling of NO2 impacts. Therefore, no model outputs are currently available to assess the mine’s 

compliance with the 1-hour NAAQS standard for NO2. It is anticipated that short-term modeling will be 

required at a future date, pending incorporation of the new 1-hour NO2 standard in Wyoming’s SIP and 

the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR). 

Notwithstanding this deficiency, historical NO2 concentrations are available on an hourly basis at two 

monitoring sites in the northern PRB. These data afford a surrogate measure of compliance with the 1­

hour standard in the general area of the Buckskin Mine. Table 3.4-5 summarizes hourly NO2 monitoring 

results for the Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG), and Belle Ayr Mine (BAM) sites. Based on 

the TBNG monitor, a background concentration of 11 parts per billion (ppb) can be compared to the 

NAAQS of 100 ppb, where both apply to the three-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly 

distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 concentrations. The BAM monitor shows a comparable 

three-year average of nearly 35 ppb (after omitting incomplete data years), roughly three times the 

background value but one third of the NAAQS standard. 

F) Visibility Impacts 

Visibility impacts are discussed in section 3.4.4 as well as in section 3.4.2 (Particulate Emissions). In 

addition, table 3.0-2 has entries on visibility. In chapter 4, visibility is covered in section 4.2.3 (Air 

Quality) with table 4-14 and table 4.13 showing modeled change in visibility impacts at class I and 

sensitive class II areas. Please see these sections. 

D-112 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
10 

Appendix D 

Visibility is defined as the distance one can see and the ability to perceive color, contrast, and detail. 

PM2.5 (particulate matter measuring 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter) is the main cause of visibility 

impairment. Visual range, one of several ways to express visibility, is the farthest distance from which 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 part of the U.S. and 90 miles in the eastern part. 

Visibility impairment is expressed in terms of deciview (dv). The dv index was developed as a linear 

perceived visual change. It is the unit of measure EPA uses in the regional haze rule to achieve the 

national visibility goal. This goal was established as part of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to prevent any 

future, and remedy any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory federal class I areas that result 

from human-caused air pollution. The dv index is a scale related to visual perception that has a value 

near zero for a pristine atmosphere. 

Sections 3.4.2.1 and 3.4.3.1 discuss that PM2.5 is a major cause of visibility impairment, with secondary 

impacts from NOx emissions. Mitigation measures used to limit emissions of particulate matter are 

discussed in section 3.4.2.3, and NOx mitigation measures are discussed in section 3.4.3.3. Additional 

information is provided in appendix G. 

Section 169 of the CAA addresses visibility protection. On June 15, 2005, the EPA issued final 

amendments to its July 1999 regional haze rule. These amendments apply to the provisions of the 

regional haze rule that require emission controls known as best available retrofit technology, or BART, 

for industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility. The nearest class I PSD (prevention 

of significant deterioration) areas to the general analysis area for this LBA are Wind Cave National Park 

(about 100 miles east), and the Badlands wilderness area (about 150 miles east). There are also five 

class II PSD areas 80 to100 miles away from the LBA application general analysis area; all others are at 

least 100 miles away (table 3.4-8 of the FEIS). This EIS uses two tools to evaluate visibility impacts 

(regional modeling and visibility monitoring). 

Regional modeling is used to estimate and disclose the change in the number of days that a change of 

10% or more in extinction would occur by 2020, in relation to a baseline. Table 4-13 (FEIS) referenced 

in the comment portrays the results of this predictive modeling, estimating change to regional visibility 

over a 16 year period, based on all reasonably foreseeable projected regional activity. Additionally, on 

site monitoring at class I areas is included to show actual measured changes in visibility over the period 

of record (1989 to 2005). While monitoring results show annual variability in visibility impairment at 

two sites, the trend is stable overall with some slight lessening. PRB surface mines have not been subject 

to permitting under the PSD regulations because those mine emissions that are subject to PSD 

applicability levels fall below regulatory thresholds. 

Visibility monitoring in Wyoming consists of both the WDEQ-sponsored Wyoming visibility 

monitoring network and the interagency monitoring of protected visual environments program 

(IMPROVE) program. The WDEQ has sited two visibility-monitoring stations in the PRB. The TBNG 

site is 32 miles north of Gillette and the Cloud Peak Wilderness Area site is 14 miles west of Buffalo 

(approximately 84 miles west of Gillette). Both sites include a variety of sophisticated monitoring 

equipment, as described in appendix G under “Existing Air Quality.” These sites are used to 

characterize the extent, frequency of occurrence, and magnitude of impairments to visual air quality. 

The Buckskin Mine ambient monitoring network consists of two low-volume Rupprecht & Patashnick 

Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) PM10 particulate continuous monitors. The 

monitors were installed in late October 2000 to replace two high-volume TSP (total suspended 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-113
10 

Appendix D 

particulate) monitors located at the same sites. The continuous monitors collect uninterrupted, hourly 

average concentrations of particulate matter. The TEOM monitors meet the EPA Automated 

Equivalency Method (EQSA 0495-100). 

Air pollution is controlled by state and federal air quality regulations and standards established under the 

federal CAA amendments administered by EPA. EPA established the NAAQS under the authority of 

the CAA. The WAAQS for the PM10 annual, the SOx annual, and 24-hour levels are more stringent than 

the NAAQS and are enforced by WDEQ/AQD. State implementation plans are in place to ensure that 

proposed actions like coal mining comply with all associated air quality regulations and criteria. 

G) Decertification 

To be clear, the PRB Coal Production Region is a coal production region (PRBCPR). Leasing to 

maintain production at existing mines using the LBA process (43CFR3425) is the practice in the region. 

This has been the procedure since the region was decertified in 1990. Decertification recognized the 

region as a mature coal production region where the proper leasing mechanism was production 

maintenance leasing in response to identified needs of operating mines to replace reserves as available 

leased reserves were depleted. Decertification does not mean that the region is not a significant national 

coal producing region. Management of coal leasing in the PRBCPR by this method has been an issue 

first raised in comments on the South Gillette Area Coal DEIS, and the issue was presented to the PRB 

Regional Coal Team (RCT) at the team’s meeting in November 2009. In November 2009, WildEarth 

Guardians petitioned the Secretary of Interior and the BLM Director to recertify the Powder River Basin 

Coal Production Region. In January 2011, BLM Director Robert Abbey denied the petition based on the 

following facts: 

 All the mines in the PRB have been in place for decades; 

 The LBA process provides coal reserves for leasing at a level approximately equal to the depletion 

by mining thereby assuring an optimum return to the public; 

 The LBA process has effectively prevented speculation and bypass of Federal coal resources. The 

LBA process supports competition for Federal coal leases; and, 

 The BLM has managed and continues to manage the LBA process consistent with the criteria and 

conditions that led to decertification of the PRBCPR in 1990. 

The Powder River RCT meetings are open to the public and provide an opportunity for comment and 

statements. You are welcome to present, in person or in writing, to the team at any future meeting. The 

meetings are published in the Federal Register and a press release is posted on the BLM’s web site. 

The coal screening process was used to identify areas suitable for coal mining in the PRB. The Buffalo 

resource management plan update (2001), located on the BLM’s Buffalo Field Office website at 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps.html contains a more detailed discussion in 

appendix E. The coal screening process consists of four steps: identify areas with coal development 

potential; apply the coal unsuitability criteria (20 criteria); assess multiple land use considerations; and, 

consult with surface owners concerning surface mining of federal coal under their private surface. 

After step one of the coal screening process was applied, the BLM identified two areas with coal 

development potential: the Sheridan area was about 73,000 acres and contained 2.75 billion tons of 

mineable coal reserves. The Gillette area was around 494,000 acres with approximately 47.5 billion 

tons of mineable coal reserves. The results of step two (applying the 20 unsuitability criteria) are 

D-114 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
10 

Appendix D 

covered in appendix B of this FEIS. Multiple land use considerations were assessed (step three), and it 

was determined that the existence of a coal lease will not prelude leasing other minerals for development 

with appropriate stipulations attached for simultaneous development. In the final step (surface owner 

consultation) 569 letters were sent with 317 responses received. About 20% of the private surface acre 

owners indicated an initial preference against mining. 

You are correct that production of PRB coal has increased steadily since decertification. Part of this 

growth results from population increases, which in turn increases the demand for electric power and the 

related increase in demand for steam coal to fuel low-cost electric generation. There are also cost 

(mining and reclamation) advantages and sulfur compliance issues that have favored PRB coal over 

other domestic coal regions. The production increase has been made with no new mining operations 

opening since decertification; in fact, several of the operations have consolidated. As shown in 

figure 4-1 in the EIS, leasing under the LBA process has essentially occurred at the same rate as reserves 

existing prior to decertification were depleted. This level of leasing activity remains consistent with 

managing the coal production region under the decertification action. 

Processing the Hay Creek II lease by application is consistent with the practice we follow in the 

decertified PRBCPR. These are production maintenance tracts, have been reviewed by the Powder 

River RCT, and are being reviewed under the LBA process in accordance with 43 CFR 3425. 

Unsuitability for consideration for coal leasing is covered in appendix B. This determination is based on 

findings from the resource management plan (RMP) that encompasses the Buckskin Mine area. 

Appendix B in the EIS summarizes the findings of the RMP as well as a review completed as part of the 

EIS analyses to update and specify the acceptability for further consideration for coal leasing of lands 

within the general analysis area of the Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II EIS. 

Like the regional leasing option under 43 CFR 3420, lease by application requires appropriate analysis 

and assessment of the environmental impacts of coal leasing. Lease by application also requires the 

opportunity for public participation. The NEPA process resulting in the Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II 

EIS achieves these requirements. Alternative regional leasing levels are not addressed in the LBA 

process because production maintenance leasing is the defined leasing level appropriate to a decertified 

coal production region. Coal leasing decisions under the lease by application process consider coal 

economics, both direct and cumulative impacts to the environment, and socioeconomic impacts. 

The Buckskin Mine Hay Creek II EIS is not a regional EIS in the sense of the regulations at 43 CFR 

3420. However, the EIS has been properly scoped to address direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of 

the proposed leasing. BLM has chosen to address the currently pending LBAs in four separate EISs, 

some addressing groups of LBAs because of their geographical proximity, others as individual LBA 

EISs due to either no other LBAs in proximity or the fact that the EIS was already well underway prior 

to the nearby LBAs being filed. Each EIS is consistent in addressing the specific impacts of each LBA, 

in addressing the cumulative impacts of the specific LBA when added to other reasonably foreseeable 

activity, and in having complete public involvement at every step in the NEPA process. 

The EIS is a disclosure document, not a decision document. The Record of Decision (ROD) is the 

decision document. Determination of public interest would be addressed in the ROD. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application D-115
APPENDIX E 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SPECIAL COAL LEASE 

STIPULATIONS AND FORM 3400-12 COAL LEASE 
Appendix E 

APPENDIX E: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SPECIAL COAL 

LEASE STIPULATIONS AND FORM 3400-12 COAL LEASE 

The BLM will attach the following special stipulations to any mine permit issued under the 

Proposed Action or Alternative 2. 

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

current regulations, the lessee shall comply with and be bound by the following special 

stipulations. 

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

refusal of any of these persons to comply with these stipulations shall be deemed a failure of the 

lessee to comply with the terms of the lease. The lessee shall require his agents, contractors, and 

subcontractors involved in activities concerning this lease to include these stipulations in the 

contracts between and among them. These stipulations may be revised or amended, in writing, 

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

to correct an oversight. 

(a) Cultural Resources 

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

shall conduct a cultural resource intensive field inventory in a manner specified by the 

Authorized Officer of the BLM or of the surface managing agency, if different, on portions of 

the mine plan area and adjacent areas, or exploration plan area, that may be adversely affected by 

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

The inventory shall be conducted by a qualified professional cultural resource specialist (i.e., 

archeologist, historian, historical architect, as appropriate), approved by the Authorized Officer 

of the surface managing agency (BLM, if the surface is privately owned), and a report of the 

inventory and recommendations for protecting any cultural resources identified shall be 

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

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

coal exploration outside an approved mining permit area (hereinafter called Authorized Officer), 

and the Authorized Officer of the surface managing agency, if different. The lessee shall 

undertake measures, in accordance with instructions from the Western Regional Director, or 

Authorized Officer, to protect cultural resources on the leased lands. The lessee shall not 

commence the surface disturbing activities until permission to proceed is given by the Western 

Regional Director or Authorized Officer. 

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

the National Register of Historic Places within the lease area from lease-related activities until 

the cultural resource mitigation measures can be implemented as part of an approved mining and 

reclamation or exploration plan unless modified by mutual agreement in consultation with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application E-1 
Appendix E 

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

shall be borne by the lessee. 

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

immediately bring them to the attention of the Western Regional Director or Authorized Officer, 

or the Authorized Officer of the surface managing agency, if the Western Regional Director is 

not available. The lessee shall not disturb such resources except as may be subsequently 

authorized by the Western Regional Director or Authorized Officer. 

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

Officer will evaluate or have evaluated any cultural resources discovered and will determine if 

any action may be required to protect or preserve such discoveries. The cost of data recovery for 

cultural resources discovered during lease operations shall be borne by the lessee unless 

otherwise specified by the Authorized Officer of the BLM or of the surface managing agency, if 

different. 

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

is determined under applicable law. 

(b) Paleontological Resources 

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

are discovered during mining operations, the find will be reported to the Authorized Officer 

immediately. Mining operations will be suspended within 250 feet of said find. The find will be 

stabilized and protected to minimize adverse impacts. An evaluation of the paleontological 

discovery will be made by a BLM-approved professional paleontologist within five (5) working 

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

any significant paleontological value. Operations within 250 feet of such discovery will not be 

resumed until written authorization to proceed is issued by the Authorized Officer. The lessee 

will bear the cost of any required paleontological appraisals, surface collection of fossils, or 

salvage of any large conspicuous fossils of significant scientific interest discovered during the 

operations. 

(c) Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Other Special Status Plant and Animal 

Species 

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

be threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq., or that have other special status. The Authorized Officer may recommend 

modifications to exploration and development proposals to further conservation and management 

objectives or to avoid activity that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat or 

to comply with any biological opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Proposed 

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

any such species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The Authorized Officer may require modifications 

E-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix E 

to, or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence 

of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated or proposed critical habitat. 

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

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

coal exploration on federal coal leases prior to approval of a mining and reclamation permit or 

outside an approved mining and reclamation permit area. The lessee shall comply with 

instructions from the Authorized Officer of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, or his designated representative, for all ground disturbing activities taking place 

within an approved mining and reclamation permit area or associated with such a permit. 

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

project area shall be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. 

(d) Multiple Mineral Development 

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

unreasonably interfere with the orderly development and/or production from a valid existing 

mineral lease issued prior to this one for the same lands. 

(e) Oil and Gas/Coal Resources 

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

producing oil and gas fields may interfere with the economic recovery of oil and gas; just as 

Federal oil and gas leases issued in a Federal coal lease area may inhibit coal recovery. The 

BLM retains the authority to alter and/or modify the resource recovery and protection plans for 

coal operations and/or oil and gas operations on those lands covered by Federal mineral leases so 

as to obtain maximum resource recovery. 

(f) Resource Recovery and Protection 

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

lessor reserves the right to seek damages against the operator/lessee in the event (i) the 

operator/lessee fails to achieve maximum economic recovery (MER) (as defined at 43 CFR 

3480.0-5(21)) of the recoverable coal reserves or (ii) the operator/lessee is determined to have 

caused a wasting of recoverable coal reserves. Damages shall be measured on the basis of the 

royalty that would have been payable on the wasted or unrecovered coal. 

The parties recognize that under an approved R2

P2, conditions may require a modification by the 

operator/lessee of that plan. In the event a coal bed or portion thereof is not to be mined or is 

rendered unmineable by the operation, the operator/lessee shall submit appropriate justification 

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

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

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application E-3 
Appendix E 

described above. Further, nothing in this section shall prevent the operator/lessee from 

exercising its right to relinquish all or portion of the lease as authorized by statute and regulation. 

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

the result of changed conditions, the Authorized Officer will give proper notice to the 

operator/lessee as required under applicable regulations. The Authorized Officer will order a 

modification if necessary, identifying additional reserves to be mined in order to attain MER. 

Upon a final administrative or judicial ruling upholding such an ordered modification, any 

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

paragraph under this section. 

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

unmined recoverable coal reserves shall become due and payable upon determination by the 

Authorized Officer that the coal reserves have been rendered unmineable or at such time that the 

operator/lessee has demonstrated an unwillingness to extract the coal. 

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

the Mineral Management Service demand for such royalties, or by issuing a notice of noncompliance. A decision or notice of non-compliance issued by the lessor that payment is due 

under this stipulation is appealable as allowed by law. 

(g) Public Land Survey Protection 

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

bearing trees against destruction, obliteration, or damage during operations on the lease areas. If 

any monuments, corners or accessories are destroyed, obliterated, or damaged by this operation, 

the lessee will hire an appropriate county surveyor or registered land surveyor to reestablish or 

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

in accordance with the "Manual of Surveying Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of 

the United States." The survey will be recorded in the appropriate county records, with a copy 

sent to the Authorized Officer. 

(h) Buffer Zones for Rights-of-Way of Public Roads, School Buildings, and Occupied 

Dwellings 

(1) No mining activity of any kind may be conducted within the Collins or McGee road rightsof-way and associated 100-foot buffer zones. The lessee shall recover all legally and 

economically recoverable coal from all leased lands not within the foregoing rights-of-way and 

associated buffer zones. Provided a permit to move the roads is approved by the Campbell 

County Board of Commissioners, the lessee shall recover all legally and economically 

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

zones. The lessee shall pay all royalties on any legally and economically recoverable coal that it 

fails to mine without the written permission of the Authorized Officer. 

E-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix E 

(2) No mining activity of any kind may be conducted within occupied residence and associated 

100-foot buffer zone. The lessee shall recover all legally and economically recoverable coal 

from all leased lands not within the foregoing occupied residence and associated buffer zone. 

Provided a permit to move the cemetery is approved by the Campbell County Cemetery District, 

the lessee shall recover all legally and economically recoverable coal from all leased lands within 

the foregoing cemetery and associated buffer zone. The lessee shall pay all royalties on any 

legally and economically recoverable coal that it fails to mine without the written permission of 

the Authorized Officer. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application E-5 
APPENDIX F 

CBNG AND CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OF 

PRODUCTION IN THE GENERAL ANALYSIS AREA 
APPENDIX F: CBNG AND CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OPRODUCTION IN THE GENERAL ANALYSIS AREA 

API WOGNumber Well Name Company Location Sta

531855 HALL - NO. 13C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P532495 FRANKLIN - NO. 24C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

532823 HALL - NO. 12C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P532824 FRANKLIN - NO. 23C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

533102 FRANKLIN - NO. 33C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

533263 FRANKLIN - NO. 14C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

533412 FRANKLIN - NO. 34C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

533932 FRANKLIN - NO. 43C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

534847 FRANKLIN - NO. 44C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W S

539851 LANDECK - NO. 32C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

532180 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 11C722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 7 52 N 72 W P

532181 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 13C722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 7 52 N 72 W P

532183 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 22C722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 7 52 N 72 W P

532494 FRANKLIN - NO. 24C-722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 7 52 N 72 W P

533103 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 33C722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 7 52 N 72 W P

533413 FRANKLIN - NO. 42C-722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 7 52 N 72 W P

533414 FRANKLIN - NO. 41C-722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 7 52 N 72 W P

534651 FRANKLIN - NO. 14C-722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 7 52 N 72 W P

538705 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 21C722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 7 52 N 72 W P

536570 TAYLOR - NO. 21C-822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 8 52 N 72 W P

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix F 

API WOGNumber Well Name Company Location Sta

536757 TAYLOR - NO. 12C-822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 8 52 N 72 W P

553318 HALL - NO. 43C-822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 8 52 N 72 W P

549231 TRITON - NO. 34AC-1722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 17 52 N 72 W S

549232 TRITON - NO. 43AC-1722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 17 52 N 72 W S

549233 TRITON - NO. 44AC-1722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 17 52 N 72 W S

551182 TRITON - NO. 13C-1722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 17 52 N 72 W S

551183 TRITON - NO. 14C-1722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 17 52 N 72 W S

551185 TRITON - NO. 12C-1722 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 17 52 N 72 W S

532182 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 13C1822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 18 52 N 72 W S

532432 FRANKLIN - NO. 14C-1822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 18 52 N 72 W P

532434 FRANKLIN - NO. 24A-1822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 18 52 N 72 W P

532436 FRANKLIN - NO. 33C-1822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 18 52 N 72 W S532501 FRANKLIN - NO. 22C-1822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 18 52 N 72 W P

532502 FRANKLIN - NO. 11C-1822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 18 52 N 72 W S

533104 FRANKLIN - NO. 31C-1822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 18 52 N 72 W P

535022 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 12C1822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 18 52 N 72 W P

535592 MCGEE - NO. 21C-1822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 18 52 N 72 W P

547734 FRANKLIN - NO. 24CR1822 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 18 52 N 72 W P531397 TRITON - NO. 24C-1922 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 19 52 N 72 W P

531398 TRITON - NO. 14A-1922 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 19 52 N 72 W P

532163 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 11C1922 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 19 52 N 72 W P

532411 FRANKLIN - NO. 31C-1922 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 19 52 N 72 W P

533494 BUCKSKIN - NO. 42C-1922 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 19 52 N 72 W S

F-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
API WOGNumber Well Name Company Location Sta

538839 TRITON - NO. 14C-1922 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 19 52 N 72 W P

533495 BUCKSKIN - NO. 12C-2022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 20 52 N 72 W P

533496 BUCKSKIN - NO. 14C-2022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 20 52 N 72 W S

533497 BUCKSKIN - NO. 13C-2022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 20 52 N 72 W S

549234 TRITON - NO. 31AC-2022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 20 52 N 72 W S

549235 TRITON - NO. 32AC-2022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 20 52 N 72 W S549236 TRITON - NO. 41AC-2022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 20 52 N 72 W S

533493 BUCKSKIN - NO. 11C-2922 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 29 52 N 72 W P

533498 BUCKSKIN - NO. 21C-2922 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 29 52 N 72 W S

530083 ROUGH DRAW - NO. P30-

14 

BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

531028 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 32C3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

531240 TRITON - NO. 12C-3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W S

531241 TRITON - NO. 13C-3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

531243 TRITON - NO. 24C-3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

531280 TRITON - NO. 14C-3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

531402 TRITON - NO. 11A-3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

531403 TRITON - NO. 12A-3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

531404 TRITON - NO. 13A-3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P531405 TRITON - NO. 14A-3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

531439 TRITON - NO. 21C2 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

531675 TRITON FEDERAL - NO. 

22C 

MAJESTIC PETROLEUM 

OPERATIONS INC 

SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

532768 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 32C2-

3022 

BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

533499 BUCKSKIN - NO. 41C-3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix F 

API WOGNumber Well Name Company Location Sta

533500 BUCKSKIN - NO. 42C-3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P

550829 TRITON - NO. 24A-3022 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 30 52 N 72 W P531029 MARQUISS - NO. 24A-3122 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 31 52 N 72 W P531045 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 12A3122 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 31 52 N 72 W P

531157 TRITON - NO. 11A-3122 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 31 52 N 72 W P

531163 TRITON - NO. 13A-3122 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 31 52 N 72 W P

531167 TRITON - NO. 22A-3122 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 31 52 N 72 W P

531220 TRITON - NO. 11C-3122 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 31 52 N 72 W P

531221 TRITON - NO. 22C-3122 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 31 52 N 72 W P

531222 CABALLO - NO. 24C-3122 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 31 52 N 72 W P

531399 TRITON - NO. 12C-3122 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 31 52 N 72 W P

531438 CABALLO - NO. 14C-31 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 31 52 N 72 W P

531817 TRITON - NO. 23A-3122 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 31 52 N 72 W P

541502 RAWHIDE - NO. 14-5 MEDALLION EXPLORATION SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 5 51 N 72 W S541508 RAWHIDE - NO. 13-5 MEDALLION EXPLORATION SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 5 51 N 72 W S

531476 CABALLO - NO. 22C-612 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 6 51 N 72 W S

532613 CABALLO - NO. 21C-612 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 6 51 N 72 W S

533006 CABALLO STATE TFU - 

NO. 13A-612 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 6 51 N 72 W S

533265 CABALLO TFU - NO. 34C612 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 6 51 N 72 W S

533319 CABALLO FEDERAL TFU -

NO. 11C-612 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 6 51 N 72 W P

531855 HALL - NO. 13C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

532495 FRANKLIN - NO. 24C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

F-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
API WOGNumber Well Name Company Location Sta

532823 HALL - NO. 12C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P532824 FRANKLIN - NO. 23C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

533102 FRANKLIN - NO. 33C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

533263 FRANKLIN - NO. 14C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

533412 FRANKLIN - NO. 34C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

533932 FRANKLIN - NO. 43C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

534847 FRANKLIN - NO. 44C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W S

539851 LANDECK - NO. 32C-622 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 6 52 N 72 W P

540285 DALY - NO. 11A-113 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W P

532397 CABALLO - NO. 44C-113 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W P

533009 CABALLO TFU - NO. 42C113 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W S

533010 CABALLO TFU - NO. 31C113 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W S

533894 20 MILE TFU - NO. 13C-113 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W S

534597 DALY - NO. 23C-113 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W P

534598 DALY - NO. 22C-113 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W P534599 DALY - NO. 11C-113 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W S

534600 DALY - NO. 21C-113 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W P

535179 DALY - NO. 33C-113 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W P

537483 20 MILE - NO. 24A-113 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W P

537484 20 MILE - NO. 24C-113 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W S

540286 DALY - NO. 21A-113 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W P

540287 DALY - NO. 23A-113 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W P

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix F 

API Number Well Name Company Location 

WOG

Sta

540288 DALY - NO. 22A-113 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W P540550 DALY - NO. 33A-113 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 1 51 N 73 W S

534604 DALY - NO. 11C-213 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 2 51 N 73 W S

535180 DALY - NO. 21C-213 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 2 51 N 73 W S

536515 DALY - NO. 22C-213 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 2 51 N 73 W P

537485 20 MILE - NO. 31C-213 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 2 51 N 73 W S

537486 20 MILE - NO. 31A-213 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 2 51 N 73 W S

537487 20 MILE - NO. 42C-213 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 2 51 N 73 W S

537488 20 MILE - NO. 42A-213 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 2 51 N 73 W P

538638 20 MILE - NO. 33A-213 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 2 51 N 73 W S

538713 20 MILE - NO. 33C-213 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 2 51 N 73 W S

540295 DALY - NO. 11A-213 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 2 51 N 73 W P

540551 DALY - NO. 21A-213 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 2 51 N 73 W S

531098 HALL - NO. 13C-123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W P

531099 HALL - NO. 23C-123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W S

532184 HALL - NO. 42C-123 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W P

532185 HALL - NO. 44C-123 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W P

532665 HALL - NO. 14C-123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W P

532666 HALL - NO. 31C-123 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W P

532667 HALL - NO. 22C-123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W P

F-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
API Number Well Name Company Location 

WOG

Sta

532668 HALL - NO. 11C-123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W P

532732 HALL - NO. 33C-123 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W P

532825 HALL - NO. 41C-123 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W P

545439 HALL - NO. 41A-123 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W P

553317 HALL - NO. 42A-123 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 1 52 N 73 W P

531048 HALL - NO. 31C-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W P

531051 HALL - NO. 34C-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W S

531052 HALL - NO. 43C-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W P

533105 LANDECK - NO. 12C-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W P

534792 LANDECK - NO. 14C-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W S

535593 LANDECK - NO. 23C-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W P

536142 LANDECK FED - NO. 21C223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W P

544066 HALL - NO. 43WA-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W P

544068 LANDECK - NO. 12WA-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W S

544069 LANDECK - NO. 14WA-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W P

545431 LANDECK - NO. 12A-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W P

545432 LANDECK - NO. 14A-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 2 52 N 73 W S

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix F 

API Number Well Name Company Location 

WOG

Sta

530937 LANDECK - NO. 34C-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W P

531023 LANDECK - NO. 23C-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W P

531025 LANDECK - NO. 43C-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W P

531040 LANDECK - NO. 32C-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W S

531858 LANDECK FED - NO. 14C323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W P532907 LANDECK - NO. 23WA-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W P

533107 LANDECK - NO. 41C-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W P

533713 LANDECK - NO. 24B-323 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W S

533714 LANDECK - NO. 34WA-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W P

535501 LANDECK - NO. 24B2-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W P

544049 LANDECK - NO. 43WA2-

323 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W P

544050 LANDECK - NO. 32WA-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W P

545424 LANDECK - NO. 43A-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W S

545426 LANDECK - NO. 34A-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W S

545427 LANDECK - NO. 32A-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 3 52 N 73 W P

531744 LANDECK - NO. 21WA1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W P

F-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
API Number Well Name Company Location 

WOG

Sta

531877 LANDECK - NO. 21C-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W P

532326 HINKES - NO. 41C-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W P

532329 LANDECK - NO. 23C-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W F

532330 HINKES - NO. 43C-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W F

532331 HINKES - NO. 34C-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W P

532487 HINKES - NO. 32WA-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W P

544025 LANDECK - NO. 23WA1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W P544028 HINKES - NO. 34WA-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W P

544081 LANDECK - NO. 21A-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W S

544082 HINKES - NO. 43A-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W S

544083 HINKES - NO. 41A-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 10 52 N 73 W P

532328 HINKES - NO. 12C-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W P

532332 HINKES - NO. 14C-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W P

532532 HINKES - NO. 23WA-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W P

532644 HALL - NO. 41C-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W S

532662 TWENTY MILE - NO. 44C1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W P

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix F 

API Number Well Name Company Location 

WOG

Sta

532663 HALL - NO. 32C-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W S

532664 HINKES - NO. 21C-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W P

538696 TWENTY MILE - NO. 34C1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W S

542579 HALL - NO. 41A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W S

542658 TWENTY MILE - NO. 43A1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W P

543134 HINKES - NO. 14A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W S

543139 HINKES - NO. 12A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W S

544024 HALL - NO. 32WA-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W P

544030 TWENTY MILE - NO. 43WA1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W S

544035 TWENTY MILE - NO. 34WA1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W S

544054 HINKES - NO. 21WA-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W S

544084 HALL - NO. 32A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W P

544098 HINKES - NO. 23A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W P

544100 TWENTY MILE - NO. 43C1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 11 52 N 73 W P

532404 COOK - NO. 14C-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

532405 COOK - NO. 13C-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

532407 COOK - NO. 11C-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

F-10 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
API WOGNumber Well Name Company Location Sta

532408 COOK - NO. 12C-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

532417 COOK - NO. 21C-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P532418 COOK - NO. 22C-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

532420 COOK - NO. 24C-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

532421 COOK - NO. 31W-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W S

532423 COOK - NO. 33C-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

532424 COOK - NO. 34C-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

532425 COOK - NO. 41C-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

532428 COOK - NO. 44C-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W S

542577 COOK - NO. 12A-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P542578 COOK - NO. 14A-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

544954 COOK - NO. 23A-1223R BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

547796 COOK - NO. 12W-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W P

548356 COOK - NO. 34A-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W S

548360 COOK - NO. 21A1-1223 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 12 52 N 73 W S

531992 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 44C1323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W P

532077 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 23C1323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W P

532078 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 34C1323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W P

532088 COOK - NO. 31C-1323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W S

532186 COOK - NO. 42C-1323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W S

532262 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 24C1323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W S

532661 COOK - NO. 11C-1323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W P

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix F 

API Number Well Name Company Location 

WOG

Sta

532734 COOK - NO. 22C-1323 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W S

543132 COOK - NO. 41A-1323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W S543133 COOK - NO. 32A-1323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W P

543135 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 23A1323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W P

543145 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 34A1323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 13 52 N 73 W P535595 TWENTY MILE - NO. 14C1423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 14 52 N 73 W P

538618 HUSKINSON - NO. 34WA1423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 14 52 N 73 W S

538838 TWENTY MILE - NO. 32WA1423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 14 52 N 73 W S

539441 TWENTY MILE - NO. 12C2-

1423 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 14 52 N 73 W P

532187 TWENTY MILE - NO. 41C1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 15 52 N 73 W P

535098 TWENTY MILE - NO. 43C1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 15 52 N 73 W S

535100 TWENTY MILE - NO. 32C1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 15 52 N 73 W P

544022 TWENTY MILE - NO. 34A1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 15 52 N 73 W S

544074 TWENTY MILE - NO. 43A1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 15 52 N 73 W P

544075 TWENTY MILE - NO. 41A1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 15 52 N 73 W P

544076 TWENTY MILE - NO. 32A2223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 22 52 N 73 W P

544077 TWENTY MILE - NO. 41A2223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 22 52 N 73 W P

F-12 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
API Number Well Name Company Location 

WOG

Sta

536562 TWENTY MILE FEDERAL - 

NO. 34C-2223 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 22 52 N 73 W P

536565 TWENTY MILE FED - NO. 

43C-2223 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 22 52 N 73 W P

535096 TWENTY MILE - NO. 41C2223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 22 52 N 73 W P532657 TRITON - NO. 42C-2323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 23 52 N 73 W P

535597 TRITON - NO. 43C-2323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 23 52 N 73 W P

536248 MOREL - NO. 41C-2323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 23 52 N 73 W P

536561 TWENTY MILE FEDERAL - 

NO. 14C-2323 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 23 52 N 73 W P

543661 TWENTY MILE - NO. 21C2323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 23 52 N 73 W P

551906 MOREL - NO. 41A-2323 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 23 52 N 73 W P

536247 MOREL - NO. 12C-2423 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W S

531501 TRITON - NO. 44EC-2423 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W P

531502 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 34C2423 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W P

531804 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 42C2423 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W P

531805 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 33EC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W S

531822 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 41C2423 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W P

532079 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 21C2423 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W P

532213 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 23C2423 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W P

532293 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 43C2-

24 

BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W P

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix F 

API WOGNumber Well Name Company Location Sta

535598 TRITON - NO. 14C-2423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W S

532660 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 43C3-

2423 

BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W P

532395 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 31C2423 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W P

532769 OEDEKOVEN - NO. 33C2-

2423 

BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 24 52 N 73 W P

534701 TRITON - NO. 11A-2523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W S

534707 COLEMAN - NO. 13A-2523 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W S534708 HOLDEN - NO. 14C-2523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W P

535009 WAARE - NO. 12C-2523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W P

532101 TRITON - NO. 32C-2523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W S532188 TRITON - NO. 21C-2523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W S

531752 TRITON - NO. 44C-2523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W S

531753 TRITON - NO. 41C-2523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W P

531801 TRITON - NO. 22A-2523 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W S

531162 TRITON - NO. 44A-2523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W P531164 TRITON - NO. 42A-2523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W P

531165 TRITON - NO. 33A-2523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W P

531166 TRITON - NO. 43A-2523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W P

531400 TRITON - NO. 43C-2523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 25 52 N 73 W P

551905 20 MILE - NO. 34A-2623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 26 52 N 73 W P

548329 TWENTY MILE - NO. 14A2623 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 26 52 N 73 W P

F-14 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
API WOGNumber Well Name Company Location Sta

539496 MOORE - NO. 43A-2623 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 26 52 N 73 W P

532090 TRITON - NO. 41C-2623 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 26 52 N 73 W S

532764 TRITON - NO. 21C-2623 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 26 52 N 73 W S

535025 TWENTY MILE - NO. 14C2623 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 26 52 N 73 W P

549398 NORTH KITTY FEDERAL -

NO. 44-27B 

KENNEDY OIL SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 27 52 N 73 W P

549399 NORTH KITTY FEDERAL -

NO. 33-27B 

KENNEDY OIL NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 27 52 N 73 W P

550007 NORTH KITTY FEDERAL -

NO. 34-27A 

KENNEDY OIL SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 27 52 N 73 W P

535599 TWENTY MILE - NO. 23C3523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W P

535799 DALY - NO. 33CX-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W S

534693 DALY - NO. 41C-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W S

534694 DALY - NO. 34C-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W S

534695 DALY - NO. 44C-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W S

534697 DALY - NO. 43C-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W S

534698 DALY - NO. 32C-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W P

534699 DALY - NO. 42C-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W S

534700 DALY - NO. 31C-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W P

532730 TWENTY MILE - NO. 21C3523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W P

535023 TWENTY MILE - NO. 12C3523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W P

540284 DALY - NO. 44A-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W S

540296 DALY - NO. 43A-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W S

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix F 

API WOGNumber Well Name Company Location Sta

540297 DALY - NO. 42A-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W S

540298 DALY - NO. 41A-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W S

540299 DALY - NO. 34A-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W S

540300 DALY - NO. 33A-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W P

540314 DALY - NO. 32A-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W P

540315 DALY - NO. 31A-3523 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 35 52 N 73 W P

538837 STATE - NO. 41C-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

551904 STATE - NO. 14A-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

533471 STATE - NO. 24C-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

531499 STATE - NO. 41A-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

531588 STATE - NO. 44C-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

531589 STATE - NO. 43C-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W S

531590 STATE - NO. 31C-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

531591 STATE - NO. 13C-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

531611 STATE - NO. 22EC-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

532260 STATE - NO. 21C-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

531802 STATE - NO. 11C-36 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

531803 STATE - NO. 33C-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

531848 STATE - NO. 42C-3623 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 36 52 N 73 W P

531882 LYNDE - NO. 24C2-3032 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 30 53 N 72 W P

533407 LYNDE - NO. 14C-3032 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 30 53 N 72 W P

533416 LYNDE - NO. 23C-3032 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 30 53 N 72 W P

532960 HALL REDERAL - NO. 24C2533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 25 53 N 73 W P

F-16 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
API Number Well Name Company Location 

WOG

Sta

532091 LYNDE - NO. 44C-2533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 25 53 N 73 W P

534846 LYNDE - NO. 34C-2533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 25 53 N 73 W P

532984 HALL FEDERAL - NO. 33C3533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY LP NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 35 53 N 73 W P534795 HALL - NO. 44C-3533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION 

COMPANY LP 

SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 35 53 N 73 W P

533908 STATE - NO. 44C-3633 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 36 53 N 73 W P

533910 STATE - NO. 33C-3633 BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 36 53 N 73 W P

API = American petroleum institute; WOGCC = Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; mcf = thousand cubic feet; bbls = barrels; PS = pumping submersible; SI = shut-in; PG 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
APPENDIX G 

AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 
Appendix G 

APPENDIX G: AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 

Introduction 

As part of the leasing and permitting process for the Hay Creek II lease by application (LBA) 

tract, the Buckskin Mine contracted with IML Air Science, a division of Inter-Mountain 

Laboratories, Inc., to assess potential air quality impacts from mining the proposed tract or an 

alternative tract configuration within the general analysis area. A portion of the information in 

this air quality appendix is taken from the Air Quality Technical Support Document 

(McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. 2007) prepared for the West Antelope II Coal Lease 

Application Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This information has been updated to 

current conditions by Inter-Mountain Labs, Inc. 

