U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Wyoming State Office

Casper Field Office January 2003

DRAFT

South Powder River Basin Coal

Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

North Antelope/Rochell Mine Complex

Black Thunder Mine

Antelope Mine North Rochelle Mine
MISSION STATEMENT

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

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

generations.

BLM/WY/PL-03/005+1320
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SOUTH POWDER RIVER BASIN COAL 

CAMPBELL AND CONVERSE COUNTIES, WYOMING

ABSTRACT

Lead Agency: USDI Bureau of Land Management 

Casper Field Office 

Casper, Wyoming 

Cooperating Agencies: USDA Forest Service 

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest 

Douglas, Wyoming 

USDI Office of Surface Mining Reclamation& Enforcement 

Western Regional Coordinating Center 

Denver, Colorado 

For Further Information Contact: Nancy Doelger 

Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field Office 

2987 Prospector Drive 

Casper, WY 82604 

(307) 261-7627 

Abstract:

This Draft Environment Impact Statement (EIS) assesses the environmental consequences of decisions to hold five separate 

competitive, sealed-bid sales and issue leases for five tracts of federal coal located adjacent to four existing surface coal 

mines in Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. A separate decision 

to hold or not to hold a sale would be made for each of the five tracts being considered for leasing. The five federal coal 

tracts are: 

The NARO North and NARO South Lease By Application (LBA) Tracts, as applied for by Powder River Coal Company, 

include a total of approximately 4,503 acres containing approximately 564 million tons of federal coal. Powder River Coal 

Company operates the adjacent North Antelope/Rochelle Mine Complex and proposes to mine the NARO North and NARO 

South LBA Tracts as maintenance tracts for the existing mine complex, if a lease sale is held and they acquire the lease. 

The Little Thunder LBA Tract, as applied for by Ark Land Company, includes approximately 3,449 acres containing 

approximately 479 million tons of federal coal. Thunder Basin Coal Company operates the adjacent Black Thunder Mine 

and proposes to mine the Little Thunder LBA Tract as a maintenance tract for the existing mine, if a lease sale is held and 

they acquire the lease. Ark Land Company and Thunder Basin Coal Company are both subsidiaries of Arch Coal, Inc. 

The West Roundup LBA Tract, as applied for by Triton Coal Company LLC, includes approximately 1,871 acres containing 

approximately 173 million tons of federal coal. Triton Coal Company LLC operates the adjacent North Rochelle Mine and 

proposes to mine the West Roundup LBA Tract as a maintenance tract for the existing mine, if a lease sale is held and they 

acquire the lease. 

The West Antelope LBA Tract, as applied for by Antelope Coal Company, includes approximately 3,542 acres containing 

approximately 294 million tons of federal coal. Antelope Coal Company operates the adjacent Antelope Mine and proposes 

to mine the West Antelope LBA Tract as a maintenance tract for the existing mine, if a lease sale is held and they acquire the 

lease. 

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

existing mines and LBA Tracts. For each of the five LBA tracts, the alternatives in the Draft EIS consider the impacts of 

leasing the tract as it was applied for; leasing a reconfigured tract in order to avoid bypassing federal coal and/or to increase 

the fair market value of the federal coal in and around the tract; and not leasing the tract. The focus for the impact analysis

was based upon resource issues and concerns identified during previous coal leasing analyses and public scoping conducted 

for these lease applications. Potential concerns related to development include impacts to groundwater, air quality, and 
wildlife and cumulative impacts related to ongoing surface coal mining and other proposed development in the Powder River 

Basin of Wyoming.

Other Environmental Review or Consultation Requirements:

This draft EIS, in compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (as amended), identifies any endangered or 

threatened species, which are likely to be affected by the Proposed Action. 
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This EIS1

 analyzes the environmental

impacts of leasing five tracts of

federal coal reserves adjacent to

existing surface coal mines in the

southern PRB. Operators of four

mines, North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, Black Thunder, North

Rochelle, and Antelope, have filed

four applications to lease five tracts of

federal coal as maintenance tracts

under the regulations at Title 43 of

the Code of Federal Regulations Part

3425.1 (43 CFR 3425.1) Leasing On

Application. All four applications

have been reviewed by the BLM

Wyoming State Office, Division of

Minerals and Lands Authorization.

That office determined that all four

lease applications met the regulatory

requirements for lease by

applications, or LBAs. The five LBA

tracts considered in this EIS and the

adjacent mines are shown in Figure

ES-1. They are the NARO North and

NARO South LBA Tracts, adjacent to

the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex; the Little Thunder LBA

Tract, adjacent to the Black Thunder

Mine; the West Roundup LBA Tract,

adjacent to the North Rochelle Mine;

and the West Antelope LBA Tract,

adjacent to the Antelope Mine. The

applications are summarized below. 

On March 10, 2000, PRCC filed one

application with the BLM for federal

coal reserves in two maintenance

tracts adjacent to the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex. The

tracts are referred to as the NARO

North and NARO South LBA Tracts.

The NARO North LBA Tract is located

in southern Campbell County,

Wyoming, approximately 13 miles

southeast of Wright, Wyoming. The

NARO South LBA Tract is located in

southern Campbell County and

northern Converse County, Wyoming,

approximately 19 miles southeast of

Wright, Wyoming (Figure ES-1). BLM

determined that the two tracts in the

application would be processed

separately and, if the decision is

made to hold a lease sale for both

tracts, they would be offered for sale

separately. PRCC’s coal lease

application was assigned case file

numbers WYW150210 (NARO North)

and WYW154001 (NARO South). The

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex is

operated by PRCC, a subsidiary of

Peabody Holding Company, Inc.

On March 23, 2000, ALC filed an

application with the BLM for federal

coal reserves in a maintenance tract

located west of and immediately

adjacent to the Black Thunder Mine.

ALC is a subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc.

The tract, which is referred to as the

Little Thunder LBA Tract, was

assigned case file number

WYW150318. The application area is

located in southern Campbell County,

Wyoming, approximately six miles

east-southeast of Wright, Wyoming

(Figure ES-1). The Black Thunder

Mine is operated by TBCC, a

subsidiary of Arch Western

Resources, LLC. 

On July 28, 2000, TCC filed an

application with the BLM for federal

coal reserves in a maintenance tract

1

 Refer to page xii for a list of abbreviations

and acronyms used in this document.
Executive Summary

ES-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure ES-1
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-3

located west of and immediately

adjacent to the North Rochelle Mine.

The application area is located in

southern Campbell County, Wyoming,

approximately 10 miles southeast of

Wright, Wyoming (Figure ES-1). The

tract, which is referred to as the West

Roundup LBA Tract, was assigned

case file number WYW151134. The

North Rochelle Mine is operated by

TCC, a subsidiary of Vulcan

Intermediary, LLC. 

On September 12, 2000, ACC filed an

application with the BLM for federal

coal reserves in a maintenance tract

located west of and immediately

adjacent to the Antelope Mine. The

tract, which is referred to as the West

Antelope LBA Tract, was assigned

case file number WYW151643. The

application area is located in

southern Campbell County and

northern Converse County, Wyoming,

approximately 19 miles southsoutheast of Wright, Wyoming (Figure

ES-1). The Antelope Mine is operated

by ACC, a subsidiary of Kennecott

Energy Company. 

These federal coal lands are located

within the Powder River Federal Coal

Region, which was decertified in

January 1990. Although the Powder

River Federal Coal Region is

decertified, the PRRCT, a

federal/state advisory board established to develop recommendations

concerning management of federal

coal in the region, has continued to

meet regularly and review all federal

lease applications in the region. The

PRRCT reviewed these four

maintenance coal lease applications

at a public meeting held on October

25, 2000, in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

The PRRCT recommended that the

BLM continue to process all four

lease applications at that meeting

To evaluate the environmental

impacts of leasing and mining the

coal, the BLM must prepare an EA or

an EIS to evaluate the site-specific

and cumulative environmental and

socioeconomic impacts of leasing and

developing the federal coal in the

application area. 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 lease. The

BLM determined that one EIS would

be prepared to evaluate the

environmental impacts of coal mining

that would result from the issuance of

these five leases. This EIS has been

prepared to evaluate the site-specific

and cumulative environmental

impacts of leasing and developing the

federal coal included in these

application areas, as required by

NEPA. Scoping for these lease

applications was conducted from

October 1 to October 31, 2001. A

Notice of Scoping and Notice of Intent

to Prepare an EIS was published in

the Federal Register on October 3,

2001 and in the Gillette News-Record

on September 25, 2001 and October

2, 2001. A public scoping meeting

was held in Gillette, Wyoming on

October 10, 2001.

BLM will use the analysis in this EIS

to decide whether or not to hold

separate public, competitive, sealedbid coal lease sales and issue federal

coal leases for the federal coal

included in each tract. For each sale

that is held, the bidding at that sale
Executive Summary

ES-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

would be open to any qualified

bidder; it would not be limited to the

applicant. For each lease sale that is

held, a federal coal lease would be

issued to the highest bidder at the

sale if a federal sale panel determined

that the high bid at that sale meets or

exceeds the fair market value of the

coal as determined by BLM's

economic evaluation, and if the U.S.

Department of Justice determines

that there are no antitrust violations

if a lease is issued to the high bidder

at the sale.

OSM and USFS are cooperating

agencies on this EIS. OSM will use

the analysis in this EIS to make

decisions related to mining the federal

coal in these tracts, if they are leased.

The USFS is a cooperating agency on

this EIS because the NARO North,

Little Thunder, and West Roundup

LBA Tracts include lands that are

part of the TBNG, which is

administered by the USFS.

The lands in the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts have been subjected to four

coal planning screens and determined

to be acceptable for consideration for

leasing. A decision to lease the

federal coal lands in this application

would be in conformance with the

Approved Resource Management Plan

for Public Lands Administered by the

Bureau of Land Management Buffalo

Field Office (BLM 2001a) [an update of

the Buffalo Resource Area Resource

Management Plan (BLM 1985a)] and

the BLM Platte River Resource Area

Resource Management Plan (BLM

1985b). The federal surface lands

managed by the USFS in the NARO

North, Little Thunder, and West

Roundup LBA Tracts are within the

area evaluated in the USFS Medicine

Bow National Forest and Thunder

Basin National Grassland Land and

Resource Management Plan (USFS

1985) and the Final EIS for the

Northern Great Plains Management

Plans Revision for Thunder Basin

National Grassland (USFS 2002a).

The LBA sale process is, by law and

regulation, an open, public,

competitive sealed-bid process. For

each lease sale that is held, the

applicant may not be the successful

high bidder. The analysis in this EIS

assumes that the applicant would be

the successful bidder on each LBA

tract that is offered for sale and that

each tract that is leased would be

mined as a maintenance tract for the

applicant mine. 

This draft EIS analyzes different

alternatives for each tract. For each

tract, the Proposed Action considers

leasing the tract as it was applied for.

Alternative 1 for each tract is the No

Action Alternative. Alternative 1 for

each tract considers rejecting the

lease application for that tract.

Under each Alternative 1, the tract

would not be leased but the existing

leases at the adjacent mine or mines

would be developed according to the

existing approved mining and

reclamation plans.

BLM is evaluating adding coal to or

removing coal from the tracts in order

to avoid potential future bypass

situations or to increase the

competitiveness of the tracts or the

remaining unleased federal coal in
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-5

this area. These different tract

configurations are considered as

other alternatives in this EIS. 

The Proposed Actions and

alternatives for the NARO North and

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts are shown in Figure ES-2, ES3, ES-4, and ES-5, respectively. The

Proposed Actions and alternatives are

described in Tables ES-1, ES-2, ES-3,

and ES-4.

Other alternatives that were

considered but not analyzed in detail

include holding competitive coal lease

sales and issuing leases for one or

more of the tracts to the successful

bidder (not the applicant) for the

purpose of developing a new standalone mine and delaying the

competitive sales of one or more of

the LBA tracts.

Critical elements of the human

environment (BLM 1988) that could

be affected by the proposed project

include air quality, cultural

resources, Native American religious

concerns, threatened, endangered,

proposed, and candidate plant and

animal species, USFS sensitive

species, hazardous or solid wastes,

water quality, wetlands/riparian

zones, environmental justice, and

invasive nonnative species. Five

critical elements (areas of critical

environmental concern, prime and

unique farmland, wild and scenic

rivers, floodplains, and wilderness)

are not present in the project area

and are not addressed further. In

addition to the critical elements that

are potentially present in the project

area, this EIS discusses the status

and potential effects of the project on

topography and physiography,

geology and mineral resources, soils,

water availability and quality, AVFs,

vegetation, wildlife, land use and

recreation, paleontological resources,

visual resources, noise,

transportation resources, and

socioeconomics.

The General Analysis Area, shown in

Figure ES-6, is located in the PRB, a

part of the Northern Great Plains that

includes most of northeastern

Wyoming. The NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts are located in the southcentral part of the PRB, where the

elevation ranges from about 4,500 to

5,000 ft.

In the General Analysis Area, there

are up to four mineable coal seams.

The nomenclature of these seams

varies from mine operator to mine

operator and the number of mineable

coal seams varies from tract to tract.

There is one mineable seam in the

West Roundup LBA Tract (referred to

by TCC as the Wyodak); there are two

mineable coal seams in the NARO

North and NARO South LBA Tracts

(referred to by PRCC as the WyodakAnderson 1 and 2); three mineable

coal seams in the Little Thunder LBA

Tract (referred to by TBCC as the

Upper, Middle, and Lower Wyodak);

and four mineable seams in the West

Antelope LBA Tract (referred to by
Executive Summary

ES-6 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure ES-2
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-7

Figure ES-3
Executive Summary

ES-8 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure ES-4
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-9

Figure ES-5
ES-10 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

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

NARO South LBA Tracts and North Antelope/Rochelle Complex. Item No Action Alternative (Existing North Antelope/Rochelle Complex) Added by Proposed Action Added by Alternative 

In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/02) 952 mmt 564 mmt 710 mmt Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/02)1 904.4 mmt 506.9 mmt 613.9 mm

Coal Mined Through 2001 643 mmt — — Lease Area2 14,895.5 ac 4,503.02 ac 5,571.19 a

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 20,410 ac 5,590 ac 6,275 ac 

Permit Area2 27,187 ac 21,035 ac 21,835 ac 

Average Annual Post-2001 Coal Production 75 mmt 15 mmt 15 mmt Maximum Annual Post-2001 Coal Production(years 2004-2006)

105 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 

Remaining Life Of Mine (post-2001) 12 yrs 4 yrs 5.5 yrs Average No. of Employees(at maximum production rate)

1,175 10 10 

Total Projected State Revenues (post-2001)3 $ 994.8 million $ 557.6 million $ 675.3 mill

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2001)4 $ 745.5 million $ 421.8 million $ 514.4 mill

1 Assumes 95 percent recovery of leased coal (with the exception of the NARO South Tract as proposed, which is e

recovery of leased coal; the NARO South Alternative 2 Tract, which is estimated to be 79 percent recovery of leas

Alternative 3 Tract, which is estimated to be 91 percent recovery of leased coal).

2 For the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the disturbed acreage exceeds the leased acreage because 

reduction, topsoil removal and other activities outside the lease boundaries. When added to the existing mine, the 

leased or disturbed areas to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow easily defin

Permit areas under Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are the anticipated permit amendment baseline st

3 Projected revenue to the State of Wyoming is $1.10 per ton of coal sold and includes income from severance tax, 

taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming's share of federal royalty payments and bonus bids (University of Wyo

4 Federal revenues are based on $5.00 per ton price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent 

share, plus $0.35 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus State’s 50 percent share, plus $5.00 recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.0 percent, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.26 per ton (based o

× amount of in-place coal minus State’s 50 percent share.
South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-11

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

Tract and Black Thunder Mine.

Item

No Action

Alternative

(Existing Black

Thunder Mine)

Added by

 Proposed Action

Added by 

Alternative 2

Added 

Alternati

(North Tr

In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/02) 968.7 mmt 479.3 mmt 695.3 mmt 155.7 mRecoverable Coal (as of 1/1/02)1 920.3 mmt 440 mmt 553 mmt 111.9 m

Coal Mined Through 2001 699.9 mmt — — — Lease Area2 12,772.9 ac 3,449.32 ac 5,083.5 ac 1,065.49 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 18,476 ac 5,424 ac 6,577 ac 1,382 a

Permit Area2 21,238 ac 7,678 ac 7,678 ac 1,612.4 

Average Annual Post-2001 CoalProduction 

38.3 mmt 4.2 mmt 4.2 mmt 4.2 mm

Remaining Life Of Mine (post-2001) 24 yrs 8 yrs 10.7 yrs 0.3 yrAverage No. of Employees 600 0 0 0 Total Projected State Revenues(post-2001)3

$ 1,012.3 million $ 484.0 million $ 608.3 million $ 123.1 m

Total Projected Federal Revenues(post-2001)4

$ 758.6 million $ 364.8 million $ 470.6 million $ 97.2 mi

1 Assumes 95 percent recovery of leased coal for the No Action Alternative, 92 percent recovery of leased coal for Prop

recovery of leased coal for Alternative 2; 71.9 percent recovery of leased coal for Alternative 3, North Tract; and 81.8 

coal for Alternative 3, South Tract.

2 For the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the disturbed acreage exceeds the leased acreage because 

reduction, topsoil removal and other activities outside the lease boundaries. When added to the existing mine, the leased or disturbed areas to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow easily defin

Permit areas under Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are the anticipated permit amendment baseline st

3 Projected revenue to the State of Wyoming is $1.10 per ton of coal sold and includes income from severance tax, 

taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming's share of federal royalty payments and bonus bids (University of Wyo

4 Federal revenues are based on $5.00 per ton price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent 

share, plus $0.35 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus State’s 50 percent share, plus $5.00 recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.0 percent, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.26 per ton (based o× amount of in-place coal minus State’s 50 percent share.
Executive Summary

ES-12 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

ES-12 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

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

Tract and North Rochelle Mine. Item No Action Alternative (Existing North Rochelle Mine) Added by Proposed Action Added by Alternative 2 Added by Alternative 2 Plus Lease WYW-127221 Modification Added 

Alterna

In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/02) 283 mmt 173.2 mmt 224.6 mmt 237.6 mmt 274.2 Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/02)1 255 mmt 155.9 mmt 202.1 mmt 213.8 mmt 246.8 

Coal Mined Through 2001 49.3 mmt — — — — Lease Area2 3,443.50 ac 1,870.65 ac 2,496.79 ac 2,652.69 ac 2,894.0

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 5,288 ac 3,161 ac 3,161 ac 3,161 ac 3,591

Permit Area2 7,042 ac 3,228.5 ac 3,228.5 ac 3,228.5 ac 3,228.

Average Annual Post-2001 CoalProduction 

35 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mm

Remaining Life Of Mine (post2001) 7.3 yrs 4.5 yrs 5.8 yrs 6.1 yrs 6.7 yAverage No. of Employees 224 176 176 176 176 Total Projected State Revenues(post-2001)3

$ 280.5 million $ 171.5 million $ 222.3 million $ 235.2 million $ 271.5 m

Total Projected Federal Revenues(post-2001)4

$ 212.1 million $ 129.7 million $ 168.1 million $ 177.9 million $ 205.3 m
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 

1 Assumes 90 percent recovery of leased coal.2 For the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the disturbed acreage exceeds the leased acreage because of the need fo

removal and other activities outside the lease boundaries. When added to the existing mine, the permit area is larger than assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow easily defined legal land description. Permit areas Alternatives 2 and 3 are the anticipated permit amendment baseline study areas.

3 Projected revenue to the State of Wyoming is $1.10 per ton of coal sold and includes income from severance tax, property and 

use taxes, and Wyoming's share of federal royalty payments and bonus bids (University of Wyoming 1994).

4 Federal revenues are based on $5.00 per ton price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent minus State’s 

per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus State’s 50 percent share, plus $5.00 per ton price × amount of recovof 4.0 percent, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.26 per ton (based on average of last 11 LBAs) × amount of inpercent share.
South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-14

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

Tract and Antelope Mine.

Item

No Action Alternative

(Existing

Antelope Mine)

Added by

 Proposed Action

Added b

Alternativ

In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/02) 553.5 mmt 293.9 mmt 321.8 mmMineable Coal (as of 1/1/02) 373.4 mmt 245.6 mmt 273.4 mmRecoverable Coal (as of 1/1/02)1 347.3 mmt 228.4 mmt 254.3 mm

Coal Mined Through 2001 168.7 mmt — — Lease Area2 8,019.2 ac 3,542.19 ac 3,877.90 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 8,821.1 ac 3,200 ac 3,500 aPermit Area2 10,848.6 ac 4,328.4 ac 4,328.4 

Average Annual Post-2001 Coal Production 13.9 mmt 9.1 mmt 10.2 mmRemaining Life Of Mine (Post-2001) 25 yrs 0 yr 0 yr Average No. of Employees 215 0 0 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2001)3 $ 382.0 million $ 251.2 million $ 279.7 mi

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2001)4 $ 238.8 million $ 195.2 million $ 216.7 mi

1 Assumes 93 percent recovery of leased coal remaining after eliminating coal that won’t be mined beneath Antelope 

zone.

2 For the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the disturbed acreage is less than leased acreage because so

Antelope Creek and the adjacent buffer zone and would not be mined. When added to the exiting mine, the permit 

or disturbed areas to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow easily defined lega

areas under Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are anticipated permit amendment baseline study areas.

3 Projected revenue to the State of Wyoming is $1.10 per ton of coal sold and includes income from severance tax, 

taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming's share of federal royalty payments and bonus bids (University of Wyo

4 Federal revenues are based on $5.00 per ton price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent 

share, plus $0.35 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus State’s 50 percent share, plus $5.00 recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.0 percent, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.26 per ton (based o

× amount of in-place coal minus State’s 50 percent share.
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-15

Figure ES-6
Executive Summary

ES-16 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

ACC as the Anderson, Lower

Anderson, Canyon/Upper Canyon,

and Lower Canyon). Average coal

thickness on each LBA tract varies

from around 67 ft up to around 98 ft,

and interburden between the coal

seams varies from 0 to around 100 ft.

Average overburden on each tract

ranges from around 110 ft to more

than 300 ft.

The existing topography on each LBA

tract that is leased and mined would

be substantially changed during

mining. A highwall with a vertical

height equal to overburden plus coal

thickness would exist in the active

pits. Following reclamation, the

average surface elevation would be

lower due to removal of the coal. The

reclaimed land surface would

approximate premining contours and

the basic drainage network would be

retained, but the reclaimed surface

would contain fewer, gentler

topographic features. This could

contribute to reduced habitat

diversity and wildlife carrying

capacity on the LBA tracts after

mining and reclamation is completed.

These topographic changes would not

conflict with regional land use, and

the postmining topography would

adequately support anticipated land

use for each tract.

The geology from the base of the coal

to the land surface would be subject

to considerable permanent change on

each LBA tract that is leased and

mined under any of the leasing

alternatives. The overburden,

interburden, and coal would be

removed from each LBA tract. The

replaced overburden and interburden

would be a relatively homogeneous

mixture compared to the premining

layered overburden.

Development of other minerals

potentially present on the LBA tracts

could not occur during mining, but

could occur after mining.

Conventional oil and gas wells would

have to be plugged and abandoned

during mining but could be

recompleted after mining if the

remaining reserves justify the

expense of the recompletion.

CBM development and production are

occurring in the Wyoming PRB from

coal beds of the Wyodak - Anderson

zone. These are the same (or

equivalent) seams that are being

mined along the eastern margin of the

basin, including the mines which are

considered in this analysis. CBM

wells presently exist or have been

proposed in and around the five LBA

tracts in the General Analysis Area.

All facilities and equipment

associated with oil and gas

development (conventional or CBM)

that are present on coal leases must

be removed prior to mining. Royalties

would be lost to both the state and

federal governments if conventional

oil and gas wells are abandoned

prematurely, if federal CBM resources

are not recovered prior to mining, or

if federal coal resources are not

recovered due to conflicts between oil

and gas development and coal

mining. Mining the coal prior to

recovery of all of the CBM resources

releases CBM into the atmosphere.

Consequences to soil resources from

mining each LBA tract that is leased

would include changes in the
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-17

physical, biological, and chemical

properties. Following reclamation,

the soils would be unlike premining

soils in texture, structure, color,

accumulation of clays, organic

matter, microbial populations, and

chemical composition. The replaced

topsoil would be much more uniform

in type, thickness, and texture. It

would be adequate in quantity and

quality to support planned

postmining land uses (i.e., wildlife

habitat and rangeland).

For surface coal mining, the major

types of emissions that affect air

quality occur in the form of fugitive

dust and exhaust emissions from

large motorized equipment. Activities

such as blasting, loading, and

hauling of overburden and coal, as

well as the large areas of disturbed

land, produce particulate emissions.

Since 1989, the regulated particulate

pollutant in Wyoming has been PM10,

which matches federal standards.

PM10 is particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns

or less. The previous regulated

pollutant was TSP. Figures ES-7

through ES-10 show the results of

dispersion modeling of PM-10 that

was conducted for each mine to

demonstrate that BACT is utilized to

control emissions and that the

proposed mining activities will not

cause or significantly contribute to an

exceedance of annual ambient air

quality standards. For the results

shown in Figures ES-7 through ES10, the modeled production rates are

equal to or greater than the proposed

production rates for mining the LBA

tracts, if they are leased.

Air quality impacts are monitored to

determine if mining operations are

meeting annual ambient air quality

standards. At the four mines

included in this analysis, there are a

total of 13 TSP monitoring samplers

and 11 PM10 monitoring samplers. As

a result of an increase in particulate

emissions in 1999 and 2000, all PM10

monitors are required by WDEQ/AQD

to sample air quality for a 24-hour

period every three days, beginning in

2002. Prior to 2002, each mine

sampled air quality for a 24-hour

period every six days at multiple

monitoring sites. All of the mines are

utilizing BACT measures to control

particulate emissions and complying

with the increased monitoring

frequency.

Under Alternative 1, the No Action

Alternative, for each of the LBA

tracts, the impacts to air quality

would be the same as those currently

permitted. If the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts are leased, these moderately

adverse, short-term impacts to air

quality would be extended onto the

newly leased lands during the time

they are mined.

The PM10 24-hour NAAQS has not

been exceeded at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex. If the

North Antelope/ Rochelle Complex

acquires the NARO North and NARO

South LBA Tracts, an increase in

emissions is anticipated due to

increased average annual production,
Executive Summary

ES-18 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure ES-7
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-19

Figure ES-8
Executive Summary

ES-20 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure ES-9
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-21

Figure ES-10
Executive Summary

ES-22 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

increased overburden movement, and

increased blast frequency.

The PM10 24-hour NAAQS was not

exceeded at the Black Thunder Mine

prior to 2002. During 2002 there was

one 24-hour exceedance of the PM10

24-hour NAAQS at one of the Black

Thunder Mine’s air quality monitoring

sites. As a result of the exceedance,

the Black Thunder Mine is

implementing additional actions

including elimination of unnecessary

roads, periodic application of

magnesium chloride and surfactants

to roads, reducing the dump height of

the draglines, and increasing efforts

for timely reclamation of disturbed

areas.

Emissions associated with mining the

Little Thunder LBA Tract are expected

to increase over those modeled in

Black Thunder Mine’s current air

permit if the tract is leased.

Maximum coal production is

anticipated to be 68.5 mmtpy with or

without the Little Thunder LBA Tract,

but production at this rate would

occur for a longer time with the LBA

tract. Overburden thickness would

increase. Black Thunder Mine, in

conjunction with WDEQ/AQD, is

developing improvements in emission

control activities to remedy current

elevated levels of emissions. If the

mine cannot demonstrate compliance

in a permit for the proposed

maximum production rate of 100

mmtpy, a lower maximum production

rate and/or further expansion of

emission control activities at the mine

would have to be evaluated for

compliance prior to approval of

mining operations on the Little

Thunder LBA Tract.

The PM10 24-hour NAAQS was not

exceeded at the North Rochelle Mine

prior to 2002. During 2001 and early

2002, there were a total of 10

exceedances of the PM10 24-hour

NAAQS at the North Rochelle air

quality monitoring sites. Specific

measures implemented at the North

Rochelle Mine so far as a result

include chemical stabilization of

disturbed ground, surface roughening

through creation of windrows, and

mulching and crimping activities.

These measures are being

implemented on disturbed acres

susceptible to wind scouring,

including stockpiles, areas stripped

for mine advance, and areas being

brought to final grade. In addition,

the mine is inter-seeding areas where

the recent drought has hindered

revegetation success. 

An increase in emissions is projected

if the West Roundup LBA Tract is

leased and mined as compared to the

currently permitted North Rochelle

Mine operation. Coal production is

anticipated to be approximately 35

mmtpy, with or without the West

Roundup LBA Tract, but production

at this rate would occur for a longer

time with the LBA tract. Overburden

thickness would increase. North

Rochelle Mine, in conjunction with

WDEQ/AQD, is developing

improvements in emission control

activities to remedy current elevated

levels of emissions. If compliance

cannot be demonstrated in a permit

for the proposed production rate of 35

mmtpy, a lower annual production

rate and/or further expansion of

emission control activities at the mine

would have to be evaluated for

compliance prior to approval of
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-23

mining operations on the West

Roundup LBA Tract.

The PM10 24-hour NAAQS has not

been exceeded at the Antelope Mine.

If the Antelope Mine acquires the

West Antelope LBA Tract, the

emissions due to coal and overburden

removal operations (i.e., haulage,

blasting, etc.) at the maximum

planned production rate of 32 mmtpy

would occur for a longer period of

time than is shown in the current

approved air quality permit.

Blasting is responsible for another

type of emission from surface coal

mining. Overburden blasting

sometimes produces gaseous orangecolored clouds that contain NO2. NO2

is one of several products resulting

from the incomplete combustion of

the explosives used in the blasting

process. There have been no reported

events of public exposure to NO2 from

blasting activities at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, North

Rochelle Mine or Antelope Mine

through 2001. There were several

reported incidences of public

exposure to NO2 from blasting at the

Black Thunder Mine prior to 2001.

These mines have all employed

measures to control and/or limit

public exposure to intermittent,

short-term (blasting) releases.