The purpose of this appendix is to provide background information on air quality issues, 

including the regulatory framework, regional air quality conditions, dispersion model 

methodologies, and the best available control technology (BACT) process. The actual analyses 

of known and potential impacts under various alternatives considered in the Hay Creek II LBA 

EIS appear in section 3.4 of that document. The information presented in the EIS and this 

technical support document is focused primarily on impacts from emission sources at the 

Buckskin Mine, the applicant in the EIS. Emissions from neighboring mines are accounted for 

in the regional monitoring and near-field dispersion modeling discussions. Analysis methods 

used in preparing this Air Quality Technical Support Document meet or exceed the BLM’s “Data 

Adequacy Standards for the Powder River Coal Region” (BLM 1987) and include use of recent 

and extensive air quality modeling analyses conducted at the Buckskin Mine by IML Air Science 

for recent permitting actions. 

Regulatory Background 

Ambient air quality and air pollution emissions are regulated under federal and state laws and 

regulations. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division 

(WDEQ/AQD) is responsible for managing air quality through the Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations and the Wyoming State Implementation Plan. The WDEQ/AQD has 

also been delegated authority by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement 

federal programs of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

The WDEQ/AQD implements the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations and Clean 

Air Act Amendments through various air permitting programs. A proponent initiating a project 

must undergo new source review and obtain a pre-construction permit or a permit waiver 

authorizing construction of the project. This process ensures that the project will comply with 

the air quality requirements at the time of construction. To ensure ongoing compliance, the 

WDEQ/AQD also implements an operating permit program that can require ongoing monitoring 

of emissions sources and/or source control systems. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application G-1 
Appendix G 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. These standards define the maximum level of air 

pollution allowed in the ambient air. The CAA established NAAQS for six pollutants, known as 

“criteria” pollutants, which “... cause or contribute to air pollution which may be reasonably 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare and the presence of which in the ambient air 

results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources.” The six, present-day criteria 

pollutants are lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone 

(O3) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), where PM10 is coarse particulate with mean 

aerodynamic diameters less than 10 microns and PM2.5 is fine particulate with a diameter of 

2.5 microns or less. 

The CAA and Clean Air Act Amendments allow states to promulgate additional ambient air 

standards that are at least as stringent, or more stringent, than the NAAQS. The NAAQS and 

Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS), set by the WDEQ/AQD, are listed in 

table G-1. In some instances, the Wyoming standards are more stringent than the national 

standards. 

During the new source review process, applicants must demonstrate that the facility will not 

cause or significantly contribute to exceedance of these standards. These demonstrations are 

made via atmospheric dispersion modeling or other means, including monitoring data approved 

by the WDEQ/AQD administrator. 

The federal standard for particulate matter pollutant was specified as total suspended particles 

(TSP) until 1987. This measurement included all particulates generally less than 100 microns in 

diameter. In 1987, the form of the federal standard was changed from TSP to PM10 to better 

reflect human health effects. Wyoming added the PM10 standard in 1989, but also retained the 

TSP standard until March 2000. In 1997, the EPA set separate standards for fine particles 

(PM2.5), based on their link to serious health problems. The EPA adopted an interim PM2.5 

standard in April 2005, and that standard was later modified in September 2006. That year, the 

EPA again revised the air quality standards for particulate matter by tightening the 24-hour PM2.5 

standard from the previous level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35 μg/m3 and 

revoking the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3. The 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. In view of the December 2006 revisions to the NAAQS for particulate 

matter, the State of Wyoming entered into rulemaking to revise the WAAQS for particulate 

matter so that they remain as stringent as or more stringent than the NAAQS. The current 

Wyoming and federal ambient air standards for PM10 and PM2.5 are shown in table G-1. The old 

TSP standard has not been part of Wyoming’s monitoring requirements for more than 10 years. 

The PM2.5 standard is not currently applied to modeling of surface mine emissions. Therefore, 

any discussion of particulate modeling in Wyoming is confined to PM10 emissions. Even with 

the evolution of state or federal small size particulate standards, TSP is still monitored in some 

PRB locations. 

G-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Table G-1. Six Criteria Air Pollutant Concentrations and Applicable Standards in the Powder River Basin (μ

Criteria Pollutant 

CO 

Averaging Time1 

1-hour 

8-hour 

Background

Concentration 

3,3364 

1,381 

Primary NAAQS2 

40,000 10,000 

Secondary

NAAQS2

40,000 10,000 

WAAQS 

40,000 10,000 

PSD Clas

Increme

— — 

NO2 Annual 55 100 100 100 2.5 

O3 8-hour 706 147 147 147 — 

SO2 3-hour 

24-hour 

Annual 

1817 

627 137 

— 

365 

80 

1,300 

— — 

1,300 

260 

60 

25 

5 2 

PM108 24-hour 

Annual 

549 

139 

150 

— 

150 

— 

150 

50 

8 4 

PM2.58 24-hour 

Annual 

1310 

410 

35 15 

35 15 

65 15 

— — 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; WAAQS = Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards; PSD = Prevention of Significant Deterioratio

monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; 03 = ozone; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter measuring 2.5 micron

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 welfare. 3 All NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD increments are intended to evaluate a threshold of concern and do not represent a regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. 4 Data collected by Amoco at Ryckman Creek for an 8-month period during 1978–1979, summarized in Riley Ridge EIS (BLM 1983). 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, the EPA published final revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter that took effect on December 18, 2006. The revision strengthens the 24-hour PM2.5 stand

revokes the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3. The State of Wyoming entered 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 2002. 

Source: BLM 2005a and WDEQ/AQD 2002 annual report for each mine, unless otherwise noted above. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

Appendix G 

Attainment/Non-Attainment Area Designations 

Pursuant to the CAA, the EPA has developed a method for classifying existing air quality in 

distinct geographic regions known as air basins, or air quality control regions, and/or 

metropolitan statistical areas. For each federal criteria pollutant, each air basin (or portion of a 

basin or statistical area) is classified as in “attainment” if the area has “attained” compliance with 

the adopted NAAQS for that pollutant, or is classified as in “non-attainment” if the levels of 

ambient air pollution exceed the NAAQS for that pollutant. Areas for which sufficient ambient 

monitoring data are not available to define attainment status are designated as “unclassified” for 

those particular pollutants. 

States use the EPA method to designate areas within their borders as being in “attainment” or 

“non-attainment” with the NAAQS. Most of the Wyoming PRB, including the general analysis 

area, is designated an attainment area for all pollutants. However, the town of Sheridan, 

Wyoming, located in Sheridan County about 100 miles northwest of the general analysis area, is 

a moderate non-attainment area for PM10 due to localized sources and activity. No other 

non-attainment areas are within 150 miles of the general analysis area. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Under requirements of the CAA, the EPA has established prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) rules, intended to prevent deterioration of air quality in attainment and unclassifiable 

areas. Increases in ambient concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10 are limited to modest 

increments above the existing or “baseline” air quality in most attainment areas of the country 

(Class II areas discussed below), and to very small incremental increases in pristine attainment 

areas (Class I areas discussed below). 

For the purposes of PSD, the EPA has categorized each attainment area in the U.S. into one of 

three area classifications. PSD Class I is the most restrictive air quality category, and was 

created by Congress to prevent further deterioration of air quality in national and international 

parks, national memorial parks, and national wilderness areas of a given size threshold which 

were in existence prior to 1977, when the CAA was enacted, or those additional areas which 

have since been designated Class I under federal regulations (40 CFR 52.21). Such parks and 

wilderness areas are considered “mandatory” Class I areas, because they cannot be redesignated. 

Attainment areas defined as Class I at the request of a state or tribe (e.g., Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation) are considered “designated” Class I areas; this category is intended to protect air 

quality in areas of particular interest to the requesting entity. Because designated Class I areas 

are given that status by request rather than by assignment from the EPA, they can be 

redesignated at the option of the requesting state or tribe. For all practical purposes, however, 

both Class I categories are treated the same in terms of air quality and visibility impact modeling. 

All remaining areas outside of mandatory or designated Class I boundaries were classified as 

Class II areas, which allow a relatively greater deterioration of air quality over that in existence 

in 1977, although still within the NAAQS. No Class III areas, which would allow further 

degradation, have been defined. 

G-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

The federal land managers have also identified certain federal assets with Class II status as 

“sensitive” Class II areas for which air quality and/or visibility are valued resources. 

The closest mandatory Class I areas to the general analysis area are Wind Cave National Park 

and Badlands National Park in South Dakota, located about 123 miles east and 165 miles eastsoutheast of the site, respectively. The closest designated Class I area is the Northern Cheyenne 

Indian Reservation (in Montana), located about 74 miles from the general analysis area. The 

closest sensitive areas are the Class II Devils Tower National Monument and the Class II Cloud 

Peak Wilderness Area, which are approximately 42 and 81 miles from the general analysis area, 

respectively. PSD regulations limit the maximum allowable increase (increment) in ambient 

PM10 in a Class I airshed resulting from major stationary sources or major modifications to 4 

μg/m3 (annual geometric mean) and 8 μg/m3 (24-hour average). Increases in other criteria 

pollutants are similarly limited. Specific types of facilities listed in the PSD rules which emit, or 

have the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of PM10 or other criteria air pollutants, or 

any other facility which emits, or has the potential to emit, 250 tons per year or more of PM10 or 

other criteria air pollutants, are considered major stationary sources and must demonstrate 

compliance with those incremental standards during the new source permitting process. Fugitive 

emissions are not counted against the PSD major source applicability threshold unless the source 

is so designated by federal rule (40 CFR 52.21). As a result, the surface coal mines in the PRB 

have not been subject to permitting under the PSD regulations because the mine emissions that 

are subject to PSD applicability levels fall below these thresholds. 

Best Available Control Technology 

All sources being permitted in Wyoming must meet state-specific BACT requirements, 

regardless of whether the source is subject to state/federal PSD review. During new source 

review, a BACT analysis is developed for the proposed project. The BACT analysis must 

evaluate all control options on the basis of technical, economic, and environmental feasibility. 

BACT for mining operations in the PRB is largely dictated by categorical control requirements 

defined in the WAQSR. BACT decisions are mandated through the new source review preconstruction permit. 

New Source Performance Standards 

The New Source Performance Standards are a program of “end-of-stack” technology-based 

controls/approaches required by the CAA and adopted by reference into the WAQSR. These 

standards, which apply to specific types of new, modified or reconstructed stationary sources, 

require the sources to achieve some base level of emissions control. For surface coal mining in 

the PRB, this includes certain activities at coal preparation plants. Specifically, the applicable 

requirements can be found at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Y (Standards of Performance for Coal 

Preparation Plants), and in the WAQSR. However, these standards are typically less stringent 

than state-level BACT limits. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application G-5 
Appendix G 

Federal Operating Permit Program 

The Clean Air Act Amendments require the establishment of a facility-wide permitting program 

for larger sources of pollution. This program, known as the Federal Operating Permit Program, 

or Title V, requires that major sources of air pollutants obtain a federal operating permit. Under 

this program, a “major source” is a facility that has the potential to emit more than 100 tons per 

year of any regulated pollutant, 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons 

per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants, from applicable sources. The 

operating permit is a compilation of all applicable air quality requirements for a facility and 

requires an ongoing demonstration of compliance through testing, monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. Under its proposed permit application, the Buckskin Mine’s 

relevant potential to emit PM10 would be 15.8 tons per year, well below the 100 tons per year 

threshold. Fugitive emissions at coal mines do not contribute to the Title V applicability 

determination. 

Summary of Pre-Construction Permitting Procedures 

The WDEQ/AQD administers a permitting program to assist the agency in managing the state’s 

air resources. Under this program, anyone planning to construct, modify, or use a facility 

capable of emitting designated pollutants into the atmosphere must obtain an air quality permit to 

construct. Coal mines fall into this category. A new coal mine, or a modification to an existing 

mine, must be permitted by WDEQ/AQD, pursuant to the provisions of WAQSR Chapter 6, 

Section 2. Under these provisions, a successful permittee must demonstrate that it will comply 

with all applicable aspects of the WAQSR including state and federal ambient air standards. 

When a permittee decides to construct a new surface coal mine or modify operations at an 

existing surface coal mine that will cause an increase in pollutant emissions, they must submit an 

application, which is reviewed by WDEQ/AQD new source review staff and the applicable 

WDEQ/AQD field office. Typically, a company will meet with the WDEQ/AQD prior to 

submitting an application to determine issues and details that need to be included in the 

application. A surface coal mining application will include the standard application, BACT 

measures that will be implemented, an inventory of point and fugitive sources for the mine in 

question as well as neighboring mines and other sources, and air quality modeling analyses 

addressing cumulative impacts in the mining region. 

The BACT must be employed at all sources permitted/exempted in Wyoming. Per WAQSR 

Chapter 6, Section 2, BACT at large mining operations typically include but are not be limited 

to: paving of access roads, treating of haul routes with chemical dust suppressant (and water), 

and storage of large amounts of materials/coal awaiting shipment in enclosures such as silos, 

troughs or barns. These and other mitigation measures are considered in the development of 

emission inventories used for modeling/permitting. 

For the modeling analyses, an applicant must compile an emission inventory of PM10 from their 

mining operation, neighboring mines, and other surrounding sources. For PM10 from the 

applicant mine, both point source and fugitive dust emissions are quantified. The emissions are 

G-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

based on the facility’s potential to emit in each year of the life of the mine. The applicant also 

examines the surrounding coal mining operations and their most recent air quality permits to 

determine their emissions throughout the life of the mine. Two or more worst-case years 

(generally with the highest potential emissions) are then modeled in detail for ambient air quality 

impacts. Other surrounding emission sources may also be considered in the modeling analysis. 

The model years used for this analysis were 2011 and 2012. More information about modeling 

conducted at the Buckskin Mine and the neighboring northern group of mines is provided in 

attachment A to this appendix. 

Long-term PM10 modeling is conducted for the permit application to demonstrate compliance 

with the annual PM10 standard. For the point and area sources, the Industrial Source Complex 

Long Term model, version 3 (ISCLT3), is typically used. 

The WDEQ/AQD has recently required all mines in the PRB to “submit and justify a 

background PM10 concentration with each permit application” (WDEQ/AQD 2006). A site 

specific PM10 background concentration of 12 μg/m3 was developed in the modeling analysis 

and submitted to the WDEQ/AQD for approval in March 2006, prior to submitting the 

Application to Modify the Buckskin Mine. With WDEQ/AQD approval, the PM10 modeling 

results were added to this background and compared to the annual standard. Likewise, 

compliance with the annual NO2 standard was verified using ISCLT3 and added to the 

WDEQ/AQD-approved NO2 background concentration. 

Short-term PM10 modeling is not required by WDEQ/AQD, nor does the agency consider it to be 

an accurate representation of short-term impacts. Section 234 of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

mandates the administrator of the EPA to analyze the accuracy of short-term modeling of 

fugitive particulate emissions from surface coal mines. A June 26, 1996 letter from EPA Region 

VIII to Wyoming State Representative Ms. Barbara Cubin, details the results of an EPA study 

wherein the short-term model failed to meet evaluation criteria and tended to significantly 

overpredict 24-hour impacts of surface coal mines. The memorandum of agreement of January 

24, 1994 between EPA Region VIII and the State of Wyoming allows WDEQ/AQD to conduct 

monitoring in lieu of short-term modeling for assessing coal mining-related impacts in the PRB. 

This agreement remains in effect and ambient particulate monitoring is required of each coal 

mine through conditions of their respective permits. The 1994 Memorandum of Agreement also 

requires WDEQ/AQD to implement “Best Available Work Practice” mitigation measures at any 

mine where an exceedance of the PM10 air quality standard has occurred (Federal Register: 

September 12, 1995,Volume 60, Number 176). 

The permit application is reviewed by WDEQ/AQD to determine compliance with all applicable 

air quality standards and regulations. This includes review of compliance with emission 

limitations established by New Source Performance Standards, review of compliance with 

ambient standards through modeling analyses, and establishment of control measures to meet 

BACT requirements. The WDEQ/AQD proposed permit conditions are sent to public notice for 

a 30-day review period, after which a final decision on the permit is made (or a public hearing is 

held prior to a final permit decision). 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application G-7 
Appendix G 

The Buckskin Mine has prepared permit applications and conducted air quality modeling 

analyses (Attachment A) when mine plan changes have dictated and as required by 

WDEQ/AQD. These applications and analyses demonstrate that mining operations have 

complied, and will continue to comply, with all applicable aspects of the WAQSR and the Clean 

Air Act Amendments. 

Coal mines in the PRB are also required to quantify nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from their 

operations. Dispersion modeling is required to demonstrate compliance with the ambient NO2 

standard. Potential emissions from diesel powered mining equipment, blasting, and locomotive 

emissions (on mine property) are considered in the modeling analyses. In a fashion similar to the 

PM10 analysis, neighboring mining operations and other surrounding sources are also included in 

the NOx /NO2 analysis. Regional NOx sources generally include power plants, natural gas 

compressor stations, paved highways, long-haul railroad lines, and municipalities. 

Existing Air Quality 

WDEQ/AQD monitors air quality through an extensive network of air quality monitors 

throughout the state. The eastern portion of the PRB has an extensive network of PM10 monitors 

operated by the mining industry due to the density of coal mines in the region (Figure G-1). 

Monitors are also located in Sheridan, Gillette, Arvada, and Wright, Wyoming. 

This network is sited to measure ambient air quality and to infer impacts from specific sources. 

Source-specific monitors may also be used for developing trends in PM10 concentrations. The 

WDEQ/AQD uses data from this monitoring network to identify potential air quality problems 

and to anticipate issues related to air quality. With this information, the WDEQ/AQD can stop 

or reverse trends that negatively affect the ambient air. Part of that effort has resulted in the 

formation of a coalition involving the counties, coal companies, and coal bed natural gas 

(CBNG) operators to focus on minimizing dust from roads. 

The WDEQ/AQD may also take enforcement action to remedy a situation where monitoring 

shows a violation of any standard. If a monitored standard is exceeded at a specific source, the 

state agency may initiate enforcement against that source. In those instances, the state agency 

may use a negotiated settlement agreement to seek corrective action. 

WDEQ/AQD operates two visibility monitoring stations in the PRB, both of which are 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) sites. One of these sites 

is located north of Gillette. This site includes a nephelometer, a transmissometer, an aerosol 

monitor (IMPROVE protocol), and meteorological instruments to measure wind speed, direction, 

temperature, and relative humidity. The site is also equipped with a digital camera and analyzers 

for ozone and NOx. The second visibility monitoring station is located west of Buffalo and 

includes a nephelometer, a transmissometer, an aerosol monitor (IMPROVE), meteorological 

instruments to measure wind speed, direction, temperature, and relative humidity, plus a digital 

camera. 

G-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Figure G-1 

Active PM10 Monitoring Stations in Northeastern Wyoming 
Appendix G 

Air quality monitoring equipment for NO2 within the PRB includes a WARMS operated by the 

BLM to detect sulfur and nitrogen concentrations near Buffalo, Sheridan, and Newcastle and a 

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring system for precipitation 

chemistry in Newcastle. WDEQ/AQD operates ambient NOx monitoring systems near the Belle 

Ayr and Antelope mines. 

Particulates 

The WDEQ/AQD requires monitoring data to document the air quality at all of the PRB mines. 

Each mine monitored PM10 for a 24-hour period every six days at multiple monitoring sites 

through the end of 2001. This frequency was increased by the WDEQ/AQD to one in every 

three days at many sites beginning in 2002. Continuous PM10 monitoring in the PRB began in 

2001 and the number of continuous monitors has increased steadily since. As a result, the 

eastern PRB is one of the most densely monitored areas in the country (Figure G-1). Table G-2 

uses the annual arithmetic average of all sites to summarize these data. 

The long-term trend in particulate emissions was relatively flat from 1980 through 1998, despite 

a six-fold increase in coal production and a ten-fold increase in overburden stripping. This 

relatively flat trend in particulate emissions is due in large part to the BACT requirements of the 

Wyoming air quality program. These control measures include watering and chemical treatment 

of roads, limiting the amount of area disturbed, temporary revegetation of disturbed areas to 

reduce wind erosion, and expedited final reclamation. 

The increases PM10 concentrations in 1999 and 2000 (table G-2) may be related to drought 

conditions as well as increases in coal and overburden production at the PRB mines, and 

coincident increases in other natural resource development activities such as CBNG. 

The average annual PM10 concentration increased from 15.3 μg/m3 in 1997 to 24.4 μg/m3 in 

2000. The average monitored concentrations decreased to 19.6 μg/m3 in 2004, but increased to 

25.4 μg/m3

 by 2007, the latest year for which complete statistics are available. 

Table G-2. Summary of PM10 Monitoring in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, 1997–2007 

Year Number of Monitors Average Concentration 

1997 18 15.3 

1998 19 15.8 

1999 20 21.4 

2000 23 24.4 

2001 28 23.4 

2002 32 21.9 

2003 34 20.8 

2004 36 19.6 

2005 36 21.1 

G-10 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

Year Number of Monitors Average Concentration 

2006 36 23.9 

2007 35 25.4 

Source: EPA AirExplorer, 2009 

County roads are also responsible for some portion of the fugitive dust related to transportation. 

To help address this problem, the Campbell County Commissioners, CBNG and oil production 

companies, and coal mine operators have formed a coalition to implement the most effective dust 

control measures on a number of county roads. Measures taken have ranged from the 

implementation of speed limits to paving of heavily traveled roads. The coalition has used 

chemical treatments and alternative road surface materials to control dust as well as closing roads 

where appropriate or necessary and rebuilding existing roads to higher specifications. The 

coalition requested money from the Wyoming State Legislature to fund acquisition of Rotomill 

(ground up asphalt) to be mixed with gravel for use in treating some of the roads in the PRB. 

The Rotomill/gravel mixture has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing dust; the life of 

the mixture on treated roads is estimated to be from five to six years (Bott 2006). 

The most recent air permit action for the Buckskin Mine used a background concentration of 

12 μg/m3

 for PM10, based on a five-year history of continuous monitoring at two Buckskin sites. 

Modeled PM10 impacts include this background and the impacts from other coal mines in the 

northern PRB. The NO2 background concentration was assumed to be 14 μg/m3 based on 

recently monitored values at the Belle Ayr Mine in 2001 and 2002. Modeled NO2 impacts 

include this background and the impacts from regional sources such as other coal mines in the 

northern PRB, natural gas compressors, power plants, railroads, highways and urban sources. 

In 2006, the Buckskin Mine submitted detailed modeling analyses to the WDEQ/AQD in support 

of a request for a permit modification, which addressed the impacts associated with a proposed 

production increase to its current permitted level of 42 million tons per year and proposed 

improvements to mine facilities. These analyses considered all emissions sources and included 

the neighboring Eagle Butte, Rawhide, Dry Fork, Wyodak and Fort Union mines. The 

WDEQ/AQD approved the mine modification in Permit MD-1379, issued January 17, 2007. 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

Annual mean NO2 concentrations have been periodically measured in the PRB since 1975. The 

annual mean NO2 concentrations recorded by those monitoring efforts have all been well below 

the 100 μg/m3 standard. The highest annual mean concentration recorded to date was 22 μg/m3 

at two separate sites between March 1996 and April 1997. 

NO2 is a product of incomplete combustion at sources such as gasoline- and diesel-burning 

engines or from mine blasting activities. Incomplete combustion during blasting may be caused 

by wet conditions, fractured geological formations, deformation of bore holes, and other factors. 

Generally, blasting-related NOx emissions are more prevalent at operations that use the blasting 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application G-11 
Appendix G 

technique referred to as cast blasting (Chancellor pers. comm.). Cast blasting refers to a type of 

direct blasting in which the blast is designed to cast the overburden from on top of the coal into 

the previously mined area. The Buckskin mine does not use this technique and does not 

anticipate doing so in the future. The higher strip ratios at Buckskin do not lend themselves to 

dragline excavation, with which cast blasting is commonly associated. 

Mining sources of NOx were modeled as fugitive emissions from the areas where mining 

activities were projected to occur. These included overburden and coal blasting emissions, 

tailpipe emissions from mobile equipment, and locomotive tailpipe emissions from the Buckskin, 

Rawhide, Eagle Butte, Dry Fork, Fort Union and Wyodak mines. Stationary equipment tailpipe 

emissions from Buckskin were also modeled. NOx emissions from blasting were estimated using 

emission factors provided from EPA guidance document AP-42, Section 13.3, “Explosives 

Detonation.” EPA emission factors were also used for NOx emissions from tailpipes and 

locomotives (EPA 2009). 

In the mid-to late-1990s, OSM received complaints from several citizens about NO2 emissions 

from blasting (particularly cast blasts) from several mines in the PRB. The EPA expressed 

concerns that NO2 levels in some of those blasting clouds may have been sufficiently high at 

times to cause human health effects. The WDEQ/AQD also had general concerns about levels of 

NOx from all types of development in the PRB. In response to those concerns, the coal mining 

industry instituted a monitoring network in cooperation with the WDEQ/AQD to gather data on 

NOx emissions beginning in 2001. Additional monitoring was conducted throughout the PRB 

from 2003 to 2006. Coal mines in the PRB, including the Buckskin Mine, have voluntarily 

modified their blasting techniques; the WDEQ/AQD has imposed additional blasting restrictions 

at a limited number of mines (excluding Buckskin). More information about these studies and 

restrictions is presented in the following discussion. 

On the order of the Director of the WDEQ, members of the mining industry in the PRB 

conducted a comprehensive, multi-year monitoring and modeling study of NO2 exposures from 

blast clouds. The study was conducted at the Black Thunder Mine in the southern PRB, which is 

one of the largest surface coal mines in the nation. Results of the study (Thunder Basin Coal 

Company 2002), conducted pursuant to protocols reviewed and approved by the WDEQ/AQD, 

were provided to the agency and the public in July 2002. 

Using a combination of NO2 measurements collected near 91 blast sites (78 valid runs) and a 

conservative modeling/extrapolation approach, the authors developed a series of “safe” setback 

curves for coal, overburden, and cast shots for various wind speed classes. The curves were 

derived from the sampled data, conservative projections of concentrations at greater/lesser 

distances than measured, and an assumed safe level (based on a comprehensive review of 

available health effects data) of 5.0 parts per million for 10 minutes. 

Subsequently, the data in the 2002 report were augmented with monitored data/analyses from an 

additional 45 validated blast events at the Eagle Butte, North Antelope Rochelle, Buckskin, and 

Cordero-Rojo mines. New curves were developed, based on the entire basin-wide data set, 

G-12 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix G 

encompassing 123 valid tests, but they differed only slightly from the original Black Thunder 

curves. 

Other regional sources of NOx are also modeled. These included power plants (Neil Simpson I 

and II, Wygen I, II, and III, Wyodak, Two Elk, and Dry Fork Station), gas compressor stations, 

railroads, highways and the City of Gillette. The KFx coal upgrading facility was also modeled. 

Emission factors and rates for these regional sources were provided by the WDEQ/AQD. 

Highways, railroads and urban areas were modeled as area sources, while the power plants, 

compressor stations and KFx were treated as point sources. 

Individual and combined impacts from Buckskin, the other northern mines, and regional sources 

were evaluated at all model receptors. These receptors were placed around the perimeter of the 

North Area mines and outward in a rectangular grid with 500-meter spacing. The extent of the 

receptor grid was sufficient to encompass the area of significant NOx impact from the Buckskin 

Mine (1.0 μg/m3 or more). NO2 impacts were derived by multiplying modeled NOx 

concentrations by 75% (per Section 6.2.3 of EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models, Appendix 

W to 40 CFR Part 51) and adding a background NO2 concentration of 14 μg/m3. This 

background was based on WDEQ/AQD guidance and ambient NOx monitoring results at 

Foundation Coal’s Belle Ayr Mine in 2001 and 2002. 

Sources of fugitive NOx emissions at the Buckskin 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. The mine does not have any point sources for NOx. 

NOx modeling was conducted in support of the Buckskin Mining Company’s June 2006 air 

permit application. Similar in scope to the PM10 analysis, emissions from Buckskin, neighboring 

mines and other regional sources were modeled for the two worst-case years of 2011 and 2012. 

Maximum annual NO2 impacts (including regional sources and background concentration) at any 

model receptor of 38.0 μg/m3 and 37.8 μg/m3 were predicted in 2011 and 2012 respectively, as 

compared to the annual NO2 NAAQS of 100 μg/m3

. At the model receptor where these 

maximum values occurred, Buckskin’s contributions were 1.6 μg/m3 in 2011 and 1.8 μg/m3 in 

2012. This receptor is in an area impacted primarily by neighboring mines. 

Ozone 

O3 has the same chemical structure whether it occurs miles above the earth or at ground-level 

and can be "good" or "bad," depending on its location in the atmosphere. In the earth's lower 

atmosphere, ground-level O3 is considered "bad." Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial 

emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC 

that help form O3. Ground-level O3 is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot 

weather cause ground-level O3 to form in harmful concentrations in the air. As a result, it is 

known as a summertime air pollutant. Many urban areas tend to have high levels of "bad" O3, 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application G-13 
Appendix G 

but even rural areas are also subject to increased O3 levels because wind carries O3 and pollutants 

that form it hundreds of miles away from their original sources. 