Measures have been implemented at

the Black Thunder Mine to

control/limit public exposure to

intermittent, short-term (blasting)

releases, including notification of

neighbors and workers in the general

area of the mine prior to the blast;

timing blast detonation to avoid

temperature inversions and minimize

inconvenience to neighbors;

monitoring of weather and

atmospheric conditions prior to the

decision to detonate a blast; posting

of signs on major public roads that

enter the general mine area and on all

locked gates accessing the active

mine area; and closing public roads

when appropriate to protect the

public. No reports of public exposure

to NO2 related to blasting at the Black

Thunder Mine have been received

since early 2001. According to OSM,

no citizen complaints related to any

blasting in the Wyoming PRB were

received by OSM or WDEQ during the

2001 evaluation year, which ended on

September 30, 2001 (OSM 2002).

Changes in runoff characteristics and

sediment discharges would occur

during mining of each LBA tract, and

erosion rates could reach high values

on the disturbed areas because of

vegetation removal. However, state

and federal regulations require that

surface runoff from mined lands be

treated to meet effluent standards, so

sediment would be deposited in

ponds or other sediment-control

devices at each mine. After mining

and reclamation are completed on

each tract, surface water flow,

quality, and sediment discharge

would approximate premining

conditions.

Mining the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts would enlarge the area of

lowered groundwater levels in the coal

and overburden aquifers associated

with the existing mining operations,

as well as the area where the existing

coal and overburden aquifers would
Executive Summary

ES-24 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

be removed and replaced by mine

backfill. At each mine, drawdown in

the adjacent continuous coal aquifer

would be expected to increase roughly

in proportion to the increase in area

affected by mining and would extend

farther than drawdown in the

discontinuous overburden aquifers.

The data available indicate that

hydraulic properties of the backfill

would be comparable to the

premining overburden and coal

aquifers. TDS concentration levels of

groundwater in the backfill would

initially be expected to be higher than

in the premining overburden and coal

aquifers, but would be expected to

meet Wyoming Class III standards for

use as stock water.

AVF investigations conducted within

the General Analysis Area have

identified AVFs that occur along

Porcupine Creek, Antelope Creek,

Little Thunder Creek, and North

Prong Little Thunder Creek

downstream of the LBA tracts. Based

on preliminary AVF determinations, it

is unlikely that any potential AVFs on

the NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, or West Roundup LBA

Tracts meet the criteria to be

significant to agriculture. AVFs that

are not significant to agriculture can

be disturbed during mining but must

be restored as part of the reclamation

process. A portion of Antelope Creek

within the current Antelope Mine

permit area has been designated by

WDEQ/LQD as “possible subirrigated

AVF of minor importance to

agriculture”. A portion of this

declared AVF is within the West

Antelope LBA Tract, however, ACC’s

current approved mining and

reclamation plan avoids disturbing

Antelope Creek and an adjacent

designated buffer zone on existing

leases, and ACC does not plan to

disturb Antelope Creek and the

designated buffer zone if they acquire

the West Antelope LBA Tract. 

Jurisdictional wetlands have been

identified on the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts. A maximum of 62.16 acres of

jurisdictional and 51.58 acres of nonjurisdictional wetlands would be

disturbed if all five LBA tracts are

leased and subsequently mined.

Special permitting procedures are

required to assure that, after mining,

there will be no net loss of

jurisdictional wetlands. In Wyoming,

once a wetland delineation is

completed and verified by COE, it is

made a part of the mine permit

document. The reclamation plan is

then revised to incorporate

restoration of at least equal types and

number of jurisdictional wetlands. 

Mining would progressively remove

the native vegetation on each LBA

tract that is leased. Reclamation and

revegetation of this land would occur

contemporaneously with mining. 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 LBA tracts. Initially, the

reclaimed land on each tract would be

dominated by grassland vegetation

which would be less diverse than the

premining vegetation. Estimates for

the time it would take to restore

sagebrush to premining density levels

range from 20 to 100 years. An
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-25

indirect impact associated with this

vegetative change would potentially

be a decreased big game habitat

carrying capacity. However, a diverse,

productive, and permanent vegetative

cover would be established on each

LBA tract within about 10 years

following reclamation, prior to release

of the final reclamation bond. The

decrease in plant diversity would not

seriously affect the potential

productivity of the reclaimed areas,

and the proposed postmining land

uses (wildlife habitat and rangeland)

should be achieved even with the

changes in vegetation composition

and diversity. The reclamation plans

for each LBA tract that is leased

would also include steps to control

invasion by weedy (invasive,

nonnative) plant species. The surface

of each LBA tract includes privately

owned land, and the private

landowners would have the right to

manipulate the vegetation on their

lands as they desire, once the final

reclamation bond is released. 

One threatened plant species, Ute

ladies’-tresses, has been found on

Antelope Creek, in northwestern

Converse County. Surveys of

potentially suitable habitat were

conducted on the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West Roundup

and West Antelope LBA Tracts during

times of flowering of the known

population. Ute ladies’-tresses orchid

individuals were not identified during

these surveys. 

Site-specific wildlife data for the

NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup and West

Antelope LBA Tracts were principally

obtained from WDEQ/LQD permit

applications and annual wildlife

reports for the applicant mines.

Baseline and annual monitoring

surveys cover large perimeters around

the existing mine permit areas.

Consequently, a majority of the LBA

tracts have been surveyed during

baseline and annual wildlife surveys

for Jacobs Ranch Mine, Black

Thunder Mine, North Rochelle Mine,

Antelope Mine, and the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex. No

crucial big game habitat or migration

corridors are recognized by the WGFD

in the General Analysis Area. In the

short term, wildlife would be

displaced from the LBA tracts in

areas of active mining. Habitat would

be disturbed in parcels, with

reclamation progressing as new

disturbance occurs. In the long term,

following reclamation, carrying

capacity and habitat diversity may be

reduced due to flatter topography,

less diverse vegetative cover, and

reduction in sagebrush density. 

Federally listed T&E wildlife species

that may occur in the General

Analysis Area include bald eagle

(threatened), black-footed ferret

(endangered), mountain plover

(proposed threatened), and blacktailed prairie dog (candidate). Some

wildlife surveys conducted on the

NARO North and South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts have been

specifically conducted for T&E

species, others did not specifically

target T&E species, but habitats for

listed species and occurrences of

listed species were observed and

noted. Bald eagles have been

observed in the vicinity of each of the

five LBA tracts, and were observed
Executive Summary

ES-26 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

during recent (2001) wildlife surveys

in or around the NARO North, NARO

South, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts. Bald eagle roosts and unique

or concentrated sources of carrion or

prey have not been documented in

the study areas for any of the LBA

tracts. Black-footed ferrets are rare

and very unlikely to occur in the

vicinity of any of the LBA tracts. They

are closely associated with prairie

dogs. With the exception of a single

skull collected during baseline

studies for the Antelope Mine in

1979, no evidence of ferrets has been

recorded during surveys in or around

the LBA tracts. Mountain plovers

may also be associated with prairie

dog colonies. There have been no

sitings of mountain plover in the

vicinity of the West Roundup LBA

Tract. There have been sitings of

mountain plovers in the vicinity of the

NARO North, NARO South, and Little

Thunder LBA Tracts, but there were

no such sitings during recent (2000-

2001) surveys on these tracts. The

mountain plover is a regular migrant

and summer resident in the vicinity of

the Antelope Mine and portions of the

West Antelope LBA Tract. There are

a number of black-tailed prairie dog

colonies located on existing coal

leases, on the LBA tracts, or in the

vicinity of the LBA tracts. 

Active mining would preclude other

land uses. Recreational use is

severely limited during mining

operations. The surface estate of the

NARO South and West Antelope LBA

Tracts is all privately owned. On

private lands, access for recreational

use is determined by the landowner.

Portions of the surface estate of the

NARO North, Little Thunder, and

West Roundup LBA Tracts are part of

the TBNG, which is administered by

the USFS. Access to these lands

would be restricted during mining

and reclamation. Energy

development in the PRB (primarily

coal mining and oil and gas

development) has and will continue to

contribute to a reduction in hunting

opportunities for some animals

(pronghorn, mule deer, and sage

grouse).

Mining would also impact oil and gas

development on both federal and

private oil and gas leases, if the

federal coal tracts are leased. As

discussed above, existing CBM and

conventional oil and gas wells would

have to be plugged and abandoned,

and all facilities and equipment

associated with oil and gas

development that are present on coal

leases would have to be removed

prior to mining. New drilling would

not be possible in areas of active

mining, but could potentially take

place in areas not being mined, or in

reclaimed areas. CBM that is not

recovered prior to mining would be

vented and irretrievably lost as the

coal is removed. 

Cultural resources on the NARO

North, NARO South, Little Thunder,

West Roundup, and West Antelope

LBA Tracts would be impacted by

mining, but adverse impacts would be

mitigated through data recovery

and/or avoidance of significant

properties. Formal Wyoming SHPO

consultation is required for

concurrence with determination of

the eligibility of sites for inclusion on

the NRHP prior to mining. The

eligible cultural properties on each
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-27

LBA tract which cannot be avoided or

which have not already been

subjected to data recovery action

would be carried forward in the

mining and reclamation plan as

requiring protective stipulations until

a testing, mitigation, or data recovery

program is developed in consultation

with the SHPO.

No sites of Native American religious

or cultural importance have been

identified on the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, or West Antelope LBA

Tracts. If such sites or localities are

identified at a later date, appropriate

action must be taken to address

concerns related to those sites.

No unique or significant

paleontological resources have been

identified on the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts, and the likelihood of

encountering significant

paleontological resources is small.

Mining activities at the existing North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, and

Black Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines are currently visible

from State Highway 450, State

Highway 59, County Road 37,

Antelope Road, Reno Road and

Edwards Road. Mining activities on

the NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts would also be

visible from these roads. No unique

visual resources have been identified

on or near any of the LBA tracts. The

landscape character would not be

significantly changed following

reclamation.

Noise levels on the NARO North,

NARO South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts would be increased

considerably by mining activities

such as blasting, loading, and

hauling. Because of the remoteness

of the LBA tracts and because mining

is already ongoing in the area, there

would be few new off-site noise

impacts. After mining and

reclamation are completed, noise

would return to premining levels.

No new or reconstructed

transportation facilities would be

required if the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts are leased and subsequently

mined. Leasing the LBA tracts would

extend the length of time that coal is

shipped from the permitted North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder Mine, and North Rochelle

Mine. Mine life would not be

increased for the Antelope Mine, but

average productions levels would be

higher. Active pipelines and utility

lines would have to be relocated in

accordance with previous agreements,

or agreements would have to be

negotiated for their removal or

relocation.

Socioeconomic impacts resulting from

the leasing and subsequent mining of

the NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts would include an

increase in federal, state, and local

revenues as a result of the coal bonus

and royalty payments as well as

severance and property taxes. 
Executive Summary

ES-28 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Royalty and bonus payments for the

federal coal in the LBA tracts would

be split with the state. If the five LBA

tracts are leased and mined as

proposed, cumulative federal

revenues would be about $1.1 billion,

assuming a coal bonus of 26 cents

per ton (the average of bonus

payments for past coal lease sales in

the Wyoming PRB) and a coal price of

$5.00 per ton.

A 1994 University of Wyoming study

estimated that the total direct fiscal

benefit to the State of Wyoming from

coal mining taxes and royalties is

$1.10 per ton of coal mined. Using

that estimate, if the five LBA tracts

are leased and mined as proposed,

cumulative state revenues would be

about $1.5 billion.

Mine life would be extended and

employment would be increased or

maintained at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder Mine, and North Rochelle

Mine. Mine life and employment

would be stable at the Antelope Mine,

but maximum production levels

would be extended. Economic

stability would be maintained in the

communities in this area without

placing major additional demands on

the existing infrastructure or services.

With regard to Environmental Justice

issues, it was determined that

potentially adverse impacts would not

disproportionately affect minorities,

low-income groups, or Native

American tribes or groups. No tribal

lands or Native American

communities are included in the

General Analysis Area, and no Native

American treaty rights or Native

American trust resources are known

to exist for this area.

Under the No Action Alternative, the

impacts described in the preceding

paragraphs to topography and

physiology, geology and minerals,

soils, air quality, water resources,

AVFs, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife,

threatened, endangered, proposed,

and candidate species, USFS

sensitive species, land use and

recreation, cultural resources, Native

American concerns, paleontological

resources, visual resources, noise,

transportation, and socioeconomics

would occur on the existing North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder Mine, North Rochelle Mine,

and Antelope Mine coal leases, but

these impacts would not be extended

onto the LBA tracts. Portions of the

LBA tracts adjacent to the existing

applicant mines would be disturbed

to recover the coal in the existing

leases.

If impacts are identified during the

leasing process that are not mitigated

by existing required mitigation

measures, BLM can include

additional mitigation measures, in the

form of stipulations on new leases,

within the limits of its regulatory

authority. BLM has not identified

additional special stipulations that

should be added if the NARO North,

NARO South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, or West Antelope LBA

Tracts are leased, or areas where

additional or increased monitoring

measures are recommended.

Cumulative impacts result from the

incremental impacts of an action

added to other past, present, and
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-29

reasonably foreseeable future actions,

regardless of who is responsible for

such actions. Cumulative impacts

can result from individually minor,

but collectively significant, actions

occurring over time.

Since decertification of the Powder

River Federal Coal Region in 1990,

the BLM Wyoming State Office has

issued 11 new federal coal leases

containing approximately 3.2 billion

tons of coal using the LBA process.

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. 

Applications have been received for

nine additional federal coal tracts,

including the applications for the

NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts. These pending

LBA applications contain

approximately 2.3 billion tons of coal.

All of the pending applications have

been reviewed and recommended for

processing by the PRRCT.

Four regional EISs evaluating coal

development in the PRB in Wyoming

have previously been prepared. They

are: 

Final Environmental Impact Statement,

Eastern Powder River Coal Basin of

Wyoming, BLM, October 1974;

Final Environmental Impact Statement,

Eastern Powder River Coal, BLM,

March 1979;

Final Environmental Impact Statement,

Powder River Coal Region, BLM,

December 1981;

Draft Environmental Impact Statement,

Round II Coal Lease Sale, Powder

River Region, BLM, January 1984.

Since 1989, coal production in the

PRB has increased by approximately

6.8 percent per year. The increasing

state production is primarily due to

increasing sales of low-sulfur, lowcost PRB coal to electric utilities who

must comply with Phase I

requirements of Title III of the 1990

Clean Air Act Amendments. Electric

utilities account for 97 percent of

Wyoming's coal sales. 

Oil production has decreased in the

Wyoming PRB since 1990, but

natural gas production has been

increasing, particularly in Campbell

County. This is due to the

development of shallow CBM

resources west of the coal mines.

CBM exploration and production are

currently ongoing throughout the

Wyoming PRB. Since the early

1990s, BLM has completed numerous

EAs and EISs analyzing CBM

projects. The latest of these is the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

and Draft Planning Amendment for the

Powder River Basin Oil and Gas

Project, which was completed in

January 2002. The project area for

this EIS includes almost eight million

acres of mixed federal, state, and

private lands within the Wyoming

portion of the PRB. The EIS is

evaluating the impacts of drilling,

completing, operating, and reclaiming

almost 39,400 new federal, state, and

private CBM wells in addition to the
Executive Summary

ES-30 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

roughly 12,100 federal, state, and

private CBM wells already drilled or

permitted within the project area.

The draft EIS also analyzes the

impacts of developing 3,200 new

conventional oil and gas wells, as well

as constructing, operating, and

reclaiming various ancillary facilities

needed to support the new CBM and

conventional wells, including roads,

pipelines for gathering gas and

produced water, electrical utilities,

and compressors (BLM 2002a). A

final EIS is in preparation. Under the

current process for approving CBM

drilling, CBM wells can be drilled on

private and state oil and gas leases

after approval by the WOGCC and the

Wyoming SEO. On federal oil and gas

leases, BLM must analyze the

individual and cumulative

environmental impacts of all drilling,

as required by NEPA, before CBM

drilling can be authorized. 

CBM wells have been drilled in or

around the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts. CBM drilling and production

are expected to continue in the areas

around the coal mines and on the

LBAs. Due to the proximity of the

coal mining and CBM production

operations, cumulative impacts to

groundwater, surface water, air

quality, and wildlife have occurred

and are likely to continue as more

CBM resources are developed

adjacent to existing surface coal

mines. 

Other minerals or materials that are

produced in the Wyoming PRB

include uranium, bentonite, and

scoria. Other mineral development

levels in the Wyoming PRB are

currently lower than predicted in the

regional EISs. 

In addition to the ongoing coal mining

and leasing and the CBM

development, there are other projects

which are in progress or have been

proposed in the Wyoming PRB. These

projects include the Wygen I 90-Mw

coal-fired power plant currently under

construction by Black Hills Energy,

Inc. near the Wyodak Mine east of

Gillette; the Two Elk 300-Mw coalfired power plant proposed for

construction by NAPG east of the

Black Thunder Mine; the Wygen II

500-Mw coal-fired power plant that

would be built near Wyodak Mine

east of Gillette by Black Hills Energy,

Inc.; the proposed DM&E rail line;

the Two Elk Unit Two 500-Mw coalfired power plant, which NAPG also

proposes to build east of the Black

Thunder Mine; construction and

operation by NAPG of another 500-

Mw coal-fired power plant, the Middle

Bear facility, near the Cordero-Rojo

Mining Complex; and the ENCOAL

coal enhancement facility, which was

proposed for construction at the

North Rochelle Mine but has been

indefinitely delayed.

The existing development in the PRB

has resulted in the introduction of

roads, railroads, power lines, fences,

mine structures, and oil and gas

production equipment, and this will

continue as development in the PRB

continues. This area has already

undergone change from a semiagricultural-based economy to a coal

mining and oil and gas economy.

Environmentally, the open, basically

treeless landscape has been visibly
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-31

altered by construction, equipment,

and human activities. Leasing the

NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts would increase

the total area that would be affected

by mining but would not cause a

significant cumulative change in daily

impacts because they would be

extensions of ongoing operations at

existing mines and mining

disturbance is progressive with

reclamation proceeding contemporaneously. Cumulative impacts

vary by resource and range from

being almost undetectable to being

substantial. Cumulative impacts on

air quality, groundwater quantity and

quality, and wildlife habitat have

created the greatest concern.

An air quality impact assessment

predicting potential far-field

cumulative air quality impacts, using

the EPA CALMET/CALPUFF

dispersion modeling system, has been

prepared to predict maximum

potential air quality impacts at

mandatory federal PSD Class I areas

downwind of proposed oil and gas

development in the PRB in northeast

Wyoming and southeast Montana.

The assessment considered potential

air pollutant emission sources from

proposed CBM development in

Wyoming and Montana combined

with other reasonably foreseeable

development (RFD) emission sources

to predict the total potential

cumulative impact to air quality.

Surface coal mining operations in

Montana and Wyoming were included

as other RFD emission sources in this

assessment. 

The cumulative far-field impacts

predicted in this air quality impact

assessment would be the same under

the Proposed Action and all of the

Alternatives for leasing or not leasing

federal coal considered in this EIS

because the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts are all maintenance tracts,

which would be leased to extend

operations at existing mines.

Selection of any of the leasing

alternatives considered in this EIS

would not introduce new sources of

impacts to air quality, but would

change the location of the sources of

those impacts to the newly leased

tracts and would extend the period of

time that those existing sources

would be in operation. Selection of

any or all of the No-Action

alternatives (Alternative 1) considered

in this EIS (not leasing the coal

included in one or more of the LBA

tracts) would not affect any of the

currently approved mining operations

on existing leases. 

Coal mines develop predictive models

to assess the potential air quality

impacts of their mining operations.

The predictive modeling conducted for

PRB mines indicates that mining

operations do not have significant offsite particulate pollution impacts,

even when production and pollution

from neighboring mines are

considered. This modeling is based

on the assumption that mining

activities are sufficiently removed

from the permit boundaries and that

neighboring mines are not actively

mining in the immediate vicinity

(within 0.6 to 2.5 miles). In cases

where mines are in close proximity

(within two miles), WDEQ/AQD
Executive Summary

ES-32 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

follows a modeling protocol which

accounts for all mine-generated

particulate air pollutants from all

nearby mines to determine impacts to

ambient air quality. Examples of the

impacts predicted by these models

are shown in Figures ES-7 through

ES-10. 

Figure ES-11 shows modeled and

extrapolated worst-case coal aquifer

drawdown as a result of surface coal

mining at the mines located south

and east of Wright, Wyoming, if the

NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts are leased.

Currently, coal drawdowns from the

Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, and

North Rochelle Mines have coalesced,

and drawdowns from the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex and

Antelope Mine have coalesced. The

areas of drawdown from the five

southern mines will coalesce in the

future with or without the addition of

mining activity on the five LBA tracts

considered in this EIS. Dewatering

activities associated with reasonably

foreseeable CBM development would

be expected to overlap with and

expand the area of groundwater

drawdown in the coal aquifer in the

PRB. Monitoring of backfill areas

indicates that reclaimed areas are

being recharged with water generally

suitable for livestock use (the

premining use).

Wildlife habitat quality has declined

in the PRB due to a continuing trend

of landscape fragmentation from

roads, rail lines, oil and gas wells,

coal mines, and fences. Mining of the

NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts would add to

this habitat fragmentation. Wildlife

monitoring indicates that wildlife use

reclaimed areas.

This EIS presents the BLM's analysis

of environmental impacts under

authority of the NEPA and associated

rules and guidelines. The BLM will

use this analysis to make separate

decisions to lease or not lease the

federal coal included in the NARO

North, NARO South, Little Thunder,

West Roundup, and West Antelope

LBA Tracts. A decision to hold a

competitive sale and issue a lease for

the lands in any of these applications

is a prerequisite for mining, but it is

not the enabling action that would

allow mining to begin. The BLM does

not authorize mining operations by

issuing a lease. After a lease has

been issued, but prior to mine

development, the lessee must file a

permit application package with the

WDEQ/LQD and OSM for a surface
Executive Summary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ES-33

Figure ES-11
Executive Summary

ES-34 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

mining permit and approval of the

MLA mining plan. An analysis of a

detailed site-specific mining and

reclamation plan occurs at that time.
DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

SOUTH POWDER RIVER BASIN COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS

(FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW 127221)

Prepared for

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Casper Field Office

Casper, Wyoming

and

Cooperating Agency

U.S. Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement

Denver, Colorado

by

WWC Engineering

Sheridan, Wyoming

January 2003
Table of Contents

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

1.1 Purpose and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14

1.2 Regulatory Authority and Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17

1.3 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs . . . . . . . . 1-19

1.4 Conformance with Existing Land Use Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20

1.5 Consultation and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-24

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

2.1 Proposed Action and Alternatives for the NARO North LBA

Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.1.1 NARO North LBA Tract Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.1.2 NARO North LBA Tract Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

2.2 Proposed Action and Alternatives for the NARO South LBA

Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

2.2.1 NARO South LBA Tract Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

2.2.2 NARO South LBA Tract Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.2.3 NARO South LBA Tract Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

2.2.4 NARO South LBA Tract Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

2.3 Proposed Action and Alternatives for the Little Thunder LBA

Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

2.3.1 Little Thunder LBA Tract Proposed Action . . . . . . . . 2-16

2.3.2 Little Thunder LBA Tract Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2.3.3 Little Thunder LBA Tract Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2.3.4 Little Thunder LBA Tract Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2.4 Proposed Action and Alternatives for the West Roundup LBA

Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

2.4.1 West Roundup LBA Tract Proposed Action . . . . . . . 2-24

2.4.2 West Roundup LBA Tract Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

2.4.3 West Roundup LBA Tract Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

2.4.4 West Roundup LBA Tract Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2.5 Proposed Action and Alternatives for the West Antelope LBA

Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

2.5.1 West Antelope LBA Tract Proposed Action . . . . . . . . 2-33

2.5.2 West Antelope LBA Tract Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . 2-37

2.5.3 West Antelope LBA Tract Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . 2-38

2.5.4 West Antelope LBA Tract Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . 2-39

2.6 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail . . . . . . . . 2-40

2.6.1 Alternative 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40

2.6.2 Alternative 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-41

2.7 Comparison of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-43

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Table of Contents

ii South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

3.1 General Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.2 Topography and Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.3 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.3.1 Mineral Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3.4 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.5 Air Quality and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

3.5.1 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.5.2 Climate and Meteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.5.3 Existing Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.5.4 Historical Ambient Air Quality: Particulates . . . . . . 3-18

3.5.5 Historical Ambient Air Quality: NO2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24

3.5.6 Air Quality Related Values - Visibility and

Acidification of Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26

3.5.6.1 Visibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26

3.5.6.2 Acidification of Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27

3.5.7 Regulatory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29

3.6 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31

3.6.1 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31

3.6.2 Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34

3.6.3 Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36

3.7 Alluvial Valley Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-37

3.8 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40

3.9 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41

3.9.1 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate

Plant Species and USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species . 3-42

3.10 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42

3.10.1 Big Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45

3.10.2 Other Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-46

3.10.3 Raptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47

3.10.4 Game Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-48

3.10.5 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49

3.10.6 Other Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49

3.10.7 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate

Animal Species and USFS Region 2 Sensitive

Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51

3.11 Ownership and Use of Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51

3.12 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-69

3.13 Native American Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-72

3.14 Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-72

3.15 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-74

3.16 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-75

3.17 Transportation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-75

3.18 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-77

3.18.1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-77

3.18.2 Local Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-77
Table of Contents

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS iii

3.18.3 Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-85

3.18.4 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-86

3.18.5 Local Government Facilities and Services . . . . . . . . 3-87

3.18.6 Social Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-87

3.18.7 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-88

3.19 Hazardous and Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-89

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts of Action Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.1.1 Topography and Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.1.2 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

4.1.2.1 Mineral Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

4.1.3 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

4.1.4 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

4.1.4.1 General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

4.1.4.2 NARO North and South LBA Tracts . . . . . . . 4-20

4.1.4.3 Little Thunder LBA Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4.1.4.4 West Roundup LBA Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30

4.1.4.5 West Antelope LBA Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35

4.1.5 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

4.1.6 Alluvial Valley Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-58

4.1.7 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-60

4.1.8 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61

4.1.9 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate

Plant Species and USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species . . . 4-63

4.1.10 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-63

4.1.11 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate

Wildlife Species and USFS Region 2 Sensitive

Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-69

4.1.12 Land Use and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-69

4.1.13 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-70

4.1.14 Native American Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-71

4.1.15 Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-71

4.1.16 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-71

4.1.17 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-72

4.1.18 Transportation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-73

4.1.19 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-73

4.1.20 Hazardous and Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-77

4.2 No Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-77

4.3 Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation, and Monitoring . . . . . . . . 4-79

4.4 Residual Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-84

4.4.1 Topography and Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-84

4.4.2 Geology and Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-85

4.4.3 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-85

4.4.4 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-85

4.4.5 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-85
Table of Contents

iv South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

4.4.6 Alluvial Valley Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-85

4.4.7 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-85

4.4.8 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-85

4.4.9 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-85

4.4.10 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate

Species and USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species . . . . . . . 4-85

4.4.11 Land Use and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-86

4.4.12 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-86

4.4.13 Native American Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-86

4.4.14 Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-86

4.4.15 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-86

4.4.16 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-86

4.4.17 Transportation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-86

4.4.18 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-86

4.5 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-86

4.5.1 Topography and Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-94

4.5.2 Geology and Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-95

4.5.3 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-96

4.5.4 Air Quality and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-96

4.5.4.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives . . . . . . 4-99

4.5.4.2 Impacts from Temporary Generation . . . 4-104

4.5.4.3 Predicted Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . 4-104

4.5.4.3.1 Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project

EIS Alternatives 1, 2a, and 2b . . . . 4-105

4.5.4.3.2 Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project

EIS Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-105

4.5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-107

4.5.5 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-116

4.5.6 Alluvial Valley Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-129

4.5.7 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-130

4.5.8 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-130

4.5.9 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-131

4.5.10 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate

Species and USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species . . . . 4-135

4.5.11 Land Use and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-135

4.5.12 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-137

4.5.13 Native American Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-138

4.5.14 Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-138

4.5.15 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-138

4.5.16 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-138

4.5.17 Transportation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-139

4.5.18 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-139

4.6 The Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man*s

Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of

Long-term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-142

4.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . 4-144
Table of Contents

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS v

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

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

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

8.0 INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

LIST OF FIGURES

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

LBA Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2

Figure ES-2. NARO North and NARO South LBA Alternative Tract

Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-6

Figure ES-3. Little Thunder LBA Alternative Tract Configurations . . . . . ES-7

Figure ES-4. West Roundup LBA Alternative Tract Configurations . . . . ES-8

Figure ES-5. West Antelope LBA Alternative Tract Configurations . . . . . ES-9

Figure ES-6. General Analysis Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-14

Figure ES-7. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex Ambient Air Boundary for

the Year 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-17

Figure ES-8. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the Black

Thunder Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2026 . ES-18

Figure ES-9. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the North

Rochelle Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2012 . ES-19

Figure ES-10. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the Antelope

Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2016 . . . . . . . . ES-20

Figure ES-11. Extrapolated Worst-Case Wyodak Coal Aquifer

Drawdown Scenarios Showing Extent of Actual

20-Year Drawdowns and USGS Modeled Cumulative

Drawdowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-32

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

Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

Figure 1-2. North Antelope/Rochelle Complex Federal Coal Leases and

NARO North and NARO South LBA Tracts as Applied for . . 1-8

Figure 1-3. Black Thunder Mine Federal Coal Leases and Little

Thunder LBA Tract as Applied for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

Figure 1-4. North Rochelle Mine Federal Coal Leases and West

Roundup LBA Tract as Applied for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12

Figure 1-5. Antelope Mine Federal Coal Leases and West Antelope

LBA Tract as Applied for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

Figure 2-1. NARO North and NARO South LBA Alternative Tract

Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Table of Contents

vi South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 2-2. Little Thunder LBA Alternative Tract Configurations . . . . . 2-17

Figure 2-3. West Roundup LBA Alternative Tract Configurations . . . . 2-25

Figure 2-4. West Antelope LBA Alternative Tract Configurations . . . . . 2-34

Figure 3-1. General Analysis Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

Figure 3-2. Stratigraphic Relationships and Hydrologic Characteristics

of Upper Cretaceous, Lower Tertiary, and Recent Geologic

Units, PRB, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

Figure 3-3. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12

Figure 3-4. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the

Black Thunder Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13

Figure 3-5. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the

North Rochelle Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14

Figure 3-6. Wind Rose, Air Quality and Meteorological Stations at the

Antelope Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15

Figure 3-7. Active PM10 Monitoring Stations in Northeastern

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16

Figure 3-8. Cumulative Coal Production and Overburden Removal vs.

Ambient Particulates for the SPRB General Anaylsis Area

(1995 through 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23

Figure 3-9. Visibility in the Badlands and Bridger Wilderness Areas . . 3-28

Figure 3-10. Surface Drainage in the General Analysis Area . . . . . . . . . 3-35

Figure 3-11. Surface Ownership Within the NARO North and NARO

South LBA Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-52

Figure 3-12. Surface Ownership Within the Little Thunder LBA Tract . . 3-53

Figure 3-13. Surface Ownership Within the West Roundup LBA Tract . 3-54

Figure 3-14. Surface Ownership Within the West Antelope LBA Tract . . 3-55

Figure 3-15. Oil and Gas Ownership on the NARO North and NARO

South LBA Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-56

Figure 3-16. Oil and Gas Ownership on the Little Thunder LBA Tract . . 3-57

Figure 3-17. Oil and Gas Ownership on the West Roundup LBA Tract . 3-58

Figure 3-18. Oil and Gas Ownership on the West Antelope LBA Tract . . 3-59

Figure 3-19. Relationship Between A-Scale Decibel Readings and

Sounds of Daily Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-76

Figure 3-20. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the NARO

North and NARO South LBA Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-78

Figure 3-21. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the Little

Thunder LBA Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-79

Figure 3-22. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the West

Roundup LBA Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-80

Figure 3-23. Transportation Facilities Within and Adjacent to the West

Antelope LBA Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-81

Figure 3-24. Estimated Wyoming and Federal Revenues from 2000

Coal Production in Campbell and Converse Counties . . . . 3-84
Table of Contents

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS vii

Figure 4-1. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex Ambient Air Boundary for

the Year 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

Figure 4-2. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex Ambient Air Boundary for

the Year 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

Figure 4-3. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the Black

Thunder Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2002 . . 4-26

Figure 4-4. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the Black

Thunder Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2026 . . 4-27

Figure 4-5. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the North

Rochelle Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2002 . . 4-32

Figure 4-6. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the North

Rochelle Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2012 . . 4-33

Figure 4-7. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the Antelope

Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2006 . . . . . . . . . 4-37

Figure 4-8. Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at the Antelope

Mine Ambient Air Boundary for the Year 2016 . . . . . . . . . 4-38

Figure 4-9. North Antelope/Rochelle Complex Life of Mine Drawdown

Map, Resulting from Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45

Figure 4-10. Black Thunder Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map,

Resulting from Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49

Figure 4-11. North Rochelle Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map,

Resulting from Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-52

Figure 4-12. Antelope Mine Life of Mine Drawdown Map, Resulting

from Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56

Figure 4-13. Estimated Wyoming and Federal Revenues from the

Leasing and Subsequent Mining of the NARO North,

NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-76

Figure 4-14. Extrapolated Worst-Case Wyodak Coal Aquifer

Drawdown Scenarios Showing Extent of Actual

20-Year Drawdowns and USGS Modeled Cumulative

Drawdowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-122

Figure 4-15. Cumulative Worst-Case Coal Aquifer Drawdown for

the Five Southern Mines with Maximum Modeled

Drawdown Contours From PRB Oil and Gas Project

DEIS Superimposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-128

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface

Disturbance, and Mine Life for NARO North and

NARO South LBA Tracts and North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-10
Table of Contents

viii South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table ES-2. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface

Disturbance, and Mine Life for Little Thunder LBA

Tract and Black Thunder Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-11

Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface

Disturbance, and Mine Life for West Roundup LBA

Tract and North Rochelle Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-12

Table ES-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface

Disturbance, and Mine Life for West Antelope LBA

Tract and Antelope Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-13

Table 1-1. Leases Issued Since Decertification, Powder River Basin,

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

Table 1-2 Pending LBAs, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

Table 2-1. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface

Disturbance, and Mine Life for NARO North and NARO

South LBA Tracts and North Antelope/Rochelle Complex . 2-44

Table 2-2. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface

Disturbance, and Mine Life for Little Thunder LBA Tract

and Black Thunder Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45

Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface

Disturbance, and Mine Life for West Roundup LBA Tract

and North Rochelle Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface

Disturbance, and Mine Life for West Antelope LBA Tract

and Antelope Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47

Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of

Direct and Indirect Impacts for the Proposed Action,

Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and the No Action Alternative

for the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48

Table 2-6. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of

Cumulated Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-55

Table 3-1. Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations,

Applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards, and PSD

Increment Values (in μg/m3

) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19

Table 3-2. Summary of WDEQ/AQD Reports on Air Quality Monitoring

in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . 3-21

Table 3-3. Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25

Table 3-4. 2001 Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data . . . . . . . . 3-25

Table 3-5. Approximate Distances and Directions from the General

Analysis Area to PSD Class I and Class II Sensitive

Receptor Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27

Table 3-6. Existing Acid Neutralizing Capacity in Sensitive Lakes . . . 3-29

Table 3-7. Dominant Vegetation Types in the General Analysis Area . 3-43
Table of Contents

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ix

Table 3-8. 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in

Wyoming for Coal Mines: Their Regional Status, and

Expected, and Actual Occurrence on or Near the SPRB

Coal LBA Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-50

Table 3-9. Distribution of Surface Ownership Within Each LBA Tract

and Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51

Table 3-10. NARO North and South LBA Tracts Oil and Gas

Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-60

Table 3-11. Little Thunder LBA Tract Oil and Gas Ownership . . . . . . . 3-62

Table 3-12. West Roundup LBA Tract Oil and Gas Ownership . . . . . . . 3-63

Table 3-13. West Antelope LBA Tract Oil and Gas Ownership . . . . . . . 3-64

Table 3-14. Estimated 2001 Fiscal Revenues from 2000 Coal Production

in Campbell and Converse Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-82

Table 4-1. Comparison of Existing and Proposed North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex Disturbance Area and Mining Operations . . . . . . . 4-2

Table 4-2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Black Thunder Mine

Disturbance Area and Mining Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

Table 4-3. Comparison of Existing and Proposed North Rochelle Mine

Disturbance Area and Mining Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

Table 4-4. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Antelope Mine

Disturbance Area and Mining Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

Table 4-5. Average Overburden, Interburden, and Coal Thicknesses and

Approximate Postmining Surface Elevation Changes of the

Five LBA Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

Table 4-6. Average Overburden, Interburden, and Coal Thicknesses for

the Applicant Mines’ Existing Permit Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

Table 4-7. Water Supply Wells Possibly Subject to Drawdown if NARO

North and South LBA Tracts are Mined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46

Table 4-8. Water Supply Wells Possibly Subject to Drawdown if Little

Thunder LBA Tract is Mined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50

Table 4-9. Water Supply Wells Possibly Subject to Drawdown if West

Roundup LBA Tract is Mined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54

Table 4-10. Water Supply Wells Possibly Subject to Drawdown if West

Antelope LBA Tract is Mined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-58

Table 4-11. Maximum Wetland Impacts in the NARO North and South,

Little Thunder, West Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-60

Table 4-12. Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the NARO

North and South LBA Tracts under the Proposed Action or

Action Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-74

Table 4-13. Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the Little

Thunder LBA Tract under the Proposed Action or Action

Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-75

Table 4-14. Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the West

Roundup LBA Tract under the Proposed Action or Action
Table of Contents

x South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-75

Table 4-15. Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the West

Antelope LBA Tract under the Proposed Action or Action

Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-75

Table 4-16. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring

Measures required under each Proposed Action, Alternative

1 (No Action), Alternative 2, or Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 4-80

Table 4-17. Status of Wyoming PRB Coal Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-88

Table 4-18. Coal Production and Development Levels, Campbell and

Converse Counties, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-89

Table 4-19. Emission Factors for Temporary Generation for Oil and

Gas Pipeline Compressors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-104

Table 4-20. Near-Field Concentrations from a Single Temporary

Generator for Oil and Gas Pipeline Compressors . . . . . . 4-105

Table 4-21. Range of Predicted Maximum Potential Near-Field Impacts

under Alternatives 1, 2A, and 2B of the Wyoming PRB Oil

and Gas Project EIS (with Montana Alternative E) . . . . . . 4-106

Table 4-22. Predicted Maximum Potential Near-Field Impacts under

Alternative 3 of the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS

(with Montana Alternative E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-108

Table 4-23. Maximum Predicted PSD Class I Area Cumulative Far-Field

Impacts (in μg/m3

) under Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project

EIS Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) and all South PRB Coal

EIS Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-109

Table 4-24. Predicted Total Cumulative Change in Acid Neutralizing

Capacity at Sensitive Area Lakes (percent change) . . . . . 4-111

Table 4-25. Predicted Visibility Impacts in the Mandatory Federal PSD

Class I Washakie Wilderness Area from Direct Wyoming PRB

Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative Sources - Daily FLAG

Refined Method (Average Number of Days per Year Predicted

to Equal or Exceed a 1.0 dv “Just Noticeable Change”) . . 4-113

Table 4-26. Predicted Visibility Impacts in Class I Areas - Daily

FLAG Refined Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-114

Table 5-1. Other Federal, State, and Local Governmental Agencies

Consulted in EIS Preparation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

Table 5-2. List of Contributors and Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

Table 5-3. List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

Table 5-4a. BLM Distribution List for Coal Leasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

Table 5-4b. Distribution List for SPRB Coal Draft EIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Federal and State Permitting Requirements and Agencies

Appendix B. Unsuitability Criteria for the NARO North, NARO South, Little
Table of Contents

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS xi

Thunder, West Roundup, and West Antelope LBA Tracts

Appendix C. Coal Lease-by-Application Flow Chart

Appendix D. Bureau of Land Management Special Coal Lease Stipulations, U.S.

Forest Service Special Stipulations, and Form 3400-12 Coal Lease

Appendix E. Air Quality Impact Technical Support Document

Appendix F. Non-Mine Groundwater and Surface Water Rights Within and

Adjacent to the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA Tracts

Appendix G. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species

USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator

Species

BLM Sensitive Species

Appendix H. CBM Wells Capable of Production on or in Sections Adjacent to

the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup,

and West Antelope LBA Tracts
Abbreviations and Acronyms

xii South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report

ACC Antelope Coal Company

ALC Ark Land Company

ANC acidification neutralization capacity

ac-ft acre-foot, acre-feet

ac-ft/yr acre-foot per year, acre-feet per year

AML Abandoned Mine Land

AQRV air quality related values

ARCO Atlantic Richfield Company

AREV SEO water rights database and program

AVF alluvial valley floor

BACT best available control technology

bcy bank cubic yards

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BN-UP, BN&UP Burlington Northern-Union Pacific

B.P. before present

Btu British thermal units

Btu/lb British thermal units per pound

CAA Clean Air Act

CBM coal bed methane

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CHIA Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment

CO carbon monoxide

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CREG Consensus Revenue Estimating Group

cy cubic yards

dBA A-weighted decibels

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DM&E Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation

DOI Department of the Interior

dv deciview, a measure of view impairment

EA Environmental Assessment

EC elemental carbon particles (re: air quality)

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ENCOAL Encoal Corporation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

F Fahrenheit

FCLAA Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976

FDM Fugitive Dust Model

FEA Final Environmental Assessment

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FLM Federal Land Management

FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976

FR Federal Register

ft feet, foot

ft/day feet per day

ft/mile feet per mile
Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS xiii

g gram

GAGMO Gillette Area Ground Water Monitoring Organization

GDP Gross Domestic Product

gpm gallons per minute

GSP Gross State Product

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

hp horsepower

hr hour

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Environments

IWAQM Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Monitoring

JRCC Jacobs Ranch Coal Company

Km kilometers

KMCC Kerr-McGee Coal Corporation

Kv kilovolts

LAC limits of acceptable change (re: air quality)

LBA lease by application

lbs/mmBtu pounds per million British thermal units

LFC Liquids From Coal

LOP Life of Project

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan

LW Lower Wyodak coal seam

MBHFI migratory birds of high federal interest

μeq/L microequivalents per liter

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

μmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter

MCF thousand cubic feet

MEI maximally exposed individual

mg/L milligrams per liter

MLA Mineral Leasing Act of 1920

MLE most likely exposure

mm million

mmbcy million bank cubic yards

mmt million tons

mmtpy million tons per year

mph miles per hour

MW Middle Wyodak coal seam

Mw megawatts

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program

NAPG North American Power Group

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NO nitrogen oxide

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxides

NPS National Park Service

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wetlands Inventory
Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report

xiv South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

O3 photochemical oxidants

OC organic carbon particles

OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement

PECS passive enclosure control systems

P.M. Prime Meridian

PM2.5 particulates finer than 2.5 microns in effective diameter

PM10 particulates finer than 10 microns in effective diameter

PMT postmining topography

PP&L Pacific Power and Light Company

PRB Powder River Basin

PRBRC Powder River Basin Resource Council

PRCC Powder River Coal Company

PRRCT Powder River Regional Coal Team

PSD prevention of significant deterioration

R2P2 Resource Recovery and Protection Plan

RH relative humidity

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right-of-Way

SARA Superfund Amendment & Reauthorization Act of 1986

SEO State Engineer’s Office

scf/ton standard cubic feet per ton

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Stations

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SPRB South Powder River Basin

T&E threatened and endangered

TBCC Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC

TBNG Thunder Basin National Grassland

TCC Triton Coal Company, LLC

TDS total dissolved solids

TSP total suspended particulates

U.S. United States

USC, U.S.C. United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UW Upper Wyodak coal seam

VMT vehicle miles traveled

VOCs volatile organic compounds

VRM visual resource management

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

WARMS Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System

WCIC Wyoming Coal Information Committee

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

WDEQ/AQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division
Abbreviations and Acronyms Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Report

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS xv

WDEQ/LQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality

Division

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WMA Wyoming Mining Association

WOC Wyoming Outdoor Council

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

WSBLC Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners

WSGS Wyoming State Geological Survey

WSO-RMG Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This EIS1

 analyzes the environmental

impacts of leasing five tracts of

federal coal reserves adjacent to

operating mines in the southern PRB.

Operators of four mines, North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope, filed four applications to

lease five tracts of federal coal as

maintenance tracts under the

regulations at 43 CFR 3425, Leasing

On Application. All four applications

have been reviewed by BLM, Wyoming

State Office, Division of Minerals and

Lands Authorization. That office

determined that all four lease

applications met the regulatory

requirements for lease by

applications, or LBAs. The five LBA

tracts considered in this EIS and the

adjacent mines are shown in Figure

1-1. They are the NARO North and

NARO South LBA Tracts, adjacent to

the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex; the Little Thunder LBA

Tract, adjacent to the Black Thunder

Mine; the West Roundup LBA Tract,

adjacent to the North Rochelle Mine;

and the West Antelope LBA Tract,

adjacent to the Antelope Mine. The

applications are summarized below. 

On March 10, 2000, PRCC filed an

application with the BLM for federal

coal reserves in two separate tracts

located north and south of and

immediately adjacent to the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex. The

tracts are referred to as the NARO

North and NARO South LBA Tracts.

The NARO North Tract is located in

southern Campbell County, Wyoming,

approximately 13 miles southeast of

Wright, Wyoming. The NARO South

Tract is located in southern Campbell

County and northern Converse

County, Wyoming, approximately 19

miles southeast of Wright, Wyoming

(Figure 1-1). The federal coal reserves

were applied for as maintenance

tracts for the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex. BLM determined that the

two tracts in the application would be

processed separately and, if the

decision is made to conduct a lease

sale, would be offered for sale

separately. The North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex is

operated by PRCC, a subsidiary of the

Peabody Holding Company, Inc.

PRCC’s coal lease application was

assigned case file numbers

WYW150210 (NARO North) and

WYW154001 (NARO South).

On March 23, 2000, ALC filed an

application with the BLM for federal

coal reserves in a tract located west of

and immediately adjacent to the

Black Thunder Mine. ALC is a wholly

owned subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc.

The Black Thunder Mine is operated

by TBCC, a subsidiary of Arch

Western Resources, LLC. In this EIS,

ALC is referred to as the applicant

and TBCC is referred to in

discussions of mine operations. The

tract is referred to as the Little

Thunder LBA Tract. The application

area is located in southern Campbell

County, Wyoming, approximately six

miles east-southeast of Wright,

Wyoming (Figure 1-1). The federal

coal reserves were applied for as a

1 Refer to page xii for a list of abbreviations

and acronyms used in this document.
1.0 Introduction

1-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 1-1
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-3

maintenance tract for the Black

Thunder Mine. ALC’s coal lease

application was assigned case file

number WYW150318.

On July 28, 2000, TCC filed an

application with the BLM for federal

coal reserves in a tract located west of

and immediately adjacent to the

North Rochelle Mine. The application

area is located in southern Campbell

County, Wyoming, approximately 10

miles southeast of Wright, Wyoming

(Figure 1-1). The tract is referred to

as the West Roundup LBA Tract. The

federal coal reserves were applied for

as a maintenance tract for the North

Rochelle Mine. The North Rochelle

Mine is operated by TCC, a subsidiary

of Vulcan Intermediary, LLC. TCC’s

coal lease application was assigned

case file number WYW151134.

On September 12, 2000, ACC filed an

application with the BLM for federal

coal reserves in a tract located west of

and immediately adjacent to the

Antelope Mine. The tract is referred

to as the West Antelope LBA Tract.

The application area is located in

southern Campbell County and

northern Converse County, Wyoming,

approximately 19 miles southsoutheast of Wright, Wyoming (Figure

1-1). The federal coal reserves were

applied for as a maintenance tract for

the Antelope Mine. The Antelope

Mine is operated by ACC, a

subsidiary of Kennecott Energy

Company. ACC’s coal lease

application was assigned case file

number WYW151643.

These federal coal lands are located

within the Powder River Federal Coal

Region, which was decertified in

January 1990. Although the Powder

River Federal Coal Region is

decertified, the PRRCT, a

federal/state advisory board established to develop recommendations

concerning management of federal

coal in the region, has continued to

meet regularly and review all federal

lease applications in the region. The

PRRCT reviewed these four

maintenance coal lease applications

at a public meeting held on October

25, 2000, in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

The PRRCT recommended that the

BLM continue to process all four

lease applications at that meeting.

On June 14, 2001, ALC filed an

application with the BLM to modify

the Little Thunder LBA Tract

configuration to increase the lease

area and coal volume. BLM reviewed

the modified tract configuration and

notified the company by letter dated

July 20, 2001 that their application

had been modified.

On June 27, 2001, ACC filed an

application with the BLM to modify

the West Antelope LBA Tract

configuration to increase the lease

area and coal volume. BLM reviewed

the modified tract configuration and

notified the company by letter dated

July 18, 2001 that their application

had been modified.

In order 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 the federal coal. BLM does

not authorize mining by issuing a

lease for federal coal, but the impacts
1.0 Introduction

1-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

of mining the coal are considered in

this EIS because it is a logical

consequence of issuing a lease. The

BLM determined that one EIS would

be prepared to evaluate the

environmental impacts of coal mining

that would result from the issuance of

these five leases. This EIS has been

prepared to evaluate the site-specific

and cumulative environmental

impacts of leasing and developing the

federal coal included in these

application areas. Scoping for these

lease applications was conducted

from October 1 to October 31, 2001.

A Notice of Scoping and Notice of

Intent to Prepare an EIS was

published in the Federal Register on

October 3, 2001 and in the Gillette

News-Record on September 25, 2001

and October 2, 2001. A public

scoping meeting was held in Gillette,

Wyoming on October 10, 2001.

BLM will use the analysis in this EIS

to make a decision on whether or not

to hold a public, competitive, sealedbid coal lease sale for each of the five

coal tracts and issue federal coal

leases. A separate Record of Decision

will be issued for each tract and a

separate sale will be held for each

tract that the BLM decision maker

approves for leasing. For each lease

sale that is held, the bidding will be

open to any qualified bidder; bidding

will not be not limited to the

applicants. For each lease sale that

is held, a lease will be issued to the

highest bidder if a federal sale panel

determines that the high bid at that

sale meets or exceeds the fair market

value of the coal as determined by

BLM's economic evaluation and if the

U.S. Department of Justice

determines that there would be no

antitrust violations if a lease is issued

to the high bidder at that sale.

Since decertification of the Powder

River Federal Coal Region, 11 federal

coal leases have been sold at

competitive sealed-bid sales and one

federal coal lease has been exchanged

in the Wyoming portion of the Powder

River Federal Coal Region (Table 1-1).

One tract (the Belle Ayr 2000 LBA

Tract) was offered for sale, but the bid

received was rejected. The Belle Ayr

2000 Tract is now included in the

Belle Ayr LBA Tract shown in Figure

1-1. All of the mines with

applications being considered in this

EIS have been issued maintenance

leases since decertification (Table 1-1

and Figure 1-1).

Table 1-2 summarizes the

applications that are currently

pending. One application, the Little

Thunder Extension LBA Tract, has

been withdrawn by the applicant,

Kennecott Energy Company. A coal

exchange proposed by Pittsburg and

Midway Coal Mining Company is also

currently being evaluated. As

proposed, federal coal in Sheridan

County, Wyoming would be

exchanged for privately owned lands

and minerals in Lincoln, Carbon, and

Sheridan Counties, Wyoming.

Other agencies may use this analysis

to make decisions related to leasing

and mining the federal coal in these

tracts. OSM, the federal agency

responsible for regulating surface coal

mining operations, is a cooperating
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-5

Table 1-1. Leases Issued Since Decertification, Powder River Basin, Wyoming.

LBA/Exchange Name (Lease #)

Lessee

Effective Date Acres1

Mineable Tons

of Coal1

Successful 

Bid

Jacobs Ranch LBA (WYW117924)

Jacobs Ranch Mine

10/1/1992

1,708.620 147,423,560 $20,114,930.00

West Black Thunder LBA (WYW118907)

Black Thunder Mine

10/1/1992

3,492.495 429,048,216 $71,909,282.69

North Antelope/Rochelle LBA (WYW119554)

N. Antelope/Rochelle Complex

10/1/1992

3,064.040 403,500,000 $86,987,765.00

West Rocky Butte LBA (WYW122586)

No Existing Mine2

1/1/1993

463.205 56,700,000 $16,500,000.00

Eagle Butte LBA (WYW124783)

Eagle Butte Mine

8/1/1995

1,059.175 166,400,000 $18,470,400.00

Antelope LBA (WYW128322)

Antelope Mine

2/1/1997

617.200 60,364,000 $9,054,600.00

North Rochelle LBA (WYW127221)

North Rochelle Mine

1/1/1998

1,481.930 157,610,000 $30,576,340.00

Powder River LBA (WYW136142)

N. Antelope/Rochelle Complex

9/1/1998

4,224.225 532,000,000 $109,596,500.00

Thundercloud LBA (WYW136458)

Black Thunder Mine

1/1/1999

3,545.503 412,000,000 $158,000,008.50

EOG (Belco) I-90 Lease Exchange (WYW150152)

EOG (formerly Belco)

4/1/2000

599.170 106,000,000 Exchanged for

rights to Belco

I-90 Lease

(WYW0322794)

Horse Creek LBA (WYW141435)

Antelope Mine

12/1/2000

2,818.695 275,577,000 $91,220,120.70

North Jacobs Ranch LBA (WYW146744)

Jacobs Ranch Mine

5/1/2002

4,982.939 537,500,000 $379,504,652.00

TOTALS 28,057.197 3,284,122,776 $991,934,598.89

1 Information from Sale Notice. 2 The West Rocky Butte Lease is now owned by the Caballo Mine.
1.0 Introduction

1-6 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 1-2. Pending LBAs, Powder River Basin, Wyoming.

LBA

Lease #

Applicant Mine

Application

Date Acres

Estimated Tons

of Coal1

(mmt) Status

NARO North

WYW150210

North Antelope/

Rochelle

3/10/00 2,369.380 323.0 PRRCT reviewed

on 10/25/00

NARO South

WYW154001

North Antelope/

Rochelle

3/10/00 2,133.635 241.0 PRRCT reviewed

on 10/25/00

Little Thunder

WYW150318

Black Thunder

3/23/00 3,449.317 479.3 PRRCT reviewed

on 10/25/00

West Roundup

WYW151134

North Rochelle

7/28/00 1,870.638 173.2 PRRCT reviewed

on 10/25/00

West Hay Creek

WYW151634

Buckskin

8/31/00 838.098 130.0 PRRCT reviewed

on 10/25/00

West Antelope

WYW151643

Antelope

9/12/00 3,542.190 293.9 PRRCT reviewed

on 10/25/00

Little Thunder

Expansion2

WYW154429

Jacobs Ranch

9/14/01 0.000 0.0 Withdrawn by

applicant

4/12/2002

Maysdorf (formerly

Mt. Logan)

WYW154432

Cordero-Rojo

9/20/01 2,809.480 296.3 PRRCT reviewed

5/30/2002

West Extension

WYW155132

Eagle Butte

12/28/01 1,642.590 200.0 PRRCT reviewed

5/30/2002

Belle Ayr

WYW141568

Belle Ayr

3/20/97 1,578.760 200.0 PRRCT reviewed

4/23/97,

10/27/99, &

5/30/2002

TOTALS 20,234.088 2,336.7

1 Estimated tons of in-place coal as reported in the lease application. 2 This application overlapped and expanded the Little Thunder LBA Tract.
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-7

agency on this EIS. OSM will use this

EIS to make decisions related to the

approval of the MLA mining plans for

these tracts, if any or all of these

leases are issued. The USFS is also a

cooperating agency in the preparation

of this EIS, because the surface of

some of the land included for

consideration for leasing in three of

the tracts is owned by the Federal

government and administered by the

USFS as part of the TBNG.

NARO North and NARO South LBA

Tracts

The NARO North and NARO South

LBA Tracts as applied for and the

existing federal coal leases in the

adjacent North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex are shown in Figure 1-2. As

applied for, the NARO North LBA

Tract includes approximately 2,369.4

acres and an estimated 323 million

tons of in-place coal reserves. PRCC

estimates that approximately 306.9

million tons of coal will be produced

from the NARO North LBA Tract as

applied for, assuming a recovery

factor of 95 percent. As applied for,

the NARO South LBA Tract includes

approximately 2,133.6 acres and an

estimated 241 million tons of in-place

coal reserves. Not all of the coal

included in the NARO South LBA

Tract is mineable, however. For

example, some of the coal included in

the South Tract is located within the

BNSF & UP railroad ROW. This coal

will not be mined because it has been

determined to be unsuitable for

mining according to the coal leasing

unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 3461),

but it was included in the tract to

allow maximum recovery of all the

mineable coal adjacent to the ROW.

PRCC estimates that approximately

10 million tons of coal are within the

ROW, and an additional 20 million

tons of coal are in partially burned

areas that are therefore not

recoverable. The fact that the coal

within the ROW and partially burned

area cannot all be recovered will be

considered by BLM in the fair market

value determination for the LBA tract.

PRCC estimates that approximately

200 million tons of coal will be

produced from the NARO South LBA

Tract as applied for.

The NARO North LBA Tract is

contiguous with the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex and the

NARO South LBA Tract is contiguous

with both the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex and the

Antelope Mine, which is operated by

ACC. Portions of both tracts lie

within the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex’s current mining permit

boundary (Figure 1-2). The area

applied for is substantially similar to

the adjacent mines for which detailed

site-specific environmental data have

been collected and for which

environmental analyses have

previously been prepared to secure

the existing leases and the necessary

mining permits.

The surface of the NARO North LBA

Tract is owned by the United States of

America and PRCC. The federally

owned surface is part of the TBNG,

administered by the USFS. The

surface of the NARO South LBA Tract

is owned by PRCC, the Bridle Bit

Ranch Company, and the Dilts

brothers (John, Jerry, and Steve).
1.0 Introduction

1-8 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 1-2
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-9

Current land uses of the tracts

include grazing by domestic animals

and wildlife, oil and gas production,

and recreation.

If PRCC acquires federal coal leases

for the NARO North and NARO South

LBA Tracts, the coal resources would

be mined to extend the life of the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex.

The mining method would be a

combination of truck and shovel and

dragline, which are the mining

methods currently in use at this

mine. The coal would be used

primarily for electric power

generation.

After mining, the land would be

reclaimed for livestock grazing and

wildlife use as is the current practice

at the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex.

Little Thunder LBA Tract

The Little Thunder LBA Tract as

applied for and the existing federal

coal leases in the adjacent Black

Thunder Mine are shown in Figure 1-

3. As applied for, the Little Thunder

LBA Tract includes approximately

3,449.3 acres and an estimated 479.3

million tons of in-place coal reserves.

Not all of the coal included in the

tract is mineable, however. For

example, some of the coal included in

the tract is located within the BNSF &

UP railroad and Wyoming Highway

450 ROWs. This coal will not be

mined because it has been

determined to be unsuitable for

mining according to the coal leasing

unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 3461),

but it was included in the tract to

allow maximum recovery of all the

mineable coal adjacent to the ROWs.

The fact that the coal within the

ROWs cannot all be recovered will be

considered by the BLM in the fair

market value determination for the

LBA tract. TBCC estimates that

approximately 440 million tons of

coal will be produced from the Little

Thunder LBA Tract as applied for.

The Little Thunder LBA Tract is

contiguous with the Black Thunder

Mine. A portion of the tract lies

within the Black Thunder Mine’s

current mining permit boundary

(Figure 1-3). The area applied for is

substantially similar to the adjacent

mine for which detailed site-specific

environmental data have been

collected and for which environmental

analyses have previously been

prepared to secure the existing leases

and the necessary mining permit.

The surface of the Little Thunder LBA

Tract is owned by ALC (a wholly

owned subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc.),

the Naomi M. Hopkins Trust, TBCC,

and the United States of America.

The federally owned surface is part of

the TBNG, administered by the USFS.

Current land uses of the tract include

grazing by domestic animals and

wildlife, oil and gas production, and

recreation.

If ALC acquires a federal coal lease for

these lands, the Little Thunder LBA

Tract coal resources would be mined

to extend the life of the Black

Thunder Mine. The mining method

would be a combination of truck and

shovel and dragline, which are the

mining methods currently in use at
1.0 Introduction

1-10 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 1-3
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-11

this mine. The coal would be used

primarily for electric power

generation.

After mining, the land would be

reclaimed for livestock grazing and

wildlife use as is the current practice

at the Black Thunder Mine.

West Roundup LBA Tract

The West Roundup LBA Tract as

applied for and the existing federal

coal leases in the adjacent North

Rochelle Mine are shown in Figure 1-

4. As applied for, the West Roundup

LBA Tract consists of two tracts

separated by the North Rochelle Mine

railroad spur and facilities and a

county road (Reno Road). The two

tracts include approximately 1,870.7

acres and an estimated 173.2 million

tons of in-place coal reserves. TCC

estimates that approximately 155.9

million tons of coal will be produced

from the West Roundup LBA Tract as

applied for assuming a recovery factor

of 90 percent.