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has set protective health-based standards for O3 in the air we 

breathe. Prior to May 27, 2008, the NAAQ 8-hour standard for O3 was 0.080 parts per million 3

(157 μg/m ). On March 27, 2008 (effective May 27, 2008) the EPA revised the 8-hour standard 

3

to 0.075 parts per million (147 μg/m ). Ozone monitoring is not required by the WDEQ/AQD at 

the Buckskin Mine but levels have been monitored at WDEQ/AQD operated and maintained 

ambient air quality monitor sites in the PRB since 2001. An exceedance of the O3 8-hour 

standard occurs if the 4th-highest daily maximum value is above the level of the standard 

(0.08 parts per million prior to 2008 and 0.075 parts per million since 2008). 

References 

Bott, Kelly. WDEQ/AQD, Cheyenne, WY. November 28, 2006—email to Nancy Doelger, 

BLM, Casper, WY. 

Chancellor, Rick. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Cheyenne State Office, 

Cheyenne, WY. June 16, 2003. 

McVehil-Monnett Associates (MMA). 2007. Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document 

(AQTSD) for the West Antelope II LBA. March. Englewood, CO 

Thunder Basin Coal Company. 2002. Black Thunder Mine Report for Development of SAE 

Setback Distances for Blasting Activities at the Black Thunder Mine. July. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Data Adequacy Standards for the Powder River Coal 

Region. November. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. AP-42 Volume II, Mobile Sources, Compilation 

of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/oms/ap42.htm>. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD). 2006. 

PRB Coal Mine Permitting Guidance Memorandum. Available: 

<http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/sec21/PRB%20Permit%20Guidance_4.pdf>. Accessed: 

February 24, 2007. 

G-14 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
ATTACHMENT A – AIR QUALITY MODELING SUMMARY 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for Bureau of Land Management 

 BLM Wyoming State Office 

Casper Field Office 

Casper, Wyoming 

Air Quality Modeling Summary 

Buckskin Mine Permit MD-1513 

April 2009 by IML Air Science 

555 Absaraka 

Sheridan, WY 82801

 (307) 674-7506 
 

1.0 Introduction 

In June 2006, IML Air Science. (IML) submitted a modeling study to the Wyoming Department 

of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division (AQD) on behalf of the Buckskin Coal Company 

(BCC). This study was performed in support of a BCC permit application to increase annual 

coal production at the Buckskin Mine from 27.5 MMTPY to 42 MMTPY and to install a new 

truck dump, primary and secondary crusher, conveyor, transfer tower and coal silo to 

accommodate this increase. Based on the modeling and permit application, Permit MD-1513 

was subsequently issued on January 17, 2007 by the AQD. This document summarizes the 

modeling process and results from that study, as referenced in the Hay Creek II Environmental 

Impact Study. 

Since mine plan changes were necessitated by this coal production increase, the goal of this 

modeling study was to demonstrate that the proposed changes would not prevent the attainment 

or maintenance of the PM10 and NO2 air quality standards in Wyoming. To that end, air quality 

modeling in Wyoming consists of the following steps: 

• Development of an updated mine plan to account for the coal production increase 

• Generating an updated list of equipment required to achieve the production increase 

• Determination of “open acreage” requirements 

• Determination of BACT for qualifying fugitive and point sources 

• Determination of miscellaneous emission control practices 

• Development of emission inventories and “worst-case” year determination 

• Determination of background PM10 and NO2 concentrations 

• Model selection, execution and results 

The following sections describe this process for the Buckskin Mine in greater detail. 

2.1 Mine Plan 

BCC’s Buckskin Mine is an existing multiple-pit surface coal mine that utilizes traditional truck 

and shovel techniques to mine coal. To account for the proposed production increase, BCC 

developed an updated topsoil stripping, coal mining and reclamation sequence, which would 

allow for coal extraction at the Buckskin Mine through the year 2018. This mine plan was 

finalized and subsequently submitted to IML for use in the model. 

1
 
2.2 Mine Equipment List 

BCC developed an inventory of mine equipment required to attain the proposed production 

increase. This inventory varies from year to year depending on haul distance, overburden 

thickness, and other factors. The percentage of larger equipment generally increases through 

time as older, smaller equipment is retired. Accompanying the production increase, BCC was to 

install a second truck dump, primary crusher, conveyor system, secondary crusher, and transfer 

tower, along with an additional coal storage silo. This information was submitted to IML for use 

in the model. 

2.3 Open Acreage 

Permitting requirements established by AQD in 2002 include a discussion of open acreage 

potentially subject to wind erosion. More specifically, the requirement is to discuss, summarize, 

and map the land status for the current year and for the years modeled. This is similar to a 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division (LQD) annual report 

requirement. Some of the information used in the model was obtained from the annual report to 

LQD for the 2005 reporting year, which represented the “current year” for the application. 

BCC projected the amount of open acreage for the modeled years of 2011 and 2012, based on the 

current open acreage and the revised topsoil stripping and reclamation sequence. These figures 

provided the “disturbed acres” subject to wind erosion in each of the modeled years’ emission 

inventories. 

2.4 BACT 

For this modeling study, a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis was performed 

by IML to take into account control measures, such as chemical applications to roads, enclosing 

silos, bins and other storage areas and treatment of active work areas. These active work areas 

include those for scrapers, blasting, overburden/coal loading areas, coal dumping, haul road 

repair and areas susceptible to wind erosion. Once these control measures were determined, they 

were used in the development of the emission inventory. 

2
 
2.5 Miscellaneous Emission Control Practices 

Other control practices contained in the emission inventory include a coal fire mitigation 

program and a haul road dust suppression program. Both of these programs act to minimize 

fugitive emissions at the mine. 

2.6 Emission Inventory Development and Worst-Case Year Selection 

Fugitive and point source emission inventories for PM10 and NOx were developed for the 

Buckskin Mine based on site-specific information provided by the mine. Fugitive and point 

source emissions for PM10 and NOx from nearby mines (Rawhide, Eagle Butte, Dry Fork, 

Wyodak and Fort Union Mines) were also developed from current permit information. The 

resultant particulate emission inventories were used to determine the years that would be 

modeled. 

Projections of future mine-wide emissions from Buckskin and other regional sources were based 

on methodologies prescribed by the AQD. Specifically, those methodologies were discussed 

with AQD staff in a pre-application conference on December 20, 2005. Subsequently, it was 

decided to use the most recent Memorandum, PRB Coal Mine Permitting Guidance, issued by 

WDEQ-AQD on February 27, 2006 (WDEQ-AQD, 2006a). This memo forms the primary basis 

for how the permitting analysis was performed. To supplement mine emission sources in the 

regional NOx modeling, AQD provided an updated inventory of NOX emissions from regional 

sources. These sources included coal bed methane (CBM) compressor stations, power plants, 

railroads, highways and urban sources. 

2.6.1 Fugitive and Point Source PM10 Emission Inventory 

BCC provided life-of-mine (LOM) coal production, overburden handling and related operational 

parameters needed for emission inventory development for the 42 MMTPY mine plan evaluated 

for this study. The parameters were used in conjunction with a set of emission factors endorsed 

by the AQD (WDEQ-AQD, 1979) and EPA’s AP-42 to calculate annual emissions of PM10 and 

NOx from each emission-producing activity. Note that the AQD emission factors calculate TSP 

3
 
emissions, which are then multiplied by AQD’s factor of 0.30 to arrive at the PM10 emission 

factors. 

The Buckskin coal preparation and processing facilities include crushers, material transfers and 

loadouts. All existing point sources at the coal preparation facilities are outfitted with either 

baghouses or Passive Enclosure Systems (PECS). The PECS eliminate the points’ potential to 

emit fugitive emissions. Such controls are deemed by WDEQ-AQD to be zero emitters. 

2.6.2 Mobile and Stationary Source PM10 Emission Inventory 

Mobile PM10 emission sources at the Buckskin Mine include scrapers, haul trucks, graders, 

dozers, water trucks, support vehicles, locomotives, drills and loaders. Emissions were 

calculated using AQD emission factors for all sources except locomotives, where the exhaust 

emission factor was calculated from EPA’s AP-42 mobile source guidance. 

PM10 emissions from stationary diesel engines were calculated using operating hours from 

calendar year 2005 as a baseline, with appropriate increases to reflect a maximum coal 

production level of 42 million tons per year. These engines include light plants, compressors, 

pumps, welders and generators. 

2.6.2 Mobile and Fugitive Source NOx Emission Inventory 

Emission sources included in this inventory are the exhaust from mobile source mining 

equipment such as scrapers, haul trucks, graders, dozers, water trucks and locomotives, and 

fugitive sources such as overburden and coal blasting events. Mobile source (tailpipe) NOx 

emissions were calculated using estimated operating hours necessary to mine coal at the future 

projected production rate and EPA approved mobile source emission factors. NOx emissions 

from blasting were calculated using estimated explosive usage necessary to mine coal at the 

future projected rate and an EPA approved emission factor. 

2.6.2 Stationary Engine NOx Emission Inventory 

NOx emissions from stationary engines were calculated using actual operating hours from 

calendar year 2005 as a baseline, with appropriate increases to reflect a maximum coal 

4
 
production level of 42 million tons per year. The emission factor for stationary engines came 

from EPA’s AP-42. 

2.7	 Regional Source Emission Inventories 

The following neighboring mines in the Nouth Group were included in the PM10 modeling 

analysis: Eagle Butte, Rawhide, Dry Fork, Wyodak and Fort Union. These mines, plus regional 

sources provided by AQD (regional power plants and point sources, CBM sources, mainline 

trains, urban areas, and road emissions), were considered in the NOx analysis. All regional NOx 

sources and emissions were obtained in accordance with methodologies approved by AQD. 

2.7.1	 Railroad, Road, Power Plant, Urban, Coal Bed Methane and Regional Point 

Sources 

The information for railroads, highways, power plants, urban areas, and regional point sources 

was provided by AQD on May 5, 2005. These sources generally fell within a 40 km by 60 km 

screening area prescribed by AQD for the regional NOx analysis. Power plants included Two Elk 

Power Plant (slightly outside the screening area), Neil Simpson I and II Power Plants, Wyodak 

Power Plant, WYGEN Unit I Power Plant and two power plants with air quality permit 

applications under review by AQD at the time of Buckskin’s submittal. These two, the Dry Fork 

Station and WYGEN Unit II were included at the advice of AQD. The sole urban source 

included in the modeling analysis was the town of Gillette. The KFx coal upgrading facility was 

also included in the analysis. Other point sources included compressor stations supporting 

oil/gas/CBM activities. Only NOx emissions were considered from these sources and no scaleup factors were used at the instructions of AQD. 

2.8 Selection of Worst-Case Years 

AQD policy requires that the maximum PM10 and NOx impacts (during the life-of-mine) from all 

mine sources be identified and compared to the applicable air quality standards. Because it is not 

practical to model all of the years in the life-of-mine, years with maximum annual emissions 

from mining operations are determined and then modeled. Model results for these “worst-case” 

emission years are then compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. If the 

5
 
maximum impact is below the air quality standard, it can be assumed that the standard will be 

achieved throughout the LOM. 

Based on Buckskin Mine and regional emission inventories, LOM years 2011 and 2012 were 

chosen as worst-cases to be modeled. Year 2012 was selected primarily because it represents 

the highest annual PM10 emission year for the Buckskin Mine (1,180 tons/year); 2011 represents 

the highest annual PM10 emissions for all North Group mines combined. 

These model years are also among the worst-case for Buckskin NOx emissions, with 2012 having 

the highest annual emissions (1,689 tons/year), and 2011 having the third highest annual 

emissions (1,625 tons/year). Year 2011 also has the highest NOx emission total for the North 

Group mines. Therefore, the selection of these worst-case years will also provide the maximum 

potential NOx impacts on the Nouth Group modeling area. 

2.9 Dispersion Modeling Methodology 

Cumulative PM10 impacts from Buckskin Mine and neighboring mines were modeled using the 

Industrial Source Complex Long-Term (ISCLT3) Model. PM10 impacts were modeled for all 

facilities for the two worst-case years, and concentrations were calculated at receptors located 

along the Lands Necessary to Conduct Mining (LNCM) boundaries for the North Group mines. 

The cumulative PM10 concentrations at each receptor location were compared to the Wyoming 

and Federal annual ambient air quality standard of 50 μg/m3 to determine compliance with that 

standard. 

NO2 impacts from Buckskin and neighboring sources were also modeled for the two worst-case 

years. However, an initial model run was first performed for each worst-case year to determine 

the significant impact area (≥ 1μg/m3 annual average NOx impact) produced on a regional 

receptor grid from sources within the Buckskin Mine only. Then, additional model runs for each 

worst-case year considered all sources from the area mines, as well as the regional sources, to 

determine cumulative NO2 impacts at receptors within the significant impact area. The 

cumulative NO2 concentrations were compared to the Wyoming and Federal ambient air quality 

standard of 100 μg/m3 to determine compliance. Emissions were modeled as NOx, and the final 

6
 
concentrations were multiplied by 0.75 to account for chemical conversion to NO2. The 0.75 

factor is in accordance with Section 6.2.3 of EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR 

Part 51, Appendix W). 

2.9.1 Dispersion Model 

The Industrial Source Complex Long-Term (ISCLT3) Model was used to model annual average 

PM10 and NO2 concentrations from both fugitive emission sources and point sources per AQD 

directive (WDEQ-AQD, 2006a). The latest version of ISCLT3 was downloaded from EPA’s 

Support Center for Regulatory Models. The number of sources and receptors was expanded to 

2,000 and 10,000 respectively, and the model was recompiled. ISCLT3 was run in regulatory 

default mode with rural dispersion parameters. In addition, the model was run using elevations 

for all point sources and receptors. Elevations were determined from USGS 7.5-minute digital 

elevation models (DEM’s). 

2.9.2 Terrain Data 

The DEM’s, all source locations, and receptor locations for each worst-case year were used as 

inputs into the EPA’s terrain processor, AERMAP. AERMAP uses the input data to extract 

elevations in meters for all sources and receptors. These elevations were then used in each 

respective ISCLT3 input file. 

2.9.3 Meteorological Data 

Hourly on-site meteorological data collected at the Eagle Butte Mine were used in this modeling 

analysis. AQD provided IML with the Eagle Butte six-year (1995 – 2000) Joint Frequency 

Distribution (JFD) of wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability class. Annual 

average temperatures were taken from values recorded from 1925 to 2001 at the Gillette National 

Weather Service meteorological station. Atmospheric mixing heights were provided by AQD. 

2.9.4 Receptors 

For PM10 modeling, receptors were placed along the LNCM boundaries for the Buckskin, Dry 

Fork, Eagle Butte, Rawhide, Fort Union and Wyodak Mines with a spacing of 500 meters. The 

AQD “Mine A/Mine B” policy for cumulative impacts applied to this analysis because the 

7
 
Rawhide and Buckskin mines have LNCM boundaries that overlap. Receptors were placed on 

these overlapping LNCM boundaries to model the impact of Buckskin PM10 emissions on 

Rawhide Mine’s overlapping boundary. Following the WDEQ-AQD Mine A/Mine B policy, the 

receptors from overlapping boundaries were not included in the top ten receptor concentrations. 

Compliance and significant impact receptor networks were created for the NOx modeling 

analysis. The significant impact receptor network comprised a rectangular grid 33 by 54 

kilometers on 500-meter spacing. This proved sufficiently large to encompass modeled 

significant impacts (greater than or equal to 1 μg/m3) from Buckskin Mine for years 2011 and 

2012. The NO2 compliance receptor network included the North Group Mine LNCM boundary 

receptors in addition to a rectangular grid receptor network fully containing the Buckskin-related 

NOx significant impact isopleths (1 μg/m3) for years 2011 and 2012. This network extended 28 

km in the east-west direction and 50 km in the north-south direction. All NO2 modeling 

receptors were spaced at 500-meter intervals. 

2.9.5 Emission Apportioning 

Fugitive PM10 and NOx emissions for each of the worst-case years were apportioned into area 

sources based on the activity type and location. The number and location of the area sources, as 

well as their dimensions and orientation, were based on the pit configuration and road orientation 

provided in the mining progression map. Emissions were divided by the area of each area source 

in which they occurred to arrive at an emission rate in grams/second/square meter. NOx 

emissions for the regional roads and mainline trains were also apportioned into area sources. 

2.9.6 Point Source Modeling Parameters 

Prior to this permit application, Buckskin Mine reduced the number of point sources of PM10 

emissions by converting all but four baghouses at their coal preparation facilities to PECS. 

PECS is considered a zero emission technologyl, effectively eliminating emissions from all but 

four point sources at Buckskin. Point source parameters from North Group mines were used in 

the model as identified in each mine’s most recent permit. 

2.9.7 PM10 and NO2 Background Concentration 

8
 
For both PM10 and NO2, background concentrations were added to the predicted annual average 

concentrations at each model receptor to yield total ambient concentrations. The levels of these 

background concentrations were developed in consultation with the Air Quality Division. The 

AQD has required all mines in the PRB to “submit and justify a background PM10 concentration 

with each permit application” (WDEQ-AQD, 2006a). Buckskin Mine submitted such an 

analysis to the AQD on March 20, 2006. Hourly data from the Buckskin meteorological station 

and two continuous particulate monitoring stations were studied to determine PM10 

concentrations in ambient air not impacted by the Buckskin mining operation. Four years worth 

of data were used (2002 through 2005). Approximately 60,000 hourly average PM10 

concentrations were compiled and correlated with wind directions spanning the southwest and 

northwest quadrants, the most likely sources of background air. As expected, each of the two 

particulate monitors demonstrated minimum ambient PM10 concentrations during periods when 

the wind was blowing toward the center of Buckskin mining activity. The study produced a sitespecific PM10 background concentration of 12 μg/m3

. This level was approved by the AQD prior 

to submittal of the permit Application in June, 2006. 

A background nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentration of 14 μg/m3 was obtained through ambient 

monitoring conducted in 2001 and 2002 at the Foundation Coal Belle Ayr Mine. The NO2 

background concentration has been revised from the previous value of 20 μg/m3, which was 

obtained from pre-construction monitoring conducted for the 1978-79 Wyodak project. The 

AQD considers the more recent Belle Ayr Mine NO2 data to be a more accurate representation of 

background NO2 concentrations due to the larger amount of data collected and tighter quality 

assurance procedures placed on that data. The background value of 14 μg/m3

 represented the 

highest annual average (from Belle Ayr Mine in both 2001 and 2002) taken from the four NO2 

monitors located in the area of coal bed methane activity. 

2.10 Modeling Results 

2.10.1 PM10 Modeling Analysis and Results 

The PM10 area source and point source characteristics for Buckskin Mine and the North Group 

mines were input into ISCLT3 for each worst-case year. The LNCM receptors and local 

meteorological parameters were also input to the model. The site-specific background 

9
 
concentration of 12 μg/m3

 was added to the results from the model to obtain the total impact 

from the fugitive and point sources. 

All model results from the Buckskin Mine impact analysis show concentrations, after adding 

background, below the Federal and Wyoming annual PM10 air quality standard of 50 μg/m3

. The 

maximum cumulative concentration predicted in 2011 was 40.3 μg/m3

 (including 12.0 μg/m3 

background) and occurred along the Eagle Butte LNCM. For year 2012, the maximum predicted 

cumulative concentration of 40.6 μg/m3

 (including background) also occurred along the Eagle 

Butte LNCM. Note that in 2012 sources within the Buckskin Mine contributed only 0.59 μg/m3 

to this maximum cumulative concentration. 

2.10.2 NO2 Modeling Analysis and Results 

Buckskin mine emission sources were modeled for each worst-case year in order to determine 

the extent of the annual average 1 μg/m3

 contour defining the significant impact area. Receptors 

within the significant impact areas were then modeled to determine compliance with the ambient 

air standard in the cumulative impact modeling assessment, as discussed below. 

The area source and point source NOx information for Buckskin and other North Group mines 

were input into ISCLT3 for each worst-case year along with the significant impact area receptor 

grid and JFD. Annual NOx emissions from other regional sources were also input into the 

model. Emissions were modeled as NOx, with the resulting concentrations multiplied by 0.75 to 

account for chemical conversion to NO2. The AQD-specified background concentration of 14 

μg/m3

 NO2 was then added to the model results to obtain the total impact. 

The Wyoming and Federal annual NO2 air quality standard, to which the model results are 

compared, is 100 μg/m3

. All model results for the Buckskin impact analysis show concentration 

predictions well below this value. 

The maximum cumulative concentration predicted in 2011 was 38.0 μg/m3

 (including 

background) and occurred along the Eagle Butte boundary. Buckskin’s contribution to this 

highest concentration was 1.61 μg/m3

. For 2012, the maximum predicted cumulative 

10
 
 

concentration was 37.8 μg/m3

 (including background) and also occurred along the Eagle Butte 

LNCM boundary. Buckskin’s contribution to this highest concentration was 1.79 μg/m3. 

2.10.3 Short-term Particulates 

AQD does not require modeling of fugitive dust emissions to predict compliance with the 24­

hour PM10 standard (which is 150 μg/m3, not to be exceeded more than one time per year). 

Neither EPA nor the AQD have been able to demonstrate that available modeling tools and 

emission factors are adequate for this task. Section 234 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 

required EPA to demonstrate that it had adequate modeling tools before the agency could require 

states to employ 24-hour modeling at surface coal mines. To date, that demonstration has not 

been made. 

Instead, it has been AQD’s position that ambient air monitoring data collected by the mines 

demonstrate that compliance with short-term ambient standards can be achieved when a mine 

employs BACT. A memorandum of agreement dated January 24, 1994 between EPA and the 

state of Wyoming allows AQD to use particulate monitoring in lieu of short-term modeling to 

assess 24-hour compliance and to predict short-term ambient impacts from mining. In 2002 AQD 

also began requiring a demonstration that “...mining operations will not cause or contribute to 

ambient violations...” (WDEQ-AQD, 2006a). The following discussion is a demonstration that 

Buckskin will not cause or contribute to a 24-hour PM10 ambient air violation in the area of the 

North Group. 

2.10.4.1 Historical Ambient Air Quality 

2.10.4.2 Buckskin Mine 

Ambient PM10 concentrations are monitored at two locations at the Buckskin Mine. These 

locations are identified as the West Teom and North Teom sites. Each site is equipped with a 

low-volume Rupprecht & Patashnick Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) PM10 

continuous monitor. The monitors meet the US EPA Automated Equivalency Method (EQSA0495-100). The particulate and meteorological monitoring network is operated in accordance 

with Buckskin Mine Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) approved in August 2008. Both 

monitors record hourly average and 24-hour average PM10 concentrations, with the latter being 

11
 
reported to AQD quarterly. The highest yearly second-high 24-hour PM10 concentration at the 

Buckskin Mine was 139 μg/m3, which occurred at the West Teom site in 2003. 

While none of the annual second-high PM10 concentrations at the Buckskin Mine has ever been 

over the 24-hour standard of 150 μg/m3, during the last six years three of the monitored first-high 

concentrations have exceeded this 24-hour standard. The first exceedance occurred at the North 

Teom site on August 16, 2002 and resulted in a maximum 24-hr PM10 concentration of 181.7 

μg/m3

. This exceedance correlated with strong winds and was judged an “exceptional event” by 

the AQD. A second exceedance occurred at the West Teom site on December 27, 2003 and 

resulted in a maximum 24-hr concentration of 202.4 μg/m3

. The third exceedance occurred at 

the West Teom site on March 27, 2007, resulting in a maximum 24-hr concentration of 244.0 

μg/m3

. WDEQ-AQD deemed the 2007 exceedance an “exceptional event,” as provided for by 

the recently implemented Natural Events Action Policy (NEAP). Winds on that day averaged 

over 33 mph with a peak hourly average of 42 mph. Buckskin followed all mitigation and 

documentation procedures as required by the NEAP. In all three cases detailed reports of the 

exceedance and accompanying meteorological conditions were submitted to WDEQ-AQD. 

2.10.4.3	 North Group Mines (Rawhide, Eagle Butte, Dry Fork Wyodak and Fort 

Union) 

The northern mines consist of five mines in addition to Buckskin: Dry Fork Mine, Eagle Butte 

Mine, Fort Union Mine, Rawhide Mine, and Wyodak Mine. All of the mines, with the exception 

of Fort Union, operate in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan specific to each 

mine. The Fort Union mine has not been in operation for the last several years. Besides 

Buckskin, the four other active mines in the North Group currently operate a total of 9 PM10 

monitors. Among these mines the 24-hr PM10 NAAQS of 150 μg/m3

 was exceeded three times. 

The Wyodak mine recorded a value of 165 μg/m3

 in 2005. In 2007 the Rawhide and Eagle Butte 

mines recorded 178 μg/m3 and 168 μg/m3 respectively. All three values were deemed 

“Exceptional Events” by WDEQ, due to high winds. 

2.10.4.4 Compliance Demonstration 

Under the revised mining operation modeled in this application, the Buckskin Mine will not 

12
 
cause or contribute to a violation of the 24-hour ambient air standard. The following points form 

the reasoning for this conclusion. 

•	 By virtue of monitored concentrations collected at the Buckskin Mine over the past three 

years, it is clear that mining activities at the Buckskin Mine do not cause or significantly 

contribute to violations of the 24-hour ambient air standard. The maximum highest 

second-high 24-hour PM10 concentration monitored at the Buckskin Mine during the past 

three years was below the standard at 107 μg/m3

, and the average of the highest secondhigh concentrations was 75 μg/m3

. The maximum first-high concentration in 2007 did 

exceed the standard, but was deemed the result of extremely high winds. 

•	 The replacement of baghouse controls with zero-emission PECS on all but four of the 

point sources will reduce dust emissions at Buckskin Mine. This will have a beneficial 

effect on air quality and monitored concentrations. 

•	 Modeling results indicate that it is unlikely that the Buckskin Mine will contribute in the 

future to a violation of the annual PM10.standard of 50 μg/m3

. As discussed above, the 

highest modeled annual concentrations at any of the North Group receptors in 2011 and 

2012 were 40.3 and 40.6 μg/m3

 respectively. For both years, Buckskin’s contribution to 

the highest modeled average concentrations was less than the significant impact threshold 

of 1 μg/m3. 

•	 During the times when mining emissions from the Buckskin Mine blow towards 

neighboring mines, it is unlikely that such emissions will contribute to a violation 

because of the nature of the emissions released and the distance that they must travel 

before impacting an air monitor. Mining emissions are typically low-level releases 

consisting of particulate matter that is subject to gravitational settling. Emissions from 

current Buckskin mining operations would have to travel several miles before reaching 

Rawhide Mine, which is the closest mine to Buckskin. Particulate settling over these 

distances will minimize possible contributions to violations. 

13
 
REFERENCES 

WDEQ-AQD, 2006a, (2/27/06) Memorandum From Bernie Dailey to Powder River Basin Coal 

Mine Operators. PRB Coal Mine Permitting Guidance. 

WDEQ-AQD, 1979, Memorandum from Charles Collins. (Wyoming) Fugitive Dust Emission 

Factors. 

14
 
APPENDIX H 

NON-MINE GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER RIGHTS 
APPENDIX H: NON-MINE GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER RIGHTS Table H-1. Groundwater Rights1 within 3 Miles of the General Analysis Area 

Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P78393W 53 72 27 SWSW STO JOHN #11 GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 

P4045P 53 72 27 SESW DOM,STO HAMPE #2 RENE A. HAMPE P86156W 53 72 27 SESW DOM HAMPE #1 RENE A. HAMPE 

P4044P 53 72 27 SESW DOM,STO HAMPE #1 RENE A. HAMPE P115507W 53 72 29 SWSW STO STEINER NORTH SPRING BYRON F/MARJORIE OEDEKOVEN 

P111696W 53 72 30 SWSW STO,CBNG Lynde 14C-3032 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P115508W 53 72 31 NWNE STO STEINER NW #2E BYRON F/MARJORIE OEDEKOVEN 

P115517W 53 72 31 NENW DOM,STO HOUSE WELL #1 RICHARD M/OR JUDY K LYNDE 

P130428W 53 72 31 SWSE STO LANDECK # 8 WILLIAM A. LANDECK 

P77546W 53 72 31 SWSE STO LANDECK #12 FRANK LANDECK 

P18184P 53 72 32 SENE DOM,STO JOHN #3 GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 

P115506W 53 72 32 SESW STO STEINER HAND DUG BYRON F/MARJORIE OEDEKOVEN 

P115505W 53 72 32 SESW STO STEINER YARD #1E BYRON F/MARJORIE OEDEKOVEN P115509W 53 72 32 SESW STO STEINER YARD #1W BYRON F/MARJORIE OEDEKOVEN 

P111927W 53 72 32 SESW DOM Oedekoven House Well #1 BYRON F OEDEKOVEN 

P18188P 53 72 32 SWSE STO JOHN #7 GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 

P18185P 53 72 33 NENW STO JOHN #4 GILBERT OEDEKOVEN P27251W 53 72 33 SWNW DOM,STO JOHN #8 GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 

P61232W 53 72 33 SWNW DOM,STO JOHN #9 GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 

P110932W 53 73 25 SESW STO,CBNG Hall Fed 24C-2533 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P177784W 53 73 25 SESW STO,CBNG HALL FEDERAL 24C-2533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P115195W 53 73 25 SWSE STO,CBNG LYNDE 34C-2533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P107671W 53 73 25 SESE STO,CBNG LYNDE 44C-2533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P52285W 53 73 25 SESE STO BAM 30 RICHARD M/OR JUDY K LYNDE 

P115518W 53 73 25 SESE STO WEST PASTURE WELL #1 RICHARD M/OR JUDY K LYNDE 

P110637W 53 73 34 SESE STO,CBNG LANDECK 44C-3433 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P 

P177793W 53 73 35 SENW STO,CBNG HALL FEDERAL 22C-3533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P110955W 53 73 35 SENW STO,CBNG Hall Fed 22C-3533 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P110638W 53 73 35 NWSW STO,CBNG HALL 13C-3533 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P36325W 53 73 35 NWSW MON A35 3 GULF MINERAL RESOURCES COMPANY 

P177790W 53 73 35 NWSW STO,CBNG HALL 13C-3533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P140606W 53 73 35 SWSW CBNG HALL 14W-3533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. P135554W 53 73 35 SWSW CBNG HALL 14A-3533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P177787W 53 73 35 SESW STO,CBNG HALL FEDERAL 24C-3533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P110919W 53 73 35 SESW STO,CBNG Hall Fed 24C-3533 Redstone Resources 

P26475W 53 73 35 NESE MIS HALL #4 MEADOWLARK FARMS INC.**JOY LUCILLE HALL 

P177792W 53 73 35 NWSE STO,CBNG HALL FEDERAL 33C-3533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P110956W 53 73 35 NWSE STO,CBNG Hall Fed 33C-3533 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. P114994W 53 73 35 SESE STO,CBNG HALL 44C-3533 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P111707W 53 73 36 NWNE STO,CBNG State 31C-3633 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P111709W 53 73 36 SENE STO,CBNG State 42C-3633 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P111703W 53 73 36 NWNW STO,CBNG State 11C-3633 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

H-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P111705W 53 73 36 SENW STO,CBNG State 22C-3633 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P111704W 53 73 36 NWSW STO,CBNG State 13C-3633 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P3262P 53 73 36 SWSW STO #5 HALL DEAN W. HALL** STATE OF WYOMING 

P111706W 53 73 36 SESW STO,CBNG State 24C-3633 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P111708W 53 73 36 NWSE STO,CBNG State 33C-3633 WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P111701W 53 73 36 SWSE STO,CBNG REILE 34LC-3333 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P111687W 53 73 36 SESE STO,CBNG State 44C-3633 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P25G 52 72 2 NWNE IND ADON WATER WELL #1 TEXAS CO. 

P15391W 52 72 3 SWNE STO HOLLER #1 D. C. HOLLER 

P18187P 52 72 5 NENE STO JOHN #6 GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 

P42484W 52 72 5 NENW STO JOHN #10 GILBERT OEDEKOVEN P123569W 52 72 6 SWNE STO,CBNG Landeck 32C-622 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. 

P26477W 52 72 6 SWNW MIS HALL #6 MEADOWLARK FARMS INC.**JOY LUCILLE HALL 

P109849W 52 72 6 SWNW STO,CBNG HALL 12C-622 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P109850W 52 72 6 NESW STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 23C-622 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P106925W 52 72 6 NWSW STO,MIS,CBNG HALL 13C-622 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P110963W 52 72 6 SWSW STO,CBNG Franklin 14C-622 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. P108735W 52 72 6 SESW STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 24C-622 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P113421W 52 72 6 NESE STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 43C-622 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P110630W 52 72 6 NWSE STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 33C-622 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P111689W 52 72 6 SWSE STO,MIS,CBNG Franklin 34C-622 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P115198W 52 72 6 SESE STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 44C-622 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P177473W 52 72 6 SESE STO FOWLSTON STOCK #1 BYRON F/MARJORIE OEDEKOVEN 

P111690W 52 72 7 NENE STO,MIS,CBNG Franklin 41C-722 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P111691W 52 72 7 SENE STO,CBNG Franklin 41C-722 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P120886W 52 72 7 NENW STO,CBNG Oedekoven 21C-722 Redstone Resources P107778W 52 72 7 NWNW STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 11C-722 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P107776W 52 72 7 SENW STO,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 22C-722 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P107777W 52 72 7 NWSW STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 13C-722 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P114989W 52 72 7 SWSW STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 14C-722 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P108734W 52 72 7 SESW STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 24C-722 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P110631W 52 72 7 NWSE STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 33C-722 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P115510W 52 72 7 SWSE STO PERRY W #1E BYRON F/MARJORIE OEDEKOVEN 

P115511W 52 72 7 SESE STO PERRY E #1W BYRON F/MARJORIE OEDEKOVEN 

P119224W 52 72 8 NENW STO,CBNG Taylor 21C-822 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P119414W 52 72 8 SWNW STO,CBNG Taylor 12C-822 Redstone Resources 

P161015W 52 72 8 NESE CBNG HALL 43C-822 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P103907W 52 72 9 SWNW STO 912C-C5 CARL/OLA MCGEE 

P58643W 52 72 9 NESW MON 09/11/2005 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P63080W 52 72 9 NWSW MON 9-12C-C5(1) WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**MINING 

SHELL OIL COMPANY 

P3186P 52 72 12 NWSW STO 60 BAR 2 60 BAR RANCH 

P20030P 52 72 13 NWNW DOM,STO OFFUTT #1 PAUL AND JANE ROURKE 

P20031P 52 72 14 NWNE STO ROURKE #1 PAUL AND JANE ROURKE 

P3185P 52 72 14 SWNE STO 60 BAR 1 60 BAR RANCH 

H-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P68803W 52 72 15 NWSW MIS GRANT #1 PAUL AND JANE ROURKE P52186W 52 72 16 NENE MON 16 18 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P52184W 52 72 16 NENE MON 16-1AC4 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

TRITON COAL COMPANY 

P52185W 52 72 16 NENE MON 16-1A-02 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

TRITON COAL COMPANY 

P157784W 52 72 16 SWNE STO ROURKE #1 PAUL D. ROURKE** WY STATE BOARD OF LAND 

COMMISSIONERS 

P52201W 52 72 16 SWNE MON 16-7A-C2 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

TRITON COAL COMPANY 

P62279W 52 72 16 SENE MON 16-8D-A5 TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY STATE BOARD O

LAND COMMISSIONERS 

P157994W 52 72 16 SENE STO 16-8D-A5 TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY STATE BOARD O

LAND COMMISSIONERS 

P118037W 52 72 16 SENE MON 16-8C1-AL2 TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY STATE BOARD O

LAND COMMISSIONERS 

P118038W 52 72 16 SENE MON 16-8C2-AL5 TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY STATE BOARD O

LAND COMMISSIONERS 

P54140W 52 72 16 NENW MON 16-30-02 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

TRITON COAL COMPANY 

P63078W 52 72 16 NENW MON 16-3B-C5 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**MINING 

SHELL OIL COMPANY 

P53963W 52 72 16 NENW MON 16-3A0B WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P52188W 52 72 16 NWNW MON 16-4B-C4 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

TRITON COAL COMPANY 

P54373W 52 72 16 NWNW MON 16-4B2-C2 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P55770W 52 72 16 SWNW MON 16-5B-A4 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P54612W 52 72 16 SWNW MON 16-6B1-5 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P55771W 52 72 16 SENW MON 16-6C1-A2 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

TRITON COAL COMPANY 

P62283W 52 72 16 SENW MON 16-6C-C5 TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY STATE BOARD O

LAND COMMISSIONERS 

P58630W 52 72 16 SENW MON 16-6C-C5 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P55764W 52 72 16 SENW MON 16-6C-A4 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P62282W 52 72 16 SENW MON 16-6C-02 TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY STATE BOARD O

LAND COMMISSIONERS 

P53227W 52 72 16 NESW MON 16 - 11A-02 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P58635W 52 72 16 NESW MON 16-11D1 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P55775W 52 72 16 NESW MON 16-11B-A4 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P58636W 52 72 16 NESW MON 16-11C1 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P53836W 52 72 16 NESW IRR HAY CREEK #1 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**JANE 

OFFUTT ROURKE 

P63079W 52 72 16 NESW MON 16-11C-C5 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**MINING 

SHELL OIL COMPANY 

P63075W 52 72 16 NESW MON 16-11B-A5 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**MINING 

SHELL OIL COMPANY 

P62274W 52 72 16 NESW MON 16-11C-S10 TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY STATE BOARD O

LAND COMMISSIONERS 

H-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation P63081W

T 

52 

R 

72 

S 

16 

QQ 

NESW 

Permit Uses 

MON 

Permit Facility Name 

21-3D-C5 

Permit Applicant 

WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**MINING SHELL OIL COMPANY 

P63082W 52 72 16 NWSW MON 16-12B-5(1) WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**MINING 

SHELL OIL COMPANY 

P58638W 52 72 16 NWSW MON 16-12D1 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P52208W 52 72 16 SWSW MON 16-13C-04 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

TRITON COAL COMPANY 

P62267W 52 72 16 SWSW MON 16-13C-C5 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

TRITON COAL COMPANY 

P63076W 52 72 16 SWSW MON DRILL HOLE #1 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**MINING 

SHELL OIL COMPANY 

P118042W 52 72 16 SWSW MON 16-13C-C5 TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY STATE BOARD O

LAND COMMISSIONERS 

P52206W 52 72 16 SWSW MON 16-13C-C4 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P54369W 52 72 16 SWSW MON 16-13C-C4 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P63077W 52 72 16 SWSW MON DRILL HOLE #2 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**MINING 

SHELL OIL COMPANY 

P52209W 52 72 16 SESW MON 16-14A-C4 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

TRITON COAL COMPANY 

P53961W 52 72 16 SESW MON 16-14AOB WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P53962W 52 72 16 SESW MON 16-14ACO WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P62278W 52 72 16 NESE MON 16-9D-A5 TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY STATE BOARD O

LAND COMMISSIONERS 

P52202W 52 72 16 NWSE MON 16 10D WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P55780W 52 72 16 SESE MON 16-16B-A4 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P157993W 52 72 16 SESE STO 16-16C-A5 TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY STATE BOARD O

LAND COMMISSIONERS 

P55781W 52 72 16 SESE MON 16-16C-A4 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P52210W 52 72 16 SESE MON 16-16D WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P156876W 52 72 17 SWNW CBNG TRITON 12C-1722 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC P158636W 52 72 17 NWSW CBNG TRITION 13C-1722 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC P156877W 52 72 17 SWSW CBNG TRITON 14C-1722 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC P145709W 52 72 17 NESE MIS,CBNG,RES TRITON 43AC-1722 Triton Coal Company** MAJESTIC PETROLEUM 

OPERATIONS, LLC 

P58647W 52 72 17 NESE MON 17-9A-A5 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

TRITON COAL COMPANY 

P145708W 52 72 17 SWSE MIS,CBNG,RES TRITON 34AC-1722 Triton Coal Company** MAJESTIC PETROLEUM 

OPERATIONS, LLC 

P145707W 52 72 17 SESE MIS,CBNG,RES TRITON 44AC-1722 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC** Trit

Coal Company 

P110632W 52 72 18 NWNE STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 31C-1822 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P116606W 52 72 18 NENW STO,CBNG McGEE 21C-1822 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P108733W 52 72 18 NWNW STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 11C-1822 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P115519W 52 72 18 SWNW STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 12C-1822 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. P108732W 52 72 18 SENW STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 22C-1822 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P107779W 52 72 18 NWSW STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 13C-1822 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P108442W 52 72 18 SWSW STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 14C-1822 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P83206W 52 72 18 SWSW DOM LAVERNE #1 CECLE L. AND LAVERNE L. COOK 

H-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation P108444W 

T 

52 

R 

72 

S 

18 

QQ 

SESW 

Permit Uses 

STO,CBNG

Permit Facility Name 

 FRANKLIN 24C-1822 

Permit Applicant 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P141899W 52 72 18 SESW STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 24CR-1822 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC P108446W 52 72 18 NWSE STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 33C-1822 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P108452W 52 72 19 NWNE STO,CBNG FRANKLIN 31C-1922 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P112364W 52 72 19 SENE STO,CBNG Isora CS #4 YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** SMC MINING 

COMPANY 

P107780W 52 72 cl NWNW STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 11C-1922 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P102546W 52 72 19 NWSW STO OEDEKOVEN #31S-1922 BYRON F OEDEKOVEN 

P61486W 52 72 19 SESE STO ODEKOVEN STOCK WELL #1 CHARLES R. OEDEKOVEN P145711W 52 72 20 NENE MIS,CBNG,RES TRITON 41AC-2022 Triton Coal Company** MAJESTIC PETROLEUM 

OPERATIONS, LLC 

P63083W 52 72 20 NWNE MON 20-2C-C5 (PILOT HOLE) WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS**MINING 

SHELL OIL COMPANY 

P145710W 52 72 20 NWNE MIS,CBNG,RES TRITON 31AC-2022 Triton Coal Company** MAJESTIC PETROLEUM 

OPERATIONS, LLC 

P145712W 52 72 20 SWNE MIS,CBNG,RES TRITON 32AC-2022 Triton Coal Company** MAJESTIC PETROLEUM 

OPERATIONS, LLC 

P145713W 52 72 20 SENE MIS,CBNG,RES TRITON 42AC-2022 Triton Coal Company** MAJESTIC PETROLEUM 

OPERATIONS, LLC 

P112367W 52 72 20 SWNW STO,CBNG Olin CS #2 YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** SMC MINING 

COMPANY 

P112368W 52 72 20 NWSW STO,CBNG Olin CS #3 YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** SMC MINING 

COMPANY 

P112369W 52 72 20 SWSW STO,CBNG Olin CS #4 YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** SMC MINING 

COMPANY 

P58648W 52 72 21 NENW MON 21-3-05 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** SHELL 

COMPANY 

P20029P 52 72 23 SESE STO CLARK #1 MARY J. CLARK 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation 25/11/152W 25/8/152W 25/10/152W 25/9/152W P112361W

T 

52 52 52 52 

52 

R 

72 72 72 72 

72 

S 

28 28 28 28 

29 

QQ 

SWNW SWNW SWNW SWNW 

NENW 

Permit Uses 

STO,CBNG 

Permit Facility Name 

Isora CS #1 

Permit Applicant 

YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** SMC MI

COMPANY 

NING 

P112365W 52 72 29 NWNW STO,CBNG Isora CS #5 YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** SMC MI

COMPANY 

NING 

P112362W 52 72 30 NENE STO,CBNG Isora CS #2 YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** SMC MI

COMPANY 

NING 

P102867W 52 72 30 SWNE STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN #32C-3022 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P109588W 52 72 30 SWNE STO,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 32C2-3022 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P112363W 52 72 30 SENE STO,CBNG Isora CS #3 YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** SMC MI

COMPANY 

NING 

P104083W 52 72 30 NENW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON 21C-3022 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

25/1/137W 52 72 30 NWNW 

P104081W 52 72 30 SWNW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON 12C-3022 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P104082W 52 72 30 NWSW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON 13C-3022 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P102867W 52 72 30 SWSW STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN #32C-3022 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P104092W 52 72 30 SWSW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON #14C-3022 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 25/8/99W 52 72 30 SWSW P104084W 52 72 30 SESW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON 24C-3022 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P104080W 52 72 30 NWSE STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON 33A-3022 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P104529W 52 72 31 NENW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON 21C-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P103485W 52 72 31 NWNW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON #11A-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

H-10 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P104079W 52 72 31 NWNW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON #11C-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P103183W 52 72 31 SWNW STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN #12A-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 25/9/123W 52 72 31 SWNW 

25/7/123W 52 72 31 SWNW P131330W 52 72 31 SWNW CBNG TRITON 12D-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. 

25/8/123W 52 72 31 SWNW P103613W 52 72 31 SENW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON #22A-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P104078W 52 72 31 NESW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON 22C-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

25/7/87W 52 72 31 NWSW 

25/9/87W 52 72 31 NWSW 25/6/87W 52 72 31 NWSW 25/5/87W 52 72 31 NWSW P113423W 52 72 31 NWSW STO,CBNG TRITON 13D-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

25/8/87W 52 72 31 NWSW 

P103618W 52 72 31 NWSW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON #13A-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P104528W 52 72 31 SWSW STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON 14C-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P104077W 52 72 31 SESW STO,MIS,CBNG CABALLO 24C-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

25/2/10W 52 72 31 SESW 

P108964W 52 72 31 SESW STO,MIS,CBNG MARQUISS 24D-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P103043W 52 72 31 SESW STO,CBNG MARQUISS #24A-3122 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P103045W 52 72 31 SESW STO,MIS,CBNG LANDECK #13C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

24/8/151W 52 72 32 SWSE 

24/9/151W 52 72 32 SWSE 

24/12/151W 52 72 32 SWSE 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation 24/7/151W 25/8/64W P109851W

T 

52 

52 

52 

R 

72 

73 

73 

S 

32 

0 

1 

QQ 

SWSE 

NENE 

Permit Uses 

STO,CBNG 

Permit Facility Name 

HALL 41C-123 

Permit Applicant 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P109049W 52 73 1 NWNE STO,CBNG HALL 31C-123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P161013W 52 73 1 SENE CBNG HALL 42A-123 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC P107781W 52 73 1 SENE STO,CBNG HALL 42C-123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P26476W 52 73 1 NENW MIS HALL #5 MEADOWLARK FARMS INC.**JOY LUCILLE HALL 

P109051W 52 73 1 NWNW STO,MIS,CBNG HALL 11C-123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. P103487W 52 73 1 SWNW STO,MIS,CBNG HALL #32C-123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P109050W 52 73 1 SENW STO,MIS,CBNG HALL 22C-123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P109040W 52 73 1 SWSW STO,MIS,CBNG HALL 14C-123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P109278W 52 73 1 NWSE STO,CBNG HALL 33C-123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P107782W 52 73 1 SESE STO,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 22C-722 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P103179W 52 73 2 NENE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL #41C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P109041W 52 73 2 NWNE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL 31C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P103181W 52 73 2 NWNE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL #31C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P103178W 52 73 2 SWNE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL #32C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P118218W 52 73 2 NENW STO,CBNG Landeck Fed 21C-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P103475W 52 73 2 NWNW STO,MIS,CBNG LANDECK #11C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P177789W 52 73 2 SWNW STO,CBNG LANDECK 12C-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P110633W 52 73 2 SWNW STO,CBNG LANDECK 12C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. P135506W 52 73 2 SWNW CBNG LANDECK 12A-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P131903W 52 73 2 SWNW CBNG Landeck 12W - 223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P116607W 52 73 2 NESW STO,CBNG LANDECK 23C-223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

H-12 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P103045W 52 73 2 NWSW STO,MIS,CBNG LANDECK #13C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P131901W 52 73 2 SWSW CBNG Landeck 14W - 223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P35585W 52 73 2 SWSW MON B2 9C GULF MINERAL RESOURCES COMPANY 

P26478W 52 73 2 SESW MIS HALL #7 MEADOWLARK FARMS INC.**JOY LUCILLE HALL P109043W 52 73 2 NESE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL 43C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P103186W 52 73 2 NESE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL #43C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P131897W 52 73 2 NESE CBNG Hall 43 W - 223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P103184W 52 73 2 NWSE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL #33C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P103185W 52 73 2 SWSE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL #34C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P103182W 52 73 2 SESE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL #44C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P109042W 52 73 2 SESE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL 34C-223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P110635W 52 73 3 NENE STO,CBNG LANDECK 41C-323 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P177786W 52 73 3 NENE STO,CBNG LANDECK 41C-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P131895W 52 73 3 SWNE CBNG Landeck 32W - 323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P103187W 52 73 3 SWNE STO,MIS,CBNG LANDECK #32C-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P101093W 52 73 3 SWNE MON LANDECK ST 423-1 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P135514W 52 73 3 SWNE CBNG LANDECK 32A-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P103044W 52 73 3 SENE STO,MIS,CBNG LANDECK #42C-323 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 24/1/411W 52 73 3 NESW 

P110216W 52 73 3 NESW STO,CBNG LANDECK 23B-323 Redstone Resources 

P102865W 52 73 3 NESW STO,MIS,CBNG LANDECK #23C-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

24/3/411W 52 73 3 NESW 

39/4/414W 52 73 3 NESW STO,MIS LANDECK 23B-423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P116620W 52 73 3 SESW STO,CBNG LANDECK 24B2-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P102866W 52 73 3 NESE STO,MIS,CBNG LANDECK #43C-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P36326W 52 73 3 NESE MON B3-13C #1 GULF MINERAL RESOURCES COMPANY**J. F. 

MUIRHEAD 

P131893W 52 73 3 NESE CBNG Landeck 43W2 - 323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P135519W 52 73 3 NESE CBNG LANDECK 43A-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P135516W 52 73 3 SWSE CBNG LANDECK 34A-323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P159038W 52 73 3 SWSE CBNG,RES LANDECK 03-1 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, 

L.P.**WILLIAM A. LANDECK 

39/9/425W 52 73 10 NENE STO,CBNG HINKES 41C-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P108242W 52 73 10 NENE STO,CBNG HINKES 41C-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P 

P131909W 52 73 10 NENE CBNG Hinkes 41A - 1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P108736W 52 73 10 SWNE STO,CBNG HINKES 32C-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P 

P131892W 52 73 10 NENW CBNG Landeck 21A-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P106271W 52 73 10 NENW STO,CBNG LANDECK 21B-1023 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P106789W 52 73 10 NENW STO,CBNG LANDECK 21C-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P131905W 52 73 10 NESW CBNG Landeck 23W-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P131891W P159035W 25/3/42W 25/12/46W 25/5/42W 25/6/42W 

52 52 

52 

52 

52 52 

73 73 

73 

73 

73 73 

10 10 

10 

10 

10 10 

NESW NESW 

SESW 

SESW 

SESW SESW 

CBNG CBNG,RES 

Landeck 23A-1023 

LINDQUIST 23C-1023 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, 

L.P.**WILLIAM A. LANDECK 

P103476W 52 73 10 SESW STO,MIS,CBNG LANDECK #24C-1023 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 25/8/42W 52 73 10 SESW 

H-14 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant 25/2/42W 52 73 10 SESW 

25/11/46W 52 73 10 SESW 

25/10/46W 52 73 10 SESW 

25/4/42W 52 73 10 SESW 

25/9/42W 52 73 10 SESW 

25/7/42W 52 73 10 SESW 

P108245W 52 73 10 NESE STO,CBNG HINKES 43C-1023 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P131911W 52 73 10 NESE CBNG Hinkes 43 A - 1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

39/7/425W 52 73 10 NESE STO,CBNG HINKES 43C-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P131908W 52 73 10 SWSE CBNG Hinkes 34W - 1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P108246W 52 73 10 SWSE STO,CBNG HINKES 34C-1023 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P131907W 52 73 10 SWSE CBNG Hinkes 34A - 1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

39/6/425W 52 73 10 SWSE STO,CBNG HINKES 34C-1023 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. P130318W 52 73 11 NENE CBNG HALL 41A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P109046W 52 73 11 NENE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL 41C-1123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P131919W 52 73 11 SWNE CBNG HALL 32A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P109045W 52 73 11 SWNE STO,MIS,CBNG HALL 32C-1123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P131920W 52 73 11 SWNE CBNG HALL 32W-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P109044W 52 73 11 NENW STO,CBNG HINKES 21C-1123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P108243W 52 73 11 SWNW STO,CBNG HINKES 12C-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P 

39/8/425W 52 73 11 SWNW STO,CBNG HINKES 12C-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P131652W 52 73 11 SWNW CBNG HINKES 12A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P131917W 52 73 11 NESW CBNG Hinkes 23A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P132275W 52 73 11 NESW CBNG TWENTY MILE 43W-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P108866W 52 73 11 NESW STO,CBNG HINKES 23C-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P 

P131914W 52 73 11 SWSW CBNG Hinkes 14 W - 1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. P108247W 52 73 11 SWSW STO,CBNG HINKES 14C-1123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

39/5/425W 52 73 11 SWSW STO,CBNG HINKES 14C-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. P131651W 52 73 11 SWSW CBNG HINKES 14A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P130319W 52 73 11 NESE CBNG TWENTY MILE 43A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P131921W 52 73 11 NESE CBNG TWENTY MILE 43 C-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P131926W 52 73 11 SWSE CBNG TWENTY MILE 34A-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P132273W 52 73 11 SWSE CBNG TWENTY MILE 34W-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P120894W 52 73 11 SWSE STO,CBNG Twenty Mile 34C-1123 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P109048W 52 73 11 SESE STO,CBNG TWENTY MILE 44C-1123 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P108435W 52 73 12 NENE STO,CBNG COOK 41C-1223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P108431W 52 73 12 NWNE STO,CBNG COOK 31C-1223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P141900W 52 73 12 NENW STO,CBNG COOK 21A1-1223 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P108427W 52 73 12 NENW STO,CBNG COOK 21C-1223 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P108423W 52 73 12 NWNW STO,CBNG COOK 11C-1223 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P142354W 52 73 12 SWNW STO,CBNG COOK 12W-1223 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P108424W 52 73 12 SWNW STO,CBNG COOK 12C-1223 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P130156W 52 73 12 SWNW CBNG COOK 12A-1223 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P108428W 52 73 12 SENW STO,CBNG COOK 22C-1223 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P108425W 52 73 12 NWSW STO,CBNG COOK 13C-1223 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P131321W 52 73 12 SWSW CBNG COOK 14A-1223 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P108426W 52 73 12 SWSW STO,CBNG COOK 14C-1223 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P108430W 52 73 12 SESW STO,CBNG COOK 24C-1223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

H-16 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P108433W 52 73 12 NWSE STO,MIS,CBNG COOK 33C-1223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P108434W 52 73 12 SWSE STO,CBNG COOK 34C-1223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P141901W 52 73 12 SWSE STO,CBNG COOK 34A-1223 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P108438W 52 73 12 SESE STO,CBNG COOK 44C-1223 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P110084W 52 73 13 NENE STO,CBNG COOK 41C-1323 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC P107670W 52 73 13 NWNE STO,CBNG COOK 31C-1323 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P131654W 52 73 13 SWNE CBNG COOK 32A-1323 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P33812W 52 73 13 SENE DOM,STO COOK #1 CECLE L. COOK 

P107783W 52 73 13 SENE STO,CBNG COOK 42C-1323 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P109047W 52 73 13 NWNW STO,CBNG COOK 11C-1323 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P120603W 52 73 13 SENW STO,CBNG Cook 22C3-1323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P67024W 52 73 13 NESW DOM RAY #1 DARRELL RAY 

P107600W 52 73 13 NESW STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 23C-1323 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P131650W 52 73 13 NESW CBNG OEDEKOVEN 23A-1323 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. 

P67063W 52 73 13 NESW DOM PETERSEN #1 KERRY L. PETERSEN 

P110083W 52 73 13 NWSW STO,CBNG GEIGER 13C-1323 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P111695W 52 73 13 SWSW STO,CBNG Geiger 14C-1323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P107929W 52 73 13 SESW STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 24C-1323 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P107601W 52 73 13 SWSE STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 34C-1323 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P131649W 52 73 13 SWSE CBNG OEDEKOVEN 34A-1323 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. 

P107038W 52 73 13 SESE CBNG,MIS OEDEKOVEN 44C-1323 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P142661W 52 73 14 SWNE CBNG TWENTY MILE 32A-1423 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. 

P122295W 52 73 14 SWNE STO,CBNG Twenty Mile 32C-1423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P 

P131643W 52 73 14 SWNE CBNG TWENTY MILE 32A-1423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P8545P 52 73 14 NENW STO MOREL #3 MAURICE MOREL 39/4/425W 52 73 14 NENW STO,CBNG TWENTY MILE 21C-1423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P162008W 52 73 14 NENW CBNG TWENTY MILE 21C-1423 20 MILE LAND COMPANY** DEVON ENERGY 

PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P8543P 52 73 14 NWNW DOM,STO MOREL #1 MAURICE MOREL P159023W 52 73 14 SWNW CBNG,RES TWENTY MILE 12C2-1423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P.*

MILE LAND COMPANY 

P8412W 52 73 14 SENW STO MOREL #4 MAURICE MOREL 

P103580W 52 73 14 SENW DOM JANISH #1 DAVE JANISH 

P120895W 52 73 14 NESW STO,CBNG Twenty Mile 23C-1423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P 

P132280W 52 73 14 SWSW CBNG TWENTY MILE 14W-1423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P15860W 52 73 14 NESE STO PITT #1 REGINALD PARNELL P94853W 52 73 14 SWSE STO HARDY A1 KELLY HARDY P122288W 52 73 14 SWSE STO,CBNG HUSKINSON 34C-1423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P 

39/1/502W 52 73 14 SWSE DOM,MIS DIRT WORLD #1 CHUCK & MARRIA RUIZ 

P94590W 52 73 14 SESE MON GVE-MW2 GREEN VALLEY ESTATES 

P132287W 52 73 15 NENE CBNG TWENTY MILE 41D-1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P107784W 52 73 15 NENE STO,CBNG TWENTY MILE 41C-1523 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P132285W 52 73 15 NENE CBNG TWENTY MILE 32A-1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P132289W 52 73 15 NENE CBNG TWENTY MILE 41A-1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P174683W 52 73 15 NENE CBNG TWENTY MILE 41LC-1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P.** 20 Mile 

Land Co. 

P8544P 52 73 15 SENE STO MOREL #2 MAURICE MOREL 

P174685W 52 73 15 NENW CBNG TWENTY MILE 21C-1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P.** 20 Mile 

Land Co. 

H-18 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P132288W 52 73 15 NESE CBNG TWENTY MILE 43A-1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P132286W 52 73 15 SWSE CBNG TWENTY MILE 34A-1523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P132291W 52 73 22 NENE CBNG TWENTY MILE 41A-2223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P159019W 52 73 22 NENE CBNG,RES TWENTY MILE 41C-2223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P.*

MILE LAND COMPANY 

P132290W 52 73 22 SWNE CBNG TWENTY MILE 32A-2223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P115820W 52 73 22 SWNE STO,CBNG TWENTY MILE 32C-2223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P137337W 52 73 22 NESE CBNG TWENTY MILE FED 43C-2223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P137334W 52 73 22 SWSE CBNG TWENTY MILE FED 34C-2223 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P118851W 52 73 23 NENE STO,CBNG Green Valley 41C-2323 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P161032W 52 73 23 NENE CBNG MOREL 41A-2323 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC P120897W 52 73 23 SWNE STO,CBNG Triton 32C-2323 Redstone Resources 

P42086W 52 73 23 SWNE MIS MOREL #1 MAURICE MOREL**ROBERT MOREL**GERALD 

MOREL** S AND R LAND CO. 

P91376W 52 73 23 SWNE MIS MOREL #1 GREEN VALLEY ESTATES 

P159049W 52 73 23 SWNE CBNG,RES MOREL 32CR-2323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, 

L.P.**GERALD M MOREL 

P108931W 52 73 23 SENE STO,CBNG TRITON 42C-2323 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P149408W 52 73 23 SENE DOM,STO CODY # 1 CODY JOSLYN 

P127901W 52 73 23 NENW CBNG TWENTY MILE 21C-2323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P34476W 52 73 23 SENW MON MOREL #1 TEST HOLE MAURICE MOREL** S & R LAND 

COMPANY**ROBERT MOREL**GERALD MOREL 

P137328W 52 73 23 SWSW CBNG TWENTY MILE FED 14C-2323 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. 

P116611W 52 73 23 NESE STO,CBNG TRITON 43C-2323 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P115504W 52 73 24 NENE STO ROBB E #1E BYRON F/MARJORIE OEDEKOVEN 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P106641W 52 73 24 NENE STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 41C-2423 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P108421W 52 73 24 NWNE STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 31C-2423 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P107599W 52 73 24 NENW STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 21C-2423 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P110086W 52 73 24 NWNW STO,CBNG MOREL 11C-2423 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

40/4/291W 52 73 24 NWNW MIS GREEN VALLEY NO II PHASE III GERALD M & LOIS A MOREL 

P149409W 52 73 24 SWNW DOM,STO SCOTT JOSLYN #1 SCOTT JOSLYN 

P118850W 52 73 24 SWNW STO,CBNG Green Valley 12C-2423 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P115512W 52 73 24 SENW STO ROBB W #1W BYRON F/MARJORIE OEDEKOVEN 

P92236W 52 73 24 SENW DOM,STO PALMER #1 GENE AND GLENDA PALMER 

P107928W 52 73 24 NESW STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 23C-2423 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P116619W 52 73 24 SWSW STO,CBNG TRITON 14C-2423 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P107737W 52 73 24 NESE STO,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 43C-2423 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P109591W 52 73 24 NWSE STO,MIS,CBNG OEDEKOVEN 33C2-2423 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P104886W P104887W25/11/287W 25/1/288W 

52 

52 

52 52 

73 

73 

73 73 

24

24 

25 25 

SWSE SESE 

NENE NENE 

STO,MIS,CBNG 

STO,MIS,CBNG 

OEDEKOVEN 34SA-2423 OEDEKOVEN 44SC-2423 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P106510W 52 73 25 NENE STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON 41C-2523 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

25/12/287W 52 73 25 NENE 

P112366W 52 73 25 NWNE STO,CBNG Olin CS #1 YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** SMC MINING 

COMPANY 

P103616W 52 73 25 SENE STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON #42A-2523 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P107785W 52 73 25 NENW STO,CBNG TRITION 21C-2523 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P150294W 52 73 25 NENW DOM SANTISTEVAN # 1 CHRIS SANTISTEVAN 

H-20 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P69602W 52 73 25 NWNW DOM SULLIVAN #1 CHARLES P. SULLIVAN P159024W 52 73 25 NWNW CBNG,RES TRITION 11A-2523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P.*

TRITON COAL COMPANY 

P56384W 52 73l 25 NWNW DOM,STO PINEVIEW #1 HELEN HAFLING 

P63294W 52 73 25 NWNW DOM REISTER #1 CLYDE LANCE REISTER 

40/8/15W 52 73 25 NWNW DOM KLINE #1 THOMAS KLINE 

P56385W 52 73 25 SWNW DOM,STO PINEVIEW #2 HELEN HAFLING 

P154536W 52 73 25 SWNW MIS GLORY HOLE #1 GLORY HOLE HOMEOWNERS ASSN. 

P114668W 52 73 25 SWNW STO,CBNG WARE 12C-2523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P41579W 52 73 25 SWNW DOM BREDTHAUER #1 CHARLES E. AND CINDY S. BREDTHAUER 

P65773W 52 73 25 SWNW MIS ENL BREDTHAUER #1 CHARLES E. & CINDY S. BREDTHAUER 

P177565W 52 73 25 SENW DOM BREDTHAUER #1 REPLACEMENT CHARLES E & CINDY S. BREDTHAUER 

WELL 

P112700W 52 73 25 SENW STO,CBNG TRITON 22EB-2523 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P51185W 52 73 25 SENW DOM H H #1 SUSAN M MOORE 

P110161W 52 73 25 SENW DOM MATLACK #1 GLENDA H MATLACK 

39/8/305W 52 73 25 SENW MIS BREDTHAVER #1 REPLACEMENT 

WELL 

CHARLES E. & CINDY S. BREDTHAVER 

P111067W 52 73 25 NWSW DOM,STO Eberlein 1 RICHARD EBERLEIN 

P55199W 52 73 25 NWSW BRUSKI #1 LAWRENCE BRUSKI 

P56386W 52 73 25 NWSW DOM,STO PINEVIEW #3 HELEN HAFLING 

P114669W 52 73 25 NWSW STO,CBNG COLEMAN 13C-2523 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P168613W 52 73 25 NWSW DOM DCW #1 DANA & CHRISTINE WILLIAMS**MIKE & LORI 

CADA**JARED BRYAN 

P59551W 52 73 25 NWSW DOM CONNOLLY #1 JACK P. & VICTORIA L. CONNOLLY 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P72895W 52 73 25 SWSW DOM,STO PINEVIEW #4 ROGER & MARY MAKI**BROOK & LORI 

BAHNSON**MARK THOMAS 

P114670W 52 73 25 SWSW STO,CBNG HOLDEN 14C-2523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P73385W 52 73 25 SWSW DOM,STO BRIGGS #1 ALBERT L. BRIGGS 

P56387W 52 73 25 SWSW DOM,STO PINEVIEW #4 HELEN HAFLING 

P157966W 52 73 25 SESW DOM JEWETT #1 JAMES & KAREN JEWETT 

25/10/123W 52 73 25 NESE 25/11/123W 52 73 25 NESE 25/3/124W 52 73 25 NESE 

25/1/124W 52 73 25 NESE 

25/12/123W 52 73 25 NESE 25/2/124W 52 73 25 NESE 

P103615W 52 73 25 NWSE STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON #33A-2523 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P34782W 52 73 25 SWSE DOM,STO S BARBOUR #1 STEVEN R. OR GEORGIA L. BARBOUR 

P66876W 52 73 25 SWSE DOM S. BARBOUR #2 STEVEN R. OR GEORGIA L. BARBOUR 

P117223W 52 73 25 SESE STO,CBNG NORTH KITTY FEE #44-25 KENNEDY OIL 

P103617W 52 73 25 SESE STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON #44A-2523 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P106511W 52 73 25 SESE STO,MIS,CBNG TRITON 44C-2523 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

39/6/454W 52 73 25 DOM ROGERS #1 RALPH & LAURA ROGERS 

P57369W 52 73 26 NWNE DOM,STO HOLDEN #1 ORVIL L. HOLDEN 

P47170W 52 73 26 NWNE DOM,STO HOLDEN #1 ORVIL L. HOLDEN 

P43866W 52 73 26 SWNE DOM,STO ELDRIDGE #1 EDWARD W. & LINDA K. ELDRIDGE 

P109627W 52 73 26 NENW STO,CBNG TRITON FEDERAL 21C-2623 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

39/10/543W 52 73 26 NENW DOM,STO ELDRIDGE #2 EDWARD W. & LINDA K. ELDRIDGE 

H-22 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant 39/1/426W 52 73 26 NENW STO,CBNG TRITON FEDERAL 21C-2623 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P36583W 52 73 26 NESW DOM,STO RAYS #2 RAYMOND PODENSKI 

P38967W 52 73 26 NWSW DOM JOHNSON WELL #1 BOB LEROY JOHNSON 

P141398W 52 73 26 SWSW CBNG TWENTY MILE 14A-2623 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P115521W 52 73 26 SWSW STO,CBNG TWENTY MILE 14C-2623 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. P65774W 52 73 26 NESE MIS B-WEST #1 BREDTHAUER-WEST HOME OWERNERS 

ASSOCIATION 

P122771W 52 73 26 NESE STO,CBNG MOORE 43C-2623 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P123899W 52 73 26 NWSE DOM,STO ELLISTON #1 ELLISTON COMPANY 

P161014W 52 73 26 SWSE CBNG 20-MILE 34A-2623 MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC 

P43864W 52 73 26 SWSE DOM,STO ONETIA #1 HORACE RAY COLLINS 

P65156W 52 73 26 SWSE DOM BUTCHER #1 DUANE BUTCHER 

P144736W 52 73 27 NWSE CBNG NORTH KITTY FEREDAL 33-27B KENNEDY OIL 

P144741W 52 73 27 NWSE CBNG NORTH KITTY FEDERAL 33-27A KENNEDY OIL 

P147681W 52 73 27 SWSE CBNG NORTH KITTY FEDERAL 34-27A KENNEDY OIL P144737W 52 73 27 SESE CBNG NORTH KITTY FEREDAL 44-27B KENNEDY OIL 

P144742W 52 73 27 SESE CBNG NORTH KITTY FEDERAL 44-27A KENNEDY OIL 

P145026W 52 73 34 SENW CBNG NORTH KITTY FEDERAL 22-34B KENNEDY OIL 

P144740W 52 73 34 SENW CBNG NORTH KITTY FEREDAL 22-34A KENNEDY OIL 

P67073W 52 73 35 NWNE STO VIDETA #1 TWENTY MILE LAND CO. 