The West Roundup LBA Tract is

contiguous with both the North

Rochelle Mine and the Black Thunder

Mine, which is operated by TBCC. A

portion of the tract lies within both

the North Rochelle Mine’s and the

Black Thunder Mine’s current mining

permit boundaries (Figure 1-4). The

area applied for is substantially

similar to the adjacent mines for

which detailed site-specific

environmental data have been

collected and for which environmental

analyses have previously been

prepared to secure the existing leases

and the necessary mining permits.

The surface of the West Roundup LBA

Tract is owned by TCC, TBCC, and

the United States of America. The

federally owned surface is part of the

TBNG, administered by the USFS.

Current land uses of the tract include

grazing by domestic animals and

wildlife, oil and gas production, and

recreation.

If TCC acquires a federal coal lease

for these lands, the West Roundup

LBA Tract coal resources would be

mined to extend the life of the North

Rochelle Mine. The mining method

would be a combination of truck and

shovel and dragline, which are the

mining methods currently in use at

this mine. The coal would be used

primarily for electric power

generation.

After mining, the land would be

reclaimed for livestock grazing and

wildlife use as is the current practice

at the North Rochelle Mine.

West Antelope LBA Tract

The West Antelope LBA Tract as

applied for and the existing federal

coal leases in the adjacent Antelope

Mine are shown in Figure 1-5. As

applied for, the West Antelope LBA

Tract includes approximately 3,542.2

acres and an estimated 293.9 million

tons of in-place coal reserves. Not all

of the coal included in the tract is

mineable, however. For both

operational and environmental

reasons, ACC’s approved mining plan

avoids disturbing Antelope Creek and

an adjacent buffer zone, so any coal

reserves that are beneath Antelope

Creek would not be recovered. No
1.0 Introduction

1-12 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 1-4
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-13

Figure 1-5
1.0 Introduction

1-14 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

disturbance except for haulroads and

conveyor crossings are allowed within

Antelope Mine’s Antelope Creek buffer

zone without prior approval of the

WDEQ/LQD. Although it has not

been determined to be unsuitable for

mining according to the coal leasing

unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 3461),

this coal will not be mined; however,

it was included in the tract to allow

maximum recovery of the reserves

adjacent to the Antelope Creek buffer

zone. The fact that the coal within

the buffer zone will not be mined will

be considered by BLM in the fair

market value determination for the

LBA tract. ACC estimates that

approximately 228.4 million tons of

coal will be produced from the West

Antelope LBA Tract as applied for.

The West Antelope LBA Tract is

contiguous with the Antelope Mine. A

small portion of the tract lies within

the Antelope Mine’s current mining

permit boundary (Figure 1-5). The

area applied for is substantially

similar to the adjacent mine for which

detailed site-specific environmental

data have been collected and for

which environmental analyses have

previously been prepared to secure

the existing leases and the necessary

mining permits.

The surface of the West Antelope LBA

Tract is owned by ACC and Gene and

Patricia Litton. Current land uses of

the tract include grazing by domestic

animals and wildlife and recreation.

If ACC acquires a federal coal lease

for these lands, the West Antelope

LBA Tract coal resources would be

mined to extend the life of the

Antelope Mine. The mining method

would be a combination of truck and

shovel and dragline, which are the

mining methods currently in use at

this mine. The coal would be used

primarily for electric power

generation.

After mining, the land would be

reclaimed for livestock grazing and

wildlife use as is the current practice

at the Antelope Mine.

1.1 Purpose and Need for Action

BLM administers the federal coal

leasing program under the Mineral

Leasing Act of 1920. A federal coal

lease grants the lessee the exclusive

right to obtain a mining permit for,

and to mine coal on, the leased tract

subject to the terms of the lease, the

mining permit, and applicable state

and federal laws. Before a new lease

can be mined, the lessee must obtain

approval of a detailed mining and

reclamation plan.

In return for receiving a lease, a

lessee must pay the federal

government 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), make

annual rental payments to the federal

government, and make royalty

payments to the federal government

when the coal is mined. Federal

bonus, rental, and royalty payments

are equally divided with the state in

which the lease is located.

The North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, as currently permitted,

includes 27,187 acres and originally

contained approximately 1,645.8

million tons of mineable coal. As of
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-15

January 1, 2002, PRCC had an

estimated 952 million tons of in-place

coal reserves remaining at the mine,

and the company estimates that

approximately 904.4 million tons of

those remaining reserves are

recoverable. PRCC’s currently

approved (by WDEQ/AQD in August

2001) air quality permit allows two

alternative mining scenarios, both of

which will require modification of the

existing mine plan. One scenario

permits a maximum of 105 million

tons of coal per year to be mined

(during years 2004 through 2006),

while the other scenario permits a

maximum of 84 million tons of coal

per year to be mined (during years

2002 through 2007). The mine

produced approximately 68.9 million

tons of coal in 1999, 70.8 million tons

of coal in 2000 and 74.8 million tons

of coal in 2001. Based upon a plan

for increasing, then diminishing

annual coal production over the life of

the mine, PRCC estimates that the

existing recoverable reserves at the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex will

be depleted within approximately 12

years at an average production rate of

approximately 75 mmtpy (the annual

production rate will range from 8.7

mmtpy to 105 mmtpy). The company

has applied for the coal reserves in

the NARO North and NARO South

LBA Tracts in order to increase

average annual coal production and

to extend the life of the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex.

According to the most recent

information from PRCC, beginning

year 2002 they plan to produce an

average of approximately 90 mmtpy

for 16 years if they acquire the two

NARO LBA Tracts (the annual

production rate would range between

26 mmtpy and 105 mmtpy). Thus,

acquiring these new leases would

enable them to increase their average

annual coal production by

approximately 15 million tons and

production life by four years. If the

LBA tracts are leased to PRCC as

maintenance tracts, the permit area

for the adjacent mine would have to

be amended to include the new lease

areas before they could be disturbed.

This process takes several years to

complete. PRCC is applying for

federal coal reserves now so that they

can complete the permitting process

in time to mine the new federal

reserves in a logical progression as

existing reserves are depleted.

The Black Thunder Mine, as currently

permitted, includes 21,238 acres and

originally contained approximately

1,494.5 million tons of mineable

federal coal reserves. As of January

1, 2002, TBCC had an estimated

968.7 million tons of in-place coal

reserves remaining at the mine, and

the company estimates that

approximately 920.3 million tons of

those remaining reserves are

recoverable. TBCC’s currently

approved (by WDEQ/AQD in July

1999) air quality permit allows up to

100 million tons of coal per year to be

mined through year 2027. The mine

produced approximately 48.7 million

tons of coal in 1999, 60.1 million tons

of coal in 2000 and 67.6 million tons

of coal in 2001. Based upon

diminishing annual coal production

over the life of the mine, TBCC

estimates that the existing

recoverable reserves at the Black

Thunder Mine will be depleted within

approximately 24 years at an average

production rate of approximately 38.3
1.0 Introduction

1-16 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

mmtpy (the annual production rate

will range between 9.0 mmtpy and

68.5 mmtpy). The company has

applied for the coal reserves in the

Little Thunder LBA Tract in order to

increase annual coal production and

to extend the life of the Black

Thunder Mine. According to the most

recent information from TBCC,

beginning year 2002 they plan to

produce an average of approximately

42.5 mmtpy for 32 years if they

acquire a lease for the Little Thunder

LBA Tract (the annual production

rate would range between 10.5

mmtpy and 68.5 mmtpy). Thus

acquiring the new lease would enable

them to increase their average annual

coal production by approximately 4.2

million tons and production life by

eight years. If the LBA tract is leased

to ALC as a maintenance tract, the

permit area for the adjacent mine

would have to be amended to include

the new lease area before it could be

disturbed. This process takes several

years to complete. ALC is applying

for federal coal reserves now so that

they can negotiate new contracts and

then complete the permitting process

in time to meet anticipated new

contract requirements.

The North Rochelle Mine, as currently

permitted, includes 7,042 acres and

originally contained approximately

337 million tons of mineable coal. As

of January 1, 2002, TCC had an

estimated 283 million tons of in-place

coal reserves remaining at the mine,

and the company estimates that

approximately 255 million tons of

those remaining reserves are

recoverable. TCC’s currently

approved (by WDEQ/AQD in May

2000) air quality permit allows up to

35 million tons of coal per year to be

mined through year 2018. The mine

produced approximately 8.2 million

tons of coal in 1999, 17.2 million tons

of coal in 2000 and 23.9 million tons

of coal in 2001. Based upon

increasing annual coal production

over the life of the mine, TCC

currently estimates that the existing

recoverable reserves at the North

Rochelle Mine will be depleted within

approximately seven years at an

average production rate of

approximately 35 mmtpy. The

company has applied for the coal

reserves in the West Roundup LBA

Tract in order to extend the life of the

North Rochelle Mine. According to

the most recent information from

TCC, beginning year 2002 they plan

to produce an average of

approximately 35 mmtpy for 11.8

years if they acquire a lease for the

West Roundup LBA Tract. Thus

acquiring the new lease would enable

them to increase their productive life

by 4.5 years. If the LBA tract is

leased to TCC as a maintenance tract,

the permit area for the adjacent mine

would have to be amended to include

the new lease area before it could be

disturbed. This process takes several

years to complete. TCC is applying

for federal coal reserves now so that

they can negotiate new contracts and

then complete the permitting process

in time to meet anticipated new

contract requirements.

The Antelope Mine, as currently

permitted, includes 10,848.6 acres

and originally contained

approximately 554.8 million tons of

mineable coal. As of January 1,

2002, ACC had an estimated 373.4

million tons of mineable coal reserves
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-17

remaining at the mine, and the

company estimates that

approximately 347.3 million tons of

those remaining reserves are

recoverable. ACC’s currently

approved (by WDEQ/AQD in April

2001) air quality permit allows up to

32 million tons of coal per year to be

mined through year 2017. The mine

produced approximately 22.7 million

tons of coal in 1999, 23 million tons

of coal in 2000 and 24.6 million tons

of coal in 2001. Based upon

diminishing annual coal production

over the life of the mine, ACC

estimates that the existing

recoverable reserves at the Antelope

Mine will be depleted within

approximately 25 years at an average

production rate of approximately 13.9

mmtpy. The company has applied for

the coal reserves in the West Antelope

LBA Tract in order to increase

average annual coal production by

9.1 million tons, but they do not plan

to prolong the expected mine life

beyond 2026. According to the most

recent information from ACC,

beginning year 2002 they plan to

produce an average of approximately

23 mmtpy for 25 years with a

maximum of 32 mmtpy if they

acquire a lease for the West Antelope

LBA Tract. If the LBA tract is leased

to ACC as a maintenance tract, the

permit area for the adjacent mine

would have to be amended to include

the new lease area before it could be

disturbed. This process takes several

years to complete. ACC is applying

for federal coal reserves now so that

they can negotiate new contracts and

then complete the permitting process

in time to meet anticipated new

contract requirements.

This EIS analyzes the environmental

impacts of issuing federal coal leases

and mining the federal coal in the

NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope lease applications as

required by NEPA and associated

rules and guidelines. A decision to

hold a competitive sale and issue a

lease for the lands in any of these

applications is a prerequisite for

mining but it is not the enabling

action that would allow mining to

begin. The BLM does not authorize

mining operations by issuing a lease.

After a lease has been issued but

prior to mine development, the lessee

must file a permit application

package with the WDEQ/LQD and

OSM for a surface mining permit and

approval of the MLA mining plan. An

analysis of a detailed site-specific

mining and reclamation plan occurs

at that time. Authorities and

responsibilities of the BLM and other

concerned regulatory agencies are

described in the following sections.

1.2 Regulatory Authority and

Responsibility

The coal lease applications filed by

PRCC, ALC, TCC, and ACC were

submitted and will be processed and

evaluated under the following

authorities:

• MLA, as amended;

• the Multiple-Use Sustained

Yield Act of 1960;

• NEPA;

• FCLAA;

• FLPMA; and 

• SMCRA.
1.0 Introduction

1-18 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

The BLM is the lead agency

responsible for leasing federal coal

lands under the MLA as amended by

FCLAA and is also responsible for

preparation of this EIS to evaluate the

potential environmental impacts of

issuing each coal lease. For each of

the coal lease applications included in

this analysis (the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope lease

applications), the BLM must decide

whether to hold a competitive, sealedbid lease sale for the tract as applied

for, hold a competitive sealed-bid

lease sale for a modified tract, or

reject the current lease application

and not offer the tract for sale at this

time.

The tracts proposed for leasing are

within an area that has been included

in several EIS planning documents,

including the BLM Approved Resource

Management Plan for Public Lands

Administered by the Bureau of Land

Management Buffalo Field Office (BLM

2001a) [an update of the Buffalo

Resource Area Resource Management

Plan (BLM 1985a)] and the BLM Platte

River Resource Area Resource

Management Plan (BLM 1985b).

Federal surface lands managed by the

USFS are included in the NARO

North, Little Thunder, and West

Roundup LBA Tracts. These lands

are within the area evaluated in the

USFS Medicine Bow National Forest

and Thunder Basin National Grassland

Land and Resource Management Plan

(USFS 1985) and the Final EIS for the

Northern Great Plains Management

Plans Revision for Thunder Basin

National Grassland (USFS 2002a). As

a result, the USFS is a cooperating

agency on this EIS and USFS consent

will be required before a lease sale

can be held for each of these three

tracts.

OSM is a cooperating agency on this

EIS. After a coal lease is issued,

SMCRA gives OSM primary

responsibility to administer programs

that regulate surface coal mining

operations and the surface effects of

underground coal mining operations.

Pursuant to Section 503 of SMCRA,

the WDEQ developed, and in

November 1980 the Secretary of the

Interior approved, a permanent

program authorizing WDEQ to

regulate surface coal mining

operations and surface effects of

underground mining on nonfederal

lands within the state of Wyoming. In

January 1987, pursuant to Section

523(c) of SMCRA, WDEQ entered into

a cooperative agreement with the

Secretary of the Interior authorizing

WDEQ to regulate surface coal

mining operations and surface effects

of underground mining on federal

lands within the state. 

Pursuant to the cooperative

agreement, a federal coal lease holder

in Wyoming must submit a permit

application package to OSM and

WDEQ/LQD for any proposed coal

mining and reclamation operations on

federal lands in the state.

WDEQ/LQD reviews the permit

application package to insure the

permit application complies with the

permitting requirements and the coal

mining operation will meet the

performance standards of the

approved Wyoming program. OSM,

BLM, and other federal agencies

review the permit application package

to insure it complies with the terms of
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-19

the coal lease, the MLA, NEPA, and

other federal laws and their attendant

regulations. If the permit application

package does comply, WDEQ issues

the applicant a permit to conduct coal

mining operations. OSM recommends approval, approval with

conditions, or disapproval of the MLA

mining plan to the Assistant

Secretary of the Interior, Land and

Minerals Management. Before the

MLA mining plan can be approved,

the BLM must concur with this

recommendation. USFS must also

concur if USFS lands are included.

If a proposed LBA tract is leased to an

existing mine, the lessee is required

to revise its coal mining permit prior

to mining the coal, following the

processes outlined above. As a part

of that process, a new mining and

reclamation plan would be developed

showing how the lands in each LBA

tract that is leased would be mined

and reclaimed. The revised permit

area would be larger than the revised

lease area in order to allow for

disturbances outside the actual coal

removal areas for such purposes as

overstripping, matching to

undisturbed topography, constructing

flood control and sediment control

facilities, and related activities.

Specific impacts which would occur

during the mining and reclamation of

the LBA tract would be addressed in

the mining and reclamation plans,

and specific mitigation measures for

anticipated impacts would be

described in detail at that time.

WDEQ enforces the performance

standards and permit requirements

for reclamation during a mine's

operation and has primary authority

in environmental emergencies. OSM

retains oversight responsibility for

this enforcement. BLM and USFS

have authority in those emergency

situations where WDEQ or OSM

cannot act before environmental

harm and damage occurs.

Appendix A presents other federal

and state permitting requirements

that must be satisfied to mine these

LBA tracts.

BLM also has the responsibility to

consult with and obtain the

comments of other state or federal

agencies which have jurisdiction by

law or special expertise with respect

to potential environmental impacts. 

1.3 Relationship to BLM Policies,

Plans, and Programs

In addition to the federal acts listed

under Section 1.2, guidance and

regulations for managing and

administering public lands, including

the federal coal lands in the PRCC,

ALC, TCC, and ACC applications, are

set forth in 40 CFR 1500 (Protection

of Environment), 43 CFR 1601

(Planning, Programming, Budgeting),

and 43 CFR 3400 (Coal Management).

Specific guidance for processing

applications follow BLM Manual

3420, Competitive Coal Leasing (BLM

1989) and the 1991 Powder River

Regional Coal Team Operational

Guidelines For Coal Lease-ByApplications (BLM 1991). The

National Environmental Policy Act

Handbook (BLM 1988) has been

followed in developing this EIS.
1.0 Introduction

1-20 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

As put forth in Executive Order

13212, dated May 18, 2001, all BLM

decisions must take into

consideration adverse impacts on the

President’s National Energy Policy.

According to BLM Instruction

Memorandum No. 2002-053, dated

December 12, 2001, it is BLM policy

to prepare a “Statement of Adverse

Energy Impact” whenever a BLM

decision or action will have a direct or

indirect adverse impact on energy

development, production, supply or

distribution. If there is no adverse

impact, no Statement needs to be

prepared. However, the ROD must

note this fact.

The Proposed Actions, to lease

federally-owned coal, would have no

adverse energy impact. The No

Action Alternatives, rejection of the

lease applications, could adversely

affect energy production if it results

in any one of the LBA tracts never

being mined or if there is a long delay

in mining the coal. If the No Action

Alternative is selected by BLM for any

one of the LBA tracts, the ROD will

have to contain a Statement of

Adverse Energy Impact which will

address the following:

• rationale why the coal lease

cannot coexist with other uses

of the land;

• alternatives considered in

adoption of the No Action

Alternative; and

• a qualitative judgement of the

impacts of the decision in

regards to production lost as

well as steps taken to offset the

loss.

1.4 Conformance with Existing

Land Use Plans

FCLAA requires that lands considered

for leasing be included in a

comprehensive land use plan and

that leasing decisions be compatible

with that plan. The BLM Approved

Resource Management Plan for Public

Lands Administered by the Bureau of

Land Management Buffalo Field Office

(BLM 2001a) [an update of the

Buffalo Resource Area Resource

Management Plan (BLM 1985a)]

governs and addresses the leasing of

federal coal in Campbell County, and

the BLM Platte River Resource Area

Resource Management Plan (BLM

1985b) governs the management of

the BLM-administered lands and

minerals in Converse County. The

current land and resource

management plan for the TBNG

governs the management of USFS

(public) lands in Campbell and

Converse Counties, Wyoming. The

USFS completed the USFS Medicine

Bow National Forest and Thunder

Basin National Grassland Land and

Resource Management Plan in 1985

(USFS 1985). The Final EIS for the

Northern Great Plains Management

Plans Revision for the Thunder Basin

National Grassland (USFS 2002a) and

the Land and Resource Management

Plan for the Thunder Basin National

Grassland (USFS 2001) address

revisions to the 1985 TBNG LRMP.

The Final EIS and Land and Resource

Management Plans Revision Record of

Decision for the Thunder Basin

National Grassland was signed on

July 31, 2002.

Coal land use planning involves four

planning screens to determine
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-21

whether the subject coal is acceptable

for further lease consideration. The

four coal screens are:

• development potential of the

coal lands;

• unsuitability criteria

application;

• multiple land use decisions that

eliminate federal coal deposits;

and

• surface owner consultation.

Only those federal coal lands that

pass these screens are given further

consideration for leasing. These coal

screens were applied to federal coal

lands in Campbell and Converse

Counties in the early 1980s by the

BLM and USFS. The results were

published in the BLM Buffalo RMP,

the Platte River RMP, and the TBNG

LRMP in 1985. The five LBA tracts

considered in this EIS are located in

the area covered by the USFS

screening analysis published in the

TBNG LRMP in 1985. In 1993, BLM,

USFS, and USFWS began the process

of reapplying these screens to federal

coal lands in Campbell, Converse and

Sheridan Counties. The results of

this analysis are included as

Appendix D in the Approved Resource

Management Plan for Public Lands

Administered by the Bureau of Land

Management Buffalo Field Office (BLM

2001a) and can be viewed on the

Wyoming BLM website at <http://

www.wy.blm.gov> in the NEPA

documents section.

A coal tract that is acceptable for

further consideration for leasing must

be located within areas that have

been determined to have coal

development potential. The lands in

these coal lease applications are

within the area identified as having

coal development potential by the

BLM and the USFS in the coal

screening analyses published in both

the 1985 and 2001 BLM planning

documents.

The coal mining unsuitability criteria

listed in the federal coal management

regulations (43 CFR 3461) have been

applied to high to moderate coal

development potential lands in the

Wyoming PRB. Appendix B of this

EIS summarizes the unsuitability

criteria, describes the general findings

for the 1985 BLM Buffalo and Platte

River RMPs, the 1985 TBNG LRMP,

the 2001 BLM Approved Resource

Management Plan for Public Lands

Administered by the Bureau of Land

Management Buffalo Field Office (BLM

2001a), and the 2002 USFS Final EIS

for the Northern Great Plains

Management Plans Revision for

Thunder Basin National Grassland

(USFS 2002a) and presents a

validation of these findings for the

NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts.

As indicated in Appendix B, no lands

in the NARO North or West Antelope

LBA Tracts have been found to be

unsuitable for mining. The lands in

the NARO South LBA Tract within the

BNSF & UP railroad ROW, and the

lands in the Little Thunder LBA Tract

within the BNSF & UP railroad and

Highway 450 ROWs have been found

to be unsuitable for mining under

Unsuitability Criteria Numbers 2 and

3. USFS has determined that lands

under a USFS special use permit for

ancillary facilities at the North
1.0 Introduction

1-22 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Rochelle Mine are unsuitable for

mining under Unsuitability Criterion

Number 2 (USFS 2002a). TCC did

not include these lands in their

application for the West Roundup

LBA Tract, but BLM is considering

leasing a tract that would include

these lands as an alternative to the

tract as applied for. Although the

lands described above have been

determined to be unsuitable for

mining, they would be included in the

LBA tracts to allow recovery of all the

mineable coal outside of the railroad

and highway ROWs, associated buffer

zones, and the USFS special use

permit for ancillary facilities at the

North Rochelle Mine and to comply

with the coal leasing regulations,

which do not allow leasing in less

than 10-acre aliquot parts. A

stipulation stating that no mining

activity may be conducted in the

portion of the leases within the BNSF

& UP railroad and Highway 450

ROWs and USFS special use permit

will be attached if leases are issued

for these tracts. The exclusion of the

coal underlying the railroad and

highway ROWs and USFS special use

permit from mining activity by lease

stipulation honors the finding of

unsuitability for mining under

Unsuitability Criteria Numbers 2 and

3 for the BNSF & UP railroad and

Highway 450 ROWs and USFS special

use permit for ancillary facilities at

the North Rochelle Mine.

Surface owner consultation was

completed during the preparation of

coal screening analyses published in

the 1985 and 2001 RMPs and LRMPs.

Qualified private surface owners in

the Gillette coal development

potential area were provided the

opportunity to express their

preference for or against surface

mining of federal coal under their

private surface estate during both

these screenings (see Chapter 7 for a

definition of a “qualified surface

owner”). The current surface

ownership of the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts is discussed in Section 1.0 of

this chapter and in Section 3.11. For

each tract that is offered for sale,

BLM will review the current surface

ownership in the tracts, and any

private surface owners who are

determined to be qualified will be

consulted prior to holding the lease

sale.

As part of the coal planning for the

1985 BLM Buffalo and Platte River

RMPs and the 1985 TBNG LRMP, a

multiple land use conflict analysis

was completed to identify and

“eliminate additional coal deposits

from further consideration for leasing

to protect resource values of a locally

important or unique nature not

included in the unsuitability criteria,”

in accordance with 43 CFR 3420.1-

4e(3). The 1985 multiple use conflict

evaluation in the BLM Buffalo RMP

identified approximately 221,000

acres within Campbell, Sheridan, and

Johnson Counties that were

potentially affected by multiple use

conflicts in four categories (producing

oil and gas fields, communities,

recreation and public purpose

facilities, and cultural resources).

The multiple use conflict evaluation

referenced in the 1985 TBNG LRMP

determined that there were no

multiple use conflicts that were

significant enough to require any
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-23

lands to be withdrawn from leasing

consideration in the area covered by

the USFS screening analysis. The

1985 BLM Platte River RMP relied on

the 1985 TBNG LRMP analysis as the

basis for coal planning. As discussed

above, the NARO North, NARO South,

Little Thunder, West Roundup, and

West Antelope LBA Tracts are located

within the 1985 TBNG LRMP analysis

area.

No additional lands were specifically

identified as potentially affected by

multiple use conflicts in the multiple

use analysis referenced in the 2001

Approved Resource Management Plan

for Public Lands Administered by the

Bureau of Land Management Buffalo

Field Office (BLM 2001a) and the

2002 Final EIS for the Northern Great

Plains Management Plans Revision for

Thunder Basin National Grassland

(USFS 2002a).

The 1985 BLM Buffalo RMP

addressed coal and oil and gas

development conflicts in two planning

decisions. Decision MM-4

recommended authorizing oil and gas

drilling on coal leases only where

drilling would not conflict with coal

mining, and Decision MM-5

recommended deferring coal leasing

in producing oil and gas fields until

coal development would not interfere

with economic recovery of the oil and

gas resource, as determined on a case

by case basis. An EIS which will be

used to update the Buffalo RMP with

respect to oil and gas development is

currently in progress. The Draft EIS

and Draft Planning Amendment for the

Powder River Basin Oil and Gas

Project was published in early 2002

(BLM 2002a). Decision M-2 in the

1985 BLM Platte River RMP included

similar decisions to those in the 1985

BLM Buffalo RMP. The BLM Casper

Field Office is currently initiating an

update of the 1985 BLM Platte River

RMP. The 1985 TBNG LRMP deferred

mineral leasing decisions to the

Department of Interior. The multiple

use analysis published in the 2001

BLM Buffalo RMP update did not

recommend changes to the existing

1985 RMP and LRMP decisions

related to mineral development

conflicts for either the BLM or the

USFS. 

As indicated in Section 1.0 of this

EIS, the PRRCT reviewed the lease

applications included in this EIS at a

public meeting on October 25, 2000,

in Cheyenne, Wyoming. At that

meeting, the PRRCT heard

presentations from representatives of

some of the oil and gas lessees who

might be affected by leasing the tracts

included in this analysis regarding

deferring leasing the federal coal in

these tracts until the CBM is

recovered. The PRRCT recommended

that the BLM proceed with leasing

these tracts. The BLM has followed

the PRRCT’s recommendation

regarding processing the applications

for the NARO North, NARO South,

Little Thunder, West Roundup, and

West Antelope LBA Tracts.

CBM wells presently exist or have

been proposed in and around the LBA

tracts in the General Analysis Area

(see Mineral Resources discussion in

Section 3.3). BLM has also identified

federal oil and gas leases and

corresponding lessees within existing

coal leases and coal lease application

areas. Those oil and gas lessees have
1.0 Introduction

1-24 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

been and are being contacted and

encouraged to develop and recover

the CBM resources prior to coal

mining. This approach is consistent

with BLM’s policy on conflicts

between coal and CBM development,

which is explained in BLM Instruction

Memorandum No. 2000-081. BLM’s

policy is to optimize the recovery of

both resources and ensure that the

public receives a reasonable return.

In summary, all of the lands in the

PRCC, ALC, TCC, and ACC coal lease

applications have been subjected to

the four coal planning screens and

determined acceptable for further

lease consideration. Thus, a decision

to lease the federal coal lands in this

application would be in conformance

with the existing management plans

for the BLM and USFS.

1.5 C o n s u l t a t i o n a n d

Coordination

Initial Involvement

BLM received the NARO North and

NARO South coal lease applications

on March 10, 2000, the Little

Thunder coal lease application on

March 23, 2000, the West Roundup

coal lease application on July 28,

2000, and the West Antelope coal

lease application on September 12,

2000. The applications were initially

reviewed by the BLM, Wyoming State

Office, Division of Mineral and Lands

Authorization. The BLM ruled that

these applications and lands involved

met the requirements of regulations

governing coal leasing on application

(43 CFR 3425).

The BLM Wyoming State Director

notified the Governor of Wyoming on

April 5, 2000, that PRCC had filed a

lease application with BLM for the

NARO North and NARO South LBA

Tracts. The BLM Wyoming State

Director notified the Governor of

Wyoming on April 15, 2000 that ALC

filed a lease application with BLM for

the Little Thunder LBA Tract. The

BLM Wyoming State Director notified

the Governor of Wyoming on August

24, 2000 that TCC filed a lease

application with BLM for the West

Roundup LBA Tract. The BLM

Wyoming State Director notified the

Governor of Wyoming on October 3,

2000 that ACC filed a lease

application with BLM for the West

Antelope LBA Tract. A notice

announcing the receipt of the PRCC,

ALC and TCC coal lease applications

published in the Federal Register on

September 12, 2000 served as public

notice that the PRCC, ALC, and TCC

coal lease applications had been

received. Copies were sent to voting

and nonvoting members of the

PRRCT, including the governors of

Wyoming and Montana, the Northern

Cheyenne Tribe, the Crow Tribal

Council, the USFS, OSM, USFWS,

National Park Service, and U.S.

Geological Survey.

The PRRCT reviewed all four lease

applications at a public meeting held

on October 25, 2000, in Cheyenne,

Wyoming. Each of the applicants

presented information about their

existing mine and pending lease

application to the PRRCT at that

meeting. The PRRCT recommended
1.0 Introduction

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 1-25

that the BLM continue to process all

four lease applications. The major

steps in processing an LBA are shown

in Appendix C.

The BLM published a Notice of Intent

to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement and Notice of Scoping in

the Federal Register on October 3,

2001 and in the Gillette News Record

on September 25, 2001 and October

2, 2001. The publications served as

public notice that the ACC coal lease

application had been received,

announced the time and location of a

public scoping meeting, and

requested public comment on all four

applications. Letters requesting

public comment and announcing the

time and location of the public

scoping meeting were mailed to all

parties on the distribution list in

September, 2001.

A public scoping meeting was held on

October 10, 2001 in Gillette,

Wyoming. At the public meeting,

PRCC, TBCC, TCC, and ACC

personnel orally presented

information about their mines and

their needs for the coal. The

presentation was followed by a

question and answer period, during

which one oral comment was made.

The scoping period extended from

October 1 through October 31, 2001,

during which time BLM received 12

written comments.

Chapter 5 provides a list of other

federal, state, and local governmental

agencies that were consulted in

preparation of this EIS and the

distribution list for this EIS.

Issues and Concerns

Issues and concerns expressed by the

public and government agencies

relating to the PRCC, ALC, TCC, and

ACC coal lease applications and

previous coal lease applications

included:

• potential conflicts with existing

conventional oil and gas

development and existing and

proposed CBM development;

• cumulative impacts of mineral

development to all other

resources;

• validity and currency of

resource data;

• public access;

• potential impacts to threatened

and endangered species and

other species of concern;

• potential air quality impacts

(including cumulative impacts

to visibility);

• potential surface and

groundwater quality and

quantity impacts;

• potential impacts of and

possible mitigation for nitrogen

oxide emissions resulting from

blasting of coal and overburden;

• the need to include reasonably

foreseeable actions such as the

construction and operation of

the DM&E railroad and power

plants in the cumulative

analysis;

• the need to address increasing

coal production in the Powder

River Basin in the cumulative

analysis;

• potential impacts on cultural

and paleontological resources;

• wetland impacts; and

• short- and long-term impacts on

fish and wildlife.
1.0 Introduction

1-26 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Draft EIS

Parties on the distribution list are

being sent copies of this DEIS, and

copies are being made available for

review at the BLM offices in Casper

and Cheyenne.

Due to the amount of information

available on these tracts, a separate

document entitled Supplementary

Information on the Affected

Environment in the General Analysis

Area for the South Powder River

Basin Coal EIS has been prepared

and is being made available on

request. This supplementary

document provides more detailed

information on the affected

environment in each tract.

A notice announcing the availability

of the DEIS will be published in the

Federal Register by the EPA. The

BLM will publish a Notice of

Availability/Notice of Public Hearing

in the Federal Register. A 60-day

comment period on the DEIS will

commence with publication of the

EPA Notice of Availability. The BLM

Federal Register notice will announce

the date and time of a public hearing

and will be used to solicit public

comments on the DEIS and on the

fair market value, the maximum

economic recovery, and the proposed

competitive sale of coal from the five

LBA tracts. A formal public hearing

will be held during the 60-day

comment period.

Final EIS and Future Involvement

All substantive comments received on

the DEIS will be included, with

agency responses, in the FEIS.

Availability of the FEIS will be

published in the Federal Register by

the BLM and the EPA. After a 30-day

availability period, BLM will make a

separate decision to hold or not to

hold a competitive lease sale for each

of the federal coal in these five tracts.

A public ROD for each of the tracts

will be mailed to parties on the

mailing list and others who

commented on these LBAs during the

NEPA process. The public and/or the

applicants can appeal the BLM

decision to hold or not to hold a

competitive sale and issue a lease for

any of the five tracts. The BLM

decision must be appealed within 30

days after it is signed. The decision

can be implemented at that time if no

appeal is received. If competitive

lease sales are held, the lease sales

will follow the procedures set forth in

43 CFR 3422, 43 CFR 3425, and BLM

Handbook H-3420-1, Competitive

Coal Leasing (BLM 1989).

Department of Justice

Consultation

After each competitive coal lease sale,

but prior to issuance of a lease, the

BLM will solicit the opinion of the

Department of Justice on whether the

planned lease issuance creates a

situation inconsistent with federal

antitrust laws. The Department of

Justice is allowed 30 days to make

this determination. If the Department

of Justice has not responded in

writing within the 30 days, the BLM

can proceed with issuance of the

lease.
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-1

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND

ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the Proposed

Action and alternatives to this action

for each of the five LBA1

 tracts being

evaluated in this EIS. The five LBA

tracts are the NARO North and NARO

South LBA Tracts as applied for by

PRCC, the Little Thunder LBA Tract

as applied for by ALC, the West

Roundup LBA Tract as applied for by

TCC, and the West Antelope LBA

Tract as applied for by ACC. For each

tract, the Proposed Action is to hold a

separate competitive lease sale and

issue a separate lease for the federal

coal lands included in the tract. The

No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)

for each tract is to reject the lease

application for that tract and not offer

that tract for competitive sale at this

time. Alternatives 2 and 3 evaluate

alternate tract configurations

considered by BLM. Under

Alternatives 2 and 3, separate

competitive sales would be held and

leases issued for federal coal lands

included in one or more of the five

LBA tracts as modified by the BLM.

Other alternatives considered but not

analyzed in detail include :

• holding a competitive lease sale

and issuing a lease for federal

coal lands included in one or

more of the five LBA tracts (as

applied for or as modified by

BLM), with the assumption

that one or more of the tracts

would be developed as a new

mine (Alternative 4); and

• delaying the sale of one or more

of the five LBA tracts as applied

for to wait for possible higher

coal prices and/or to allow

recovery of the CBM resources

in the tract prior to mining

(Alternative 5). Under this

alternative, it is assumed that

one or more of the five LBA

tracts could be developed later

as a maintenance tract or a

new start mine, depending on

how long the sale was delayed.

Under each Proposed Action, a tract

would be offered for lease as applied

for at a separate, sealed-bid,

competitive lease sale, subject to

standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

and that tract. The boundaries of

each tract would be consistent with

the tract configuration proposed by

each applicant. For each tract, the

Proposed Action assumes that the

applicant for that tract would be the

successful bidder on that tract and

that each tract would be mined as a

maintenance lease for an existing

mine.

The No Action Alternative for each

tract assumes that the application for

that tract would be rejected, the tract

would not be offered for competitive

sale, and the coal contained within

the tract would not be mined as

proposed. The No Action Alternative

assumes that rejection of an

application would not affect currently

permitted mining activities on

existing leases at any of the existing

mines and would not preclude an

application to lease any rejected tract

in the future. Portions of the surface

of each of the LBA tracts would 1 Refer to page xii for a list of abbreviations

and acronyms used in this document.
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

probably be disturbed due to

overstripping to allow coal to be

removed from the adjacent, existing

leases.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, BLM has

evaluated the unleased federal coal

included in and adjacent to each LBA

tract and is considering offering a

larger or smaller tract for competitive

sale, based on that evaluation. The

alternate tract configurations

analyzed vary for each tract. No

alternate tract configurations were

identified for the NARO North LBA

Tract. For each of the other four LBA

Tracts, BLM identified two additional

tract configurations to analyze. 

LBA tracts are nominated for leasing

by companies with an interest in

acquiring them but, as discussed in

Chapter 1, the LBA process is, by law

and regulation, an open, public,

competitive sealed-bid process. If a

tract is offered for lease, the applicant

for that tract may or may not be the

high bidder when the lease sale is

held. 

For each tract, if a decision is made

to hold a separate competitive lease

sale and there is a successful bidder,

a detailed mining and reclamation

plan must be developed by the

successful bidder and approved

before mining can begin on that tract.

As discussed in Section 1.2, each

mining and reclamation plan would

undergo detailed review by state and

federal agencies as part of the

approval process. Those plans could

potentially differ from the plans used

to analyze the impacts of the

Proposed Action and Alternatives 2

and 3 in this EIS, but the differences

would not be expected to significantly

change the impacts described here.

These differences would typically be

related to the details of mining and

reclaiming the tracts but major

factors like tons of coal mined, yards

of overburden removed, acres

disturbed, etc. would not be

significantly different from the plans

used in this analysis.

An estimate of the coal included in

each tract provided by the applicant

is given in the following descriptions

of the Proposed Action and

alternatives for each tract. BLM will

independently evaluate the volume

and average quality of the coal

resources included in each tract

offered for sale as part of the fair

market value determination process.

BLM’s estimate of the recoverable

federal coal reserves and average

quality of the coal included in each

tract will be published in the sale

notice for each tract that is offered for

sale. Some general coal quality

information in the area of the LBA

Tracts considered in this EIS is

included in Section 3.3 of this

document. 

Under the Proposed Action and the

alternatives for each tract it is

assumed that an area larger than the

tract would have to be disturbed in

order to recover all of the coal in that

tract. The disturbances outside the

coal removal area would be due to

activities like overstripping, matching

undisturbed topography, and

construction of flood control and

sediment control structures.

Hazardous and Solid Waste
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-3

Under all of the Proposed Actions and

alternatives, the procedures and

requirements for handling of

hazardous and solid wastes would be

the same as the procedures and

requirements for the existing mining

operations. Solid waste that is

produced at the existing North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines consists of floor

sweepings, shop rags, lubricant

containers, welding rod ends, metal

shavings, worn tires, packing

material, used filters, and office and

food wastes. North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, Black Thunder, North

Rochelle, and Antelope Mines dispose

of a portion of their solid wastes

within their permit boundaries 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 on the existing mine

facilities. Maintenance and

lubrication of most of the equipment

takes place at existing shop facilities

at all four mines.

Major lubrication, oil changes, etc., of

most equipment are performed inside

the service building lube bays at the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex,

Black Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines, where used oil is

currently contained and deposited in

storage tanks. All of the collected

used oils are then recycled off site.

These practices would not change if

the applicants acquire these LBA

tracts.

PRCC, TBCC, TCC, and ACC have

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

EPA’s List of Extremely Hazardous

Substances as defined in 40 CFR 355

(as amended) for hazardous

substances used at their mining

operations. PRCC, TBCC, TCC, and

ACC maintain files containing

Material Safety Data Sheets for all

chemicals, compounds and/or

substances which are or would be

used during the course of mining. 

PRCC, TBCC, TCC, and ACC are

responsible for ensuring that all

production, use, storage, transport,

and disposal of hazardous and

extremely hazardous materials as a

result of mining are in accordance

with all applicable existing or

hereafter promulgated federal, state,

and local government rules,

regulations, and guidelines. All

mining activities involving the

production, use, and/or disposal of

hazardous or extremely hazardous

materials are and would continue to

be conducted so as to minimize

potential environmental impacts.

PRCC, TBCC, TCC, and ACC must

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 the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.

The materials for which such

notification must be given are the

extremely hazardous substances
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

listed in Section 302 of the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right to Know Act and the hazardous

substances designated under Section

102 of CERCLA, as amended. If a

reportable quantity of a hazardous or

extremely hazardous substance is

released, immediate notice must be

given to the WDEQ Solid and

Hazardous Waste Division, WDEQ

Water Quality Division, and all other

appropriate federal and state

agencies.

Each mining company is expected to

prepare and implement several plans

and/or policies to ensure

environmental protection from

hazardous and extremely hazardous

materials. These plans/policies

include:

• Spill Prevention Control and

Countermeasure Plans;

• Spill Response Plans;

• Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plans;

• Inventories of Hazardous

Chemical Categories Pursuant

to Section 313 of SARA, as

Amended; and

• Emergency Response Plans.

All mining operations are also

required to be in compliance with

regulations promulgated under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act, Federal Water Pollution Control

Act (Clean Water Act), Safe Drinking

Water Act, Toxic Substances Control

Act, Mine Safety and Health Act,

Department of Transportation, and

the Federal Clean Air Act. In

addition, mining operations must

comply with all attendant state rules

and regulations relating to hazardous

material reporting, transportation,

management, and disposal.

Compliance with these rules is the

current practice at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines. Acquisition of the

LBA tracts by the applicants would

not change these current practices

nor the type of any wastes generated

or disposed at the mines, although

quantities of some wastes would

increase in proportion to anticipated

increases in coal production (e.g.,

fuel, lubricants, and shop and office

wastes).

2.1 Proposed Action and

Alternatives for the NARO

North LBA Tract

2.1.1 NARO North LBA Tract

Proposed Action

PRCC has applied for two separate

LBA tracts (NARO North and NARO

South). Each tract will be evaluated

separately and if a decision is made

to lease both of these tracts, a

separate competitive lease sale will be

held for each tract. 

Under the Proposed Action for the

NARO North LBA Tract, the tract as

applied for by PRCC would be offered

for lease at a separate, sealed-bid,

competitive lease sale, subject to

standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

(Appendix D). The boundaries of the

tract would be consistent with the

tract configuration proposed in the
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-5

NARO North LBA Tract lease

application (Figure 2-1). The

Proposed Action assumes that PRCC

will be the successful bidder on the

NARO North LBA Tract if it is offered

for sale.

The legal description of the proposed

NARO North LBA Tract coal lease

lands as applied for by PRCC under

the Proposed Action is as follows:

T.42N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 28: Lots 5 through 16;

495.59 acres

Section 29: Lots 5 through 16;

495.89 acres

Section 30: Lots 9 through 20;

443.67 acres

T.42N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 25: Lots 5 through 15;

447.19 acres

Section 26: Lots 7 through 10;

162.22 acres

Section 35: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10,

15 and 16;

324.82 acres

Total surface area applied for:

2,369.38 acres

Land descriptions and acreage are

based on the BLM Status of Public

Domain Land and Mineral Titles

approved Coal Plats as of July 26,

2000, May 9, 2001 and September 6,

2001.

As indicated in Chapter 1, Section

1.4, no lands in the NARO North LBA

Tract were found to be unsuitable for

mining. The NARO North Tract as

applied for includes approximately

2,369.38 mineable acres. PRCC

estimates that the NARO North Tract

includes approximately 323 million

tons of in-place coal reserves.

Assuming a recovery factor of 95

percent, PRCC estimates that about

306.9 million tons of coal would be

recovered from the NARO North LBA

Tract as applied for.

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in the NARO

North LBA Tract as part of the fair

market value determination process.

BLM's estimate of the mineable

reserves and average quality of the

coal included in the tracts will be

published in the sale notice if the

tract is offered for sale. Some coal

quality information in the area of the

NARO North LBA Tract is included in

Section 3.3 of this document.

The approved North Antelope/

Rochelle Complex Permit 569 Term

T5 includes monitoring and

mitigation measures for the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex that are

required by SMCRA and Wyoming

State Law. If the NARO North LBA

Tract is acquired by PRCC, these

monitoring and mitigation measures
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-6 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 2-1
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-7

would be extended to cover

operations on the NARO North LBA

Tract when the coal mining permit is

revised to include the tract. This

permit would have to be approved

before mining operations could take

place on the tract. These monitoring

and mitigation measures are

considered to be part of the Proposed

Action and other action alternatives

during the leasing process because

they are regulatory requirements.

The NARO North LBA Tract would be

mined as an integral part of the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex under the

Proposed Action. The North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex is already

operating under both an approved

state mining permit and MLA mining

plan. Both the approved state mining

permit and MLA mining plan would

require amendment to include the

LBA tract. Since the NARO North

LBA Tract would be an extension of

the existing North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, the facilities and

infrastructure would be the same as

those identified in the WDEQ/LQD

Mine Permit 569 Term T5 approved

December 1, 1999 and the BLM

Resource Recovery and Protection

Plan approved July 23, 2001 for the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex.

PRCC’s currently approved air quality

permit from the WDEQ/AQD allows

up to 105 million tons of coal per year

to be mined in years 2004 through

2006. The North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex produced 68.9 million tons

of coal in 1999, 70.8 million tons of

coal in 2000, and 74.8 million tons of

coal in 2001 (Wyoming State

Inspector of Mines 1999, 2000, and

2001). Under the No Action

Alternative, the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex would

mine its remaining 952 million tons of

in-place coal reserves in

approximately 12 years at an average

production rate of 75 mmtpy (the

production rate ranges between 8.7

mmtpy to 105 mmtpy). Under the

Proposed Action, PRCC estimates that

average annual coal production would

be 90 million tons (the production

rate ranges between 26 mmtpy to 105

mmtpy), and the life of the mine

would be extended by approximately

four years.

If PRCC acquires both the NARO

North and NARO South LBA Tracts as

applied for, they estimate that a total

of 1,411.3 million tons of coal would

be mined after January 1, 2002, with

an estimated 506.9 million tons

coming from the two LBA tracts. As

of December 31, 2001, 643 million

tons of coal had been mined from

within the current permitted area of

the mine.

Topsoil removal with heavy

equipment would proceed ahead of

overburden removal. Whenever

possible, direct haulage to a

reclamation area would be done, but

due to scheduling, some topsoil

would be temporarily stockpiled. As

required by the reclamation plan,

heavy equipment again would be used

to haul and distribute the stockpiled

topsoil.

The North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex is one of several mines

currently operating in the PRB where

the coal seams are notably thick and

the overburden is relatively thin.

Mining would be conducted in semi-
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-8 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

independent pits. Overburden

removal has been and would continue

to be conducted using trucks and

shovels, draglines, and/or direct cast

blasting. Most overburden and all

coal would be drilled and blasted to

facilitate efficient excavation. The

design of the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex seeks to confine disturbance

to the active mine blocks. As

overburden is removed, most would

be directly placed into areas where

coal has already been removed. Once

the overburden has been replaced it

is sampled and verified to be suitable

overburden material, then graded to

approximate final contour, ripped and

finally topsoiled. If necessary,

material that is found to be

unsuitable would be adequately

covered with suitable overburden

material prior to grading and

topsoiling. Elevations consistent with

an approved PMT plan would be

established as quickly as possible.

Under certain conditions, the PMT

may not be immediately achievable.

This occurs when there is an excess

of material that may require

temporary stockpiling, when there is

insufficient material available from

current overburden removal

operations, or when future mining

could redisturb an area already

mined. Once a seedbed has been

formed, vegetation would be

reestablished that is consistent with

the postmining land use.

Coal would be produced from two

seams (Wyodak-Anderson 1 and

Wyodak-Anderson 2) that total 60 to

80 ft thick at several working faces to

enable blending of the coal to meet

customer quality requirements, to

comply with BLM lease requirements

for maximum economic recovery of

the coal resource, and to optimize

coal removal efficiency with available

equipment. Coal would be loaded

with electric-powered shovels into offhighway haul trucks for transport to

crushing facilities. Coal haul roads

would be temporary structures built

within the mine areas. Mining

efficiency and air quality protection

are and would continue to be

facilitated by extensive use of near-pit

crushers and overland conveyors.

There are three existing crushing

facilities within the existing permit

area. All transfer points on conveyor

belts and the truck dump hopper at

the processing plant are controlled by

baghouse-type dust collectors, PECs,

fogger/spray systems, or stilling

sheds. There are five existing storage

silos, each with a covered storage

slot. While sufficient capacity exists,

future changes in facilities may be

constructed to improve operating

efficiency and air quality protection.

An additional near-pit

crusher/conveyor, railroad loop, and

two silos are planned whether or not

PRCC acquires the NARO North or

NARO South LBA Tracts. PRCC’s

recently approved (August 14, 2001)

air quality permit from the

WDEQ/AQD allows a maximum of

105 million tons of coal per year to be

mined provided additional coal

handling and processing facilities are

constructed. The fourth crushing

facility and two additional storage

silos have been permitted for

construction.

Current full-time employment at the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex is

877 but PRCC anticipates that

employment will increase to 1,175
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-9

under the No Action Alternative. If

both the NARO North and NARO

South LBA tracts are acquired, PRCC

anticipates that the average annual

coal production would be

approximately 90 million tons, the

maximum annual coal production

would be 105 million tons, and

employment would be 1,185 persons

at the maximum annual production

rate of 105 million tons.

2.1.2 NARO North LBA Tract

Alternative 1

Under the NARO North LBA Tract

Alternative 1, the No-Action

Alternative, the application to lease

the coal included in the NARO North

LBA Tract would be rejected, the tract

would not be offered for competitive

sale, and the coal included in the

tract would not be mined. This would

not affect permitted mining activities

and employment on the existing

leases at the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex and would not preclude an

application to lease the coal included

in the NARO North LBA Tract in the

future. Portions of the surface of the

NARO North LBA Tract could be

disturbed due to overstripping to

allow coal to be removed from the

adjacent existing leases. 

Approximately 14,895.5 acres of

federal coal are currently leased at

the North Antelope/Rochelle Complex

and a total of about 20,410 acres of

land will be affected in mining the

current leases. If the NARO North

and NARO South LBA Tracts are not

leased, PRCC estimates that the

average annual production at the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex

after 2001 will be 75 million tons,

annual production will range from 8.7

million tons to 105 million tons, and

employment will be approximately

1,175 persons at the maximum

production rate. 

In order to compare the economic and

environmental consequences of

mining these lands versus not mining

them, this EIS was prepared under

the assumption that an LBA tract

would not be mined in the foreseeable

future if the No Action Alternative for

that tract is selected. However,

selection of this alternative would not

preclude leasing and mining of a

rejected tract in the future, either as

a maintenance tract for existing

operations or as a new start mine. 

2.2 Proposed Action and

Alternatives for the NARO

South LBA Tract

2.2.1 NARO South LBA Tract

Proposed Action

PRCC has applied for two separate

LBA tracts (NARO North and NARO

South). Each tract will be evaluated

separately and, if a decision is made

to lease both of these tracts, a

separate competitive lease sale will be

held for each tract. 

Under the Proposed Action for the

NARO South LBA Tract, the tract as

applied for by PRCC would be offered

for lease at a separate, sealed-bid,

competitive lease sale, subject to

standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

(Appendix D). The boundaries of the

tract would be consistent with the

tract configuration proposed in the

NARO South LBA Tract lease
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-10 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

application (Figure 2-1). The

Proposed Action assumes that PRCC

will be the successful bidder on the

NARO South LBA Tract if it is offered

for sale.

The legal description of the proposed

NARO South LBA Tract coal lease

lands as applied for by PRCC under

the Proposed Action is as follows:

T.41N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell

and Converse Counties, Wyoming

Section 19: Lots 6 through 11,

12(S1⁄2), 13 through 20;

584.555 acres

Section 20: Lots 5(S1⁄2), 6(S1⁄2), 7(S1⁄2),

8(S1⁄2), 9 through 16;

402.645 acres

Section 21: Lots 5(S1⁄2), 12, and 13;

99.695 acres

Section 28: Lots 3 through 6, 11, and

NE1⁄4 SW1⁄4;

238.62 acres

Section 29: Lots 1 through 12;

484.08 acres

Section 30: Lots 5 through 12;

324.04 acres

Total surface area applied for:

2,133.635 acres

Land descriptions and acreage are

based on the BLM Status of Public

Domain Land and Mineral Titles

approved Coal Plats as of July 26,

2000, May 9, 2001 and September 6,

2001.

As indicated in Chapter 1, Section

1.4, some of the above-described

lands in the NARO South LBA Tract

are unsuitable for mining due to the

presence of the BNSF & UP railroad

ROW and partially burned areas

where the coal is not recoverable.

Although these lands would not be

mined, they are included in the tract

to allow maximum recovery of all the

mineable coal outside of the railroad

ROW and associated buffer zones and

the partially burned areas, and to

comply with the coal leasing

regulations, which do not allow

leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot

parts. The NARO South Tract as

applied for includes approximately

2,133.635 mineable acres. PRCC

estimates that it includes

approximately 241 million tons of inplace coal and that about 200 million

tons of that coal would be

recoverable. An average recovery

factor of approximately 83 percent is

therefore assumed, based largely

upon PRCC’s estimate of the

unmineable reserves within the ROW

and unrecoverable coal in partially

burned areas. 

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in the NARO

South LBA Tract as part of the fair

market value determination process.

The fact that the coal within the ROW

and partially burned area cannot all

be recovered would be considered by

BLM in the fair market value

determination for the LBA tract.

BLM's estimate of the recoverable

reserves and average quality of the

coal included in the tracts will be

published in the sale notice if the

tract is offered for sale. Some coal

quality information in the area of the

NARO South LBA Tract is included in

Section 3.3 of this document.

The approved North Antelope/

Rochelle Complex Permit 569 Term
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-11

T5 includes monitoring and

mitigation measures for the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex that are

required by SMCRA and Wyoming

State Law. If the NARO South LBA

Tract is acquired by PRCC, these

monitoring and mitigation measures

would be extended to cover

operations on the NARO South LBA

Tract when the coal mining permit is

revised to include the tract. This

permit would have to be approved

before mining operations could take

place on the tract. These monitoring

and mitigation measures are

considered to be part of the Proposed

Action and other action alternatives

during the leasing process because

they are regulatory requirements.

The NARO South LBA Tract would be

mined as an integral part of the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex under the

Proposed Action. The North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex is already

operating under both an approved

state mining permit and MLA mining

plan. Both the approved state mining

permit and MLA mining plan would

require amendment to include the

LBA tract. Since the NARO South

LBA Tract would be an extension of

the existing North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, the facilities and

infrastructure would be the same as

those identified in the WDEQ/LQD

Mine Permit 569 Term T5 approved

December 1, 1999 and the BLM

Resource Recovery and Protection

Plan approved July 23, 2001 for the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex.

PRCC’s currently approved air quality

permit from the WDEQ/AQD allows

up to 105 million tons of coal per year

to be mined in years 2004 through

2006. The North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex produced 68.9 million tons

of coal in 1999, 70.8 million tons of

coal in 2000, and 74.8 million tons of

coal in 2001 (Wyoming State

Inspector of Mines 1999, 2000, and

2001). Under the No Action

Alternative, the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex would

mine its remaining 952 million tons of

in-place coal reserves in

approximately 12 years at an average

production rate of 75 mmtpy (the

production rate ranges between 8.7

mmtpy to 105 mmtpy). Under the

Proposed Action, PRCC estimates that

average annual coal production would

be 90 million tons (the production

rate ranges between 26 mmtpy to 105

mmtpy), and the life of the mine

would be extended by approximately

four years.

If PRCC acquires both the NARO

North and NARO South LBA Tracts as

applied for, they estimate that a total

of 1,411.3 million tons of coal would

be mined after January 1, 2002, with

an estimated 506.9 million tons

coming from the two LBA tracts. As

of December 31, 2001, 643 million

tons of coal had been mined from

within the current permitted area of

the mine.

Topsoil removal with heavy

equipment would proceed ahead of

overburden removal. Whenever

possible, direct haulage to a

reclamation area would be done, but

due to scheduling, some topsoil

would be temporarily stockpiled. As

required by the reclamation plan,

heavy equipment again would be used

to haul and distribute the stockpiled

topsoil.
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-12 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

The North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex is one of several mines

currently operating in the PRB where

the coal seams are notably thick and

the overburden is relatively thin.

Mining would be conducted in semiindependent pits. Overburden

removal has been and would continue

to be conducted using trucks and

shovels, draglines, and/or direct cast

blasting. Most overburden and all

coal would be drilled and blasted to

facilitate efficient excavation. The

design of the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex seeks to confine disturbance

to the active mine blocks. As

overburden is removed, most would

be directly placed into areas where

coal has already been removed. Once

the overburden has been replaced it

is sampled and verified to be suitable

overburden material, then graded to

approximate final contour, ripped and

finally topsoiled. If necessary,

material that is found to be

unsuitable would be adequately

covered with suitable overburden

material prior to grading and

topsoiling. Elevations consistent with

an approved PMT plan would be

established as quickly as possible.

Under certain conditions, the PMT

may not be immediately achievable.

This occurs when there is an excess

of material that may require

temporary stockpiling, when there is

insufficient material available from

current overburden removal

operations, or when future mining

could redisturb an area already

mined. Once a seedbed has been

formed, vegetation would be

reestablished that is consistent with

the postmining land use.

Coal would be produced from two

seams (Wyodak-Anderson 1 and

Wyodak-Anderson 2) that total 60 to

80 ft thick at several working faces to

enable blending of the coal to meet

customer quality requirements, to

comply with BLM lease requirements

for maximum economic recovery of

the coal resource, and to optimize

coal removal efficiency with available

equipment. Coal would be loaded

with electric-powered shovels into offhighway haul trucks for transport to

crushing facilities. Coal haul roads

would be temporary structures built

within the mine areas. Mining

efficiency and air quality protection

are and would continue to be

facilitated by extensive use of near-pit

crushers and overland conveyors.

There are three existing crushing

facilities within the existing permit

area. All transfer points on conveyor

belts and the truck dump hopper at

the processing plant are controlled by

baghouse-type dust collectors, PECs,

fogger/spray systems, or stilling

sheds. There are five existing storage

silos, each with a covered storage

slot. While sufficient capacity exists,

future changes in facilities may be

constructed to improve operating

efficiency and air quality protection.

An additional near-pit

crusher/conveyor, railroad loop, and

two silos are planned whether or not

PRCC acquires the NARO North or

NARO South LBA Tracts. PRCC’s

recently approved (August 14, 2001)

air quality permit from the

WDEQ/AQD allows a maximum of

105 million tons of coal per year to be

mined provided additional coal

handling and processing facilities are

constructed. The fourth crushing

facility and two additional storage
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-13

silos have been permitted for

construction.

Current full-time employment at the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex is

877, but PRCC anticipates that

employment will increase to 1,175

under the No Action Alternative. If

both the NARO North and NARO

South LBA Tracts are acquired, PRCC

anticipates that the average annual

coal production would be

approximately 90 million tons, the

maximum annual coal production

would be 105 million tons, and

employment would be 1,185 persons

at the maximum annual production

rate of 105 million tons.

The NARO South LBA Tract was

applied for by PRCC, but it is also

located adjacent to the Antelope Mine,

operated by ACC. ACC may also be

in a position to mine the NARO South

LBA Tract under the Proposed Action

or Alternative 2 as a maintenance

lease. If ACC acquires the tract, the

rate of coal production, mining

sequence, equipment, and facilities

would be different than if PRCC

acquired the tract as a maintenance

lease, as described above. However,

the area of disturbance and the

impacts of removing the coal would

not be substantially different from the

area of disturbance and the impacts

of PRCC mining the tract. 

2.2.2 NARO South LBA Tract

Alternative 1

Under the NARO South LBA Tract

Alternative 1, the No-Action

Alternative, the application to lease

the coal included in the NARO South

LBA Tract would be rejected, the tract

would not be offered for competitive

sale, and the coal included in the

tract would not be mined. This would

not affect permitted mining activities

and employment on the existing

leases at the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex and would not preclude an

application to lease the coal included

in the NARO South LBA Tract in the

future. Portions of the surface of the

NARO South LBA Tract could be

disturbed due to overstripping to

allow coal to be removed from the

adjacent existing leases. 