P109275W 52 73 35 NENW STO,MIS,CBNG TWENTY MILE 21C-3523 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P115523W 52 73 35 SWNW STO,CBNG TWENTY MILE 12C-3523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P116612W 52 73 35 NESW STO,CBNG TWENTY MILE 23C-3523 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

25/7/59W 52 73 36 NENE 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation 25/3/59W 25/5/59W 25/4/59W 25/6/59W 25/2/59W P103612W

T 

52 52 52 52 52 

52 

R 

73 73 73 73 73 

73 

S 

36 36 36 36 36 

36 

QQ 

NENE NENE NENE NENE NENE 

NENE 

Permit Uses 

STO,MIS,CBNG 

Permit Facility Name 

STATE #41A-3623 

Permit Applicant 

WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSION

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

ERS** 

P105074W24/5/260W 52 52 

73 

73 

36 

36 

NWNE 

SWNE 

STO,CBNG STATE 31A-3623 WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSION

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

ERS** 

P104527W 52 73 36 SENE STO,MIS,CBNG STATE 42A-3623 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

25/4/315W 52 73 36 SENE P40771W 52 73 36 SENE MON RCH 2A WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** THUND

BASIN COAL COMPANY 

P106780W 52 73 36 SENE STO,MIS,CBNG STATE 42C-3623 WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P40772W 52 73 36 SENE MON RCH 2B WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** THUND

BASIN COAL COMPANY 

25/3/315W 52 73 36 SENE P107927W 52 73 36 NENW STO,MIS,CBNG STATE 21C-3623 WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P131326W 52 73 36 NENW CBNG STATE 21D-3623 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

REDSTONE RESOURCES INC. 

25/12/297W 52 73 36 NWNW 

25/2/298W 52 73 36 NWNW 25/3/298W 52 73 36 NWNW 25/1/298W 52 73 36 NWNW 

H-24 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P106635W 52 73 36 NWNW STO,CBNG STATE 11C-3623 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC P105072W P105071W25/9/169W 25/10/169W 25/11/169W P161012W

52 

52 52 

52 52 

52 

73 

73 

73 73 73 

73 

36 

36 

36 36 36 

36 

SENW 

NWSW 

NWSW NWSW NWSW 

SWSW 

STO,CBNG 

STO,CBNG 

CBNG 

STATE 22EC-3623 

STATE 13EA-3623 

STATE 14A-3623 

WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

MAJESTIC PETROLEUM OPERATIONS, LLC** WY 

STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS 

P40769W 52 73 36 SWSW MON RCH 1B WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** THUND

BASIN COAL COMPANY 

P40767W 52 73 36 SWSW MON RCH 1 WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** THUND

BASIN COAL COMPANY 

P40768W 52 73 36 SWSW MON RCH 1A WY BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** THUND

BASIN COAL COMPANY 

P111702W 52 73 36 SESW STO,CBNG State 24C-3623 WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC. 

P105073WP106640W25/3/304W P105076W

 52 52 52 

52 

73 

73 

73 

73 

36 

36 

36 

36 

NESE 

NWSE 

NWSE 

SESE 

STO,CBNG 

STO,CBNG 

STO,MIS,CBNG 

STATE 43A-3623 

STATE 33C-3623 

STATE 44A-3623 

WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

WYO BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P18183P 51 72 5 SENE DOM,STO JOHN #1 GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 

P128642W 51 72 5 SWSW CBNG RAWHIDE 13-5 Medallion Exploration 

P129239W 51 72 5 SESW CBNG RAWHIDE 14-5 Medallion Exploration 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant P103472W 51 72 6 NENW STO,MIS,CBNG CABALLO #21C-612 REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC 

P108927W 51 72 6 NENW STO,MIS,CBNG CABALLO 21C-612 DEVON ENERGY CORP. (NEVADA) 

39/2/414W 51 72 6 NWNW STO,MIS CABALLO FEDERAL TFU 11C-612 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P110782W 51 72 6 NWNW STO,CBNG Caballo Fed. TFU 11C-612 DEVON ENERGY CORP. 

P104713W 51 72 6 SENW STO,CBNG CABALLO 22C-612 DEVON ENERGY CORP. (NEVADA) P110870W 51 72 6 NWSW STO,CBNG Caballo State TFU 13C-612 WY STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS** 

DEVON ENERGY CORP. 

P126815WP111284W25/8/162W 25/9/162W 

51 51 

51 51 

72 

72 

72 72 

6 

6 

6 6 

NWSW 

SWSE 

SESE SESE 

CBNG 

STO,CBNG 

CABALLO STATE TFU 13A-612 

Caballo TFU 34C-612 

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P.** CABAL

COAL COMPANY 

DEVON ENERGY CORP. 

39/8/413W 51 73 1 NWNE STO,MIS CABALLO TFU 31C-113 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. P110786W 51 73 1 NWNE STO,CBNG Caballo Fed. TFU 31C-113 DEVON ENERGY CORP. 39/1/414W 51 73 1 SENE STO,MIS CABALLO TFU 42C-113 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. P110783W 51 73 1 SENE STO,CBNG Caballo Fed. TFU 42C-113 DEVON ENERGY CORP. 

39/9/412W 51 73 1 NWSW STO,MIS 20 MILE 13C-113 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. P131325W 51 73 1 NWSW STO,CBNG 20 MILE 23A-1313 20 MILE LAND COMPANY** DEVON ENERGY 

PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P110806W 51 73 1 NWSW STO,CBNG 20 Mile TFU 13C-1413 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P120554W 51 73 1 SESW STO,CBNG 20 Mile 24C-113 JOHN DALY** DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO

L.P. 

P120555W 51 73 1 SESW STO,CBNG 20 Mile 24A-113 JOHN DALY** DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO

L.P. 

P108420W 51 73 1 SESE STO,CBNG CABALLO FEDERAL 44C-113 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P. 

P110785W 51 73 1 SESE STO,CBNG Caballo Fed. TFU 44C-113 DEVON ENERGY CORP. 

H-26 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Permit Uses Permit Facility Name Permit Applicant 39/9/413W 51 73 1 SESE STO,MIS CABALLO FEDERAL TFU 44C-113 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. 

P120553W 51 73 2 NWNE STO,CBNG 20 Mile 31A-213 JOHN DALY** DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO

L.P. 

P120552W 51 73 2 NWNE STO,CBNG 20 Mile 31C-213 JOHN DALY** DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO

L.P. 

P120545W 51 73 2 SENE STO,CBNG 20 Mile 42C-213 JOHN DALY** DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO

L.P. 

P120546W 51 73 2 SENE STO,CBNG 20 Mile 42A-213 JOHN DALY** DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO

L.P. 

P120550W 51 73 2 NWSE STO,CBNG 20 Mile 33C-213 JOHN DALY** DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO

L.P. 

P120551W 51 73 2 NWSE STO,CBNG 20 Mile 33A-213 JOHN DALY** DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO

L.P. 

T = township; R = range; S = section; QQ = quarter-quarter; STO = stock; DOM = domestic; CBNG = coal bed natural gas; MON = monitoring; MIS/MISC = miscellaneous; IND = industriaOIL = oil refining/production; TEM = temporary filing; DRI = drilling; TD = total depth; SWL = static water level 1 Points of use and coal company water rights are omitted 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Table H-2. Surface Water Rights within 3 Miles of the General Analysis Area 

Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

P3788S 53 72 27 SWSW UNA STO Lena Stock Reservoir GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 06/

P3787S 53 72 29 SWSE PU STO Gilbert Stock Reservoir GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 06/

P3787S 53 72 29 SESE PU STO Gilbert Stock Reservoir GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 06/

31/2/78S 53 72 30 SENW UNA STO Lynde #3 Stock Reservoir Richard M. Lynde** Redstone Resources 04/31/3/78S 53 72 30 SWSW UNA STO Lynde #4 Stock Reservoir Richard M. Lynde** Redstone Resources 04/31/4/78S 53 72 30 SESW UNA STO Lynde #5 Stock Reservoir Richard M. Lynde** Redstone Resources 04/

CR7/053A 53 72 30 SWSE PU STO Calf Creek No. 2 Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

CR7/053A 53 72 30 SWSE PUO STO Calf Creek No. 2 Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

P7139S 53 72 30 SWSE PU STO Calf Creek No. 2 Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/P7139S 53 72 30 SWSE PUO STO Calf Creek No. 2 Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/

P16627S 53 72 31 UNA STO Lynde #6 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.**Richard & Judy Lynde 12/

CR7/058A 53 72 31 NWSW PU STO Spangler Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

CR7/058A 53 72 31 NWSW PUO STO Spangler Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

P7137S 53 72 31 NWSW PU STO Spangler Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/P7137S 53 72 31 NWSW PUO STO Spangler Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/CR7/058A 53 72 31 SWSW PU STO Spangler Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

P7137S 53 72 31 SWSW PU STO Spangler Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/

P15427S 53 72 32 UNA STO Oedekoven 3232 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 04/

H-28 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

P1543S 53 72 33 SWNE UNA STO Tharp Stock Reservoir FLOYD A THARP 08/

P26613D 53 72 34 NWNE DSC OIL,TEM, Orcus #1 Water Haul DAVIS OIL COMPANY 06/

IND,DRI 

P26613D 53 72 34 NWNE PU OIL,TEM, Orcus #1 Water Haul DAVIS OIL COMPANY 06/

IND,DRI 

CR7/495A 53 72 34 NENW PU STO Corner Stock Reservoir D. C. Holler 05/

CR7/495A 53 72 34 NENW PUO STO Corner Stock Reservoir D. C. Holler 05/

P7712S 53 72 34 NENW PU STO Corner Stock Reservoir D. C. HOLLER 05/

P7712S 53 72 34 NENW PUO STO Corner Stock Reservoir D. C. HOLLER 05/

P6169S 53 72 34 SWSE PU STO Coal Mine Stock Reservoir JUNE C. BOISSONNAS**D.C. HOLLER 04/

P6169S 53 72 34 SWSE PUO STO Coal Mine Stock Reservoir JUNE C. BOISSONNAS**D.C. HOLLER 04/

P29316D 53 72 35 SWNE PU OIL,TEM, Royal Federal 35-7 Water Haul CONLEY P. SMITH 02/

IND,DRI 

P29316D 53 72 35 NESW PUD OIL,TEM, Royal Federal 35-7 Water Haul CONLEY P. SMITH 02/

IND,DRI 

P6170S 53 72 35 SWSE PU STO Adon Stock Reservoir JUNE C. BOISSONNAS**D.C. HOLLER 04/

P6170S 53 72 35 SWSE PUO STO Adon Stock Reservoir JUNE C. BOISSONNAS**D.C. HOLLER 04/

P6012S 53 73 35 NWSE PU STO Landik Draw Stock Reservoir DEAN W. HALL 07/P6012S 53 73 35 NWSE PUO STO Landik Draw Stock Reservoir DEAN W. HALL 07/

P15501S 53 73 36 SESW UNA STO Hall - Tate #3 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Production Company, L.P** WY 

STATE LANDS & INVESTMENTS**David and 

09/

Rhoda Tate 

P27039D 52 72 2 NENE DSC OIL,TEM, Coquina Oil Water Pump COQUINA OIL CORPORATION 03/

IND,DRI 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

P27039D 52 72 2 NENE PU OIL,TEM, Coquina Oil Water Pump COQUINA OIL CORPORATION 03/

IND,DRI 

P14107D 52 72 3 SWSW PUD IRR Gatch Ditch EDNA N. GATCH 05/

P15427S 52 72 5 NENW UNA STO Oedekoven 3232 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 04/

P3107S 52 72 5 SENW PU STO Corner Stock Reservoir GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 02/

P3107S 52 72 5 SENW PUO STO Corner Stock Reservoir GILBERT OEDEKOVEN 02/

CR7/054A 52 72 6 SWNE PU STO Calf Creek No. 3 Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

CR7/054A 52 72 6 SWNE PUO STO Calf Creek No. 3 Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

P7140S 52 72 6 SWNE PU STO Calf Creek No. 3 Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/

P7140S 52 72 6 SWNE PUO STO Calf Creek No. 3 Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/

P17750S 52 72 6 NESW UNA STO Franklin #4 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 04/

P18348S 52 72 7 NENW UNA STO Lingle #4 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 01/

P18348S 52 72 7 NWNW UNA STO Lingle #4 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 01/P18348S 52 72 7 SWNW UNA STO Lingle #4 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 01/

P18348S 52 72 7 SENW UNA STO Lingle #4 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 01/

P18347S 52 72 7 NESW UNA STO Lingle #2 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 01/

P18346S 52 72 7 NESW UNA STO Lingle #1 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 01/

31/4/82S 52 72 8 SWNE UNA STO Oedy #2 Stock Reservoir BYRON F OEDEKOVEN** Redstone Resources 04/

P14105D 52 72 9 NESE PUD IRR West Ditch EDNA N. GATCH 05/

P14108D 52 72 10 SWNE PUD IRR Supplemental Ditch EDNA N. GATCH 05/

C23/044A 52 72 10 SWSW ADJ IRR Grant No. 1 Ditch John J. Grant 08/

H-30 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

C23/045A 52 72 10 SWSW PUD IRR Grant No. 2 Ditch John J. Grant 08/

C23/045A 52 72 10 SWSW ADJ IRR Grant No. 2 Ditch John J. Grant 08/

P6856D 52 72 10 SWSW ADJ IRR Grant No. 2 Ditch JOHN J. GRANT 08/

P6855D 52 72 10 SWSW ADJ IRR Grant No. 1 Ditch JOHN J. GRANT 08/

C13/044A 52 72 11 NWSE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C13/044A 52 72 11 SWSE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C13/044A 52 72 11 SESE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C37/363A 52 72 12 NWNW PU IRR,RES Bull Creek Reservoir W. J. Monnett 05/

C37/363A 52 72 12 NWNW PUO IRR,RES Bull Creek Reservoir W. J. Monnett 05/

C37/364A 52 72 12 NWNW PUD IRR,RES Monnett Ditch W. J. Monnett 05/

C38/234A 52 72 12 NWNW PUD IRR Monnett Ditch W. J. Monnett 05/

P2658R 52 72 12 NWNW ADJ IRR,DOM Bull Creek Reservoir WALTER J. MONNETT 05/

P12415D 52 72 12 NWNW ADJ IRR,DOM Monnett Ditch WALTER J. MONNETT 05/

C38/234A 52 72 12 NWSW ADJ IRR Monnett Ditch W. J. Monnett 05/

P21266D 52 72 12 NWSW PUD IRR Wood No. 1 Sprinkler Irrigation 

System 

ROBERT M. & GEORGIA MARY C. WOOD 08/

P21266D 52 72 12 NWSW DSC IRR Wood No. 1 Sprinkler Irrigation 

System 

ROBERT M. & GEORGIA MARY C. WOOD 08/

P12415D 52 72 12 NWSW ADJ IRR,DOM Monnett Ditch WALTER J. MONNETT 05/

C13/044A 52 72 14 NENE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C13/044A 52 72 14 NWNE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C13/044A 52 72 14 SWNE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C13/044A 52 72 14 SENE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C72/199A 52 72 14 SWNW ADJ IRR P.L.R. Spreader System D. C. Holler and Jane Holler, husband and wife 05/

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

P24338D 52 72 14 SWNW ADJ IRR P.L.R. Spreader System D. C. HOLLER 05/

C13/044A 52 72 14 SENW ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C72/199A 52 72 14 SENW ADJ IRR P.L.R. Spreader System D. C. Holler and Jane Holler, husband and wife 05/C72/199A 52 72 14 SENW ADJ IRR P.L.R. Spreader System D. C. Holler and Jane Holler, husband and wife 05/

C72/199A 52 72 14 SENW PUD IRR P.L.R. Spreader System D. C. Holler and Jane Holler, husband and wife 05/

P24338D 52 72 14 SENW PUD IRR P.L.R. Spreader System D. C. HOLLER 05/

P24338D 52 72 14 SENW ADJ IRR P.L.R. Spreader System D. C. HOLLER 05/

P24338D 52 72 14 SENW ADJ IRR P.L.R. Spreader System D. C. HOLLER 05/

C13/044A 52 72 14 NESW ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C72/199A 52 72 14 NESW ADJ IRR P.L.R. Spreader System D. C. Holler and Jane Holler, husband and wife 05/P24338D 52 72 14 NESW ADJ IRR P.L.R. Spreader System D. C. HOLLER 05/

P24338D 52 72 14 NWSW ADJ IRR P.L.R. Spreader System D. C. HOLLER 05/

C13/044A 52 72 14 NESE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

P14204D 52 72 14 NESE PUD IRR Ben Hur Ditch BEN HUR STOCK FARM 01/

C13/044A 52 72 14 NWSE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C13/044A 52 72 14 SWSE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C13/044A 52 72 14 SESE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C23/044A 52 72 15 NWNW ADJ IRR Grant No. 1 Ditch John J. Grant 08/

C23/045A 52 72 15 NWNW ADJ IRR Grant No. 2 Ditch John J. Grant 08/

P6856D 52 72 15 NWNW ADJ IRR Grant No. 2 Ditch JOHN J. GRANT 08/

P6855D 52 72 15 NWNW ADJ IRR Grant No. 1 Ditch JOHN J. GRANT 08/

P11599R 52 72 16 SENW UNA IND Sedimentation No. 33 Reservoir TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY State Lands & 

Investments 

07/

H-32 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

P11598R 52 72 16 SWSE UNA IND Sedimentation No. 34 Reservoir TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY State Lands & 

Investments 

07/

P11602R 52 72 18 SENE UNA IND Hay Creek Blocking Dike Reservoir Triton Coal Co.** Wyo State Office of Lands & 

Investments 

07/

P11602R 52 72 18 SENE UNA IND Hay Creek Blocking Dike Reservoir Triton Coal Co.** Wyo State Office of Lands & 

Investments 

07/

31/1/11S 52 72 18 NENW UNA STO Franklin #1 Stock Reservoir Redstone Resources, Inc.**BYRON F 

OEDEKOVEN 

12/

31/5/82S 52 72 18 NWSW UNA STO FRANKLIN #2 STOCK RESERVOIR BYRON F OEDEKOVEN** Redstone Resources 04/

30/5/223S 52 72 19 NWNW STO Z-24 #2 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 01/

C34/176A 52 72 20 SENE PU IRR,DOM Grant Reservoir John J. Grant 06/

P24874D 52 72 20 SESE PUD OIL,TEM, 

IND,DRI 

C & K Petroleum, Inc. Oil Well Pump Point 

C & K PETROLEUM, INC. 10/

C34/177A 52 72 21 NWNE ADJ IRR,DOM Grant Ditch John J. Grant 06/P11598R 52 72 21 NWNE UNA IND Sedimentation No. 34 Reservoir TRITON COAL COMPANY** WY State Lands & 

Investments 

07/

C34/177A 52 72 21 NENW ADJ IRR,DOM Grant Ditch John J. Grant 06/

C34/177A 52 72 21 NWNW ADJ IRR,DOM Grant Ditch John J. Grant 06/C34/176A 52 72 21 SWNW PU IRR,DOM Grant Reservoir John J. Grant 06/

C34/176A 52 72 21 SWNW PUO IRR,DOM Grant Reservoir John J. Grant 06/

C34/177A 52 72 21 SWNW ADJ IRR,DOM Grant Ditch John J. Grant 06/

C34/177A 52 72 21 SWNW PUD IRR,DOM Grant Ditch John J. Grant 06/

C34/177A 52 72 21 SENW ADJ IRR,DOM Grant Ditch John J. Grant 06/

P24874D 52 72 21 SWSW PU OIL,TEM, 

IND,DRI 

C & K Petroleum, Inc. Oil Well Pump Point 

C & K PETROLEUM, INC. 10/

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

P24874D 52 72 21 SWSW DSC OIL,TEM, 

IND,DRI 

C & K Petroleum, Inc. Oil Well Pump Point 

C & K PETROLEUM, INC. 10/

C13/044A 52 72 23 NENE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C13/044A 52 72 23 NWNE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C34/179A 52 72 23 SWNE ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 23 SWNE UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

C13/044A 52 72 23 SENE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C13/044A 52 72 23 NENW ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C34/179A 52 72 23 SENW ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 23 SENW UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

C34/179A 52 72 23 NESW ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 23 NESW UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

C34/179A 52 72 23 SESW ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 23 SESW UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

C13/044A 52 72 23 NESE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6C34/179A 52 72 23 NESE ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 23 NESE UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

C34/179A 52 72 23 NWSE ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 23 NWSE UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

C34/179A 52 72 23 SWSE ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/P6887D 52 72 23 SWSE UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/C13/044A 52 72 23 SESE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C34/179A 52 72 23 SESE ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

H-34 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

C13/044A 52 72 26 NENE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C13/044A 52 72 26 NWNE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C34/179A 52 72 26 NWNE ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 26 NWNE UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

C13/044A 52 72 26 SWNE ADJ IRR Preston Ditch Mike Elmore 9/6

C34/179A 52 72 26 SWNE ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 26 SWNE UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

C34/179A 52 72 26 NENW ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 26 NENW UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

C34/179A 52 72 26 SWNW ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 26 SWNW UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

C34/179A 52 72 26 SENW ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 26 SENW UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

C34/179A 52 72 26 NWSW ADJ IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

P6887D 52 72 26 NWSW UNA RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

P6758S 52 72 27 NENW PU STO South Pines Stock Reservoir CHARLES R. OEDEKOVEN 07/

P6758S 52 72 27 NENW PUO STO South Pines Stock Reservoir CHARLES R. OEDEKOVEN 07/

C38/038A 52 72 27 SESE ADJ IRR Rawhide Ditch {Enl. of} Lydia H. Elmore 06/

C38/043A 52 72 27 SESE ADJ IRR Rawhide Ditch No. 2 Lydia H. Elmore 06/P12472D 52 72 27 SESE ADJ IRR Rawhide Ditch No. 2 LYDIA H. ELMORE 06/

P2971E 52 72 27 SESE ADJ IRR Rawhide Ditch {Enl. of} LYDIA H. ELMORE 06/

P12410R 52 72 31 UNA STO Triton No. 1 Reservoir Quantum Energy/Blackstone 12/

P12410R 52 72 31 NESW UNA STO Triton No. 1 Reservoir Quantum Energy/Blackstone 12/

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

P17232S 52 72 31 SWSW UNA STO Joe LeFors Stock Reservoir Twenty Mile Land Co., LLC 04/P12410R 52 72 31 SESW UNA STO Triton No. 1 Reservoir Quantum Energy/Blackstone 12/

C36/250A 52 72 33 SENW PUD IRR Road Ditch Effie Rooney 05/

C36/250A 52 72 33 NWSW ADJ IRR Road Ditch Effie Rooney 05/C34/182A 52 72 33 SWSW PUD IRR Rough Ditch William D. Rooney 05/

P11276D 52 72 33 SWSE PUD IRR Rough Ditch WM. D. ROONEY 05/

C38/043A 52 72 34 NENE ADJ IRR Rawhide Ditch No. 2 Lydia H. Elmore 06/

P12472D 52 72 34 NENE ADJ IRR Rawhide Ditch No. 2 LYDIA H. ELMORE 06/

C38/038A 52 72 34 NWNE ADJ IRR Rawhide Ditch {Enl. of} Lydia H. Elmore 06/P2971E 52 72 34 NWNE ADJ IRR Rawhide Ditch {Enl. of} LYDIA H. ELMORE 06/

C34/178A 52 72 34 SWNE PUO IRR Raw-Hide Reservoir Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

C34/178A 52 72 34 SWNE PU IRR Raw-Hide Reservoir Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

C34/179A 52 72 34 SWNE PUD IRR Raw-Hide Ditch Mrs. Lydia H. Elmore 09/

C38/038A 52 72 34 SWNE PUD IRR Rawhide Ditch {Enl. of} Lydia H. Elmore 06/

C38/039A 52 72 34 SWNE PUO IRR Rawhide Reservoir,, Enl. Lydia H. Elmore 06/

C38/039A 52 72 34 SWNE PU IRR Rawhide Reservoir,, Enl. Lydia H. Elmore 06/P734R 52 72 34 SWNE PUO IRR Raw-Hide Reservoir MIKE ELMORE 09/

P734R 52 72 34 SWNE PU IRR Raw-Hide Reservoir MIKE ELMORE 09/

P6887D 52 72 34 SWNE PUD RES,IRR Raw-Hide Ditch MIKE ELMORE 09/

P2971E 52 72 34 SWNE PUD IRR Rawhide Ditch {Enl. of} LYDIA H. ELMORE 06/

P2971E 52 72 34 SWNE PUH IRR Rawhide Ditch {Enl. of} LYDIA H. ELMORE 06/

P2681R 52 72 34 SWNE PU IRR Rawhide Reservoir, Enlarge LYDIA H. ELMORE 06/

P2681R 52 72 34 SWNE PUO IRR Rawhide Reservoir, Enlarge LYDIA H. ELMORE 06/

H-36 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

P15503S 52 73 1 SESE UNA STO Hall-Tate #6 Stock Reservoir David & Rhoda Tate** QUANTUM ENERGY 09/

P18370S 52 73 1 UNA STO Hall-Tate #4 Stock Reservoir David & Rhoda Tate 09/P6121S 52 73 1 SWNW PU STO South Pasture Stock Reservoir DEAN W. HALL 07/

P6121S 52 73 1 SWNW PUO STO South Pasture Stock Reservoir DEAN W. HALL 07/

P6121S 52 73 1 NESW PU STO South Pasture Stock Reservoir DEAN W. HALL 07/

P6121S 52 73 1 NWSW PU STO South Pasture Stock Reservoir DEAN W. HALL 07/

P16540S 52 73 2 SESE UNA STO Redtail Stock Reservoir David and Rhoda Tate** Redstone Resources 04/

P16540S 52 73 2 SWSE UNA STO Redtail Stock Reservoir David and Rhoda Tate** Redstone Resources 04/

P15431S 52 73 2 NENE UNA STO Hall-Tate #7 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Production**David & Rhoda Tate 10/

P15431S 52 73 2 NWNE UNA STO Hall-Tate #7 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Production**David & Rhoda Tate 10/P18352S 52 73 3 UNA STO Soukup Draw PR-3 Stock Reservoir William A. Paul & Elizabeth Landeck 02/P16362S 52 73 3 SWSE UNA STO Landeck #10 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.**William A. Landeck 04/P16362S 52 73 3 NESE UNA STO Landeck #10 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.**William A. Landeck 04/

CR7/063A 52 73 3 SWNE PU STO McKay Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

P7138S 52 73 3 SWNE PU STO McKay Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/

P12795R 52 73 3 SWNE UNA STO Enl of McKay Reservoir William Landeck 09/

CR7/062A 52 73 3 NESW PUO STO Robinson #1 Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

CR7/062A 52 73 3 NESW PU STO Robinson #1 Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

P7136S 52 73 3 NESW PU STO Robinson #1 Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/P7136S 52 73 3 NESW PUO STO Robinson #1 Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/

CR7/063A 52 73 3 NWSE PU STO McKay Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

CR7/063A 52 73 3 NWSE PUO STO McKay Stock Reservoir William A. Landeck 09/

P7138S 52 73 3 NWSE PU STO McKay Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

P7138S 52 73 3 NWSE PUO STO McKay Stock Reservoir WILLIAM A. LANDECK 09/

P12795R 52 73 3 NWSE UNA STO Enl of McKay Reservoir William Landeck 09/

P16325S 52 73 10 NWNE UNA STO Rosalie Kenney Stock Reservoir Helen 1987 Trust Hinkes** Twenty Mile Land Co. 11/

P16325S 52 73 10 SENE UNA STO Rosalie Kenney Stock Reservoir Helen 1987 Trust Hinkes** Twenty Mile Land Co. 11/

P16325S 52 73 10 NENE UNA STO Rosalie Kenney Stock Reservoir Helen 1987 Trust Hinkes** Twenty Mile Land Co. 11/

P16363S 52 73 10 NWNE UNA STO Landeck #11 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.**William A. Landeck 04/

P16363S 52 73 10 SWNE UNA STO Landeck #11 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.**William A. Landeck 04/

P16482S 52 73 11 NESW UNA STO Edward B. Kenny Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.** Twenty Mile Land Co. 04/

P1168S 52 73 12 SESE PU STO Lake Stock Reservoir CECLE COOK 03/

P1168S 52 73 12 SESE PUO STO Lake Stock Reservoir CECLE COOK 03/30/4/222S 52 73 12 SESE STO Cook #2 Stock Reservoir Cecle Cook 01/

CU9/110A 52 73 13 NWSW ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 13 SESW ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 13 NESW ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 13 SWSW ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 13 NWSW ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 13 SESW ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 13 NESW ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

H-38 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant 

PePr

CU9/110A 52 73 13 SWSW ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

30/5/222S 52 73 13 SENE STO Cook #3 Stock Reservoir Cecil Cook 01/

P5468S 52 73 13 NWNW PU STO Cook #2 Stock Reservoir CECLE L. COOK 11/

P5468S 52 73 13 NWNW PUO STO Cook #2 Stock Reservoir CECLE L. COOK 11/

P17744S 52 73 13 NESW UNA STO Oedy #1 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 01/

P17744S 52 73 13 NESW UNA STO Oedy #1 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 01/

P16541S 52 73 14 SWNE UNA STO Stanley A. Soukup #2 Stock 

Reservoir 

Devon Energy Prod. Co.** Twenty Mile Land Co. 04/

P16541S 52 73 14 NWNE UNA STO Stanley A. Soukup #2 Stock 

Reservoir 

Devon Energy Prod. Co.** Twenty Mile Land Co. 04/

P16478S 52 73 15 NWNE UNA STO Stanley A. Soukup Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.** Twenty Mile Land Co. 04/

P16478S 52 73 15 SENE UNA STO Stanley A. Soukup Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.** Twenty Mile Land Co. 04/

P16478S 52 73 15 NENE UNA STO Stanley A. Soukup Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.** Twenty Mile Land Co. 04/

P16542S 52 73 22 NESE UNA STO William R. Fox #1 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.** Twenty Mile Land Co. 05/

P16542S 52 73 22 NWSE UNA STO William R. Fox #1 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.** Twenty Mile Land Co. 05/

P16479S 52 73 22 NENE UNA STO Martin P. Carlson Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.** Twenty Mile Land Co. 04/CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

P16479S 52 73 23 NWNW UNA STO Martin P. Carlson Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Prod. Co.** Twenty Mile Land Co. 04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 SWNE ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 23 SWNE ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 24 NENW ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

CU9/110A 52 73 24 NENW ADJ MISC MOREL #1 Green Valley Estates Improvement and Service 

District 

04/

H-40 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

P17743S 52 73 24 NWNE UNA STO Z-24 #3 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven** Quantum Energy/Blackstone 01/30/4/223S 52 73 24 NWSE STO Z-24 #1 Stock Reservoir Byron F. Oedekoven 01/

P17509S 52 73 26 NESW UNA STO Bond Stock Reservoir Calvin & Della Bond 05/

P3997S 52 73 26 NWSW PU STO Kelley Stock Reservoir HERMAN COLE 01/

P3997S 52 73 26 NWSW PUO STO Kelley Stock Reservoir HERMAN COLE 01/

P17231S 52 73 26 SESW UNA STO John Schwartz #2 Stock Reservoir Twenty Mile Land Co., LLC 04/

P18099S 52 73 27 NESW UNA STO William R. Fox #2 Stock Reservoir Twenty Mile Land Co., LLC 04/

P16006S 52 73 34 SENE UNA STO Ray T. Varah #1 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Production Co., LP** Twenty Mile 

Land Co. 

04/

P16006S 52 73 35 SWNW UNA STO Ray T. Varah #1 Stock Reservoir Devon Energy Production Co., LP** Twenty Mile 

Land Co. 

04/

P17231S 52 73 35 NWNE UNA STO John Schwartz #2 Stock Reservoir Twenty Mile Land Co., LLC 04/

P13241S 52 73 35 SWNE UNA STO John Schwartz Stock Reservoir TWENTY MILE LAND COMPANY 09/

P17231S 52 73 35 NENW UNA STO John Schwartz #2 Stock Reservoir Twenty Mile Land Co., LLC 04/

P17233S 52 73 35 SENW UNA STO Ray T. Varah #2 Stock Reservoir Twenty Mile Land Co., LLC 02/

P18478S 52 73 36 NESW UNA STO Enl N.W. Chassell Reservoir 

(P1223R) Stock Reservoir 

Twenty Mile Land Co.** Wyo State Office of Lands & Investments 

09/

P13242S 52 73 36 NWSW UNA STO Horse Pasture #2 Stock Reservoir TWENTY MILE LAND COMPANY 09/

C29/389A 52 73 36 SESW PU STO N. W. Chassell Reservoir N. W. Chassell 03/

C29/389A 52 73 36 SESW PUO STO N. W. Chassell Reservoir N. W. Chassell 03/

P1223R 52 73 36 SESW PU STO,DOM N. W. Chassell Reservoir N. W. CHASSELL 03/P1223R 52 73 36 SESW PUO STO,DOM N. W. Chassell Reservoir N. W. CHASSELL 03/

P18478S 52 73 36 NWSE UNA STO Enl N.W. Chassell Reservoir 

(P1223R) Stock Reservoir 

Twenty Mile Land Co.** Wyo State Office of Lands & Investments 

09/

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix H 

Pe

Appropriation T R S QQ Status Permit Uses Permit Facility name Permit Applicant Pr

P18478S 52 73 36 SWSE UNA STO Enl N.W. Chassell Reservoir 

(P1223R) Stock Reservoir 

Twenty Mile Land Co.** Wyo State Office of Lands & Investments 

09/

C34/182A 51 72 3 NWNW ADJ IRR Rough Ditch William D. Rooney 05/

P11276D 51 72 3 NWNW ADJ IRR Rough Ditch WM. D. ROONEY 05/

C34/182A 51 72 4 NENE ADJ IRR Rough Ditch William D. Rooney 05/

P11276D 51 72 4 NENE ADJ IRR Rough Ditch WM. D. ROONEY 05/

C34/182A 51 72 4 NWNE ADJ IRR Rough Ditch William D. Rooney 05/

P11276D 51 72 4 NWNE ADJ IRR Rough Ditch WM. D. ROONEY 05/

CU2/553A 51 72 5 SENE PU STO JOHN #2 Carter Oil Company 11/CU2/553A 51 72 5 SENE PUW STO JOHN #2 Carter Oil Company 11/P17232S 51 72 6 UNA STO Joe LeFors Stock Reservoir Twenty Mile Land Co., LLC 04/P13752S 51 73 1 SWSW UNA STO T51NR73W1SWSW Stock Reservoir TWENTY MILE LAND COMPANY 01/

P13751S 51 73 2 NWNE UNA STO T51NR73W2NWNE Stock Reservoir TWENTY MILE LAND COMPANY 01/

P29316D 53 72 35 SWNE DSC OIL,TEM, Royal Federal 35-7 Water Haul CONLEY P. SMITH 02/

IND,DRI 

C38/234A 52 72 12 NENW ADJ IRR Monnett Ditch W. J. Monnett 05/P12415D 52 72 12 NENW ADJ IRR,DOM Monnett Ditch WALTER J. MONNETT 05/

C38/234A 52 72 12 SENW ADJ IRR Monnett Ditch W. J. Monnett 05/

P21266D 52 72 12 SENW PUD IRR Wood No. 1 Sprinkler Irrigation 

System 

ROBERT M. & GEORGIA MARY C. WOOD 08/

P12415D 52 72 12 SENW ADJ IRR,DOM Monnett Ditch WALTER J. MONNETT 05/

C38/234A 52 72 12 NESW ADJ IRR Monnett Ditch W. J. Monnett 05/

P12415D 52 72 12 NESW ADJ IRR,DOM Monnett Ditch WALTER J. MONNETT 05/

H-42 Final EIS, Hay Creek II 
T = township; R = range; S = section; QQ = quarter-quarter; UNA = unadjudicated; PU = location of well (not actual status); PUO = Point of reservoir outlet (not actual status); DSC = desc

PUH/PUD = point of diversion/not actual status; ADJ = adjudication; PUW = Location of well (not actual status); STO = stock; DOM = domestic; CBNG = coal bed natural gas; MON = monIND = industrial; IRR = irrigation; RES = reservoir; OIL = oil refining/production; TEM = temporary filing; DRI = drilling; TD = total depth; SWL = static water level

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
APPENDIX I 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL RULING RESPECTIVE OF 

HAY CREEK TRACT AS AN ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOOR 
Appendix I
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application I-1 
Appendix I
 

I-2 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix I
 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application I-3 
Appendix I
 

I-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
APPENDIX J 

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES 

UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 
 

 

Appendix J 

APPENDIX J: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR FEDERALLY 

LISTED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

Introduction 

On March 24, 2006, Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. (Kiewit) filed an application with the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) under the 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3425 (Leasing on 

Application) for federal coal reserves in the Hay Creek II lease by application (LBA) tract 

(Proposed Action). The Hay Creek II LBA tract is located northwest of and immediately 

adjacent to existing coal leases at the Buckskin Mine, in northern Campbell County, Wyoming 

(map J-1). 

The physical areas discussed in this assessment are defined as follows: 

 proposed tract—the Hay Creek II tract as applied for (Proposed Action, 419 acres); 

 BLM study area—proposed tract plus lands added by the BLM under Alternative 2 for the 

analysis process (1,883 acres); and 

 general analysis area—the maximum area of potential surface disturbance (2,847 acres) that 

would result from leasing the largest possible tract (i.e., the entire BLM study area and the 

0.25-mile mine support area to the north and west)1. 

Map J-2 illustrates these three areas. 

Under the Proposed Action, coal extraction would occur in the entire proposed tract 

(approximately 419 acres). Activities related to mining the proposed tract would occur within 

the support area, a 0.25-mile-wide area north and west of the proposed tract (approximately 

241 acres); disturbance from existing mine-related activities would continue in the remainder of 

the overlap area2 (approximately 474 acres). 

Under Alternative 1, disturbance from mine-related activities associated with existing coal leases 

would continue in the overlap area (approximately 656 acres). 

Under Alternative 2, coal extraction would occur in an alternative tract configuration within the 

BLM study area (up to approximately 1,883 acres). Disturbance from mine-related activities 

would occur within the support area, a 0.25-mile-wide area north and west of the alternative tract 

configuration (up to approximately 926 acres); disturbance from existing mine-related activities 

would continue in the remainder of the overlap area (approximately 38 acres). 

1 Additional disturbance beyond the final lease boundary is necessary to recover all of the coal resources within the final tract configuration. 

Such disturbance includes, but is not limited to, mine support activities such as topsoil stripping, stockpile storage highwall back-sloping 

(including catch benches), highwall reduction after mining to match undisturbed topography, and construction of flood- and sediment-control 

structures. 

2 The area of overlap between the general analysis area and the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. Disturbance in this area is from minerelated activities associated with existing coal leases. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-1 
0 10 20
 

miles
 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map J-1 

General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts 
2,500 5,000
 

feet
 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map J-2 

General Analysis Area 

0
 

Appendix J 

This biological assessment was prepared in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA). Its purpose is to disclose the potential effects on federally listed (e.g., 

threatened, endangered, candidate) plant and animal species managed under the authority of the 

ESA that are known to be present or that may be present in the general analysis area. The ESA 

requires federal agencies to ensure that all actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species, or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of their critical habitat. 

The following are the objectives of this biological assessment: 

 To comply with the requirements of the ESA that actions conducted or authorized by federal 

agencies do not jeopardize federally listed species or adversely modify their critical habitat. 

 To provide a process and standard to ensure that federally listed species receive full 

consideration in the decision-making process. 

Consultation and Coordination 

The BLM received the Hay Creek II coal lease application on March 24, 2006. The BLM, 

Wyoming State Office, Division of Minerals and Lands, initially reviewed the application and 

ruled that the application and lands involved met the requirements of regulations governing coal 

leasing on application (43 CFR 3425). The Powder River Regional Coal Team reviewed this 

lease application at a public meeting held in Casper, Wyoming, on April 19, 2006, following 

Kiewit’s presentation about the existing Buckskin Mine and the pending lease application for the 

proposed tract. That entity recommended that the BLM continue to process this application. 

The major land use planning decision that the BLM must make concerning federal coal resources 

is a determination of which coal reserves are acceptable for further consideration for leasing. 

The BLM uses four screening procedures to identify these coal reserves. Only those federal coal 

reserves that pass these screens receive further consideration for leasing. The BLM has applied 

these coal screens to federal coal reserves in Campbell County several times, beginning in the 

early 1980s. In 1993, the BLM began the most recent process of reapplying these screens in 

Campbell, Converse, and Sheridan counties in eastern Wyoming. This screening analysis 

process, which includes the portion of Campbell County where the proposed tract is located, was 

adopted in the 2001 Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands Administered by the 

BLM Buffalo Field Office (BLM 2001), and the results were included as appendix D of that 

update. That document can be viewed in the 2001 documents section on the Wyoming BLM 

website at: http://www.blm.gov/rmp/WY/application/index.cfm/rmpid=101. The general 

analysis area discussed in this biological assessment is included in the area determined to be 

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

During this screening process, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

occurred in conjunction with the unsuitability findings under Criterion 9 (Critical Habitat for 

Threatened or Endangered Plant and Animal Species), Criterion 11 (Bald or Golden Eagle 

Nests), Criterion 12 (Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and Concentration Areas), Criterion 13 

J-4 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix J 

(Falcon Nesting Site[s] and Buffer Zone[s]), and Criterion 14 (Habitat for Migratory Bird 

Species). 

The USFWS maintains a list of threatened, endangered, and candidate species, and designated 

critical habitats for each county in Wyoming on their official website: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/wyoming. The agency updates those species lists 

annually, or more frequently, if any listing changes occur. Posting these species lists on the 

USFWS website fulfills the obligation of the USFWS, under Section 7 of the ESA, to provide a 

list of threatened and endangered species upon request for federal actions and National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance. 

A memorandum issued on August 8, 2007 between the USFWS and BLM provided 

recommendations for protective measures for threatened and endangered species in accordance 

with the ESA. Protective measures for migratory birds in accordance with the Migratory Bird 

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

protection of wetlands (under Executive Order 11990 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) 

and for other fish and wildlife resources (under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) were also included. The memorandum identified the greater 

sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as a species of specific interest and emphasized the 

importance of identifying grouse habitats within the lease area, as well as appropriate mitigation 

measures to minimize potential impacts on this species. 

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

for the Proposed Action in April 2007 (Emmerich pers. comm.). The WGFD recommended that 

consideration be given to possible impacts on big game, sage-grouse, raptors, and nongame 

species and their habitats, and aquatic resources in the general analysis area. The WGFD 

reviewed the draft EIS for the Hay Creek II LBA and had no concerns about terrestrial wildlife 

(including sage-grouse) or aquatic species pertaining to that coal lease application. That 

assessment was provided by the WGFD to the BLM in a letter dated May 6, 2010. 

Regulatory Requirements and Mitigation 

The BLM leasing process does not authorize mining of federal coal reserves. The lease merely 

grants the lessee the exclusive right to pursue a mining permit for the leased tract subject to the 

terms and conditions of the lease, the mining permit itself, and all applicable state and federal 

laws. However, the impacts of mining the coal are considered at the leasing stage because they 

are a logical consequence of that process. 

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ) are the federal and state agencies, respectively, responsible for 

regulating surface coal mining operations in Wyoming. After the BLM has made a leasing 

decision, a more detailed analysis will be required prior to mining the new coal reserves. As part 

of that analysis process, the lessee submits an application for a surface mining permit to WDEQ 

and other affected state and federal agencies. The permit application includes detailed 

descriptions of proposed mining plans, as well as monitoring, reclamation, and mitigation plans 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-5 
Appendix J 

designed to address known and potential impacts from mining the coal in the leased tract. Those 

plans are developed and implemented based on extensive baseline information collected as part 

of the permitting process, as required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (SMCRA) and Wyoming law. 

If the federal coal reserves adjacent to the Buckskin Mine are leased, it would be considered a 

maintenance lease for the existing Buckskin Mine, which currently has both an approved Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920 mining plan and approved state mining and reclamation permits. Those 

existing documents must be amended to include any newly leased area before it can be actively 

mined. To amend the existing mining plan and associated permits, Kiewit would be required to 

submit a detailed permit application package to WDEQ as described above. The proposed 

mining, monitoring, reclamation, and mitigation plans for the new lease area must be approved 

by multiple state and federal agencies, including the USFWS, before a permit to mine new coal 

reserves is issued. Those approval documents are included in the WDEQ’s review process to 

ensure the permit application is complete and complies with all requirements, and that the coal 

mining operation will meet the performance standards of the approved Wyoming program. If the 

permit application package complies with the numerous and stringent requirements, the WDEQ 

would issue an amended permit to the applicant that would allow the permittee to extend coal 

mining operations into the newly acquired lease area. 

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

regulations at 30 CFR 816.97, which state: 

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

existence of endangered or threatened species listed by the Secretary of which is likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitats of such 

species in violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

To comply with this regulation, Section 7 Consultation would be required before amendments to 

the existing mining and reclamation plan are approved to add the newly acquired lease area. 

That consultation process occurs at the permitting stage because specific details regarding the 

actual location of the disturbance areas in the new lease area, how and when they would be 

disturbed, and how they would be reclaimed are not available at the leasing stage. If the USFWS 

deems it appropriate, additional measures to ensure compliance with the ESA and SMCRA can 

be developed at that time based on potential impacts on listed species from proposed mining 

operations in the new lease area. 

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

as part of the mining and reclamation permits: 

 avoiding bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) disturbance per the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 

 restoring bald eagle foraging areas disturbed by mining; 

 using raptor safe power lines (APLIC 2006); 

J-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix J 

 surveying for Ute ladies’-tresses and other listed plant species if habitat is present; and 

 implementing species-specific protective measures for listed species as the need arises. 

The August 2007 memorandum between the USFWS and BLM stated that the USFWS would 

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

conservation and recovery of listed species as required by under Section 7 of the ESA are 

satisfied and carried out. The current permit document for the Buckskin Mine includes a 

commitment to implement species-specific protective measures for federally listed species as 

needed. That commitment would be updated to include any newly leased or permitted lands 

associated with the Hay Creek II LBA prior to any new surface disturbance on those lands; 

updates to the protective measures themselves would also occur, as applicable. 

In addition to disallowing any surface mining activity that is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of endangered or threatened species, SMCRA regulations at 30 CFR 816.97: 

 require the operator to minimize disturbances and adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and other 

related environmental values; and 

 require that the operator use the best technology currently available to: 

 minimize electrocution hazards to raptors (APLIC 2006); 

 locate and operate haul and access roads to avoid or minimize impacts on important fish 

and wildlife species; and 

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

mammals. 

Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the BLM would hold a competitive sale and would issue a lease for 

the federal coal reserves included in the proposed tract. The Proposed Action assumes that 

Kiewit would be the successful bidder and would incorporate the proposed tract into its existing 

mine operations. The Proposed Action would not expand operations at the Buckskin Mine, but 

would maintain current levels of production for an additional period of time. The facilities and 

infrastructure would be the same as those currently identified in the WDEQ Mine Permit 500 

Term T7, approved May 22, 2006, and the BLM Resource Recovery and Protection Plan, 

approved June 16, 2006 (BLM 2006). 

The legal description of the proposed tract is provided in table J-1. The entire surface of the 

existing Buckskin Mine permit area and general analysis area is privately owned by individuals 

or companies, while most of the subsurface minerals (all of the coal and the majority of oil and 

gas reserves) are federally owned. All oil and gas production facilities located in the general 

analysis area are privately owned. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-7 
 

 

 

Appendix J 

Table J-1. Legal Description of Proposed Tract 

Campbell County, Wyoming, Sixth Principal Meridian Township 52 North, Range 72 West Acres 

Section 19: Lot 5 (W 1⁄2) 20.71 

Lot 6 41.42 

Lot 7 42.45 

Lot 10 42.31 

Lot 11 41.68 

Lot 12 (W 1⁄2) 20.84 

Lot 13(W 1⁄2) 20.935 

Lot 14 41.75 

Lot 15 41.90 

Lot 18 41.97 

Lot 19 42.01 

Lot 20 (W 1⁄2) 21.065 

Total Acres 419.04 

The proposed tract includes approximately 419.04 acres. As discussed previously, it is assumed 

that an area larger than the proposed tract would be disturbed to allow recovery of all coal 

resources. Therefore, approximately 478 acres, including a mine support area north and west of 

the proposed tract, would be disturbed to recover the coal reserves within the proposed tract 

under this alternative. Surface disturbance beyond the proposed lease boundary would be due to 

activities such as topsoil stripping, stockpile storage, matching reclaimed topography to 

premining contours, constructing flood- and sediment-control structures, and numerous other 

similar operations. 

Much of the western boundary of the proposed tract is adjacent to Campbell County Road 23 

(Collins Road). In accordance with SMCRA, and as specified under unsuitability criterion 3 

(43 CFR 3461), lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the right-of-way of a public road are 

considered unsuitable for surface coal mining. Consequently, the coal reserves underlying the 

Collins Road, its right-of-way, and an associated 100-foot buffer zone cannot be accessed under 

current conditions unless Kiewit pursues an exception to this prohibition and the Campbell 

County Board of Commissioners allows the public road to be relocated or closed. Neither the 

applicant nor the commissioners has submitted a proposal to move this road, and Kiewit does not 

anticipate pursuing that option. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, Kiewit’s application to lease the coal included in 

the proposed tract would be rejected: federal coal reserves adjacent to the existing Buckskin 

J-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

Appendix J 

Mine would not be offered for competitive sale, and the additional coal would not be mined. 

However, selection of this alternative would not preclude Kiewit or another company from 

submitting a future lease application for these adjacent coal reserves. 

Under Alternative 1, currently permitted mining activities associated with existing coal leases at 

the Buckskin Mine would not be affected. The facilities, infrastructure, employment levels, and 

reclamation efforts under this alternative would be the same as those currently identified in the 

WDEQ Mine Permit 500 Term T7, approved May 22, 2006, and the BLM Resource Recovery 

and Protection Plan, approved June 16, 2006 (BLM 2006). Approximately 656 acres of the 

general analysis area overlaps the existing permit boundary. Therefore, under the No Action 

Alternative, activities associated with mining existing leases would occur in this overlap area, 

but would be limited to topsoil stripping, stockpile storage, and other support activities related to 

mining existing coal leases. Average annual production would continue as described under the 

Proposed Action. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, the BLM would hold a competitive sale and would issue a lease for the 

federal coal reserves included in an alternative tract configuration. The alternative tract 

configuration would be defined by the BLM from lands within the BLM study area (map J-2) to 

be technically, economically, and environmentally preferable to the proposed tract. The 

alternative tract configuration could be smaller than the proposed tract, or include part or all of 

the BLM study area. As described previously, additional disturbance would occur due to minerelated activities in the support area north and west of the final tract configuration. 

As under the Proposed Action, Alternative 2 assumes that Kiewit would be the successful bidder 

and would incorporate the alternative tract configuration into its existing mine operations. 

Alternative 2 would not expand operations at the Buckskin Mine, but would maintain current 

levels of production for up to six more years. 

Table J-2 provides the legal description of the BLM study area. 

Table J-2. Legal Description of BLM Study Area 

Campbell County, Wyoming, Sixth Principal Meridian Township 52 North, Range 72 West Acres 

Section 7: Lots 17 through 20 166.91 

Section 8: Lots 13 through 16 162.00 

Section 9: Lots 13 through 15 120.58 

Section 17: Lots 1 through 4, 5 (N. 1⁄2), 6 (N. 1⁄2), 7 (N. 1⁄2), and 8 (N. 1⁄2) 247.39 

Section 18: Lots 5 through 11, 12 (N. 1⁄2, SW. 1⁄4), 13 (W. 1⁄2), 14 through19, and 20 (W. 1⁄2) 612.95 

Section 19: Lots 5 (W. 1⁄2), 6 through 11, 12 (W. 1⁄2), 13 (W. 1⁄2), 14 through 19, and 20 (W. 1⁄2) 573.27 

Total Acres 1,883.10 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-9 
Appendix J 

Not all of the coal included in the proposed tract and BLM study area is considered mineable at 

present. An occupied residence and a portion of the Collins and McGee roads overlie some of 

the coal included under Alternative 2. As discussed under the Proposed Action, SMCRA 

prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the right-of-way of any public road (43 CFR 

3461); the same prohibition applies to lands within 300 feet of an occupied residence. Kiewit is 

not considering acquiring the surface rights to the occupied residence, and has not applied to 

relocate either of the county roads. Consequently, additional coal reserves between the two 

roads would not be disturbed if the coal under the roads was not mined. Although the federal 

coal underlying the county road right-of-way and associated buffer zones may not be mined, it is 

included in the analysis because it would allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent 

to, but outside of the rights-of-way and associated buffer zones. 

If a decision is made to hold a competitive lease sale, and if the sale has a successful bidder, a 

lease would be issued for federal coal reserves within the final tract delineation, as determined by 

the BLM. It is assumed that the applicant would be the successful bidder at the lease sale. The 

final tract configuration offered for lease would be subject to standard and special lease 

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

One stipulation developed for the Wyoming PRB relating to threatened and endangered species 

is presented below: 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, or OTHER SPECIAL STATUS 

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

animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened or endangered under the 

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

special status. The Authorized Officer may recommend modifications to exploration and 

development proposals to further conservation and management objectives or to avoid 

activity that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat or to comply with 

any biological opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Proposed Action. 

The Authorized Officer will not approve any ground-disturbing activity that may affect 

any such species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The Authorized Officer may require 

modifications to, or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to 

the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species, or result 

in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat. 

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

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

associated with coal exploration on federal coal leases prior to approval of a mining and 

reclamation permit or outside an approved mining and reclamation permit area. The 

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

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, or his designated representative, for all 

ground disturbing activities taking place within an approved mining and reclamation 

permit area or associated with such a permit. 

J-10 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix J 

General Setting 

The terrain in the general analysis area consists primarily of gently sloping uplands and relatively 

level agricultural fields, with more rugged terrain in the northeastern portion of the area. 

Elevations in the general analysis area range from approximately 4,080 to 4,380 feet above mean 

sea level. 

Predominant wildlife habitat types classified in the general analysis area broadly correspond with 

the major plant communities defined during the vegetation baseline study. The proposed tract is 

dominated (approximately 71%) by various upland grassland habitats. Habitats in the general 

analysis area are comprised primarily (71%) of upland grasslands (approximately 40%) and 

agricultural lands (croplands and pastures, 31%). No sand dunes or prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) 

colonies are present in the general analysis area. 

No major drainages pass through the proposed tract itself, though a closed, unnamed drainage 

system crosses its northwestern corner. Hay Creek flows from west to east through the northern 

half of the general analysis area, with a considerable portion passing through the existing 

Buckskin Mine permit area. Several primary and secondary tributaries are also in that area. 

Under natural conditions, Hay Creek and all tributaries in the area are considered ephemeral 

(i.e., respond only to rainfall or snowmelt events). The determination of stream classification 

was made using the flume monitoring data collected by the Buckskin Mine and reported in the 

existing permit document. 

The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping system shows several wetlands occurring in the 

general analysis area (USFWS 2007). Many of these areas correspond with wetlands and other 

waters of the U.S. that were identified during previous wetland delineations of the Buckskin 

Mine; however, some of the information shown on these maps is relatively old and does not 

reflect current conditions. Based on the NWI maps, approximately 64.44 acres of wetlands have 

been identified in the general analysis area. Of these, 30.7 acres were determined to be 

potentially jurisdictional wetlands based on field observations; the remaining 33.74 acres were 

initially determined to be nonjurisdictional non-wetlands (e.g., borrow pits, old impoundments) 

or no longer present. The majority of the potential jurisdictional wetlands were associated with 

Hay Creek and other ephemeral tributaries in the general analysis area. Some wetlands 

previously mapped on the NWI may have been altered due to agricultural uses and permitted 

mine disturbance or water production related to coal bed natural gas (CBNG) production in the 

general analysis area. 

Wetlands occur in a variety of forms in the general analysis area, with palustrine wetlands being 

the most common and abundant. Palustrine wetlands are defined by their close association with 

emergent herbaceous marshes, swales, or wet meadows and are supported by saturated soils 

along the banks of the drainages (Cowardin et al. 1979). Wetlands support a variety of 

vegetation types and occur mainly along drainages in the general analysis area. Hydrology for 

these areas is provided primarily by surface runoff from adjacent uplands and discharged CBNG 

waters. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-11 
 

Appendix J 

Hay Creek, which flows primarily from the west to east, and several other tributaries that 

generally flow into Hay Creek, are waters of the U.S. These tributaries are primarily intermittent 

stream channels, open water, and other stream channels that carry water but do not meet the 

criteria for classification as wetlands. The Buckskin Mine’s approved mining plan allows 

disturbance of a portion of the Hay Creek channel. Beginning in 2006, approximately 1.75 miles 

of the channel were diverted into the Hay Creek Diversion to facilitate mining in the northern 

extent of the existing Buckskin Mine permit area; the diversion runs through the overlap between 

the general analysis area and the existing permit area. 

Soils in the general analysis area consist mainly of loams, sandy loams, and some clay loams. 

One hydric soil unit, Felix Clay, is located in the general analysis area (NRCS 2008), on slopes 

ranging from 0 to 2% and in soils that are developing in alluvium derived from sandstone and 

shale on gently sloping uplands. 

CBNG discharge water has increased the frequency and duration of streamflow events in some 

portions of the general analysis area. The USFWS NWI maps (2007) show one small wetland (a 

0.24-acre diked impoundment) in the extreme northwestern corner of the proposed tract; 

however, field observations over the years have indicated that it is wet primarily during early 

spring months. A second NWI inventoried wetland (0.24 acre) in the mine support area north of 

the proposed tract would be affected by disturbance associated with mine support activities such 

as topsoil stripping and stockpiling. One playa and one small instream impoundment are in the 

northwestern portion of the surrounding general analysis area. Those features are also seasonal, 

with water typically present in spring but dry by mid- to late summer. The playa is the only 

water body in the general analysis area that provides habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other 

aquatic species. Due to its limited availability, it serves primarily as a staging area during spring 

migrations. Due to the lack of permanent water sources, the general analysis area does not 

support any fisheries. 

A wide variety of existing mine facilities, operations, and reclamation activities are present in the 

overlap between the general analysis area and existing Buckskin Mine permit area, and 

throughout the permit area itself. Facilities present include storage silos, coal crushing and 

preparation plants, a railroad spur and loading facility, among others. Mining activities involve a 

variety of heavy equipment operations that occur 24 hours per day every day of the year; blasting 

occurs during daylight hours on a nearly daily basis. Reclamation efforts also involve heavy 

equipment. Disturbance and reclamation activities occur incrementally through the area. 

Because the mine operates at night, artificial lighting is present in active pit areas and on haul 

roads to ensure the safety of mine employees. 

General Survey Requirements and History 

The BLM Data Adequacy Standards for the Powder River Coal Region (BLM 1987) describe the 

minimum data requirements needed to make coal leasing recommendations within the PRB Coal 

Production Region. Because most coal mines in the PRB have collected long-term annual 

monitoring data for both vertebrates and plants as part of their WDEQ permit requirements, and 

J-12 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

Appendix J 

because most surveys include lands outside the current permit area, the BLM typically accepts 

that annual monitoring information as meeting the minimum requirements of these standards. 

The long-term (27 years) database available for vertebrate species in the Buckskin Mine permit 

area and surrounding lands meets those minimum requirements. Vegetation monitoring and 

surveys have also been conducted over multiple years, though such surveys are typically limited 

to the permit area or proposed expansion area and a 0.25-mile-wide support area. 

Due to their proximity to the existing Buckskin Mine permit area, the entire proposed tract and 

the southern third (33%) of the general analysis area have been included in annual wildlife 

surveys for the last 27 years (1984 through 2010). Approximately 95% of the general analysis 

area has been surveyed annually for the last nine years (2002 through 2010) in conjunction with 

a previous permit amendment at the mine. The entire general analysis area and expanded 

adjacent lands were included in targeted baseline surveys conducted for the LBA process from 

late 2007 through 2010. All wildlife surveys are conducted according to the most current agency 

protocols; those protocols are described in detail in the Wildlife Data Report for the Hay Creek II 

EIS. Those reports can be viewed at the BLM Wyoming High Plains District Office in Casper, 

Wyoming. Additional wildlife sightings are also recorded during every site visit. 

Potential habitat for the Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) within the general analysis 

area was identified prior to field work using the U.S. Geologic Survey quadrangle map or aerial 

photographs. The NWI system was also consulted. Typically, individual sub-polygons were 

created within each polygon representing a logical sampling unit. 

Habitat Management, Inc. conducted a survey for the Ute ladies’-tresses on August 28, 2008. 

LandTrak Resources, Inc. conducted another survey for this species on September 9, 2009, with 

a follow-up survey conducted on August 28, 2010. Both surveys were conducted during the 

official flowering period, as determined by BLM and USFWS biologists. Habitat Management, 

Inc. conducted similar surveys for this species in portions of the general analysis area in 2004, 

2006, and 2007. During surveys, particular attention was placed on identifying areas where its 

preferred vegetation canopy and use conditions are met. A 100% pedestrian survey of the 

vegetation communities with supporting facultative wet or obligatory wetland plant species 

within the area was performed each year from 2008 through 2010. Because this species is 

commonly associated with grasses, sedges, rushes, shrubs, and riparian trees, the presence or 

absence of those plant species was noted. Areas that receive full sunlight or that are only 

partially shaded are more likely to support populations of this species than deeply shaded sites. 

Such sites were also noted and recorded during the field surveys. The presence or absence of 

potential orchid habitat types was physically confirmed through the field surveys. Wetlands in 

all areas including all stream channels, alluvial terraces, sub-irrigated meadows, and any other 

locations where the soil has the potential to be at least temporarily saturated within 18 inches of 

the surface for at least one week during the growing season were identified, located in the field, 

and plotted on the site map. Highly disturbed or modified sites, upland sites, sites entirely 

inundated by standing water, sites with heavy clay soils, and very saline sites were noted and 

excluded from vegetation in soil analysis, since they do not represent a potential Ute ladies’-

tresses habitat. Sites with dense stands of reed canarygrass, greasewood, teasel, and common 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-13 
Appendix J 

reed were also excluded from further scrutiny. Areas that support facultative wet or obligatory 

wetland plant species were identified during the survey. 

Habitat Management, Inc. conducted a survey for potential blowout penstemon (Penstemon 

haydenii) habitat in the general analysis area in 2008. LandTrak Resources, Inc. conducted three 

surveys for the species: June 17, 2009; July 9, 2009; and July 7, 2010. All surveys were 

conducted in Sandy Prairie vegetation communities in section 18 and section 19, T52N R72W. 

Potential habitat for this species was identified and divided into logical polygons or sites. Each 

of these polygons was surveyed for the attributes listed in the USFWS Penstemon haydenii 

memorandum. These attributes include: 

 sand dune or blowout features and 

 disturbed areas of significantly low ground with sand, sandy loam, or loamy sand soils 

Grazed and weedy areas meeting any of the potential habitat conditions for this species noted 

above were surveyed regardless of grazing use levels or severity of weed infestation. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

According to USFWS information (2010) available when this document was initially prepared, 

four species currently listed or proposed for listing under the ESA could occur in the general 

analysis area: blowout penstemon (endangered), Ute ladies’-tresses (threatened), greater sagegrouse (candidate), and mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) (proposed for listing as 

threatened). No current threatened or endangered vertebrate species have been observed in or 

within 1 mile of the general analysis area. No critical habitats for federally listed species, or core 

or connectivity areas for sage-grouse, have been designated by the USFWS (2010) or the State of 

Wyoming (2010), respectively, in the general analysis area or surrounding lands. 

The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is no longer included as a federally listed species for 

Campbell County, Wyoming, which includes the general analysis area (USFWS 2010). 

Additionally, the USFWS issued a block clearance for this species in all black-tailed prairie dog 

(Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies throughout Wyoming in early 2004 (USFWS 2004). 

Consequently, surveys are no longer recommended for black-footed ferrets in those colonies 

statewide. Furthermore, the general analysis area is not within the region currently identified for 

black-footed ferret reintroductions (U.S. Forest Service 2002, Grenier 2003). Although this is 

not a federally listed species for the general analysis area, it remains on the national list of 

endangered animals. As a result, the USFWS encourages project proponents to protect all prairie 

dog colonies or complexes for their value to the prairie ecosystem and the many species that rely 

on them. The agency further encourages project applicants to analyze potentially disturbed 

prairie dog colonies for their value to future black-footed ferret reintroductions. No prairie dog 

colonies will be disturbed under any alternative considered in the analysis for the Hay Creek II 

EIS. 

J-14 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

Appendix J 

The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the 

general analysis area, and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the action alternatives 

on the current federally listed (threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed) species in the 

project area. 

Additional detailed information on the affected environment in the general analysis area as well 

as long-term results from annual monitoring in the vicinity are provided in the Vegetation Data 

Report and Wildlife Data Report, which can be viewed at the BLM Wyoming High Plains 

District Office in Casper, Wyoming. 

Endangered Species 

Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) 

The blowout penstemon, a member of the figwort family, was listed as endangered on October 1, 

1987. It was added to the list of threatened and endangered species for Campbell County in 

2008. This species is narrowly endemic to blowouts in sparsely vegetated, shifting sand dunes. 

The removal of fire, leveling of dunes, reduction of grazing, and cultivation of stabilizing cover 

crops drastically reduced the amount of habitat available for this species. Loss of habitat, 

coupled with impacts from insect outbreaks, drought, inbreeding, and potential over collection, 

has caused problems for the plant (University of Wyoming 2009). Additional threats to the plant 

may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic (USFWS 

2008). 

The current stronghold for this species is in western Nebraska. Approximately 

3,500-5,000 plants are currently found in multiple locations in that region. The plant was first 

discovered in Wyoming in 1877 and then rediscovered in 1996 (BLM 2008). The Wyoming 

population is limited to three sites in the Ferris dunes in northern Carbon County that contain 

several thousand plants (BLM 2008); those dunes are more than 225 miles southwest of the 

general analysis area. 

Biology and Habitat Requirements 

The blowout penstemon is a perennial forb with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence 

is 2 to 6 inches long and has 6 to 10 compact whorls of milky-blue to pale lavender flowers. 

Flowers typically bloom from mid-June to early-July. 

This species requires an early succession habitat in sand blowouts. The plant’s current know 

range in Wyoming is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest-facing slopes of active sand 

dunes with less than 5% vegetative cover; and on north-facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of 

active blowouts with 25% to 40% vegetative cover (USFWS 2008). 

Affected Environment 

The general analysis area is not within the documented historical range of the blowout 

penstemon in Wyoming. That area is located approximately 170 miles northwest of the known 

Nebraska sites and approximately 225 miles northeast of the Wyoming occurrences. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-15 
Appendix J 

Approximately 16% (455 acres) of the general analysis area is identified as Sandy Prairie 

Grassland and potentially would contain sand dune and blowout features. Portions of the general 

analysis area are moderately grazed by livestock and some areas have infestations of weedy 

species such as Canada thistle. 