Approximately 14,895.5 acres of

federal coal are currently leased at

the North Antelope/Rochelle Complex

and a total of about 20,410 acres of

land will be affected in mining the

current leases. If the NARO North and

NARO South LBA Tracts are not

leased, PRCC estimates that the

average annual production at the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex

after 2001 will be 75 million tons,

annual production will range from 8.7

million tons to 105 million tons, and

employment will be approximately

1,175 persons at the maximum

production rate. 

In order to compare the economic and

environmental consequences of

mining these lands versus not mining

them, this EIS was prepared under

the assumption that an LBA tract

would not be mined in the foreseeable

future if the No Action Alternative for

that tract is selected. However,

selection of this alternative would not

preclude leasing and mining of a

rejected tract in the future, either as

a maintenance tract for existing

operations or as a new start mine. 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-14 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

2.2.3 NARO South LBA Tract

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2 for the NARO

South LBA Tract, BLM would

reconfigure the tract and hold a

competitive coal sale for the lands

included in the reconfigured tract and

issue a lease to the successful bidder.

The modified tract would be subject

to standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

and this tract if it is offered for sale

(Appendix D). Alternative 2 for the

NARO South LBA Tract assumes that

PRCC would be the successful bidder

on the tract if a lease sale is held and

that the tract would be mined as a

maintenance lease for the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex. Other

assumptions are the same as for the

Proposed Action.

BLM is considering an alternate tract

configuration for the NARO South

LBA Tract to potentially increase

competitive interest in the tract and

to maintain the fair market value of

the remaining unleased federal coal

in this area. Under this alternative,

the BLM is considering adding

additional lands to the NARO South

LBA Tract as applied for. The lands

that BLM is considering adding lie

between the western edge of the tract

as applied for and the BNSF & UP

railroad ROW (Figure 2-1). Under

Alternative 2 for the NARO South LBA

Tract, BLM is considering adding all

or part of the following lands to the

NARO South LBA Tract:

T.41N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 23: Lots 1, 8, and 9;

120.88 acres

Section 24: Lots 1 through 16;

678.65 acres

Section 25: Lots 1 through 4, 9, 10,

and 12(N1⁄2)

268.64 acres

Total: 1,068.17 acres

PRCC estimates that these 1,068.17

acres contain approximately 146

million tons of mineable coal. If all of

these lands are added to the NARO

South LBA Tract, it would include

approximately 3,201.81 mineable

acres. PRCC estimates that the

reconfigured tract includes

approximately 387 million tons of inplace coal. Using PRCC’s projected

recovery factor of 79 percent, the

reconfigured tract would contain

about 307 million tons of recoverable

coal. PRCC estimates that the

average recovery factor for this

reconfigured tract would be 79

percent because the 1,068.17 acres

added in this alternative include

areas that lie within the BNSF & UP

railroad ROW and are therefore

unsuitable for mining according to

the coal leasing unsuitability criteria

(43 CFR 3461). Although the coal

included in these lands could not be

mined, these lands have been

included in this alternative tract

configuration to allow maximum

recovery of all the mineable coal

outside of the ROW and to comply

with the coal leasing regulations,

which do not allow leasing of less

than 10-acre aliquot parts. 

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in each tract

offered for sale as part of the fair
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-15

market value determination process.

The fact that the coal within the ROW

and partially burned area cannot all

be recovered would be considered by

BLM in the fair market value

determination for the LBA tract.

BLM’s estimate of the recoverable

federal coal reserves and average

quality of the coal included in each

tract will be published in the sale

notice for each tract that is offered for

sale. Some general coal quality

information in the area of the LBA

tracts considered in this EIS is

included in Section 3.3 of this

document.

2.2.4 NARO South LBA Tract

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3 for the NARO

South LBA Tract, BLM is considering

a different tract configuration. As

under Alternative 2, if this tract

configuration is selected BLM would

hold a competitive coal sale and issue

a lease to the successful bidder. The

modified tract would be subject to

standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

and this tract if it is offered for sale

(Appendix D). Alternative 3 for the

NARO South LBA Tract assumes that

PRCC would be the successful bidder

on the tract if a lease sale is held and

that the tract would be mined as a

maintenance lease for the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex. Other

assumptions would be the same as

for the Proposed Action.

Under this alternative for the NARO

South LBA Tract, BLM is considering

removing some of the lands applied

for in the western portion of the

NARO South LBA Tract from

consideration for leasing at this time

and offering a smaller tract for

competitive sale (Figure 2-1). The

coal that BLM is considering

removing from the tract as applied for

could be combined with the unleased

federal coal between the reconfigured

NARO South LBA Tract and the BNSF

& UP railroad ROW to create a tract

which could potentially have more

competitive interest and a higher fair

market value if it is leased in the

future. The lands that BLM is

considering removing from the tract

are:

T.41N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 19: Lots 6 through 11 and 14

through 19;

483.74 acres

Section 30: Lots 6 through 11;

243.01 acres

Total: 726.75 acres

PRCC estimates that these 726.75

acres contain approximately 99.7

million tons of mineable coal. The

Alternative 3 reconfiguration of the

NARO South LBA Tract, therefore,

results in a tract comprising

approximately 1,406.89 mineable

acres. PRCC estimates that the

reconfigured tract includes

approximately 141.4 million tons of

in-place coal and that about 128

million tons of that coal would be

recoverable. PRCC estimates that the

average recovery factor for this

reconfigured tract would be 91

percent because these 726.75 acres

include lands unsuitable for mining

due to the presence of partially
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-16 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

burned areas where the coal is not

recoverable.

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in each tract

offered for sale as part of the fair

market value determination process.

The fact that the coal within the

partially burned area cannot all be

recovered would be considered by

BLM in the fair market value

determination for the LBA tract.

BLM’s estimate of the recoverable

federal coal reserves and average

quality of the coal included in each

tract will be published in the sale

notice for each tract that is offered for

sale. Some general coal quality

information in the area of the LBA

tracts considered in this EIS is

included in Section 3.3 of this

document. 

2.3 Proposed Action and

Alternatives for the Little

Thunder LBA Tract

2.3.1 Little Thunder LBA Tract

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action for the

Little Thunder LBA Tract, the tract as

applied for by ALC would be offered

for lease at a separate, sealed-bid,

competitive lease sale, subject to

standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

and this tract (Appendix D). The

boundaries of the tract would be

consistent with the tract

configurations proposed in the Little

Thunder LBA Tract lease application

(Figure 2-2). The Proposed Action

assumes that ALC will be the

successful bidder on the Little

Thunder LBA Tract if it is offered for

sale.

The legal description of the proposed

Little Thunder LBA Tract coal lease

lands as applied for by ALC under the

Proposed Action is as follows:

T.43N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 2: Lots 5, 6, 11 through 14,

19 and 20;

320.93 acres

Section 11: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10,

15 and 16;

302.42 acres

Section 12: Lots 2(W1⁄2 and SE1⁄4), 3

through 16;

602.60 acres

Section 13: Lots 1 through 16;

648.28 acres
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-17

Figure 2-2
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-18 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Section 14: Lots 1, 2, 6 through 9, 14

and 15;

299.87 acres

Section 24: Lots 1 through 16;

630.52 acres

Section 25: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10,

15 and 16;

315.78 acres

T.44N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 35: Lots 1, 2, 7 through 10,

15 and 16;

328.92 acres

Total surface area applied for:

3,449.32 acres

Land descriptions and acreage are

based on the BLM Status of Public

Domain Land and Mineral Titles

approved Coal Plats as of August 23,

2001 and August 24, 2001.

As indicated in Chapter 1, Section

1.4, some of the above described

lands in the Little Thunder LBA Tract

are unsuitable for mining due to the

presence of the BNSF & UP railroad

and Wyoming Highway 450 ROWs.

Although these lands would not be

mined, they are included in the tract

to allow maximum recovery of all the

mineable coal outside of the railroad

and highway rights-of-way and

associated buffer zones and to comply

with the coal leasing regulations,

which do not allow leasing of less

than 10-acre aliquot parts. The tract

as applied for includes approximately

3,449.32 mineable acres. TBCC

estimates that it includes

approximately 479.3 million tons of

in-place coal, and that about 440

million tons of that coal would be

recoverable. An average recovery

factor of approximately 92 percent is

therefore assumed, based largely

upon TBCC’s estimate of the

unmineable reserves within the

ROWs. 

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

mineable coal resources included in

the tract as part of the fair market

value determination process. The fact

that the coal within the ROWs cannot

all be recovered would be considered

by BLM in the fair market value

determination for the LBA tract.

BLM’s estimate of the mineable

reserves and average quality of the

coal included in the tract will be

published in the sale notice if the

tract is offered for sale. Some coal

quality information in the area of the

Little Thunder LBA Tract is included

in Section 3.3 of this document.

The approved Black Thunder Mine

Permit 233 Term T6 includes

monitoring and mitigation measures

for the Black Thunder Mine that are

required by SMCRA and Wyoming

State Law. If the Little Thunder LBA

Tract is acquired by ALC, these

monitoring and mitigation measures

would be extended to cover

operations on the LBA tract when the

coal mining permit is revised to

include the tract. This permit would

have to be approved before mining

operations could take place on the

tract. These monitoring and

mitigation measures are considered to

be part of the Proposed Action and

other action alternatives during the

leasing process because they are

regulatory requirements.
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-19

The Little Thunder LBA Tract would

be mined as an integral part of the

Black Thunder Mine under the

Proposed Action. The Black Thunder

Mine is already operating under both

an approved state mining permit and

MLA mining plan. Both the approved

state mining permit and MLA mining

plan would require amendment to

include the LBA tract. Since the

Little Thunder LBA Tract would be an

extension of the existing Black

Thunder Mine, the facilities and

infrastructure would be the same as

those identified in the WDEQ/LQD

Mine Permit 233 Term T6 approved

June 29, 2000 and the BLM Resource

Recovery and Protection Plan

approved October 5, 1999 for the

Black Thunder Mine.

TBCC’s currently approved air quality

permit from the WDEQ/AQD allows

up to 100 million tons of coal per year

to be mined through year 2027. The

Black Thunder Mine produced 48.7

million tons of coal in 1999, 60.1

million tons in 2000, and 67.6 million

tons in 2001 (Wyoming State

Inspector of Mines 1999, 2000, and

2001). Under the No Action

Alternative, TBCC estimates that the

Black Thunder Mine will produce

68.5 million tons per year for five

years. Production will decrease when

the West Pit of the mine reaches the

existing West Black Thunder Lease

boundary in 2008. The production

rate will drop after 2008 because the

configuration of the remaining

reserves will cause the mine to

relocate and retire mining equipment.

Due to the mining conditions, the

mine will produce an average of 23.3

million tons per year during the last

15 years. TBCC estimates that,

under the No Action Alternative, the

mine will produce its remaining 919.4

million tons or recoverable coal

reserves over a 24-year time-period at

an average annual production rate of

38.3 million tons.

Under the Proposed Action, TBCC

estimates that the Black Thunder

mine would produce between 66 and

68.5 million tons per year for the next

13 years, then production would

decrease when the mining conditions

and pit configurations change once

the West Pit reaches the Little

Thunder Lease Boundary.

Acquisition of the Little Thunder LBA

Tract would allow the Black Thunder

Mine to maintain peak production

rates between 66 and 68.5 million

tons per year for eight additional

years. Under the Proposed Action,

the mine would produce 1,359.4

million tons of recoverable coal

reserves over a 32-year time-period at

an average annual production rate of

42.5 million tons.

If ALC acquires the Little Thunder

LBA Tract as applied for, they

estimate that a total of 1,359.4

million tons of recoverable coal would

be mined after January 1, 2002, with

an estimated 440 million tons coming

from the LBA tract. This estimate of

recoverable reserves equates to about

an eight percent loss of coal under

normal mining practices. As of

December 31, 2001, 699.9 million

tons of coal have been mined from

within the current permitted area of

the mine.

Topsoil removal with heavy

equipment would proceed ahead of

overburden removal. Whenever
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-20 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

possible, direct haulage to a

reclamation area would be done, but

due to scheduling, some topsoil

would be temporarily stockpiled. As

required by the reclamation plan,

heavy equipment again would be used

to haul and distribute the stockpiled

topsoil.

The Black Thunder Mine is one of

several mines currently operating in

the PRB where the coal seams are

notably thick and the overburden is

relatively thin. Mining would be

conducted in three separate pits

identified as the West Pit, South Pit

and North Pit. Overburden removal

has been and would continue to be

conducted using trucks and shovels,

draglines, and/or direct cast blasting.

Other equipment used during

overburden removal and backfilling

includes dozers, scrapers, excavators,

front-end loaders, graders and water

trucks. Most overburden and all coal

is drilled and blasted to facilitate

efficient excavation. The design of the

Black Thunder Mine seeks to confine

disturbance to the active mine blocks.

As overburden is removed, most is

directly placed into areas where coal

has already been removed. Once the

overburden has been replaced it is

sampled and verified to be suitable

overburden material, then graded to

approximate final contour, ripped and

finally topsoiled. If necessary,

material that is found to be

unsuitable would be adequately

covered with suitable material prior to

grading and topsoiling. Elevations

consistent with an approved PMT

plan would be established as quickly

as possible. Under certain

conditions, the PMT may not be

immediately achievable. This occurs

when there is an excess of material

that may require temporary

stockpiling, when there is insufficient

material available from current

overburden removal operations, or

when future mining could redisturb

an area already mined. Once a

seedbed has been formed, vegetation

would be reestablished that is

consistent with the postmining land

use.

Coal would be produced from three

seams, the Upper, Middle, and Lower

Wyodak, at several working faces to

enable blending of the coal to meet

customer quality requirements, to

comply with BLM lease requirements

for maximum economic recovery of

the coal resource, and to optimize

coal removal efficiency with available

equipment. Mining efficiency and air

quality protection are and would

continue to be facilitated by extensive

use of near-pit crushers and overland

conveyors. Coal would be loaded with

electric-powered shovels or hydraulic

excavators into off-highway haul

trucks for transport to crushing

facilities. Coal haul roads would be

temporary structures built within the

mine areas. All coal transfer location

points and crushing operations are

controlled by baghouse-type dust

collectors or PECs. The truck

dumping operations use stilling sheds

to control fugitive dust and the

overland conveyor is covered by a

dust hood. There are two existing

crushing facilities, two silos, and a

slot storage facility within the permit

area that provide capacity to produce

at the permitted level. While

sufficient capacity exists, future

changes in facilities may be

constructed to improve operating
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-21

efficiency and air quality protection.

The existing near-pit

crusher/conveyor systems would

probably be relocated if ALC acquires

the Little Thunder LBA Tract as

applied for.

Current full-time employment at the

Black Thunder Mine is approximately

600. If the LBA tract is acquired,

TBCC anticipates that the average

annual coal production would be

approximately 42.5 million tons and

no employment changes would be

expected.

2.3.2 Little Thunder LBA Tract

Alternative 1

Under the Little Thunder LBA Tract

Alternative 1, the No-Action

Alternative, the application to lease

the coal included in the Little

Thunder LBA Tract would be rejected,

the tract would not be offered for

competitive sale, and the coal

included in the tract would not be

mined. This would not affect

permitted mining activities and

employment on the existing leases at

the Black Thunder Mine and would

not preclude an application to lease

the coal included in the Little

Thunder LBA Tract in the future.

Portions of the surface of the Little

Thunder LBA Tract could be

disturbed due to overstripping to

allow coal to be removed from the

adjacent existing leases.

Approximately 12,772.9 acres of

federal coal are currently leased at

the Black Thunder Mine and a total of

about 18,476 acres of land will be

affected in mining the current leases.

Under the No Action Alternative,

TBCC estimates that the average

annual production at the Black

Thunder Mine after 2001 will be 38.3

million tons, and average employment

will be approximately 600 persons.

In order to compare the economic and

environmental consequences of

mining these lands versus not mining

them, this EIS was prepared under

the assumption that an LBA tract

would not be mined in the foreseeable

future if the No Action Alternative for

that tract is selected. However,

selection of this alternative would not

preclude leasing and mining of a

rejected tract in the future, either as

a maintenance tract for existing

operations or as a new start mine.

2.3.3 Little Thunder LBA Tract

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2 for the Little

Thunder LBA Tract, BLM would

reconfigure the tract and hold a

competitive coal sale for the lands

included in the reconfigured tract

and issue a lease to the successful

bidder. The modified tract would be

subject to standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

and this tract if it is offered for sale

(Appendix D). Alternative 2 for the

Little Thunder LBA Tract assumes

that ALC would be the successful

bidder on the tract if a lease sale is

held and that the tract would be

mined as a maintenance lease for the

Black Thunder Mine. Other

assumptions are the same as for the

Proposed Action.

BLM is considering an alternate tract

configuration for the Little Thunder

LBA Tract in order to avoid creating a
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-22 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

potential bypass situation and to

enhance the fair market value of the

remaining unleased coal in this area.

Under this alternative, BLM is

considering adding lands to the Little

Thunder LBA Tract as applied for

Figure 2-2). The lands that BLM is

considering adding to the tract are:

T.43N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 1: Lot 16 (S1⁄2);

19.81 acres

Section 2: Lots 7 through 10 and 15

through 18;

321.18 acres

Section 11: Lots 3 through 6 and 11

through 14;

318.93 acres

Section 14: NW1⁄4 NW1⁄4, Lots 3

through 5 and 10 through 13;

324.79 acres

Section 25: Lots 3 through 6 and 11

through 14;

316.37 acres

T.44N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 35: Lots 3 through 6 and 11

through 14;

333.10 acres

Total: 1,634.18 acres

TBCC estimates that these 1,634.18

acres contain approximately 216

million tons of in-place coal. The

Alternative 2 reconfiguration of the

Little Thunder LBA Tract, therefore,

results in a tract comprising

approximately 5,083.50 acres

containing approximately 695.3

million tons of in-place coal. Not all

of the coal included in this tract

would be mineable, however. Some of

the coal added by BLM under

Alternative 2 is located within the

BNSF & UP railroad ROW. This coal

will not be mined because it has been

determined to be unsuitable for

mining according to the coal leasing

unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 3461).

Although the coal included in these

lands within the ROW could not be

mined, these lands would be included

in this alternative tract configuration

to allow maximum recovery of all the

mineable reserves adjacent to the

ROW and to comply with the coal

leasing regulations, which do not

allow leasing of less than 10-acre

aliquot parts. TBCC estimates that

approximately 113 million tons of

coal would be produced from these

additional 1,634.18 acres. The

reconfigured tract would contain

about 553 million tons of recoverable

coal.

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in each tract

offered for sale as part of the fair

market value determination process.

The fact that the coal within the ROW

cannot all be recovered would be

considered by BLM in the fair market

value determination for the LBA tract.

BLM’s estimate of the recoverable

federal coal reserves and average

quality of the coal included in each

tract will be published in the sale

notice for each tract that is offered for

sale. Some general coal quality

information in the area of the LBA

tracts considered in this EIS is

included in Section 3.3 of this

document.
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-23

2.3.4 Little Thunder LBA Tract

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3 for the Little

Thunder LBA Tract, BLM is

considering splitting the tract

described under Alternative 2 and

offering two tracts for competitive

sale. The two tracts would each be

subject to standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

and each tract if they are offered for

sale (Appendix D). Alternative 3 for

the Little Thunder LBA Tract assumes

that ALC would be the successful

bidder on the two tracts if lease sales

are held and that the tracts would be

mined as maintenance leases for the

Black Thunder Mine. Other

assumptions would be the same as

for the Little Thunder LBA Tract

Proposed Action.

Under Alternative 3, BLM is

considering a division of the tract

described in Alternative 2 into a north

tract and a south tract in order to

increase competitive interest in the

federal coal. The tract described in

Alternative 2 would be split into two

tracts roughly along State Highway

450 and the BNSF & UP railroad spur

to the Jacobs Ranch and Black

Thunder Mines (Figure 2-2). The two

tracts would be offered for sale at

separate, competitive sealed bid sales.

Both the north and south tracts could

be offered for sale at this time, or the

south tract could be offered for sale at

this time and the north tract could

potentially be combined with other

unleased federal coal to create a

larger tract. This north tract would

potentially be of competitive interest

to more than one mine.

The lands that BLM is considering

including in the north tract are:

T.44N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 35: Lots 1 through 16;

662.02 acres

T.43N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 2: Lots 5 through 14;

403.47 acres

Total: 1,065.49 acres

The lands that BLM is considering

including in the south tract are:

T.43N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 1: Lot 16(S1⁄2);

19.81 acres

Section 2: Lots 15 through 20;

238.64 acres

Section 11: Lots 1 through 16;

621.35 acres

Section 12: Lots 2(W1⁄2, SE1⁄4), 3

through 16;

602.60 acres

Section 13: Lots 1 through 16;

648.28 acres

Section 14: NW1⁄4 NW1⁄4, Lots 1

through 15;

624.66 acres

Section 24: Lots 1 through 16;

630.52 acres

Section 25: Lots 1 through 16;

632.15 acres

Total: 4,018.01 acres

The Alternative 3 reconfiguration of

the Little Thunder LBA Tract,
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-24 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

therefore, results in a north tract

comprising 1,065.49 acres containing

approximately 155.7 million tons of

in-place coal, and a south tract

comprising 4,018.01 acres containing

approximately 539.6 million tons of

in-place coal, according to

information provided by the

applicant. As discussed under

Alternative 2, not all of the coal

included in the north and south

tracts would be mineable. Some of

the coal included in the two tracts is

located within the BNSF & UP

railroad ROW. This coal would not be

mined because it has been

determined to be unsuitable for

mining according to the coal leasing

unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 3461).

Although the coal included in these

lands could not be mined, the lands

would be included in the Alternative

3 tract configuration to allow

maximum recovery of all the mineable

reserves adjacent to the ROW and to

comply with the coal leasing

regulations, which do not allow

leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot

parts. TBCC estimates that

approximately 111.9 million tons of

coal would be produced from the

1,065.49-acre north tract and

approximately 441.1 million tons of

coal would be produced from the

4,018.01-acre south tract.

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in each tract

offered for sale as part of the fair

market value determination process.

The fact that the coal within the ROW

cannot all be recovered would be

considered by BLM in the fair market

value determination for the LBA

tracts. BLM’s estimate of the

recoverable federal coal reserves and

average quality of the coal included in

each tract will be published in the

sale notice for each tract that is

offered for sale. Some general coal

quality information in the area of the

LBA tracts considered in this EIS is

included in Section 3.3 of this

document.

2.4 Proposed Action and

Alternatives for the West

Roundup LBA Tract

2.4.1 West Roundup LBA Tract

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action for the

West Roundup LBA Tract, the tract as

applied for by TCC would be offered

for lease at a separate, sealed-bid,

competitive lease sale, subject to

standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

(Appendix D). The boundaries of the

tract would be consistent with the

tract configuration proposed in the

West Roundup LBA Tract lease

application (Figure 2-3). As applied

for, the West Roundup LBA Tract

consists of two tracts separated by

the North Rochelle Mine railroad spur
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-25

Figure 2-3
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-26 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

and facilities and a county road (Reno

Road). The Proposed Action assumes

that TCC will be the successful bidder

on the West Roundup LBA Tract if it

is offered for sale.

The legal description of the proposed

West Roundup LBA Tract coal lease

lands as applied for by TCC under the

Proposed Action is as follows:

T.42N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 6: Lots 8 through 19,

20(N1⁄2), 21(N1⁄2), 22(N1⁄2), and 23(N1⁄2);

539.28 acres

Section 7: Lots 5(S1⁄2), 6(S1⁄2), 7(S1⁄2),

8(S1⁄2), 9 through 14;

303.15 acres

Section 8: Lots 1(SW1⁄4), 2(S1⁄2),

3(S1⁄2), 4(S1⁄2), 5 through 12;

384.09 acres

Section 9: Lots 5(SW1⁄4), 11, 12, and

14;

130.39 acres

T.43N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 31: Lots 13 through 20;

314.23 acres

T.42N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 1: Lots 5, 6, and 11 through

13;

199.51 acres

Total surface area applied for:

1,870.65 acres

Land descriptions and acreage are

based on the BLM Status of Public

Domain Land and Mineral Titles

approved Coal Plats as of July 26,

2000, January 9, 2001 and May 9,

2001.

As indicated in Chapter 1, Section

1.4, no lands in the West Roundup

LBA Tract as applied for were found

to be unsuitable for mining. The tract

as applied for includes approximately

1,870.65 mineable acres. TCC

estimates that it includes

approximately 173.2 million tons of

in-place coal reserves and that about

155.9 million tons of that coal would

be recoverable assuming a recovery

factor of 90 percent.

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in the tract

as part of the fair market value

determination process. BLM’s

estimate of the mineable reserves and

average quality of the coal included in

the tract will be published in the sale

notice if the tract is offered for sale.

Some coal quality information in the

area of the West Roundup LBA Tract

is included in Section 3.3 of this

document.

The approved North Rochelle Mine

Permit 550 Term T5 includes

monitoring and mitigation measures

for the North Rochelle Mine that are

required by SMCRA and Wyoming

State Law. If the West Roundup LBA

Tract is acquired by TCC, these

monitoring and mitigation measures

would be extended to cover

operations on the LBA tract when the

coal mining permit is revised to

include the tract. This permit would

have to be approved before mining

operations could take place on the

tract. These monitoring and
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-27

mitigation measures are considered to

be part of the Proposed Action and

other action alternatives during the

leasing process because they are

regulatory requirements.

The West Roundup LBA Tract would

be mined as an integral part of the

North Rochelle Mine under the

Proposed Action. The North Rochelle

Mine is already operating under both

an approved state mining permit and

MLA mining plan. Both the approved

state mining permit and MLA mining

plan would require amendment to

include the LBA tract. Since the West

Roundup LBA Tract would be an

extension of the existing North

Rochelle Mine, the facilities and

infrastructure would be the same as

those identified in the WDEQ/LQD

Mine Permit 550 Term T5 approved

August 29, 2000 and the BLM

Resource Recovery and Protection

Plan approved July 12, 2000 for the

North Rochelle Mine.

TCC’s currently approved air quality

permit allows up to 35 million tons of

coal per year to be mined through

year 2018. The North Rochelle Mine

produced 8.2 million tons of coal in

1999, 17.2 million tons of coal in

2000, and 23.9 million tons of coal in

2001 (Wyoming State Inspector of

Mines 1999, 2000, and 2001). Under

the No Action Alternative, the North

Rochelle Mine would mine its

remaining 283 million tons of in-place

coal reserves in approximately 7.3

years at an average production rate of

35 mmtpy. Under the Proposed

Action, TCC currently estimates that

average annual production would be

35 million tons and the life of the

mine would be extended by

approximately 4.5 years.

If TCC acquires the West Roundup

LBA Tract as applied for, they

estimate that a total of 410.9 million

tons of coal would be mined after

January 1, 2002, with an estimated

155.9 million tons coming from the

LBA tract. This estimate of

recoverable reserves assumes that

about 10 percent of the coal would be

lost under normal mining practices,

based on historical recovery factors at

the North Rochelle Mine. As of

December 31, 2001, 49.3 million tons

of coal had been mined from within

the current permitted area of the

mine.

Topsoil removal with heavy

equipment would proceed ahead of

overburden removal. Whenever

possible, direct haulage to a

reclamation area would be done, but

due to scheduling, some topsoil

would be temporarily stockpiled. As

required by the reclamation plan,

heavy equipment again would be used

to haul and distribute the stockpiled

topsoil.

The North Rochelle Mine is one of

several mines currently operating in

the PRB where the coal seams are

notably thick and the overburden is

relatively thin. Overburden removal

has been and would continue to be by

truck/shovel operation and the

combination of cast-blasting and

dragline. Most overburden and all

coal is drilled and blasted to facilitate

efficient excavation. The design of the

North Rochelle Mine seeks to confine

disturbance to the active mine blocks.

As overburden is removed, most is
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-28 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

directly placed into areas where coal

has already been removed. Once the

overburden has been replaced it is

sampled and verified to be suitable

overburden material, then graded to

approximate final contour, ripped and

finally topsoiled. If necessary,

material that is found to be

unsuitable would be adequately

covered with suitable overburden

material prior to grading and

topsoiling. Elevations consistent with

an approved PMT plan would be

established as quickly as possible.

Under certain conditions, the PMT

may not be immediately achievable.

This occurs when there is an excess

of material that may require

temporary stockpiling, when there is

insufficient material available from

current overburden removal

operations, or when future mining

could redisturb an area already

mined. Once a seedbed has been

formed, vegetation would be

reestablished that is consistent with

the postmining land use.

Coal would be produced from two

seams of the Wyodak bed, a thin,

discontinuous rider seam (referred to

as the “D” seam or Upper Wyodak)

and a uniformly thick main seam

(referred to as the “E” seam or Middle

Wyodak), at several working faces to

enable blending of the coal to meet

customer quality requirements, to

comply with BLM lease requirements

for maximum economic recovery of

the coal resource, and to optimize

coal removal efficiency with available

equipment. The “D” seam (Upper

Wyodak) fluctuates greatly in

thickness and quality throughout the

mine area. Therefore, the recoverable

portion of the “D” seam is highly

variable, thus reducing the overall

recovery factor for the coal reserves to

approximately 90 percent. Mining

efficiency and air quality protection

are and would continue to be

facilitated by extensive use of near-pit

crushers and overland conveyors.

Coal would be loaded with electricpowered shovels or hydraulic frontend loaders into off-highway haul

trucks for transport to crushing

facilities. Coal haul roads, crushing

facilities and conveyors would be

temporary structures built within the

mine area. All coal transfer location

points and crushing operations are

controlled by baghouse-type dust

collectors, and dry mist foggers are

being reviewed for permitting at

several locations throughout the

mine. Truck dumping operations use

stilling sheds to control fugitive dust.

While sufficient capacity exists,

future changes in facilities may be

constructed to improve operating

efficiency and air quality protection.

Additional near-pit crusher/conveyor

systems would be constructed and

moved as the mining operation

progresses. A new truck

dump/crusher and conveyor system

was added in 2001.

Current full-time employment at the

North Rochelle Mine is approximately

224. If the LBA tract is acquired,

TCC anticipates that the average

annual coal production would be

approximately 35 million tons with

employment increasing to 400

persons.

The West Roundup LBA Tract was

applied for by TCC, but it is also

located adjacent to the Black Thunder

Mine, operated by TBCC. TBCC may
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-29

also be in a position to mine the West

Roundup LBA Tract as a maintenance

lease under the Proposed Action and

Alternatives 2 and 3. If ALC acquires

the tract, the rate of coal production,

mining sequence, equipment, and

facilities would be different than if

TCC acquired the tract as a

maintenance lease, as described

above. However, the area of

disturbance and the impacts of

removing the coal would not be

substantially different from the area

of disturbance and the impacts of

TCC mining the tract. 