Results of targeted surveys determined that no suitable blowout penstemon habitat is present in 

the general analysis area; no sand dunes (whether stable or blown out) are currently present in 

that area. Likewise, no blowout penstemon specimens were found in any of the seven potential 

sites surveyed in 2009 or 2010. The general analysis area is dominated (71%) by upland 

grasslands and agricultural lands. The graminoid-dominated Sandy Prairie uplands provide 

significant ground cover that precludes the development of shifting dune features. The soils in 

the surveyed sites are stable and no blowout features are present. Blowout penstemon remained 

undetected in southwest Wyoming for many years. This species can potentially remain dormant 

below ground for several years and thus be undetectable during surveys. However, given the 

results from multiple survey years and the existing habitat conditions, the probability appears 

extremely low that this species is present within the general analysis area. 

Environmental Consequences 

Mining the federal coal reserves under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would have no effect 

on the blowout penstemon. 

No specimens of blowout penstemon were found during surveys conducted in the study area 

from 2008 through 2010. Typical suitable habitat for this species is non-existent in the general 

analysis area, which makes it highly unlikely that populations have gone undetected. However, 

should such populations be present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities if 

appropriate habitat were disturbed. Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for 

blowout penstemon within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface 

mining activities. 

The potential habitat where blowout penstemon could occur within the general analysis area is 

extremely limited and typically not suitable for the key reasons listed below. 

 The sites present with either dune-like or blowout features within the general analysis area 

are extremely limited in size, typically less than 0.1 acre. 

 The Sandy Prairie Grassland is dominated by graminoid species which provide substantial 

ground cover and soil stability. 

 Graminoid species typically occur in a more advanced successional and site transitional state 

than blowout penstemon, which is a pioneering species. 

Based on the existing characteristics of the general analysis area, further evaluation of the area 

for this species is likely unwarranted. 

J-16 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

Appendix J 

Cumulative Effects 

This species is potentially vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation resulting from sand mining, 

water development, energy development, residential development, ORV use, and associated 

destabilization of its sand dune habitat. It also could be vulnerable to negative effects related to 

the spread of non-native species within its range. As no potential habitat for this species is 

present within the general analysis area, leasing the federal coal reserves would not contribute to 

cumulative adverse effects for the blowout penstemon. 

Threatened Species 

Ute Ladies’-Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

The Ute ladies’-tresses, a member of the orchid family, was listed as threatened on January 17, 

1992, due to a variety of factors, including habitat loss and modification, hydrological 

modifications of existing and potential habitat areas, and invasion of exotic plant species. At the 

time of listing, this species was only known from Colorado, Utah, and extreme eastern Nevada. 

Ute ladies’-tresses were discovered in Wyoming in 1993. It is currently known from western 

Nebraska, eastern Wyoming, north-central Colorado, northeastern and southern Utah, eastcentral and southeastern Idaho, southwestern Montana, and central Washington. 

Biology and Habitat Requirements 

The Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 

8 to 20 inches tall arising from tuberous-thickened roots. In Wyoming, this species typically 

blooms from late July or early August to early September, with fruits produced from mid-August 

to September (Fertig 2000). Ute ladies’-tresses can only be reliably located and positively 

identified when they are flowering (Heidel 2001). The flowers are white or ivory and clustered 

into a spike at the top of the stem; however, depending on location and climatic conditions, it 

may bloom in early July or still be in flower as late as early October (Heidel 2007). Plants 

probably do not flower every year and may remain dormant below ground during drought years. 

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

flowering. Preliminary review of climate data also indicates that growing seasons that start out 

as relatively cold and wet correspond with low flowering levels (Heidel 2001). 

The Ute ladies’-tresses occurs primarily in areas where vegetation is relatively open and not 

overly dense, overgrown, or heavily over-grazed. It is commonly associated with horsetail, 

milkweed, verbena, blue-eyed grass, reedgrass, goldenrod, bentgrass and arrowgrass. Wyoming 

populations often occur in moist meadow communities dominated by redtop, common 

quackgrass, Baltic rush, foxtail barley, or switchgrass within a narrow vegetative band between 

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

range from 75% to 90% and is usually less than 45 centimeters tall (Fertig 2000). However, the 

orchid seems intolerant of shade and is usually found as small scattered groups that occupy 

relatively small areas of open vegetation within the riparian system. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-17 
Appendix J 

The total known number of individuals of this species is currently estimated to be 

83,000 individuals (Fertig et al. 2005). Occurrences range in size from one plant to a few 

hundred individuals. Prior to 2005, four orchid populations had been documented within 

Wyoming, all discovered between 1993 and 1997 (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Four additional 

sites were located in 2005 and one additional site was found in 2006 (Heidel 2007). The new 

locations were in the same drainages or tributaries as the original four populations. Drainages 

with documented orchid populations include Antelope Creek and tributaries in northern 

Converse County, Bear Creek in northern Laramie and southern Goshen Counties, Horse Creek 

in Laramie County, and Niobrara River in Niobrara County. 

Populations are often dynamic and “move” within a watershed as disturbances create new habitat 

or succession eliminates old habitat (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). The orchid is well adapted to 

disturbances from stream movement and is tolerant of other disturbances, such as grazing, that 

are common to grassland riparian habitats (USFWS 1995). Ute ladies’-tresses colonize early 

successional riparian habitats such as point bars, sand bars, and low-lying gravelly, sandy, or 

cobbley edges, persisting in those areas where the hydrology provides continual dampness in the 

root zone through the growing season. Soils where the orchid has been found typically range 

from fine alluvial silt/sand to gravels and cobbles, as well as in highly organic and peaty soil 

types, or whitish loamy clay with a slightly basic pH. The orchid can also become established in 

heavily disturbed sites, such as revegetated gravel pits, heavily grazed riparian edges, and along 

well-traveled foot trails on old berms (USFWS 1995). This species is not found in heavy or tight 

clay soils or in extremely saline or alkaline soils. 

Affected Environment 

The general analysis area is not within the documented range of the Ute ladies’-tresses in 

Wyoming; no occurrences have been recorded in Campbell County. The nearest documented 

record of Ute ladies’-tresses is the Antelope Creek population, approximately 70 miles southwest 

of the general analysis area. Most of the potentially suitable habitat in the general analysis area 

is found along Hay Creek. This primary drainage, which flows generally from west to east 

through the northern portion of the general analysis area, is classified as an ephemeral stream in 

this area. Limited portions of Hay Creek and its tributary drainages may receive recharge from 

bank storage making them locally intermittent. In response to recent surface discharge of 

groundwater associated with CBNG development on or upstream of the general analysis area, 

streamflow occurrence is now more persistent and some drainage channels are seldom 

completely dry. 

Several unnamed and named ephemeral tributaries drain portions of the general analysis area 

though, as described above. Only one drainage intersects the proposed tract itself; that drainage 

does not connect with Hay Creek. One small (0.24 acre) impoundment is present in the 

northwestern corner of the proposed tract, with additional stock reservoirs present elsewhere in 

the general analysis area. The stock reservoirs are constructed as earthen berms or dams located 

on these ephemeral drainages. These ponds generally contain water only in early spring, then 

dry up in summer. 

J-18 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix J 

Environmental Consequences 

Mining the federal coal under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 will have no effect on 

Ute ladies’-tresses. 

No Ute ladies’-tresses were located during surveys conducted in appropriate habitats within the 

general analysis area in 2004 or annually from 2006 through 2010 (LandTrak Resources 2009, 

2011). No potential habitat for this species is present within the proposed tract. Previous 

wetland inventories identified a total of 6.71 acres of nonjurisdictional wetlands and 1.33 acres 

of other waters of the U.S. within or directly adjacent to Hay Creek as it flows through the 

overlap between the existing Buckskin Mine permit area and the general analysis area. 

However, most of these features have already been excavated for the extraction of coal reserves 

as part of the current Buckskin Mine permit, or are already permitted for disturbance due to their 

location within the existing permit area. Additionally, coal reserves under and within 100 feet of 

the Collins and McGee roads, and within 300 feet of an occupied residence, are considered 

“unsuitable for mining” under BLM coal unsuitability criterion 3. Because Kiewit has not 

applied to relocate either road and does not intend to obtain surface rights for the occupied 

residence, the lands between the two roads and west of the Collins Road are operationally 

blocked from mining. Consequently, no new potential Ute ladies’-tresses habitat has been added 

by the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 that is not already approved for disturbance. 

Because this species can persist below or above ground without flowering, single season surveys 

that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect populations; surveys in the 

general analysis area have been conducted during the last five consecutive flowering seasons 

(2006 through 2010). 

Potential habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses is extremely limited within the general analysis area and 

typically is not suitable for this species for a number of key reasons: 

 Wet meadow habitat types typically support aggressive rhizomatous graminoid plant species. 

These potential habitat sites are well-established plant communities that typically have dense 

under-story cover. This orchid normally does not grow in such conditions. 

 Soils trend from moderately to very saline/sodic. A number of the potential habitat sites have 

visible saline/sodic crusts. Inland saltgrass and foxtail barley are often the only species 

growing in these areas. 

 CBNG dewatering and treatment activities have caused major impacts to all of the 

watersheds within the proposed amendment area. Areas that have been historically wet are 

now dry, and new areas are now wet where CBNG waters are discharged/treated. The 

historic groundwater and soil moisture conditions have been altered or disrupted and major 

shifts in plant community distribution have occurred or are occurring. 

 Livestock grazing has impacted the quality of riparian areas. Livestock use during the wetter 

times of the year adversely impacts potential Ute ladies’-tresses habitat. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-19 
Appendix J 

Stormwater runoff varies considerably from year to year. A reliable supply of surface water is 

not always available during the middle and late summer to support late growth plant species. 

This serves to further limit the presence of potential Ute ladies’-tresses habitat within the general 

analysis area; the quality of potential habitats is extremely poor. 

Any jurisdictional wetlands that are destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in 

accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as determined by the 

Corps. The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the exact function and landscape features of the 

premine wetlands. The Corps considers the type and function of each jurisdictional wetland that 

will be impacted and may require restoration of additional acres if the type and function of the 

restored wetlands will not completely replace those of the original wetlands. Replacement of 

nonjurisdictional and functional wetlands may be required by the surface land owner and/or 

WDEQ. That agency allows and sometimes requires mitigation of nonjurisdictional wetlands 

affected by mining, depending on the values associated with the wetland features. The WDEQ 

also requires replacement of playas with hydrologic significance. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alterations of stream morphology and hydrology are believed to have extirpated Ute ladies’-

tresses from most of its historical range (USFWS 1995). Disturbance and reclamation of streams 

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

water produced with CBNG development and discharged on the surface may also alter stream 

morphology and hydrology. However, no typical suitable habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses is 

present within the proposed tract. Additionally, no orchids have been documented during 

repeated surveys of typical suitable habitat in the portion of the Hay Creek drainage included in 

the BLM study area. Furthermore, nearly the entire Hay Creek drainage under that alternative 

has already been approved for disturbance, and most of that disturbance has already occurred. 

The remaining drainage reach that may provide typical suitable habitat for this species is within 

one or more areas designated as unsuitable for mining. Therefore, leasing the federal coal 

reserves is not likely to contribute to cumulative adverse effects for the Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Candidate Species 

Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

The sage-grouse was determined to be warranted for listing under the ESA in March 2010, but 

that listing was precluded by higher priority species. Although the sharp-tailed grouse does not 

have the same status as sage-grouse, it has been documented at the Buckskin Mine over the 

years. Surveys for both species are conducted using current agency protocols. Consequently, 

portions of the following discussion apply to both species. However, because sharp-tailed 

grouse are not involved in the listing process, no information specific to that species is provided 

in this appendix. 

J-20 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

Appendix J 

Sage-Grouse Life History 

The sage-grouse is considered a “landscape species,” which means that large expanses of 

unfragmented land are required to provide all the habitat components necessary for their annual 

life cycle. This species is a sagebrush-obligate, and requires sagebrush habitat year-round for 

food, cover, and shelter, and for every phase of its life cycle. Sage-grouse often exhibit seasonal 

movements to use discrete sagebrush habitats, though the distance traveled varies widely among 

populations. These movements are often in response to devotion to seasonal-use areas (i.e., 

breeding, nesting/brood rearing, summering, and wintering), with adjustments related to severity 

of winter weather, topography, and vegetative cover. 

Sage-grouse breeding occurs on leks during late March and April. Leks are generally established 

in open areas surrounded by Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis), 

which is used for escape cover and protection from predators. Generally, lek sites are used year 

after year and are considered the center of year-round activity for resident sage-grouse 

populations. On average, approximately two-thirds of sage-grouse hens nest within 3 miles of 

the lek where they were bred. New spring plant growth, residual cover, and understory are 

important habitat components for nesting sage-grouse hens. 

Areas near nests are used for several weeks by hens for brood rearing. The habitats used during 

the first few weeks after hatching must provide both good cover to conceal the chicks and 

essential nutritional requirements during this period of rapid development. Brood-rearing 

habitats that have a healthy and wide diversity of plant species, particularly grasses and forbs, 

tend to provide the variety and abundance of insects that are an essential protein supply for the 

young birds. 

Summer habitat consists of sagebrush mixed with areas of wet meadows, riparian, or irrigated 

agricultural fields. As summer progresses and forbs mature and dry up, sage-grouse broods must 

move to more mesic or wet meadow-type habitats where succulent plants and insects are still 

available. This can be especially important in drier years and during extended periods of 

drought. As the fall season nears, sage-grouse form flocks as brood groups come together. As 

fall progresses, sage-grouse move toward their winter ranges. 

During winter, sage-grouse feed almost exclusively on sagebrush leaves and buds. Suitable 

winter habitat requires sagebrush to be accessible, especially in areas where snowfall is common. 

It is crucial that sagebrush be exposed at least 10 to 12 inches above snow level, as this provides 

food and cover for wintering sage-grouse. Population and habitat analyses suggest that wintering 

habitat can be as limiting as breeding habitats. 

Regional and Statewide Sage-Grouse Population Trends 

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% 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, 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-21 
Appendix J 

this study estimated that sage-grouse populations declined at an average rate of 0.51% per year 

from 1968 to 1986 (9.66% decline overall), and at an average rate of 0.33% per year from 1987 

to 2003. Populations were lowest in the mid-1990s, with a gradual increase in numbers in some 

regions since that time (Connelly et al. 2004). 

The general analysis area is within the Northeast Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group 

(NWLSWG) area, which includes portions of the WGFD Sheridan and Casper biological 

regions. Because the nearest USDA Forest Service lands are approximately 50 miles north and 

south of the general analysis area, this EIS does not include lek trends from the Thunder Basin 

National Grasslands. Results from that area are discussed in both the South Gillette Coal Lease 

Application Final EIS and the Wright Area Coal Lease Application Draft EIS, available on the 

Wyoming BLM website. 

Sage-grouse monitoring has occurred in the NWLSWG area since 1967. Assuming the number 

of males per active lek accurately reflects sage-grouse populations, population trends have 

exhibited a cyclical pattern within this area. Periodic highs and lows in grouse numbers have 

occurred at approximately 10-year intervals (figure J-1). With the exception of the most recent 

cycle, each successive peak was lower than the preceding peak; the same was true for successive 

low counts. This long-term trend suggests a steadily declining sage-grouse population (WGFD 

2008a). 

Comparisons between sage-grouse population trends in the NWLSWG area and statewide 

(figure J-2) show strong similarities, though the average number of males per lek in the regional 

area has been lower than that observed statewide in most years. As in the NWLSWG area, the 

statewide sage-grouse population trend has exhibited a long-term (1960–2008) decline, a 

mid-term (1999–2008) increase, and a recent short-term (2006–2008) decline (WGFD 2008b). 

The mid- and short-term trends in statewide populations are believed to be largely weather 

related. Timely precipitation in some years resulted in improved habitat conditions, allowing 

greater numbers of sage-grouse to hatch and survive. Conversely, multi-year drought conditions 

are believed to have caused lower grouse survival in the early 2000s, leading to population 

declines. 

The WGFD considers these trends as valid at the statewide scale, but more varied at the local 

scale (WGFD 2008b). For example, sub-populations in areas more heavily influenced by 

anthropogenic impacts (e.g., subdivisions, intensive energy development, large-scale conversion 

of habitat from sagebrush to grassland or agriculture, interstate highways) have experienced 

declining populations or extirpation despite recent population increases in other parts of the state 

(WGFD 2008b). The potential for West Nile virus, as well as loss of population connectivity, 

represent additional threats to this species in many parts of its range (Naugle et al. 2004). 

Agency Responses to Sage-Grouse Population Trends 

Since 1999, the USFWS has received eight petitions requesting that the sage-grouse be listed 

under the ESA as threatened or endangered. Three of the petitions requested that sage-grouse be 

listed as endangered across its entire range. On January 12, 2005, following a 12-month status 

J-22 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

Appendix J 

review on the species, the USFWS concluded that listing was not warranted at that time. On 

December 4, 2007, U.S. District Court, District of Idaho, ruled that the USFWS 12-month 

petition finding on sage-grouse was in error and remanded the case back to the agency for further 

reconsideration. On February 26, 2008, the USFWS announced the initiation of another status 

review for the sage-grouse. That review process concluded on March 5, 2010, when the agency 

determined that listing the sage-grouse under the ESA was “warranted, but precluded” by other 

higher priorities; that determination has since received legal challenges by various groups. 

 In response to these repeated petitions and the most recent determination regarding listing under 

the ESA, the USFWS has indicated the need for increased and continued efforts to conserve 

sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat on a long-term basis. That agency has encouraged continued 

development and implementation of conservation strategies throughout the species’ range. In 

May 2002, the USFWS office in Cheyenne, Wyoming, released a list entitled “Coal Mine List of 

40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming,” which replaced the previous 

“Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest List.” The sage-grouse is included as a Level I species 

on the updated list, which indicates the need for a monitoring and mitigation plan for this 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-23 
0 

10 20 30 40 50 60 

1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 

Ye a r 

# Males/L e k 

Lek Count A ll Lek Check s 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Average Male Sage-grouse Lek Attendance within the Northeast Wyoming Local Work
0

10203040506070

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Males/Lek

Year

WY Sage-grouse Ave. Males/Lek 1960-2008

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Average Number of Males per Lek Counted in Wyoming (1960–2008) with a Minimum of 1
Appendix J 

species. Although the sage-grouse continues to be managed by the WGFD, its current status as a 

candidate species under the ESA gives further impetus to ongoing annual monitoring efforts. 

The sage-grouse is also a BLM sensitive species (see appendix K) due to its recurring presence 

in the federal listing process. 

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. 

The closure followed the deaths of 11 sage-grouse in northeastern Wyoming from West Nile 

virus in August and early September of that year. According to WGFD’s September 11, 2003, 

press release, the commission took this action because the incidence of infection was much 

higher in northeastern Wyoming than in the rest of the state, and the area is on the fringe of 

sage-grouse range with marginal, fragmented habitat. Recent lek count data indicate that 

Wyoming’s sage-grouse populations increased slightly from 2004 through 2007. Lower 

incidences of West Nile Virus mortalities were also documented in those years, primarily due to 

cooler temperatures that reduced mosquito populations. Sage-grouse hunting seasons were 

reopened in 2004 (Christiansen 2004). 

In 2007, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal commissioned a Statewide Sage-grouse 

Implementation Team, which emerged from the Governor’s 2007 Sage-Grouse Summit. On 

March 17, 2008, the implementation team preliminarily identified and mapped recommended 

sage-grouse core breeding areas in Wyoming in an effort to better understand the types of habitat 

grouse prefer and what areas should be protected. No such habitat was defined in the vicinity of 

the general analysis area for the Hay Creek II LBA. 

On August 1, 2008, the Governor of Wyoming released an executive order regarding 

sage-grouse core area protection on state trust lands. The sage-grouse core area protection 

concept came about because of work by the Sage-Grouse Implementation Team. The 

implementation team developed a core population strategy for the state “to maintain habitats and 

viable populations of sage-grouse in areas where they are most abundant.” As part of that effort, 

the team delineated approximately 40 areas of state trust lands around Wyoming with a goal of 

maintenance and enhancement of grouse habitats and populations within the core areas. The 

areas were delineated by evaluating habitats within a 4-mile radius of selected sage-grouse leks 

in high lek-density areas. The Implementation Team is currently working with the Local Sagegrouse Working Groups throughout Wyoming to revise those core areas to include lands within 

5.3 miles of selected sage-grouse leks to increase protection for nesting hens, and to identify and 

protect other important habitats that might help maintain connectivity among populations. 

Revised maps and management recommendations are expected to be released in the latter half of 

2010. 

The BLM Wyoming State Office is also in the process of developing a statewide sage-grouse 

management policy and has incorporated sage-grouse focus areas based on the core area concept 

in its draft management policy. The BLM has indicated that the sage-grouse management 

strategy for future surface disturbance, which would include the Proposed Action and 

alternatives, will likely be based on its sage-grouse focus areas. 

J-26 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J 

Affected Environment 

Based on results from annual counts and lek searches conducted for the Buckskin Mine, sagegrouse occur but are not abundant in the general analysis area. In general, sharp-tailed grouse do 

not appear to be as prevalent as sage-grouse near the surface coal mines in northeast Wyoming. 

However, sharp-tailed grouse have been seen in greater numbers and with more frequency than 

sage-grouse in the general analysis area in recent years, though counts for both species have 

declined over time (table J-3). 

Table J-3. Peak Grouse Attendance at Leks in the Vicinity of Buckskin Mine (1984–2010) 

Year 

Daly SAGR 

M F 

Hay Creek 

SAGR*1 

M F 

McGee 

SAGR2 

M F 

Stickel 

STGR* 

M F 

McGee I 

STGR 

M F 

McGee II 

STGR* 

M F 

McGee III 

STGR** 

M F 

1984 20 1 2 U — — — — — — — — — — 

1985 20 4 8 U — — — — — — — — — — 

1986 12 0 12 U — — — — — — — — — — 

1987 10 0 23 U — — — — — — — — — — 

1988 17 0 27 U — — — — — — — — — — 

1989 16 5 15 1 — — — — — — — — — — 

1990 9 1 12 1 — — — — — — — — — — 

1991 10 1 17 0 — — — — — — — — — — 

1992 7 1 20 5 — — — — — — — — — — 

1993 0 0 U U — — — — — — — — — — 

1994 0 0 U U — — — — — — — — — — 

1995 0 0 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — 

1996 0 0 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — 

1997 0 0 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — 

1998 0 0 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — 

1999 0 0 0 0 — — — — 5 0 — — — — 

2000 0 0 0 0 — — 13 1 8 0 — — — — 

2001 0 0 2 3 6 2 9 3 4 0 — — — — 

2002 03 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 13 5 — — 

2003 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 8 1 — — 

2004 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 — — 

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 

2006 0 0 0 0 U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2007 0 0 U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mgt. 

Statu 

s5 

Abandoned Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied 

M= Male; F = Female; SAGR = sage-grouse; STGR = sharp-tailed grouse; U = Unknown, inaccessible due to mining; --- = lek undiscovered 

* In the Buckskin Mine permit area. 

** In the general analysis area. 

1 The lek was beyond the required annual monitoring area until 2002 but was checked at least once in most years. 

2 The lek is beyond the required annual monitoring area; data presented is from the 2009 WGFD lek database. 

3 Two displaying males were seen once approximately 1,000 feet south of the historic lek site. The birds were presumed to have flown in from another 

lek located 2.0 miles south of the Daly lek site. 

4 Birds were not displaying; number of males and females unknown. 

5 Management status based on WGFD (2010) classifications. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-27 
Appendix J 

Three sage-grouse lek sites have been documented at the Buckskin Mine over the last 27 years of 

annual monitoring (table J-3); none of these sites is within the general analysis area (map J-3). 

The Daly sage-grouse lek has been inactive for the last 17 consecutive years and is considered 

abandoned by the WGFD. The remaining two leks have also been inactive in recent years, but 

are still classified as occupied. The Hay Creek lek is within the existing Buckskin Mine permit 

area, approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the general analysis area. This site has been or will be 

affected by previously permitted disturbance in the permit area. The McGee sage-grouse lek is 

approximately 1.25 miles north of the general analysis area, and the abandoned Daly lek site is 

approximately 0.75 mile west of the permit area and on the far side of U.S. Highway 14-16. 

The Daly sage-grouse lek has been monitored annually since 1984 (table J-3). The greatest 

number of males recorded there was 20 in both 1984 and 1985. Peak male counts vacillated over 

the next seven years, but attendance gradually declined through 1992. No grouse were observed 

at the lek itself from 1993 through 2010. Two males were seen displaying approximately 

1,000 feet south of the historic Daly lek site on one occasion in late April 2002, but no grouse 

were recorded in that area during any subsequent surveys. Those two birds were presumed to 

have flushed from an active lek site approximately 2 miles south of the Daly lek. 

The Hay Creek sage-grouse lek is located in the northeastern corner of the existing Buckskin 

Mine permit area. The lek was active every year from 1984 through 1992, with a peak count of 

27 males in 1988. The site was not visited in 1993 or 1994, but no birds were observed during 

periodic checks from 1995 through 2000. Through 2000, the lek site was beyond the required 

annual monitoring area (existing permit boundary and 1-mile radius) for the Buckskin Mine; the 

mine surveyed the lek voluntarily during this period. Annual monitoring of the Hay Creek lek 

resumed from 2001 through 2010, except in 2007; the lek was not accessible that year due to 

mine operations. Two displaying males and three hens were seen at the lek on one morning in 

2001, but no grouse were present during additional checks that year, or in subsequent 

monitoring years. 

The McGee sage-grouse lek is located beyond the required annual monitoring area for the 

Buckskin Mine and, therefore, is not included in that monitoring program. A WGFD biologist 

first recorded the lek in 2001. Biologists with that agency monitored the lek each year through 

2005 and again in 2008; surveys were conducted by independent biologists in 2009 and 2010. 

The peak male count during that period was the original six birds discovered in 2001. No birds 

were seen at the McGee sage-grouse lek during five of the eight survey years, though the 

landowner reported birds present there in 2008 (the WGFD count was zero during three separate 

counts that year). 

No grouse nests or broods for either species have been encountered in the general analysis area 

during targeted surveys or incidental to surveys conducted for other species. No sage-grouse 

have been observed during winter, though site visits occur less often at that time of year. 

J-28 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
BO Burrowing Owl 

0 5,000 

0 

10,000

5,000 10,000 

feet 

feet 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map 3.10-1 

Raptor Nests, Prarie Dog Colonies, and Grouse Leks in the Wildlife Survey Area 
Appendix J 

As described in section 3.10.1, sagebrush habitat is limited to 302 noncontiguous acres in the 

general analysis area (including 46 noncontiguous acres in the proposed tract) with average patch 

size of 4.9 acres. These acreages represent less than 11% of the total vegetative cover for each 

area. Water sources in the general analysis area are limited to the diverted channel of the 

ephemeral drainage of Hay Creek, two small impoundments, and a playa. Of those, only one 

small impoundment is present in the proposed tract itself. All water bodies are seasonal, with 

water typically present in spring but dry by mid- to late summer. 

Environmental Consequences 

Given the dominant vegetation types in the general analysis area (upland grasslands and 

agricultural fields) and the lack of regular sightings over the last 27 years of monitoring, 

especially outside the breeding season, it is unlikely that the sage-grouse is a yearlong resident in 

the general analysis area. The WGFD stated in a letter to the BLM, dated May 6, 2010, that it 

has no concerns about terrestrial wildlife, including sage-grouse, pertaining to the Hay Creek II 

LBA coal lease application. 

Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, surface coal mining in the proposed tract (419 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (241 acres) would have no physical impact on grouse leks 

(map J-3). This alternative would have a minor, long-term impact on approximately 46 noncontiguous acres of potential sage-grouse nesting habitat (sagebrush) in these areas. Activities in 

the remainder of the overlap area (474 acres) related to mining existing coal leases also would 

have no impact on sage-grouse leks, but would have a minor, long-term impact on approximately 

80 non-contiguous acres of potential sage-grouse nesting habitat (sagebrush). Ongoing impacts 

on potential upland game bird habitats from current facilities and mining techniques would be 

the same as those described above under “Affected Environment,” but would continue for two 

years beyond the current life-of-mine estimate. 

No grouse leks, nests, broods, or other signs of use (feathers, droppings, and snow tracks) have 

been documented within the proposed tract during the last 27 years of monitoring. The proposed 

tract, support area, and overlap area do not provide any unique habitat for sage-grouse. This 

combined area is dominated (71%) by upland grasslands. Sagebrush occurs on approximately 

126 non-contiguous acres, with an average patch size of 4.9 acres. Impacts from mine-related 

noise would be minor and short-term due to the presence of natural buffers between mine 

activities and lek sites, and the temporary and incremental presence of operations in any given 

location. 

Because the proposed tract is dominated by upland grasslands, the establishment of reclaimed 

grassland communities after mining has been completed would not result in a dramatic change in 

habitat types from the premining conditions. Some evidence has been documented that sagegrouse do repopulate areas after reclaimed shrublands have become established, but that process 

may take decades (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 

J-30 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix J 

repopulation in the reclaimed areas. Once they do return to an area, sage-grouse populations do 

not appear to attain their previous levels. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the coal lease application would be rejected and no new coal 

reserves would be mined in the general analysis area. Activities in the overlap area (656 acres) 

related to mining existing coal leases would have no physical impact on any sage-grouse leks 

(map J-3), but would have a minor, long-term impact on approximately 86 non-contiguous acres 

of potential sage-grouse nesting habitat (sagebrush). Other factors associated with this species 

and its habitat would be the same as those described under the Proposed Action. A decision to 

reject the coal lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in the general 

analysis area in the future. 

No sage-grouse leks are present in the general analysis area, but one site is located approximately 

0.5 mile southeast of that area, within the existing mine permit area (map J-3). That lek site has 

not yet been physically disturbed, but mine operations have been ongoing within 700 feet of the 

lek in recent years. No sage-grouse nests or broods have been documented in the overlap area 

between the general analysis area and existing permit boundary, nor have grouse been observed 

in the overlap area during winter. 

As described under the Proposed Action, the overlap area does not provide any unique habitat for 

the sage-grouse. The area is dominated by upland grasslands, with sagebrush occurring in small 

patches scattered across approximately 86 noncontiguous acres. Therefore, the establishment of 

reclaimed grassland communities after mining has been completed would not result in a dramatic 

change in habitat types from the premining landscape. 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, surface coal mining in the BLM study area (up to 1,883 acres) and minerelated activities in the support area (926 acres) would have no impact on sage-grouse leks 

(map J-3), but would have a minor long-term impact on approximately 302 non-contiguous acres 

of potential sage-grouse nesting habitat (sagebrush). Activities in the remainder of the overlap 

area (38 acres) related to mining existing coal leases would have no impact on sage-grouse leks 

or sagebrush. Impacts from mine-related noise on leks beyond the general analysis area would 

be minor and short-term due to the presence of natural buffers between mine activities and lek 

sites, and the temporary and incremental presence of operations in any given location. Impacts 

on known and potential upland game bird habitats from current facilities and mining techniques 

would be the same as those described above under the Proposed Action, but would continue for 

up to six years beyond the current life-of-mine estimate. 

No sage-grouse leks occur within the general analysis area (map J-3). The nearest sage-grouse 

lek (Hay Creek) is within the existing permit area approximately 0.5 mile to the southeast and, 

thus, is already subject to disturbance from previously permitted activities. The McGee sagegrouse lek is on private surface approximately 1.25 miles north of the general analysis area. That 

site is on the far side of multiple ridges that provide a visual and audio buffer, and it is not likely 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-31 
 

Appendix J 

to be affected by mine operations. Sage-grouse were last observed at the Hay Creek lek in 2001 

and the McGee lek in 2004; both are considered occupied by the WGFD. 

Disturbance and reclamation activities would be temporary and occur incrementally throughout 

the general analysis area. If mining activities disturb an active lek, grouse would have to use an 

alternate site or establish a new lek for breeding activities. 

In addition to lek sites, areas of suitable habitat for nesting and other seasonal needs are 

necessary to sustain sage-grouse populations. One recent study suggests that availability of 

winter habitat can also affect sage-grouse populations (Naugle et al. 2006). The general analysis 

area is dominated (71% of total cover) by upland grasslands and agricultural fields, which do not 

provide the necessary shrub communities for forage and cover. Sagebrush in that area is limited 

to 302 noncontiguous acres, with an average patch size of approximately 4.9 acres. No grouse 

nests or broods have been documented in the general analysis area, nor have grouse been 

observed there during winter. Additionally, the general analysis area is not included in or within 

several miles of either a state sage-grouse core area or BLM sage-grouse focus area, though that 

does not preclude the need for grouse management when they are present. 

The general analysis area does not provide any unique habitat for sage-grouse, and future mine 

operations would affect existing and potential habitat to varying degrees. As described 

previously, the prevalence of upland grasslands and the limited presence of surface water reduce 

the area’s value to sagebrush obligates such as the sage-grouse. 

Leasing, mining, and reclaiming a tract within the general analysis area would result in 

permanent alterations in the topography and long-term changes in vegetative composition from 

premine conditions. Because the general analysis area is dominated (71%) by upland grassland 

communities and agricultural lands, the establishment of reclaimed grassland communities after 

mining has been completed would represent similar or somewhat improved wildlife habitats, 

respectively, compared to those in the premining landscape. Restoration of sagebrush 

communities that are present could be difficult to accomplish through artificial plantings, and can 

take decades through natural regeneration. Until sagebrush returns to its premining density, a 

reduction in potential habitat for wildlife species associated with that habitat would occur in the 

general analysis area. 

Some evidence has been documented that sage-grouse do repopulate areas after reclaimed 

shrublands have become established, but that process may take decades (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. Once 

they do return to an area, sage-grouse populations do not appear to attain their previous levels. 

Once they do return to an area, sage-grouse populations have not yet been documented at their 

previous levels. 