2.4.2 West Roundup LBA Tract

Alternative 1

Under the West Roundup LBA Tract

Alternative 1, the No-Action

Alternative, the application to lease

the coal included in the West

Roundup LBA Tract would be

rejected, the tract would not be

offered for competitive sale, and the

coal included in the tract would not

be mined. This would not affect

permitted mining activities and

employment on the existing leases at

the North Rochelle Mine and would

not preclude an application to lease

the coal included in the West

Roundup LBA Tract in the future.

Portions of the surface of the West

Roundup LBA Tract could be

disturbed due to overstripping to

allow coal to be removed from the

adjacent existing leases. 

Approximately 3,443.5 acres of

federal coal are currently leased at

the North Rochelle Mine and a total of

about 5,288 acres of land will be

affected in mining the current leases.

Under the No Action Alternative, TCC

estimates that the average annual

production at the North Rochelle

Mine after 2001 will be 35 million

tons, and average employment will be

224 persons. 

In order to compare the economic and

environmental consequences of

mining these lands versus not mining

them, this EIS was prepared under

the assumption that an LBA tract

would not be mined in the foreseeable

future if the No Action Alternative for

that tract is selected. However,

selection of this alternative would not

preclude leasing and mining of a

rejected tract in the future, either as

a maintenance tract for existing

operations or as a new start mine. 

2.4.3 West Roundup LBA Tract

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2 for the West

Roundup LBA Tract, BLM would

reconfigure the tract and hold a

competitive coal sale for the lands

included in the reconfigured tract and

issue a lease to the successful bidder.

The modified tract would be subject

to standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

and this tract if it is offered for sale

(Appendix D). Alternative 2 for the

West Roundup LBA Tract assumes

that TCC would be the successful

bidder on the tract if a lease sale is

held and that the tract would be

mined as a maintenance lease for the

North Rochelle Mine. Other

assumptions are the same as for the

Proposed Action.

As applied for, the West Roundup

LBA Tract consists of two noncontiguous tracts of federal coal
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-30 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

separated by the North Rochelle Mine

railroad spur, the North Rochelle

Mine facilities, and a county road

known as Reno Road (Figure 1-4).

Under Alternative 2 for the West

Roundup LBA Tract, the size of the

tract as applied for would be

increased to include the area between

the two tracts as applied for (Figure

2-3). BLM is considering including

this coal to prevent some or all of the

coal in this area from being bypassed.

As discussed in Section 1.4, USFS

has determined that lands under a

USFS special use permit for ancillary

facilities at the North Rochelle Mine

are unsuitable for mining under

Unsuitability Criterion 2. The area

that would be added under this

alternative is included in the USFS

special use permit. It would not be

economically feasible to move the

railroad spur, county road, and mine

facilities to recover all the coal at this

time. However, BLM is considering

including this area in the tract

because it may be possible to recover

portions of the coal reserves in this

area when the rest of the tract is

mined if it is leased at this time. It

may also be economically feasible at

some point in the future to move the

road and railroad spur and recover

the coal if it is leased. The lands that

BLM is considering adding to the

tract are:

T.42N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 4: Lots 17(S1⁄2 S1⁄2) and

18(S1⁄2 S1⁄2);

19.53 acres

Section 5: Lots 17(S1⁄2), 18(S1⁄2),

19(S1⁄2 S1⁄2), and 20(S1⁄2 S1⁄2);

58.33 acres

Section 6: Lots 20(S1⁄2), 21(S1⁄2),

22(S1⁄2), and 23(S1⁄2);

77.35 acres

Section 7: Lots 5(N1⁄2), 6(N1⁄2), 7(N1⁄2),

and 8(N1⁄2);

77.18 acres

Section 8: Lots 1(N1⁄2, SE1⁄4), 2(N1⁄2),

3(N1⁄2), and 4(N1⁄2);

87.86 acres

Section 9: Lots 1 through 4, 5(N1⁄2

SE1⁄4), 6 through 8;

305.89 acres

Total: 626.14 acres

TCC estimates that these 626.14

acres contain approximately 51.4

million tons of mineable coal. The

Alternative 2 reconfiguration of the

West Roundup LBA Tract, therefore,

results in a tract comprising

approximately 2,496.79 acres

containing approximately 224.6

million tons of in-place coal. Using

TCC’s projected recovery factor of 90

percent, the reconfigured tract would

contain about 202.1 million tons of

recoverable coal, assuming that the

coal underlying the railroad spur and

facilities would be economically

recoverable at some point in the

future. 

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in the tract

as part of the fair market value

determination process. The fact that

the coal underlying the railroad spur,

county road, and mine facilities

cannot be economically recovered at

this time would be considered by BLM

in the fair market value determination

for the LBA tract. BLM’s estimate of

the recoverable reserves and average

quality of the coal included in the
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-31

tract will be published in the sale

notice if the tract is offered for sale.

Some coal quality information in the

area of the West Roundup LBA Tract

is included in Section 3.3 of this

document.

On February 9, 2001, TCC filed an

application to modify an existing

federal coal lease (WYW-127221) at

the North Rochelle Mine by adding

155.90 acres to the southern end of

that lease. BLM is processing that

lease modification application. In the

event that the lands included in the

lease modification application are not

added to federal coal lease WYW127221 as proposed, BLM will

consider offering them, as well as the

616.35 acres described above, in

West Roundup LBA Tract Alternative

2. The additional lands that would be

added to the tract as applied for

under Alternative 2 if lease WYW127221 is not modified are:

T.42N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 4: Lots 17(N1⁄2, N1⁄2 S1⁄2), and

18(N1⁄2, N1⁄2 S1⁄2);

58.58 acres

Section 5: Lots 17(N1⁄2), 18(N1⁄2), 19

(N1⁄2, N1⁄2 S1⁄2), and 20 (N1⁄2, N1⁄2 S1⁄2);

97.32 acres

Total: 155.90 acres

TCC estimates that these 155.90

acres contain approximately 13

million tons of mineable coal.

Therefore, if lease WYW-127221 is not

modified, the Alternative 2

reconfiguration of the West Roundup

LBA Tract results in a tract

comprising approximately 2,652.69

acres containing approximately 237.6

million tons of in-place coal. Using

TCC’s projected recovery factor of 90

percent, the reconfigured tract would

contain about 213.8 million tons of

recoverable coal, assuming that the

coal underlying the railroad spur and

facilities would be economically

recoverable at some point in the

future. 

2.4.4 West Roundup LBA Tract

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3 for the West

Roundup LBA Tract, BLM would

reconfigure the tract and hold a

competitive coal sale for the lands

included in the reconfigured tract and

issue a lease to the successful bidder.

The modified tract would be subject

to standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

and this tract if it is offered for sale

(Appendix D). Alternative 3 for the

West Roundup LBA Tract assumes

that TCC would be the successful

bidder on the tract if a lease sale is

held and that the tract would be

mined as a maintenance lease for the

North Rochelle Mine. Other

assumptions are the same as for the

Proposed Action.

Under Alternative 3 for the West

Roundup LBA Tract, the size of the

tract as applied for would be

increased. The area between the two

tracts as applied for would be added

as under Alternative 2, along with

additional lands to the west and

south of the tract as applied for

(Figure 2-3). The BLM is considering

adding additional lands to the south

and west to enhance the value of the

remaining unleased federal coal in
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-32 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

this area. As Under Alternative 2, the

area between the two tracts that

would be added under this alternative

is included in the USFS special use

permit, which USFS has determined

to be unsuitable for mining.

However, it may be possible to recover

portions of coal that would be added

under the North Rochelle Mine

railroad spur, North Rochelle Mine

facilities, and Reno Road when the

rest of the tract is mined. The

additional lands that BLM is

considering adding to the tract under

this alternative are:

T.42N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 4: Lots 17(S1⁄2 S1⁄2), and

18(S1⁄2 S1⁄2);

19.53 acres

Section 5: Lots 17(S1⁄2), 18(S1⁄2),

19(S1⁄2 S1⁄2), and 20(S1⁄2 S1⁄2);

58.33 acres

Section 6: Lots 20(S1⁄2), 21(S1⁄2),

22(S1⁄2), and 23(S1⁄2);

77.35 acres

Section 7: Lots 5(N1⁄2), 6(N1⁄2), 7(N1⁄2),

and 8(N1⁄2);

77.18 acres

Section 8: Lots 1(N1⁄2, SE1⁄4), 2(N1⁄2),

3(N1⁄2), 4(N1⁄2), and 16;

127.87 acres

Section 9: Lots 1 through 4, 5(N1⁄2,

SE1⁄4), 6 through 8, and 13;

346.09 acres

T.42N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 1: Lots 7 through 10, 14, 15,

19, and 20;

317.03 acres

Total: 1,023.38 acres

TCC estimates that these 1,023.38

acres contain approximately 101

million tons of in-place coal. The

Alternative 3 reconfiguration of the

West Roundup LBA Tract, therefore,

results in a tract comprising

approximately 2,894.03 acres

containing approximately 274.2

million tons of in-place coal. Using

TCC’s projected recovery factor of 90

percent, the reconfigured tract would

contain about 246.8 million tons of

recoverable coal, assuming that the

coal underlying the railroad spur and

facilities would be economically

recoverable at some point in the

future.

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in the tract

as part of the fair market value

determination process. The fact that

the coal underlying the railroad spur,

county road, and mine facilities

cannot be economically recovered

would be considered by BLM in the

fair market value determination for

the LBA tract. BLM’s estimate of the

recoverable reserves and average

quality of the coal included in the

tract will be published in the sale

notice if the tract is offered for sale.

Some coal quality information in the

area of the West Roundup LBA Tract

is included in Section 3.3 of this

document.

Alternative 3 for the West Roundup

LBA Tract also would include the

lease modification area discussed in

Section 2.4.3 in the tract that would

be offered for lease. On February 9,

2001, TCC filed an application to

modify an existing federal coal lease

(WYW-127221) at the North Rochelle
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-33

Mine by adding 155.90 acres to the

southern end of that lease. BLM is

processing that lease modification

application. In the event that the

lands included in the lease

modification application are not

added to federal coal lease WYW127221 as proposed, BLM will

consider offering them, as well as the

1,023.38 acres described above, in

West Roundup LBA Tract Alternative

3. The additional lands that would be

added to the tract as applied for

under Alternative 3 if lease WYW127221 is not modified:

T.42N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 4: Lots 17(N1⁄2, N1⁄2 S1⁄2), and

18 (N1⁄2, N1⁄2 S1⁄2);

58.58 acres

Section 5: Lots 17(N1⁄2), 18(N1⁄2), 19

(N1⁄2, N1⁄2 S1⁄2), and 20 (N1⁄2, N1⁄2 S1⁄2);

97.32 acres

Total: 155.90 acres

TCC estimates that these 155.90

acres contain approximately 13

million tons of mineable coal.

Therefore, if lease WYW-127221 is not

modified, the Alternative 3

reconfiguration of the West Roundup

LBA Tract results in a tract

comprising approximately 3,049.93

acres containing approximately 287.2

million tons of in-place coal. Using

TCC’s projected recovery factor of 90

percent, the reconfigured tract would

contain about 258.5 million tons of

recoverable coal, assuming that the

coal underlying the railroad spur and

facilities would be economically

recoverable at some point in the

future. 

2.5 Proposed Action and

Alternatives for the West

Antelope LBA Tract

2.5.1 West Antelope LBA Tract

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action for the

West Antelope LBA Tract, the tract as

applied for by ACC would be offered

for lease at a separate, sealed-bid,

competitive lease sale, subject to

standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

(Appendix D). The boundaries of the

tract would be consistent with the

tract configuration proposed in the

West Antelope LBA Tract lease

application (Figure 2-4). The

Proposed Action assumes that ACC

will be the successful bidder on the

West Antelope LBA Tract if it is

offered for sale.

The legal description of the proposed

West Antelope LBA Tract coal lease

lands as applied for by ACC under the

Proposed Action is as follows:
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-34 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 2-4
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-35

T.40N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Converse

County, Wyoming

Section 3: Lots 15 through 18;

159.78 acres

Section 4: Lots 5 through 20;

487.25 acres

Section 5: Lots 5 through 7, 10

through 15, 19, and 20;

320.84 acres

Section 9: Lot 1;

40.14 acres

Section 10: Lots 3 and 4;

80.65 acres

T.41N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Converse

and Campbell Counties, Wyoming

Section 28: Lots 1 through 16;

649.21 acres

Section 29: Lots 1 through 16;

659.81 acres

Section 32: Lots 1 through 3, 6

through 11, 14 through 16;

486.16 acres

Section 33: Lots 1 through 16;

658.35 acres

Total surface area applied for:

3,542.19 acres

Land descriptions and acreage are

based on the BLM Status of Public

Domain Land and Mineral Titles

approved Coal Plats as of July 26,

2000, May 9, 2001 and September 6,

2001.

As indicated in Chapter 1, Section

1.4, no lands in the West Antelope

LBA Tract were found to be

unsuitable for mining. ACC’s

approved mining plan avoids

disturbing Antelope Creek and an

adjacent buffer zone, so it is assumed

that any coal resources included in

the above described lands that are

beneath Antelope Creek would not be

recovered. ACC estimates that the

tract as applied for includes

approximately 2,755.16 mineable

acres with approximately 293.9

million tons of in-place coal, 245.6

million tons of mineable coal, and

that about 228.4 million tons of that

coal would be recoverable assuming a

recovery factor of 93 percent. 

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in the tract

as part of the fair market value

determination process. The fact that

the coal underlying Antelope Creek

and the adjacent buffer zone will not

be mined would be considered by

BLM in the fair market value

determination for the LBA tract.

BLM’s estimate of the recoverable

reserves and average quality of the

coal included in the tract will be

published in the sale notice if the

tract is offered for sale. Some coal

quality information in the area of the

West Antelope LBA Tract is included

in Section 3.3 of this document.

The approved Antelope Mine Permit

525 Term T6 includes monitoring and

mitigation measures for the Antelope

Mine that are required by SMCRA and

Wyoming State Law. If the West

Antelope LBA Tract is acquired by

ACC, these monitoring and mitigation

measures would be extended to cover

operations on the LBA tract when the

coal mining permit is revised to

include the tract. This permit would

have to be approved before mining

operations could take place on the

tract. These monitoring and

mitigation measures are considered to
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-36 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

be part of the Proposed Action and

other action alternatives during the

leasing process because they are

regulatory requirements.

The West Antelope LBA Tract would

be mined as an integral part of the

Antelope Mine under the Proposed

Action. The Antelope Mine is already

operating under both an approved

state mining permit and MLA mining

plan. Both the approved state mining

permit and MLA mining plan would

require amendment to include the

LBA tract. Since the West Antelope

LBA Tract would be an extension of

the Antelope Mine, the facilities and

infrastructure would be the same as

those identified in the WDEQ/LQD

Mine Permit 525 Term T6 approved

November 3, 1998 and the BLM

Resource Recovery and Protection

Plan approved August 27, 2001 for

the Antelope Mine.

ACC’s currently approved air quality

permit allows up to 32 million tons of

coal per year to be mined through

year 2017. The Antelope Mine

produced 22.7 million tons of coal in

1999, 23 million tons of coal in 2000,

and 24.6 million tons of coal in 2001

(Wyoming State Inspector of Mines

1999, 2000, and 2001). Under the No

Action Alternative, the Antelope Mine

would mine its remaining 347.3

million tons of recoverable coal

reserves in approximately 25 years at

an average annual production rate of

13.9 million tons and at a maximum

production rate of 32 mmtpy. Under

the Proposed Action, ACC currently

estimates that average annual coal

production would be 23 million tons,

the maximum annual production

would be 32 million tons, and the life

of the mine is expected to remain at

25 years.

If ACC acquires the West Antelope

LBA Tract as applied for, they

estimate that a total of 575.7 million

tons of coal would be mined after

January 1, 2002, with an estimated

228.4 million tons coming from the

LBA tract. This estimate of

recoverable reserves assumes that

about seven percent of the coal would

be lost under normal mining

practices, based on historical recovery

factors at the Antelope Mine. As of

December 31, 2001, 169 million tons

of coal had been mined from within

the current permitted area of the

mine.

Topsoil removal with heavy

equipment would proceed ahead of

overburden removal. Whenever

possible, direct haulage to a

reclamation area would be done, but

due to scheduling, some topsoil

would be temporarily stockpiled. As

required by the reclamation plan,

heavy equipment again would be used

to haul and distribute the stockpiled

topsoil.

Overburden has been and would

continue to be removed by dragline

and truck and shovel operations.

Most overburden and all coal is

drilled and blasted to facilitate

efficient excavation. The design of the

Antelope Mine seeks to confine

disturbance to the active mine blocks.

As overburden is removed, most

would be directly placed into areas

where coal has already been removed.

Once the overburden has been

replaced it is sampled and verified to

be suitable overburden material, then
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-37

graded to approximate final contour,

ripped and finally topsoiled. If

necessary, material that is found to

be unsuitable would be adequately

covered with suitable overburden

material prior to grading and

topsoiling. Elevations consistent with

an approved PMT plan would be

established as quickly as possible.

Under certain conditions, the PMT

may not be immediately achievable.

This occurs when there is an excess

of material that may require

temporary stockpiling, when there is

insufficient material available from

current overburden removal

operations, or when future mining

could redisturb an area already

mined. Once a seedbed has been

formed, vegetation would be

reestablished that is consistent with

the postmining land use.

Coal would be produced from as

many as four seams of the primary

Anderson and Canyon beds at several

working faces to enable blending of

the coal to meet customer quality

requirements, to comply with BLM

lease requirements for maximum

economic recovery of the coal

resource, and to optimize coal

removal efficiency with available

equipment. Mining efficiency and air

quality protection are and would

continue to be facilitated by extensive

use of near-pit crushers and overland

conveyors from the crushers to the

storage and loadout facilities. Coal

would be loaded with electric-powered

shovels or hydraulic excavators into

off-highway haul trucks for transport

to crushing facilities. Coal haul

roads, crushing facilities and

conveyors would be temporary

structures built within the mine area.

All coal transfer location points and

crushing operations are controlled by

baghouse-type dust collectors or

PECs. The truck dumping operations

use stilling sheds to control fugitive

dust and the overland conveyors are

covered by dust hoods. While

sufficient capacity exists, future

changes in facilities may be

constructed to improve operating

efficiency and air quality protection.

The conveyor systems would be

extended to reach each of the various

mine areas if ACC acquires the West

Antelope LBA Tract.

Current full-time employment at the

Antelope Mine is 215. If the LBA

tract is acquired, ACC anticipates

that the average annual coal

production would be approximately

23 million tons, and no additional

employment would be expected.

2.5.2 West Antelope LBA Tract

Alternative 1

Under the West Antelope LBA Tract

Alternative 1, the No-Action

Alternative, the application to lease

the coal included in the West

Antelope LBA Tract would be rejected,

the tract would not be offered for

competitive sale, and the coal

included in the tract would not be

mined. This would not affect

permitted mining activities and

employment on the existing leases at

the Antelope Mine and would not

preclude an application to lease the

coal included in the West Antelope

LBA Tract in the future. Portions of

the surface of the West Antelope LBA

Tract could be disturbed due to

overstripping to allow coal to be
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-38 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

removed from the adjacent existing

leases. 

Approximately 8,019.2 acres of

federal coal are currently leased at

the Antelope Mine and a total of

about 8,821 acres of land will be

affected in mining the current leases.

Under the No Action Alternative, ACC

estimates that the average annual

production at the Antelope Mine after

2001 will be 13.9 million tons, and

average employment will be 215

persons.

In order to compare the economic and

environmental consequences of

mining these lands versus not mining

them, this EIS was prepared under

the assumption that an LBA tract

would not be mined in the foreseeable

future if the No Action Alternative for

that tract is selected. However,

selection of this alternative would not

preclude leasing and mining of a

rejected tract in the future, either as

a maintenance tract for existing

operations or as a new start mine. 

2.5.3 West Antelope LBA Tract

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2 for the West

Antelope LBA Tract, BLM would

reconfigure the tract and hold a

competitive coal sale for the lands

included in the reconfigured tract and

issue a lease to the successful bidder.

The modified tract would be subject

to standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

and that tract if it is offered for sale

(Appendix D). Alternative 2 for the

West Antelope LBA Tract assumes

that ACC would be the successful

bidder on the tract if a lease sale is

held and that the tract would be

mined as a maintenance lease for the

Antelope Mine. Other assumptions

are the same as for the Proposed

Action.

BLM is considering an alternate tract

configuration for the West Antelope

LBA Tract in order to avoid creating a

potential bypass situation (Figure 2-

4). Adding the area between the West

Antelope LBA Tract as applied for and

the existing Horse Creek lease (WYW

141435, issued effective December 1,

2000) would enlarge the original

configuration of the West Antelope

LBA Tract. The lands that BLM is

considering adding to the tract are:

T.41N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 22: Lots 2 and 16;

85.20 acres

Section 27: Lots 6 through 11;

250.51 acres

Total: 335.71 acres

The increase to the West Antelope

LBA Tract would be 335.71 acres

containing approximately 27.9 million

tons of in-place coal. The Alternative

2 reconfiguration, therefore, results in

a tract comprising approximately

3,877.90 acres containing

approximately 321.8 million tons of

in-place coal. After eliminating coal

that would not be mined beneath

Antelope Creek and the adjacent

buffer zone, ACC estimates that the

reconfigured tract includes

approximately 3,091 mineable acres

with approximately 273.4 million tons

of mineable coal. Using ACC’s

projected recovery factor of 93
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-39

percent, the reconfigured tract would

contain about 254.3 million tons of

recoverable coal.

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in the tract

as part of the fair market value

determination process. The fact that

the coal underlying Antelope Creek

and the adjacent buffer zone will not

be mined would be considered by

BLM in the fair market value

determination for the LBA tract.

BLM’s estimate of the recoverable

reserves and average quality of the

coal included in the tract will be

published in the sale notice if the

tract is offered for sale. Some coal

quality information in the area of the

West Antelope LBA Tract is included

in Section 3.3 of this document.

2.5.4 West Antelope LBA Tract

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3 for the West

Antelope LBA Tract, BLM is

considering a different tract

configuration. As under Alternative

2, if this tract configuration is

selected BLM would hold a

competitive coal sale and issue a

lease to the successful bidder. The

modified tract would be subject to

standard and special lease

stipulations developed for the PRB

and that tract if it is offered for sale

(Appendix D). Alternative 3 for the

West Antelope LBA Tract assumes

that ACC would be the successful

bidder on the tract if a lease sale is

held and that the tract would be

mined as a maintenance lease for the

Antelope Mine. Other assumptions

would be the same as for the

Proposed Action.

Under this alternative for the West

Antelope LBA Tract, BLM is

considering removing some of the

lands applied for in the northern

portion of the West Antelope LBA

Tract from consideration for leasing

at this time and offering a smaller

tract for competitive sale (Figure 2-4).

The coal that BLM is considering

removing from the tract as applied for

could be combined with the unleased

federal coal in this area to create a

tract which could potentially have

more competitive interest and a

higher fair market value if it is leased

in the future. The lands that BLM is

considering removing from the tract

are:

T.41N., R.71W., 6th P.M., Campbell

County, Wyoming

Section 28: Lots 1 through 8;

332.50 acres

Section 29: Lots 1 through 8, 12, and

13:

410.56 acres

Total: 733.06 acres

ACC estimates that these 733.06

acres contain approximately 91.6

million tons of in-place coal. The

Alternative 3 reconfiguration of the

West Antelope LBA Tract, therefore,

results in a tract comprising

approximately 2,809.13 acres

containing approximately 202.3

million tons of in-place coal,

according to information provided by

the applicant. After eliminating coal

that would not be mined beneath

Antelope Creek and the adjacent
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-40 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

buffer zone, ACC estimates that the

reconfigured tract includes

approximately 2,022.1 mineable acres

with approximately 183.2 million tons

of mineable coal. Using ACC’s

projected recovery factor of 93

percent, the reconfigured tract would

contain about 170.4 million tons of

recoverable coal.

BLM will independently evaluate the

volume and average quality of the

coal resources included in each tract

offered for sale as part of the fair

market value determination process.

The fact that the coal underlying

Antelope Creek and the adjacent

buffer zone will not be mined would

be considered by BLM in the fair

market value determination for the

LBA tract. BLM’s estimate of the

recoverable federal coal reserves and

average quality of the coal included in

each tract will be published in the

sale notice for each tract that is

offered for sale. Some general coal

quality information in the area of the

LBA tracts considered in this EIS is

included in Section 3.3 of this

document.

2.6 Alternatives Considered but

Not Analyzed in Detail

2.6.1 Alternative 4

Under this alternative, as under the

Proposed Action and Alternatives 2

and 3, the BLM would hold a

separate, competitive, sealed-bid sale

for the lands included in one or more

of the LBA tracts. Alternative 4

assumes, however, that the

successful qualified bidder would be

someone other than the applicant and

that this bidder would plan to open a

new mine to develop the coal

resources in one or more of the LBA

tracts (NARO North, NARO South,

Little Thunder, West Roundup, and

West Antelope).

A company or companies acquiring

this coal for one or more new standalone mines would require

considerable initial capital expenses,

including the construction of new

surface facilities (i.e., offices, shops,

warehouses, coal processing facilities,

coal loadout facilities, and rail spur),

extensive baseline data collection,

and development of new mining and

reclamation plans. In addition, a

company or companies acquiring this

coal for one or more new start mines

would have to compete for customers

with established mines in a

competitive market. 

BLM currently estimates that a tract

would potentially need to include as

much as 500 to 600 million tons of

coal in order to attract a buyer

interested in opening a new mine in

the Wyoming PRB. This is based on

the assumptions that an operator

would construct facilities capable of

producing 30 mmtpy to take

advantage of the economies of scale

offered by the coal deposits in the

PRB and that 20 to 30 years of coal

reserves would be needed to justify

the expense of building the facilities

described above. Given these

assumptions, it is questionable

whether most of the tracts under the
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-41

Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 or 3

potentially include sufficient coal

resources to support a new mine.

The potential difficulty in obtaining

an air quality permit is another issue

which could discourage new mine

starts in the PRB. A new mine would

create a new source of air quality

impacts. As discussed in Chapter 3,

the WDEQ/AQD administers a

permitting program to assist the

agency in managing the State's air

resources. Under this program,

anyone planning to construct, modify,

or use a facility capable of emitting

designated pollutants into the

atmosphere must obtain an air

quality permit to construct. Coal

mines fall into this category.

In order to obtain a construction

permit, an operator may be required

to demonstrate that the proposed

activities will not increase air

pollutant levels above annual

standards established by the

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and

Regulations (WDEQ/AQD 2000). Due

to the current levels of mineral

development (coal and oil and gas) in

the Wyoming PRB, the Wyoming air

quality standards have been exceeded

several times recently in the southern

PRB. Therefore, it may be difficult for

an operator planning on opening a

new mine to demonstrate that new

operations would not result in air

pollution levels that are above annual

Wyoming standards. 

In view of the issues discussed above,

development of new mines on one or

more of the LBA tracts included in

this EIS is considered unlikely and

this alternative is not analyzed in

detail.

The environmental impacts of

developing one or more new mines to

recover the coal resources in one or

more of these LBA tracts would be

greater than under the Proposed

Action, the No Action Alternative, or

Alternatives 2 or 3 because of the

need for new facilities, new rail lines,

new employment, and the creation of

additional sources of particulates

(dust). In the event that one or more

lease sales are held and the

applicants are not the successful

bidders, the successful bidder or

bidders would be required to submit

detailed mining and reclamation

plans for approval before any of the

tracts could be mined, and this NEPA

analysis would be reviewed and

supplemented as necessary prior to

approval of those mining and

reclamation plans.

2.6.2 Alternative 5

Under Alternative 5, the BLM would

delay the sale of one or more of the

LBA tracts as applied for. Delaying

the sale of one or more of the tracts

would allow CBM resources to be

more completely recovered prior to

mining. Also, the prices received for

coal from the PRB have generally

been decreasing in recent years. If

coal lease sales are delayed until

prices increase, the bonus and royalty

payments to the government might be

higher. Under this alternative, it is

assumed that one or more of the

tracts could be developed later as

maintenance tracts or new start

mines, depending on how long the

sales were delayed.
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-42 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

CBM wells presently exist or are

proposed on oil and gas leases inside

or adjacent to the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts as proposed. If one or more of

the LBA tracts included in this EIS

are leased, mining cannot occur until

the lessees have approved mining and

reclamation permits and MLA mining

plans, which generally takes several

years. This would allow time for a

large portion of the CBM resources to

be recovered from the tracts.

There are two major sources of

revenue to state and federal

governments from the leasing and

mining of federal coal: 1) the

competitive bonus bid paid at the

time the coal is leased, and 2) federal

and state royalties and taxes collected

when the coal is sold. This

alternative could potentially increase

the fair market value of the coal

resources in one or more of the LBA

tracts, which could increase the

bonus bid when the coal is leased.

The price paid for coal from

northeastern Wyoming decreased by

more than $1.00 per ton from 1992 to

2000, while production of low sulfur

PRB coal increased annually. Prices

for PRB coal increased slightly in

2000 and 2001, and are projected to

remain stable or increase slightly

from 2002 through 2007 (WSGS

2002a). There is no assurance that

delaying one or more of the sales

would result in a higher coal price or

a higher bonus bid.

The fair market value of these tracts

and the resulting bonus payment to

the government could increase if one

or more lease sales are postponed

and if PRB coal prices increase, but

the postponement would not

necessarily lead to higher royalty or

tax income to the state or federal

governments. Royalty and tax

payments increase automatically

when coal prices increase because

they are collected at the time the coal

is sold, but they cannot be collected

until the coal is leased and permitted

and that takes several years. If

leasing is delayed, then by the time

the coal is mined, the higher coal

prices may or may not persist. If the

higher coal prices do persist, they

may enable the coal lessee to

negotiate longer term contracts at

higher prices, which would result in

longer term, higher royalty and tax

revenues. On the other hand, if the

existing mining operations run out of

coal reserves before prices rise, they

may have to shut down their

operations before additional coal can

be leased and permitted for mining.

In that case, the fair market value of

the coal may actually drop because

the added expense of reopening a

mine or starting a new mine would

have to be factored into the fair

market value. 