J-32 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix J 

Cumulative Effects 

Although the lands disturbed by future mining would be reclaimed in accordance with the 

requirements of SMCRA and Wyoming statutes, some residual wildlife impacts would occur. 

Areas that currently support sagebrush would be altered to a grassland community, perhaps for 

decades, during the interim between sage plantings and maturity in reclamation. This would 

reduce the carrying capacity of the land for shrub-dependent species, though such impacts would 

be mediated by the limited presence of sagebrush and riparian (brood-rearing) habitats in the 

general analysis area. Until such habitats have been fully reestablished, transitions from 

sagebrush to grassland communities would likely result in some changes in wildlife species 

composition. Shrubland species may repopulate reclaimed areas, but populations may not attain 

premining levels. As indicated, the limited presence of sagebrush communities in the general 

analysis area would help minimize such residual impacts. 

Proposed Species 

Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) 

The USFWS originally proposed to list the mountain plover as a threatened or endangered 

species under the ESA in February 1999, and amended that proposal in December 2002. The 

agency withdrew the listing proposal in September 2003 based on the conclusion that 

information available at that time did not indicate the threats to the mountain plover and its 

habitat were likely to endanger the species in the foreseeable future. In June 2010, the USFWS 

reinstated the 2002 proposed rule to list the mountain plover as a threatened species and invited 

public comments. As a result of that reinstated proposal, the BLM was required to confer with 

the USFWS on any action that could jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed 

for listing under the ESA. 

On May 11, 2011, after a thorough review of all available scientific and commercial information, 

the USFWS determined that the mountain plover is not threatened or endangered throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, including Campbell County, Wyoming, the Hay Creek II 

general analysis area (76 FR 92). Consequently, this species was removed from the listing 

process under the ESA. However, due to the timing of that decision, the following discussion of 

mountain plovers has been retained. Additionally, the mountain plover 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). Furthermore, the USFWS encourages project planners to 

develop and implement protective measures for mountain plovers that occur within their project 

areas. 

Biology and Habitat Requirements 

The mountain plover breeds from southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan through 

central Montana, south to south-central Wyoming, east-central Colorado and northeastern New 

Mexico, and east to northern Texas and western Kansas. In Wyoming, this species is a common 

summer resident (Cerovski et al. 2004). Mountain plovers require flat grasslands with short and 

sparse vegetation, and a large bare ground component (Knopf 1996) for nesting, foraging, or 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-33 
Appendix J 

staging. Within the PRB, heavily grazed prairie dog colonies generally provide the most suitable 

mountain plover habitat. 

Mountain plovers are monogamous and possibly polyandrous ground nesters, and typically 

produce at least two clutches. The nest is a shallow depression occasionally thinly lined with 

grass. Plovers may utilize the same nesting area in subsequent years (Dechant et al. 2003). 

Adults and fledged chicks leave the breeding grounds by early August, and may stage within 

appropriate habitats before migrating. Plovers feed primarily upon insects. Beetles, 

grasshoppers, crickets, and ants are the most important prey items (Knopf 1996). This species is 

highly approachable and does not flee far. Mountain plover populations have historically 

declined, and recent data suggest that this species is continuing to decline in numbers. Causes of 

population declines have been primarily attributed to regional changes in agricultural practices 

(Knopf 1996). 

Affected Environment 

No prairie dog colonies (potential mountain plover habitat) are present within the general 

analysis area. The upland grasslands that dominate the area lack the specific characteristics 

(shorter, less dense grasses) typically associated with this species. No mountain plovers have 

been documented in the general analysis area or at the adjacent Buckskin Mine during the last 27 

years (1984 through 2010) of annual monitoring. 

Environmental Consequences 

No impacts on mountain plovers are anticipated, because this species has never been documented 

during the last 27 years of annual monitoring conducted for the adjacent Buckskin Mine, or 

during surveys conducted specifically for the Hay Creek II LBA. The survey area for the 

Buckskin Mine overlapped varying portions of the general analysis area each year. Additionally, 

typical suitable habitat (prairie dog colonies or other short and sparse vegetation) for this species 

is not present in the general analysis area, which makes it highly unlikely that populations have 

gone undetected during more than two decades of annual searches. However, should this species 

be present, it could be impacted by surface mining, if appropriate habitat were disturbed. 

Cumulative Effects 

The lands disturbed by future mining would be reclaimed in accordance with the requirements of 

SMCRA and Wyoming statutes, though some residual wildlife impacts would occur. Areas that 

currently support short, sparse vegetation would be transformed to a taller, denser grassland 

community. This would reduce the carrying capacity of the land for short-grass species, though 

such impacts would be mediated by the limited presence of such habitats in the general analysis 

area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts are defined under NEPA as the incremental impacts of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, including the proposed action, conducted by any entity 

J-34 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix J 

(e.g., federal, state, private). Cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species and their 

habitats can result from both direct (physical) and indirect factors. 

The net acreage of surface disturbance associated with energy-related activities in the Wyoming 

PRB has been increasing in recent years due to greater energy demands throughout the country 

and increasing prices for local energy resources. Existing habitat-disturbing activities in the PRB 

include: surface coal mining; conventional oil and gas development; CBNG development; 

uranium mining; sand, gravel, and scoria mining; ranching; agriculture; road, railroad, and power 

plant construction and operation; recreational activities; and housing (rural and urban) and 

business development. Mining, construction, agricultural activities, and urban development tend 

to have more intense impacts on fairly localized areas, while ranching, recreational activities, and 

oil and gas development (conventional and CBNG) tend to be less intensive but spread over 

larger areas. Oil and gas development and mining activities have requirements for reclamation 

of disturbed areas as resources are depleted. 

Minimal residual impacts on current threatened and endangered, candidate, or proposed plant 

and animal species would occur, because no such species have ever been recorded in the general 

analysis area, and because state and federal regulations require reclamation of specific habitats 

important for these species. In the short term, mine-related activities in newly leased areas could 

result in the potential loss of individuals due to injuries or mortalities, as well as a reduction in 

the available habitat for threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species. In the long term, 

habitats will continue to be impacted, but they are also being and will continue to be restored in 

several areas as reclamation proceeds. To preclude or minimize future impacts on federally 

listed species and their habitats, species-specific protective measures included in the current 

Buckskin Mine permit document would be expanded and updated to include the final tract 

configuration prior to any surface disturbance associated with a new coal lease. 

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

potential development activity in the PRB to help the agency evaluate the impacts of coal 

development in that area. The Powder River Basin Coal Review consists of three task reports. 

 The completed Task 1 reports describe the existing situation through 2003, which reflects the 

past and present levels of development. 

 The updated Task 2 Report defines the past and present activities in the PRB, based on actual 

levels of development through 2007 and current development estimates available through 

2009, and projects reasonably foreseeable development in the Wyoming PRB through 2020 

(BLM 2009). 

 The Task 3 reports predict 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. 

The information about existing development in the following paragraphs is taken from the 

updated Powder River Basin Coal Review Task 2 report (BLM 2009) and BLM lease records. 

The completed PRB Coal Review reports can be accessed from the BLM Wyoming web site at 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-35 
Appendix J 

http://www.wy.blm.gov/minerals/coal/prb/prbdocs.htm. The project area for Tasks 1 and 2 of 

the PRB Coal Review encompasses over 8 million acres and includes all of Campbell, Sheridan, 

and Johnson counties and the northern portion of Converse County in northeastern Wyoming. 

Oil and gas exploration and production have been ongoing in the PRB for more than 100 years. 

Conventional (non-CBNG) oil and gas fields are, for the most part, concentrated in the central 

and southern parts of the structural basin. Development of the CBNG resources from the coal 

beds is a more recent occurrence, with CBNG production in the Wyoming PRB starting in the 

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

area as a result of oil and gas development activities, but approximately 115,045 acres (61%) of 

that disturbance has been reclaimed. This includes conventional oil and gas and CBNG wells, 

and associated facilities and major transportation pipelines. 

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

approximately 121,185 acres. The currently pending federal coal LBA tracts as applied for 

(including the proposed tract) include approximately 35,245 additional acres. The majority of 

the coal in the areas currently permitted for surface coal mining is federal, but state and private 

leases are also included within some of the existing mine permit areas. All of the current and 

proposed federal coal leases are concentrated near the outcrop of the Wyodak coal bed, which is 

located in eastern Campbell County and the extreme northeastern edge of Converse County. 

That bed includes the Anderson and Canyon coal seams that are within the general analysis area. 

As of 2007, the updated year for the PRB Coal Review, the surface coal mining operations along 

the Wyodak outcrop had disturbed approximately 83,593 acres. Approximately 24,338 of those 

acres of disturbance are occupied by “permanent” mine facilities, such as roads, buildings, coal 

handling facilities, etc., that are not available for reclamation until after coal mining operations 

end. Of the remaining 59,255 acres of disturbance available for reclamation, approximately 

25,884 acres (44%) had been reclaimed. Reclamation of the balance of 33,371 acres, which 

represent areas of active mining and areas where coal has been recovered but reclamation has not 

been completed, would proceed concurrently with coal mining. The Powder River Basin Coal 

Review identified an estimated 5,802 additional acres of coal-related development disturbance 

(i.e., coal-fired power plants, railroads, and coal technology projects) as of 2007. 

The total estimate of disturbed acreage related to all types of development in the Wyoming PRB 

in 2007 was 222,568 acres. In addition to coal and oil and gas activities, this total includes 

disturbance associated with construction of reservoirs and industrial fabrication firms, as well as 

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

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

disturbances overlap one another. In such cases, the disturbance acreage is counted separately 

under each category, but is not counted twice in determining the total area of disturbance. These 

disturbances do not have the same reclamation requirements as coal and oil and gas industries. 

Cumulative effects could also occur to any threatened and endangered plant and wildlife 

resources present in the area as a result of indirect impacts; no such species have been 

documented there to date. One factor is the potential import and spread of noxious weeds around 

J-36 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
 

Appendix J 

roads and facilities. Noxious weeds have the ability to displace native vegetation and hinder 

reclamation efforts. Control of noxious weeds is addressed in surface coal mining and 

reclamation plans. If weed mitigation and preventative procedures are applied to all construction 

and reclamation practices, the impact of noxious weeds on threatened and endangered plants and 

wildlife would be minimized. 

Of the 222,568 acres of total cumulative disturbance, approximately 113,382 acres (51%) have 

been reclaimed. The remaining 109,186 acres of disturbance would be reclaimed incrementally 

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

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

case of surface coal mines, re-established vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in 

the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by WDEQ). The majority of the species in the 

approved reclamation seed mixtures are native to the area. Nevertheless, reclaimed areas may 

not recreate the ecosystem functions served by undisturbed vegetation communities and habitats 

for many years after reseeding has occurred. For example, species composition, shrub cover, and 

other habitat characteristics are likely to differ from pre-disturbance vegetation communities and 

habitats due to the extended time-frame typically necessary for mature shrub communities to 

become reestablished in mined areas. Invasion by noxious weeds and alteration of vegetation in 

reclaimed areas has the potential to alter threatened and endangered plant and wildlife habitat 

composition and distribution, depending on the species listed and their habitat requirements. 

To date, no currently listed threatened and endangered species have been documented at any 

surface coal mine in the Wyoming PRB. However, some adverse effects to candidate and 

proposed species that could occur as a result of existing and potential activities in the PRB would 

include direct loss of habitat, indirect loss of habitat due to human and equipment disturbance, 

and habitat fragmentation. As described above, all existing coal mines in the Wyoming PRB 

have agency-approved monitoring and mitigation plans, as well as species-specific protective 

measures in place to protect threatened and endangered species, per SMCRA (at 30 CFR 816.97) 

and Wyoming State regulations. If a maintenance coal tract is leased under one of the action 

alternatives considered in the Hay Creek II EIS, these permitting requirements would be 

extended to include mining operations within the new tract, including the development and 

approval of detailed plans to mine the coal and reclaim the affected areas. 

References 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian 

Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, 

APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA. 

207pp. 

Braun, C. E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? 

Proceedings In Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 78:139-156. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-37 
Appendix J 

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, WY. 206pp. 

Christiansen, Tom. 2004. Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Population Trend Relative to the 

2005 Hunting Season – A Summary Report and Recommendation. Available: 

http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife.wildlife_management/sagegrouse/index.asp. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of 

Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. Unpublished Report, Cheyenne, WY. 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and 

B. R. Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Mountain 

Plover. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Jamestown, ND: 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/mopl/mopl.htm (Version 

12DEC2003). 

Emmerich, John, Deputy Director. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 

April 10, 2007—telephone conversation with Teresa Johnson, BLM, Casper Field Office, 

Casper, WY. 

Fertig, W. 2000. State Species Abstract, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database- Euthamia 

graminifolia. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 

Fertig, W. and G. Beauvais. 1999. Wyoming Plant and Animal Species of Special Concern. 

Unpublished report. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 

Fertig, W., R. Black, and P. Wolken. 2005. Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-Tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis). May 17. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Central 

Utah Water Conservancy District. Available: http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/plants/uteladiestress/SPDI_Status%20review_Fertig2005.pdf. 

Grenier, M. 2003. An Evaluation of Black-footed Ferret Block Clearances in Wyoming: 

Completion Report. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY. 16pp. 

Heidel, B. 2001. Monitoring Ute Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis), in Jefferson County, 

Montana, final report, 1996–2000. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 

Montana State Office and Butte Field Office, by the Montana Natural Heritage Program, 

Helena, MT. 

———. 2007. Survey of Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) in eastern Wyoming, 2005– 

2006. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the Medicine Bow/Routt 

National Forest/Thunder Basin National Grassland. Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, Laramie, WY. 

J-38 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix J 

Knopf, F. L. 1996. Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus). In The Birds of North America, 

No. 211 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Editors). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

LandTrak Resources, Inc. 2009. Buckskin Mining Company Hay Creek II LBA Threatened & 

Endangered Species Survey, BLM Data Adequacy Report. On file with the BLM High 

Plains District Office, Casper, WY 

———. 2011. Buckskin Mining Company Hay Creek II Amendment, D8 Vegetation Baseline 

Report. On file with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Sheridan, WY. 

Naugle, D. E., C. L. Aldridge, B. L. Walker, T. E. Cornish, B. J. Moynahan, M. J. Holloran, K. 

Brown, G. D. Johnson, E. T. Schmidtmann, R. T. Mayer, D. 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: pending crisis for greater sage-grouse. Ecology Letters 7:704– 

713. 

Naugle, D. E., K. E. Doherty, and B. L. Walker. 2006. Sage-grouse Winter Habitat Selection 

and Energy Development in the Powder River Basin: Completion Report. Available: 

http://www.voiceofthewild.org/sagegrousestudies. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2008. Web Soil Survey. Last revised June 20, 

2007. Available: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. 

Accessed: May 19, 2008. 

State of Wyoming: Executive Department. 2010. Executive Order: 2010-4. Cheyenne, WY. 

June. 

University of Wyoming. 2009. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database—State Species Abstract 

(Penstemon haydenii) Blowout Penstemon—Family: Scrophulariaceae. Available: 

http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/Penstemon_haydenii 

.pdf>.\f C \l. Accessed: January 2009. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1987. Data Adequacy Standards. 

———. 2001. 2001 Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands Administered by 

the BLM Buffalo Field Office. Buffalo, WY. 

———. 2006. BLM Resource Recovery and Protection Plan. Approved June 16, 2006. 

———. 2008. Wyoming’s Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Blowout Penstemon. U.S. 

Government Printing Office: 2008-760-342/48004 Region No. 8, BLM/WY/GI08/020+1150. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application J-39 
Appendix J 

———. 2009. Update of the Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Past and 

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. December. Prepared for the 

BLM High Plains District Office and Wyoming State Office by AECOM, Inc., Fort 

Collins, CO. Available: 

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

PRB_Coal/prbdocs.html>. 

U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Updated Land and Resource Management Plan for the Thunder 

Basin National Grassland, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Rocky Mountain Region. 

USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt national Forest, Rocky Mountain Regional 

Office, Denver, CO. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Recommendations and Guidelines for Ute 

Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). Recovery and Fulfilling Section 7 

Consultation Responsibilities. June 1. 7 pp. 

———. 2004. File letter ES-61411/BFF/WY7746 issuing block clearance for black-footed 

ferrets in all black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming, and select whitetailed prairie dog colonies. Wyoming Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Cheyenne, WY. 

———. 2007. Wetlands Online Mapper, NWI Maps. Accessed: November 10, 2007. 

———. 2008. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat 

for Wyoming Counties. February. Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/endspp/CountyLists/Wyoming.pdf. Accessed: 

October 2008. 

———. 2010. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat 

for Wyoming Counties. July. Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/endspp/CountyLists/Wyoming.pdf. Accessed: July 

2010. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2008a. Northeast Wyoming Working Group 

2007 Annual Sage-grouse Completion Report. Buffalo, WY. Available: 

http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sagegrouse/pdf/2007sgjcrsbyregion/2 

007NortheastJCR.pdf. 

———. 2008b. Statewide 2007 Annual Sage-grouse Completion Report. Cheyenne, WY. 

Available: 

http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sagegrouse/pdf/2007sgjcrsbyregion/2 

007StatewideJCR.pdf. 

———. 2010. Wyoming Sage-Grouse Definitions: revised 2/09/10. Available from the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 

J-40 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
APPENDIX K 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SENSITIVE SPECIES 

EVALUATION 
 

Appendix K 

APPENDIX K: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SENSITIVE 

SPECIES EVALUATION 

INTRODUCTION 

Each Wyoming Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has a prepared list of 

sensitive species to focus management efforts towards maintaining habitats important to those 

species under a multiple use mandate. The authority for this policy and guidance comes from the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; Title II of the Sikes Act, as amended; the Federal 

Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716); Department Manual 235.1.1A; and 

BLM Manual 6840.06 E. Sensitive Species. 

The goals of the sensitive species policy are to: 

 Maintain vulnerable species and habitat components in functional BLM ecosystems. 

 Ensure sensitive species are considered in land management decisions. 

 Prevent a need for species listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

 Prioritize needed conservation work with an emphasis on habitat. 

No federal surface is included in the Hay Creek II Lease by Application (LBA) tract (proposed 

tract) or other lands considered the associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

Therefore, this appendix is limited to discussions of BLM sensitive species. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The proposed tract is located northwest of and immediately adjacent to existing coal leases at the 

Buckskin Mine, in northern Campbell County, Wyoming (map K-1). The Proposed Action is to 

hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the federal coal reserves included in the 

proposed tract to Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. (Kiewit). Under the Proposed Action, the tract 

boundary would be consistent with the configuration submitted by the applicant. Under 

Alternative 2, the BLM would reconfigure the tract to include some or all of the unleased federal 

coal reserves included in the proposed tract and some or all of the adjacent coal reserves in the 

support area to the north and west. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application K-1 
0 10 20
 

miles
 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map K-1
 

General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts
 
 

 

 

 

Appendix K 

The physical areas discussed in this appendix are defined as follows: 

 proposed tract—the Hay Creek II LBA tract as applied for (419 acres); 

 BLM study area—proposed tract plus lands added by the BLM under Alternative 2 for the 

analysis process (1,883 acres); and 

 general analysis area—the maximum area of potential surface disturbance (2,847 acres) that 

would result from leasing the largest possible tract (i.e., the entire BLM study area and the 

0.25-mile mine support area to the north and west)1. 

Map K-2 illustrates these three areas. 

Under the Proposed Action, coal extraction would occur in the entire proposed tract 

(approximately 419 acres). Activities related to mining the proposed tract would occur within 

the support area, a 0.25-mile-wide area north and west of the proposed tract (approximately 

241 acres); disturbance from existing mine-related activities would continue in the remainder of 

the overlap area2 (approximately 474 acres). 

Under Alternative 1, disturbance from mine-related activities associated with existing coal leases 

would continue in the overlap area (approximately 656 acres). 

Under Alternative 2, coal extraction would occur in an alternative tract configuration within the 

BLM study area (up to approximately 1,883 acres). Disturbance from mine-related activities 

would occur within the support area, a 0.25-mile-wide area north and west of the alternative tract 

configuration (up to approximately 926 acres); disturbance from existing mine-related activities 

would continue in the remainder of the overlap area (approximately 38 acres). 

The Proposed Action and Alternative 2 are the only two alternatives considered in the Hay Creek II 

EIS that are likely to result in the sale and mining of additional coal reserves in the near future. Both 

of those action alternatives assume that the applicant would be the successful bidder and that the 

federal coal reserves would be mined as a maintenance lease for the existing, adjacent Buckskin 

Mine. The entire surface of the existing Buckskin Mine permit area and general analysis area is 

privately owned by individuals or companies, while most of the subsurface minerals (all of the 

coal and the majority of oil and gas reserves) are federally owned. All oil and gas production 

facilities located in the general analysis area are privately owned. 

1 Additional disturbance beyond the final lease boundary is necessary to recover all of the coal resources within the final tract configuration. 

Such disturbance includes, but is not limited to, mine support activities such as topsoil stripping, stockpile storage highwall back-sloping 

(including catch benches), highwall reduction after mining to match undisturbed topography, and construction of flood- and sediment-control 

structures. 

2 The area of overlap between the general analysis area and the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. Disturbance in this area is from minerelated activities associated with existing coal leases. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application K-3 
2,500 5,000
 

feet
 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management for the use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. Map K-2

 General Analysis Area 

0
Appendix K 

SPECIES OCCURRENCE AND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS 

Due to the location of the general analysis area in northeastern Wyoming, the vertebrate and 

plant sensitive species list for the BLM Buffalo Field Office was used as a reference for the 

following discussion. The list includes all species within the range of authority for that field 

office. The current wildlife list (BLM 2002) can be found on the official Wyoming BLM 

website. The plant list was updated in November 2008, and can be found on the BLM botany 

website for the Buffalo Field Office (BLM 2008). 

Species that have been delisted or removed from the federal listing process under the Endangered 

Species Act automatically revert to Sensitive Species status for the BLM. Therefore, the blacktailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and mountain 

plover (Charadrius montanus) were added to the 2002 list. No prairie dog colonies are present 

within the general analysis area, and no mountain plovers have ever been documented in that 

area or at the adjacent Buckskin Mine during the last 26 years (1984 through 2009) of annual 

monitoring. 

Therefore, neither species is discussed further in this document. Bald eagles are occasional 

winter residents in the area, and are discussed below. 

The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) has never been observed in the general 

analysis area; that area is dominated (71%) by upland grassland and agricultural lands, with little 

sagebrush. Due to its classification in March 2010 as a candidate species for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act, the sage-grouse is discussed in appendix I (Biological Assessment for 

Federally Listed Species under the Endangered Species Act). 

No plant sensitive species have been recorded in the general analysis area during previous annual 

monitoring (Table K-1). 

Table K-1 lists the sensitive species, summarizes their habitat requirements, and indicates if they 

have been observed in the general analysis area. This list was reviewed prior to beginning field 

surveys. Vertebrate observations were based on annual wildlife monitoring conducted in the 

overlapping survey area for the Buckskin Mine since 1984, as well as field surveys and file 

searches completed from 2007 through 2009 specifically for this analysis. Vegetation sampling 

is also conducted annually in portions of the existing Buckskin Mine permit area, particularly in 

reclaimed habitats. Baseline surveys have also been completed as the permit area has expanded 

over the years, with additional targeted surveys conducted for federally listed plants prior to 

disturbance in some years. Plant surveys related to this analysis were conducted primarily in 

2008, with some follow-up surveys conducted in 2009. 

Only two vertebrate sensitive species have been documented in the general analysis area in the 

last 26 years; the bald eagle and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Although the bald 

eagle is a common winter resident in portions of northeast Wyoming, sightings within the annual 

wildlife monitoring area for the Buckskin Mine have averaged less than one bird per year since 

1984. That survey area encompassed the entire proposed tract and much of the general analysis 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application K-5 
Appendix K 

area each year. Potential bald eagle roosting and nesting habitat in the general analysis area is 

limited to three tree shelterbelts, with few additional trees in the surrounding area. One of the 

shelterbelts is in the portion of the general analysis area that overlaps with the existing permit 

area and is, therefore, subject to future disturbance regardless of the leasing action. The other 

two shelterbelts are adjacent to currently or recently occupied residences. A few isolated bald 

eagle nesting attempts have been recorded in northeast Wyoming over the years, but none have 

occurred within several miles of the Hay Creek II general analysis area or adjacent mines. No 

unique or concentrated prey sources (e.g., fisheries, sheep operations, large prairie dog colonies, 

concentrations of waterfowl) that would attract bald eagles are present in the area. 

Loggerhead shrikes have occasionally been recorded in the general analysis area, including in the 

proposed tract. However, most shrike sightings occurred in grasslands and tree windbreaks in 

the west-central portion of the existing Buckskin Mine permit area, beyond the general analysis 

area. Adults and juveniles were periodically observed perched on fences and power lines in that 

area. Although no active nests have ever been found, the presence of young indicates that 

shrikes nest in the vicinity in some years. 

The absence or extremely limited presence of specialized habitat types, such as forests and 

woodlands, caves, cliffs, large expanses of wetlands and lakes, and calcareous rock outcrops, 

among others, make it unlikely that species restricted to those habitats would occur in the general 

analysis area. Additional information on the occurrences of various species of interest in and 

near the general analysis area can be found in the data reports prepared in support of the Hay 

Creek II EIS and the annual reports prepared for the Buckskin Mine. These documents can be 

viewed at the BLM Wyoming High Plains District Office in Casper, Wyoming, and the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division in Sheridan, Wyoming, 

respectively. 

K-6 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix K 

Table K-1. BLM Sensitive Species (Buffalo Field Office), Habitat Requirements, and 

Observations for the Hay Creek II LBA 

Common Name 

(Scientific name) Habitat1 Observed in the General Analysis Area 

AMPHIBIANS 

Northern leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens) 

Swampy cattail marshes, beaver ponds, and other 

permanent water in the plains, foothills, and 

montane zones up to 9,000 feet 

No; no suitable habitat 

Spotted frog Ponds, sloughs, small streams in foothills and No; general analysis area is beyond species 

(Ranus pretiosa) montane zones range; no suitable habitat 

BIRDS 

Baird’s sparrow 

(Ammodramus bairdii) 

Shortgrass eastern Great Plains grasslands, 

weedy fields 

No; general analysis area is beyond typical 

range for this species; no suitable habitat 

Bald eagle2 Mixed coniferous forests, cottonwood-riparian Occasionally present in winter; limited winter 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) near large lakes and rivers; forages in open roosting and nesting habitat; no reliable or 

habitats during the winter concentrated sources of prey 

Brewer’s sparrow Basin-prairie and mountain-foothills shrublands, Extremely infrequently; limited suitable 

(Spizella breweri) especially sagebrush, woodland-chaparral sagebrush habitats 

Burrowing owl Grasslands, basin-prairie shrublands, agricultural No; limited potential nesting habitat 

(Athene cunicularia) areas, prairie dog colonies 

Ferruginous hawk Basin-prairie shrublands; eastern Great Plains, No; limited potential nesting habitat 

(Buteo regalis) Great Basin foothills, and mountain-foothills 

grasslands; rock outcrops, isolated trees 

Greater sage-grouse Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub No; limited suitable sagebrush and other year-

(Centrocercus meadows round habitats 

urophasianus) 

Loggerhead shrike Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Infrequent non-breeder; limited habitat 

(Lanius ludovicianus) 

Long-billed curlew	 Sagebrush-grasslands; eastern Great Plains, No; limited wet or moist habitats for foraging; no 

(Numenius americanus) Great Basin foothills, mountain foothills, and wet- suitable nesting habitat 

moist meadow grasslands; irrigated native 

meadows; with aquatic areas nearby, other 

agricultural areas and shorelines 

Mountain plover2 Shortgrass and mixed grass prairies, Great Basin No; no prairie dog colonies; grasslands typically 

(Charadrius montanus) foothills grasslands, short sagebrush-grasslands, too tall and/or dense 

prairie dog colonies 

Northern goshawk Coniferous forests, especially Douglas fir and No; no suitable habitat 

(Accipiter gentilis) lodgepole pine, aspen; forages in a variety of 

habitats 

Peregrine falcon Cliffs, primarily along waterways No; no suitable habitat 

(Falco peregrinus) 

Sage sparrow Basin-prairie and mountain-foothills shrublands. No; general analysis area is beyond typical 

(Amphispiza billneata) species range in Wyoming; limited suitable 

sagebrush habitats 

Sage thrasher Basin-prairie and mountain-foothills shrublands No; limited suitable sagebrush habitats 

(Oreoscoptes montanus) 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application K-7 
 

Appendix K 

Table K-1, continued 

Common Name 

(Scientific name) Habitat1 Observed in the General Analysis Area 

Trumpeter swan 

(Cygnus buccinator) 

Marshes, lakes, ponds, rivers No; no suitable habitat 

White-faced ibis 

(Plegadis chihi) 

Marshes, wet-moist meadows, lakes, irrigated 

meadows 

No; no suitable habitat 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder No; no suitable habitat 

(Coccyzus americanus) groves; cottonwood-riparian below 7,000 feet, 

urban areas 

FISH 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Yellowstone drainage, small mountain streams, No; no suitable habitat 

(Oncoryhynchus clarki) large rivers 

MAMMALS 

Black-tailed prairie dog2 

(Cynomys ludovicianus) 

Short-grass and mid-grass grasslands No; no prairie dog colonies 

Fringed myotis 

(Myotis thysanodes) 

Conifer forests, woodland chaparral, basin-prairie 

shrublands, caves and underground mine shafts 

No; limited suitable sagebrush habitats 

Long-eared myotis 

(Myotis evotis) 

Conifer and deciduous forests, basin-prairie and 

mountain foothills shrublands, riparian areas 

No; no suitable habitat 

Spotted bat 

(Euderma maculatum) 

Known only from juniper shrublands and desert 

sagebrush-grasslands in Wyoming; cliffs over 

perennial water are important habitat component 

No; no suitable habitat 

Swift fox 

(Vulpes velox) 

Eastern great plains grasslands, occasionally 

agricultural areas, irrigated native meadows, 

roadside/railroad banks 

No, suitable habitat present 

Townsend’s big-eared bat Deciduous forests, dry coniferous forests; basin- No; limited suitable habitat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii) prairie; mountain foothills and shrublands; desert 

grasslands; juniper 

PLANTS 

Northern Arnica 

(Arnica lonchophylla) 

Open woods and slopes on sandy-gravel or 

limestone and shady, moist north-facing birchhazelnut forests; elevation 6,500–8,000 feet 

No; no limestone parent material or birchhazelnut forest habitats; known populations in 

Wyoming are in Sheridan and Johnson counties 

Porter’s sagebrush Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous No; no habitat due to soil type; known 

(Artemisia porteri) mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300–6,500 feet populations in Wyoming are in Fremont County 

Soft aster Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows on No; no habitat; known populations in Wyoming 

(Aster mollis) deep, calcareous soils at the edge of aspen or are in Niobrara, Natrona, Sublette, Washakie, 

pine woodlands; elevation 6,400–8,500 feet Big Horn, and Sheridan counties 

William’s wafer parsnip Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed No; habitat limitations include lower elevations 

(Cymopterus williamsii) limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000–8,300 feet	 and lack of limestone parent material; known 

populations in Wyoming are in Johnson, 

Washakie, and Natrona counties 

Mountain lady's slipper Shady moist forests and riparian shrublands; No; no habitat due to lack of shady forests and 

(Cypripedium montanum ) elevation 5,400–5,500 feet elevations; known populations in Wyoming are in 

Sheridan and Johnson counties 

K-8 Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application 
Appendix K 

Table K-1, continued 

Common Name 

(Scientific name) Habitat1 Observed in the General Analysis Area 

Rabbit buckwheat Barren sandy or clay soils and rock outcrops in No; limited areas of habitat are present due to 

(Eriogonum brevicaule var. juniper woodlands and sagebrush steppe lack of juniper woodlands and rock outcrops; 

canum [E. Lagopus]) communities; elevation 3,800–5,500 feet known populations in Wyoming are in Sheridan 

and Big Horn counties 

Hall's fescue Meadows, slopes, and open woods; elevation No; no habitat present due to low elevations and 

(Festuca hallii) 7,400–10,500 feet	 lack of montane meadows and open woods; 

known populations in Wyoming are in Park and 

Johnson counties 

Contracted Indian ricegrass Basin and foothill areas on dry, sandy soils; No; habitat generally lacking or very limited; 

(Oryzopsis contracta [O. elevation 4,800–7,500 feet known populations in Wyoming are in Campbell, 

hymenoides var. c.]) Washakie, Hot Springs, Natrona, Sweetwater, 

Carbon, and Albany counties 

Cary's beardtongue Calcareous rock outcrops and rocky soil within No; no habitat present due to low elevations and 

(Penstemon caryi) sagebrush, juniper, Douglas-fir, and limber pine lack of soils and vegetation communities where 

communities; elevation 5,200–8,500 feet	 this species is found; known populations in 

Wyoming are found in Big Horn, Washakie, and 

Sheridan counties 

Northern blackberry Boggy woods and marshes; elevation 7,000– No; no habitat present due to low elevation and 

(Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis 9,000 feet lack of vegetation communities where this 

[R. acaulis]) species is found; known populations in Wyoming 

are found in Johnson County 

Hapeman's sullivan Moist calcareous outcrops and boulders in shady No; limited habitat due to lack of topography and 

(Sullivantia hapemanii var. canyons and streams; elevation 4,600–8,200 feet moisture conditions where this species is found; 

hapemanii) known populations in Wyoming are found in 

Sheridan, Johnson, Natrona, Big Horn, and 

Washakie counties 

1	 Habitats for vertebrate terrestrial species primarily from Cerovski et al. 2004. 

2	 Former listed or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act automatically revert to BLM Sensitive Species upon delisting or removal from the 

federal listing process. 

REFERENCES 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2002. Sensitive Species Policy and List. 

September 22. Available: <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/ 

wildlife.Par.9226.File.dat/02species.pdf>. Accessed: March 2010. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Buffalo Field Office Sensitive Species. 

November. Available: < http://www.wy.blm.gov/botany/fieldoffices/bfo.htm>. Accessed: 

May 2010. 

Final EIS, Hay Creek II Coal Lease Application K-9