Other considerations include the

value of leaving the mineable coal for

future development versus the value

of making low-sulfur coal available

now, in anticipation of cleaner fuel

sources being developed in the future.

Continued leasing of PRB coal

enables coal-fired power plants to

meet Clean Air Act requirements

without constructing new plants,

revamping existing plants, or

switching to existing alternative fuels,

which would probably significantly
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-43

increase power costs for individuals

and businesses. If cleaner fuel

sources are developed in the future,

they could be phased in with less

economic impact to the public. 

A range of the potential future

economic benefits of delaying leasing

until coal prices rise could be

quantified in an economic analysis,

but the benefits would have to be

discounted to the present, which

would make them similar to the

Proposed Action and Alternatives 2

and 3.

The environmental impacts of mining

the coal at a later time as part of one

or more existing mines would be

expected to be similar and about

equal to the Proposed Action,

Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. If new

mine starts are required to mine the

coal in these tracts, the

environmental impacts would be

expected to be greater than if the

tracts were mined as extensions of

existing mines.

2.7 Comparison of Alternatives

The locations of the Proposed Action

and Alternatives 2 and 3 for the

NARO North and NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts are shown on

Figures 2-1 through 2-4, respectively.

A summary comparison of projected

coal production, surface disturbance,

mine life, and federal and state

revenues for the Proposed Action and

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for NARO

North and NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts are the

presented in Tables 2-1 through 2-4,

respectively.

Table 2-5 presents a comparative

summary of the direct and indirect

environmental impacts of

implementing each alternative as

compared to the No Action

Alternative for all five LBA tracts. The

No Action Alternative assumes

completion of currently permitted

mining at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex for

comparison to the NARO North and

NARO South LBA Tracts, the

currently permitted mining at the

Black Thunder Mine for comparison

to the Little Thunder LBA Tract, the

currently permitted mining at the

North Rochelle Mine for comparison

to the West Roundup LBA Tract, and

the currently permitted mining at the

Antelope Mine for comparison to the

West Antelope LBA Tract. Table 2-6

presents a comparative summary of

cumulative environmental impacts of

implementing each alternative for all

five LBA tracts. The environmental

consequences of the Proposed Action
2-44 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS Table 2-1. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, and Mine Life for 

NARO South LBA Tracts and North Antelope/Rochelle Complex. Item No Action Alternative (Existing North Antelope/Rochelle Complex) Added by Proposed Action Added by Alternative 2 

In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/02) 952 mmt 564 mmt 710 mmt Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/02)1 904.4 mmt 506.9 mmt 613.9 mmt 

Coal Mined Through 2001 643 mmt — — Lease Area2 14,895.5 ac 4,503.02 ac 5,571.19 ac 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 20,410 ac 5,590 ac 6,275 ac 

Permit Area2 27,187 ac 21,035 ac 21,835 ac 

Average Annual Post-2001 Coal Production 75 mmt 15 mmt 15 mmt 

Maximum Annual Post-2001 Coal Production (years 2004-2006) 105 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt Remaining Life Of Mine (post- 2001) 12 yrs 4 yrs 5.5 yrs Average No. of Employees (at maximum production rate) 1,175 10 10 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2001)3 $ 994.8 million $ 557.6 million $ 675.3 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2001)4 $ 745.5 million $ 421.8 million $ 514.4 million 

1 Assumes 95 percent recovery of leased coal (with the exception of the NARO South Tract as proposed, which is e

recovery of leased coal; the NARO South Alternative 2 Tract, which is estimated to be 79 percent recovery of leasAlternative 3 Tract, which is estimated to be 91 percent recovery of leased coal).

2 For the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the disturbed acreage exceeds the leased acreage because 

reduction, topsoil removal and other activities outside the lease boundaries. When added to the existing mine, the 

leased or disturbed areas to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow easily defin

Permit areas under Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are the anticipated permit amendment baseline st

3 Projected revenue to the State of Wyoming is $1.10 per ton of coal sold and includes income from severance tax, 

taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming's share of federal royalty payments and bonus bids (University of Wyo

4 Federal revenues are based on $5.00 per ton price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent 

share, plus $0.35 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus State’s 50 percent share, plus $5.00 recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.0 percent, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.26 per ton (based o

× amount of in-place coal minus State’s 50 percent share.
South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-45 2-45 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

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

Tract and Black Thunder Mine. Item No Action Alternative (Existing Black Thunder Mine) Added by Proposed Action Added by Alternative 2 Added by Alternative 3 (North Tract) 

In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/02) 968.7 mmt 479.3 mmt 695.3 mmt 155.7 mmt Recoverable Coal (as of 1/1/02)1 920.3 mmt 440 mmt 553 mmt 111.9 mmt 

Coal Mined Through 2001 699.9 mmt — — — Lease Area2 12,772.9 ac 3,449.32 ac 5,083.5 ac 1,065.49 ac 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 18,476 ac 5,424 ac 6,577 ac 1,382 ac 

Permit Area2 21,238 ac 7,678 ac 7,678 ac 1,612.4 ac 

Average Annual Post-2001 Coal Production 38.3 mmt 4.2 mmt 4.2 mmt 4.2 mmt 

Remaining Life Of Mine (post- 2001) 24 yrs 8 yrs 10.7 yrs 0.3 yrs Average No. of Employees 600 0 0 0 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2001)3 $ 1,012.3 million $ 484.0 million $ 608.3 million $ 123.1 million 

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2001)4 $ 758.6 million $ 364.8 million $ 470.6 million $ 97.2 million 

1 Assumes 95 percent recovery of leased coal for the No Action Alternative, 92 percent recovery of leased coal for Prop

recovery of leased coal for Alternative 2; 71.9 percent recovery of leased coal for Alternative 3, North Tract; and 81.8 

coal for Alternative 3, South Tract.

2 For the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the disturbed acreage exceeds the leased acreage because 

reduction, topsoil removal and other activities outside the lease boundaries. When added to the existing mine, the 

leased or disturbed areas to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow easily defin

Permit areas under Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are the anticipated permit amendment baseline st

3 Projected revenue to the State of Wyoming is $1.10 per ton of coal sold and includes income from severance tax, 

taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming's share of federal royalty payments and bonus bids (University of Wyo

4 Federal revenues are based on $5.00 per ton price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent 

share, plus $0.35 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus State’s 50 percent share, plus $5.00 recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.0 percent, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.26 per ton (based o× amount of in-place coal minus State’s 50 percent share.
Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, and

Mine Life for West Roundup LBA Tract and North Rochelle Mine.

Item

No Action

Alternativ

e

(Existing

North

Rochelle

Mine)

Added by

 Proposed

Action

Added by

Alternativ

e 2

Added by

Alternative

2

Plus Lease

WYW127221

Modificatio

n

Added by

Alternative

3

Added by

Alternative

3

Plus Lease

WYW127221

Modificatio

n

In-Place Coal (as of

1/1/02)

283 mmt 173.2 mmt 224.6 mmt 237.6 mmt 274.2 mmt 287.2 mmt

Recoverable Coal (as of

1/1/02)1

255 mmt 155.9 mmt 202.1 mmt 213.8 mmt 246.8 mmt 258.5 mmt

Coal Mined Through

2001

49.3 mmt — — — — —

Lease Area2 3,443.50

ac

1,870.65

ac

2,496.79

ac

2,652.69 ac 2,894.03 ac 3,049.93 ac

Total Area To Be

Disturbed2

5,288 ac 3,161 ac 3,161 ac 3,161 ac 3,591ac 3,591 ac

Permit Area2

 7,042 ac 3,228.5 ac 3,228.5 ac 3,228.5 ac 3,228.5 ac 3,228.5 ac

Average Annual Post2001 Coal Production 35 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt 0 mmt

Remaining Life Of Mine

(post-2001)

7.3 yrs 4.5 yrs 5.8 yrs 6.1 yrs 6.7 yrs 7.1 yrs

Average No. of

Employees

224 176 176 176 176 176

Total Projected State

Revenues (post-2001)3

$ 280.5

million

$ 171.5

million

$ 222.3

million

$ 235.2

million

$ 271.5

million

$ 284.4

million

Total Projected Federal

Revenues (post-2001)4

$ 212.1

million 

$ 129.7

million

$ 168.1

million

$ 177.9

million

$ 205.3

million

$ 215.1

million

1 Assumes 90 percent recovery of leased coal.

2 For the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the disturbed acreage exceeds the leased acreage because of

the need for highwall reduction, topsoil removal and other activities outside the lease boundaries. When added

to the existing mine, the permit area is larger than leased or disturbed areas to assure that all disturbed lands

are within the permit boundary and to allow easily defined legal land description. Permit areas under Proposed

Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are the anticipated permit amendment baseline study areas.

3 Projected revenue to the State of Wyoming is $1.10 per ton of coal sold and includes income from severance tax,

property and production taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming's share of federal royalty payments and bonus

bids (University of Wyoming 1994).

4 Federal revenues are based on $5.00 per ton price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent

minus State’s 50 percent share, plus $0.35 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus State’s 50

percent share, plus $5.00 per ton price × amount of recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.0 percent, plus bonus

payment on LBA leased coal of $0.26 per ton (based on average of last 11 LBAs) × amount of in-place coal minus

State’s 50 percent share.
South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-47

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Coal Production, Surface Disturbance, and Mine Life for We

and Antelope Mine.

Item

No Action Alternative

(Existing

Antelope Mine)

Added by

 Proposed Action

Added b

Alternativ

In-Place Coal (as of 1/1/02) 553.5 mmt 293.9 mmt 321.8 mMineable Coal (as of 1/1/02) 373.4 mmt 245.6 mmt 273.4 mRecoverable Coal (as of 1/1/02)1 347.3 mmt 228.4 mmt 254.3 m

Coal Mined Through 2001 168.7 mmt — — Lease Area2 8,019.2 ac 3,542.19 ac 3,877.90 

Total Area To Be Disturbed2 8,821.1 ac 3,200 ac 3,500 aPermit Area2 10,848.6 ac 4,328.4 ac 4,328.4 

Average Annual Post-2001 Coal Production 13.9 mmt 9.1 mmt 10.2 mmRemaining Life Of Mine (Post-2001) 25 yrs 0 yr 0 yr Average No. of Employees 215 0 0 Total Projected State Revenues (post-2001)3 $ 382.0 million $ 251.2 million $ 279.7 mi

Total Projected Federal Revenues (post-2001)4 $ 238.8 million $ 195.2 million $ 216.7 mi

1 Assumes 93 percent recovery of leased coal remaining after eliminating coal that won’t be mined beneath Antelope 

zone.

2 For the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3, the disturbed acreage is less than leased acreage because so

Antelope Creek and the adjacent buffer zone and would not be mined. When added to the exiting mine, the permit 

or disturbed areas to assure that all disturbed lands are within the permit boundary and to allow easily defined lega

areas under Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 are anticipated permit amendment baseline study areas.

3 Projected revenue to the State of Wyoming is $1.10 per ton of coal sold and includes income from severance tax, 

taxes, sales and use taxes, and Wyoming's share of federal royalty payments and bonus bids (University of Wyo

4 Federal revenues are based on $5.00 per ton price × amount of recoverable coal × federal royalty of 12.5 percent 

share, plus $0.35 per ton for AML fees × amount of recoverable coal minus State’s 50 percent share, plus $5.00 recoverable coal × black lung tax of 4.0 percent, plus bonus payment on LBA leased coal of $0.26 per ton (based o× amount of in-place coal minus State’s 50 percent share.
2-48 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for the Proposed Actio

3, and the No Action Alternative for the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and 

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACTRESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED A

& A

TOPOGRAPHY & PHYSIOGRAPHY(Applicable to all five tracts)PERMANENT TOPOGRAPHIC MODERATION could result in:Microhabitat reductionHabitat diversity reductionReduction in water runoff and peak flowsIncreased precipitation infiltrationWildlife carrying capacity reductionReduction in erosionEnhanced vegetative productivityPotential acceleration of groundwater recharge

Moderate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, possibly short term on existingmine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, beneficial, long term on existingmine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areas

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

GEOLOGY AND MINERALS(Applicable to all five tracts)SUBSURFACE changes would result in:Removal of coalRemoval and replacement of topsoil and overburdenPhysical characteristic alterations in geologyLoss of CBM3

Moderate, permanent on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, permanent on existing mine areasModerate, permanent on existing mine areas

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

SOILS(Applicable to all five tracts)CHANGES IN PHYSICAL PROPERTIES would include:Increased near-surface bulk densityMore uniformity in soil type, thickness, and textureIncreased uniformity in mixed soils (e.g., texture)Decreased soil loss due to topographic modificationCHANGES IN CHEMICAL PROPERTIES would include:Uniform soil nutrient distributionCHANGES IN BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES would include:Organic matter reductionMicroorganism population reductionExisting plant habitat reduction in soils stockpiled beforeplacement

Moderate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, beneficial, long term on existingmine areasModerate, beneficial, long term on existingmine areasModerate, beneficial, long term on existingmine areasModerate, beneficial, long term on existingmine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areas

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

1 Refer to Section 4.0 and 4.1 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts. 2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise. 3 Most of the CBM reserves could be recovered prior to initiation of mining activity, those reserves not recovered prior to mining would be los
Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for the Proposed Action

3, and the No Action Alternative for the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and 

(Continued).

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACTRESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED A

& A

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-49

AIR QUALITY(Applicable to all five tracts)IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH MINING OPERATIONS wouldinclude:Elevated concentrations of particulate matterElevated concentrations of gaseous emissions

Moderate, short term on existing mine areasModerate, short term on existing mine areas

Same as No Action Same as No Action 

WATER RESOURCES(Applicable to all five tracts)SURFACE WATER

CHANGES IN RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS AND SEDIMENTDISCHARGE would include:Disruption of surface drainage systemsIncreased runoff and erosion ratesIncreased infiltrationReduction in peak flowsGROUNDWATERIMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH MINING OPERATIONS wouldinclude:Removal of coal and overburden aquifersReplacement of existing coal and overburden with spoil aquifersDepressed water levels in aquifers adjacent to minesChange in hydraulic propertiesChange in groundwater quality in backfilled areas

Moderate, short term on existing mine areasModerate, short term on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areasNegligible, short term on existing mine areasNegligible, long term on existing mine areasModerate, short term on existing mine areasNegligible, long term on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areas

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS(Applicable to all five tracts)While final determinations have not been made by WDEQ/LQD,it is believed that there are no AVFs significant to agriculture onthe proposed lease tracts

No impact on existing mine areas Same as No Action 

WETLANDS(Applicable to all five tracts)Removal of all existing wetlands Wetlands on existing mine areas would be

mined and reclaimed

Same as No Action 

VEGETATION(Applicable to all five tracts)PROGRESSIVE REDUCTION IN NATIVE VEGETATION wouldresult in:Increased erosionWildlife and livestock habitat lossWildlife habitat carrying capacity loss

Moderate, short term on existing mine areasModerate, short term on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areas

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

1 Refer to Section 4.0 and 4.1 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts.2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.
Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for the Proposed Action

3, and the No Action Alternative for the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and 

(Continued).

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACTRESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED A

& A

2-50 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

VEGETATION (Continued) (Applicable to all five tracts) AFTER RECLAMATION the following could result: Changes in vegetation patterns Reduction in vegetation diversity Reduction in shrub density Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Same as No Action 

Same as No Action Same as No Action 

WILDLIFE (Applicable to all five tracts) DURING MINING the following could occur: Wildlife displacement Pronghorn passage reduction Increased mortality rate to small mammalsTemporary displacement of small mammalsSage grouse habitat removalAbandonment of raptor nestsForaging habitat reduction for raptorsLoss of nesting and foraging habitat for Migratory Birds ofManagement ConcernReduction in waterfowl resting and feeding habitatLoss of songbird foraging habitatTemporary wildlife habitat lossContinued road kills by mine-related traffic

Moderate, short term on existing mine areasModerate, short term on existing mine areasModerate, short term on existing mine areasModerate, short term on existing mine areasModerate, short term on existing mine areasNegligible, short term on existing mine areasNegligible, short term on existing mine areasNegligible, short term on existing mine areasNegligible, short term on existing mine areasModerate, short term on existing mine areasNegligible, short term on existing mine areasNegligible, short term on existing mine areas

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATESPECIES(NARO North and NARO South)Loss of black-footed ferret coloniesLoss of bald eagle nesting and foraging habitatLoss of Ute Ladies’-tresses orchid habitatLoss of mountain plover habitatLoss of black-tailed prairie dog habitat

No effect due to lack of occurrence in areaDisturbance of potential foraging habitatDisturbance of potential habitatTypical suitable habitat not presentDisturbance of potential habitat, mining willpotentially directly affect individuals

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

(Little Thunder)Loss of black-footed ferret coloniesLoss of bald eagle nesting and foraging habitatLoss of Ute Ladies’-tresses orchid habitatLoss of mountain plover habitatLoss of black-tailed prairie dog habitat

No effect due to lack of occurrence in areaDisturbance of potential foraging habitatDisturbance of artificially created potentialhabitatLittle to no typical suitable habitat presentDisturbance of potential habitat, mining willpotentially directly affect individuals

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Typical suitable hDisturbance of po

1 Refer to Section 4.0 and 4.1 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts.2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.
Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for the Proposed Action

3, and the No Action Alternative for the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and 

(Continued).

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACTRESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED A

& A

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-51

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATESPECIES (Continued)(North Roundup)Loss of black-footed ferret coloniesLoss of bald eagle nesting and foraging habitatLoss of Ute Ladies’-tresses orchid habitatLoss of mountain plover habitatLoss of black-tailed prairie dog habitat

No effect due to lack of occurrence in areaDisturbance of potential foraging habitatDisturbance of artificially created potentialhabitatLittle to no typical suitable habitat presentDisturbance of potential habitat, mining willpotentially directly affect individuals

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Disturbance of popotentially affect iAlternatives 2 & 3

(West Antelope)Loss of black-footed ferret coloniesLoss of bald eagle nesting and foraging habitatLoss of Ute Ladies’-tresses orchid habitatLoss of mountain plover habitatLoss of black-tailed prairie dog habitat

No effect due to lack of occurrence in areaDisturbance of potential foraging habitatPotential habitat may be disturbedMining has or will affect mountain plover useareasMining will potentially directly affectindividuals

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

LAND USE AND RECREATION(Applicable to all five tracts)ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ON LAND USE would be:Reduction of livestock grazingLoss of wildlife habitatCurtailment of oil and gas developmentLoss of public land available for recreation activitiesLoss of CBM reserves3

Moderate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, long term on existing mine areasModerate, short term on existing mine areasModerate, permanent on existing mine areas

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

CULTURAL RESOURCES(NARO North and NARO South)75 sites not eligible or recommended not eligible for NRHP4 eligible for NRHP

Impacts to eligible or unevaluated sites arenot permitted; any site eligible for the NRHPwould be avoided or mitigated through datarecovery

Same as No Action 

(Little Thunder)34 sites not eligible or recommended not eligible for NRHPNone eligible for NRHP

Impacts to eligible or unevaluated sites arenot permitted; any site eligible for the NRHPwould be avoided or mitigated through datarecovery

Same as No Action 

1 Refer to Section 4.0 and 4.1 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts.2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.3 Most of the CBM reserves could be recovered prior to initiation of mining activity, those reserves not recovered prior to mining would be lost.
Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for the Proposed Action

3, and the No Action Alternative for the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and 

(Continued).

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACTRESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED A

& A

2-52 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

CULTURAL RESOURCES (Continued) (West Roundup) 30 sites not eligible or recommended not eligible for NRHP None eligible for NRHP Impacts to eligible or unevaluated sites are not permitted; any site eligible for the NRHP would be avoided or mitigated through data recovery Same as No Action 

(West Antelope) 49 sites not eligible or recommended not eligible for NRHP 4 eligible for NRHP Impacts to eligible or unevaluated sites are not permitted; any site eligible for the NRHP would be avoided or mitigated through data recovery Same as No Action 

(Applicable to all five tracts)Possible increase in vandalismPossible increase in unauthorized collecting

No impacts on existing mine areasNo impacts on existing mine areas

Negligible on expaNegligible on expa

NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS(Applicable to all five tracts) No impact identified on existing mine areas Same as No Action PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES(Applicable to all five tracts)Overburden removal could expose fossils for scientificexamination

Disturbance of USFS classified Class 3 andClass 5 formations on existing mine areas

Same as No Action 

VISUAL RESOURCES(Applicable to all five tracts)EVIDENT IMPACTS DURING MINING would include:Alteration of landscape classified as Class IV by the BLMIMPACTS FOLLOWING RECLAMATION could be:Smoother sloped terrainReduction in sagebrush density

Negligible, short term on existing mine areasNegligible, long term on existing mine areasNegligible, short term on existing mine areas

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

NOISE(NARO North and NARO South)INCREASED NOISE LEVELS could affect:Occupied dwellings within one mile Moderate, short term on existing mine area Same as No Action (Little Thunder)INCREASED NOISE LEVELS could affect:Occupied dwellings within one mile Moderate, short term on existing mine area Same as No Action 

1 Refer to Section 4.5 for a discussion of cumulative impacts.2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.
Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for the Proposed Action

3, and the No Action Alternative for the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and 

(Continued).

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACTRESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED A

& A

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-53

NOISE (Continued)(West Roundup)INCREASED NOISE LEVELS could affect:Occupied dwellings within one mile

None for existing mine area Same as No Action 

(West Antelope)INCREASED NOISE LEVELS could affect:Occupied dwellings within one mile None for existing mine area Same as No Action (Applicable to all five tracts)INCREASED NOISE LEVELS could affect:Wildlife in immediate vicinity Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Same as No Action TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES(NARO North and NARO South)Increase in duration that coal is shipped on railroads andemployees travel on highways by 3 to 5.5 years

No impact on existing mine area Negligible, short te

(Little Thunder)Increase in duration that coal is shipped on railroads andemployees travel on highways by 0.3 to 10.7 years

No impact on existing mine area Negligible, short te

(West Roundup)Increase in duration that coal is shipped on railroads andemployees travel on highways by 4.5 to 7.1 years

No impact on existing mine area Negligible, short te

(West Antelope)No increase in time that coal is shipped on railroads andemployees travel on highways.

No impact on existing mine area Same as No Action 

(Applicable to all five tracts)Relocation of pipelinesRelocation of utility lines

No impact on existing mine areasNo impact on existing mine areas

Negligible, short teShort term on exp

SOCIOECONOMICS(NARO North and NARO South)EFFECTS DURING MINING would include:Employment Potential (10 additional jobs in expanded minearea are expected)

Moderate, beneficial short term on existingmine area

 Same as No Actio

1 Refer to Section 4.0 and 4.1 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts.2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.
Table 2-5. Summary Comparison of Magnitude1 and Duration of Direct and Indirect Impacts for the Proposed Action

3, and the No Action Alternative for the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and 

(Continued).

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE AND DURATION OF IMPACTRESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED A

& A

2-54 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

SOCIOECONOMICS (Continued) (Little Thunder and West Antelope) EFFECTS DURING MINING would include: Employment Potential (No additional jobs in expanded mine area are expected) Moderate, beneficial short term on existing mine area Same as No Action 

(West Roundup) EFFECTS DURING MINING would include: Employment Potential (176 additional jobs in expanded mine area are expected) Moderate, beneficial short term on existing mine area Same as No Action 

(Applicable to all five tracts) EFFECTS DURING MINING would include:Revenues from royalties and taxes to the state governmentRevenues from royalties and taxes to the federal governmentEconomic developmentPopulation in Campbell and Converse Counties

Moderate, beneficial short term on existingmine areasModerate, beneficial short term on existingmine areasModerate, beneficial short term on existingmine areasNo impact on existing mine areas

Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

1 Refer to Section 4.0 and 4.1 for a discussion on magnitude of impacts.2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.
Table 2-6. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2.

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE TYPE AND DURATION OF IMPARESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED 

& 

TOPOGRAPHY & PHYSIOGRAPHYREDUCED RELIEF AND SUBDUED TOPOGRAPHY could resultin:Reduction in topographic diversityIncreased precipitation infiltrationBiodiversity reductionBig game carrying capacity reduction

Negligible, long term on existing mine areasNegligible, long term on existing mine areasNegligible, long term on existing mine areasNegligible, long term on existing mine areas

Same as No ASame as No ASame as No ASame as No A

GEOLOGY AND MINERALSRECOVERY OF COAL would result in:Stabilization of municipal, county and state economies Significant, beneficial, short term on existing 

mine areas

Same as No A

SOILSRECLAIMED SOILS could result in:Increased soil productivity Reduced erosion

Negligible, long term on existing mine areasNegligible, long term on existing mine areas

Same as No ASame as No A

AIR QUALITYIMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH MINING OPERATIONS wouldinclude:Elevated concentrations of gaseous emissionsElevated concentrations of particulate matter

Short term on existing mine areasShort term on existing mine areas, may overlap withimpacts caused by other development on adjacent lands

Same as No ASame as No A

WATER RESOURCESSURFACE WATER

IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATER could result in:Temporary reduction in soil infiltration rates and increasedrunoffGROUNDWATERIMPACTS ON GROUNDWATER could result in:Removal of coal and overburden aquifersDepressed water levels in aquifer adjacent to minesReplacement of existing coal and overburden with spoilaquifersChange in hydraulic propertiesChange in groundwater quality in backfilled areas

Negligible, short term on existing mine areasNegligible, long term on existing mine areasModerate, short term on existing mine areas, impactsmay overlap with impacts caused by other developmentson adjacent landsNegligible, long term on existing mine areasNegligible to moderate, short term on existing mine areasNegligible, long term on existing mine areas

Same as No ASame as No ASame as No ASame as No ASame as No ASame as No A

1 Refer to Section 4.5 for a discussion of cumulative impacts. 2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-55
Table 2-6. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Contin

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE TYPE AND DURATION OF IMPARESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED 

& 

2-56 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS No cumulative impacts anticipated on existing mine areas Same as No A

WETLANDS Removal of existing wetlands Wetlands on existing mine areas would be mined and reclaimed Same as No AVEGETATION SURFACE DISTURBANCE would result in: Loss of common native vegetation types for wildlife Regional loss of vegetative diversity Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Negligible, long term on existing mine areas Same as No A

Same as No A

WILDLIFE IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE FROM SURFACE MINING could result in: Loss of pronghorn habitat Mule deer population reduction Reduction in raptor nesting sites and foraging habitat Reduction in sage grouse leks Loss of nesting and foraging habitat for Migratory Birds of Management Concern Reduction in waterfowl habitat Permanent reduction in wildlife habitat diversity Permanent reduction in some wildlife carrying capacity Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Negligible, short term on existing mine areas Minor, short term on existing mine areas Major, long term on existing mine areas Major, long term on existing mine areas Same as No A

Same as No ASame as No ASame as No ASame as No ASame as No ASame as No ASame as No A

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES Individuals of some T&E species will potentially be directly affected by mining operations on the existing leases, impacts may overlap with other developments on adjacent lands Same as No ALAND USE AND RECREATION IMPACTS ON LAND USE could result in: Loss of agricultural production Disruption of oil and gas development/production Reduction of wildlife habitat IMPACTS ON RECREATION could result in: Loss of access to public lands used by recreationists, particularly hunting Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate to significant, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No A

Same as No ASame as No ASame as No A

1 Refer to Section 4.5 for a discussion of cumulative impacts. 2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.
Table 2-6. Summary Comparison of Magnitude and Duration of Cumulative Impacts1, 2 (Contin

DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT BY RESOURCE MAGNITUDE TYPE AND DURATION OF IMPARESOURCE NAME NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED 

& 

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 2-57

CULTURAL RESOURCES Sites eligible for NRHP would be mitigated on 

existing mine areas 

Same as No A

NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS No impact identified on existing mine areas Same as No APALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES No impact identified on existing mine areas Same as No AVISUAL RESOURCESImpacts on visual resources by mining activities Moderate, short term on existing mine areas Same as No ANOISE Negligible, short term outside of existing mine

areas

Same as No Aareas

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIESContinued use of existing transportation facilities Negligible, short term on existing mine area Same as No A

SOCIOECONOMICSIMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS could include:Mineral and energy related developmentEmployment Housing marketEconomic developmentRevenues and royalties

Moderate, beneficial, short term on existing mineareasSignificant, beneficial, short term on existing mineareasSignificant, short term due to existing minesSignificant, beneficial, short term due to existingmine areasSignificant, beneficial, short term due to existingmine areas

Same as No ASame as No ASame as No ASame as No ASame as No A

1 Refer to Section 4.5 for a discussion of cumulative impacts. 2 All impacts are assumed to be adverse unless noted otherwise.
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-58 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

and alternatives for each of the five

LBA tracts are analyzed in Chapter 4.

These summary impact tables are

derived from the following explanation

of impacts and magnitude. NEPA

requires all agencies of the federal

government to include, in every

recommendation or report on

proposals for legislation and other

major federal actions significantly

affecting the quality of the human

environment, a detailed statement by

the responsible official on:

(i) the environmental impact of

the Proposed Action,

(ii) any adverse environmental

effects which cannot be

avoided should the proposal

be implemented,

(iii) alternatives to the Proposed

Action,

(iv) the relationship between local

short-term uses of man’s

environment and the

maintenance and

enhancement of long-term

productivity, and

(v) any irreversible and

irretrievable commitments of

resources which would be

involved in the Proposed

Action should it be

implemented (42 USC §

4332[C]).

Impacts can be beneficial or adverse,

and they can be a primary result of

an action (direct) or a secondary

result (indirect). They can be

permanent, long-term (persisting

beyond the end of mine life and

reclamation) or short-term (persisting

during mining and reclamation and

through the time the reclamation

bond is released). Impacts also vary

in terms of significance. The basis for

conclusions regarding significance are

the criteria set forth by the Council

on Environmental Quality (40 CFR

1508.27) and the professional

judgement of the specialists doing the

analyses. Impact significance may

range from negligible to substantial;

impacts can be significant during

mining but be reduced to

insignificance following completion of

reclamation.
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-1

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter describes the existing

conditions of the physical, biological,

cultural, and socioeconomic

resources in the General Analysis

Area that includes all five of the

5L.A.1 tracts. The resources that are

addressed here were identified during

the scoping process or

interdisciplinary team review as

having the potential to be affected.

Figure 3-1 shows the General

Analysis Area for most environmental

resources.

Additional, more detailed sitespecific information about the

affected environment for the study

area identified for each LBA tract is

contained in a separate document

entitled Supplementary Information

on the Affected Environment in the

General Analysis Area for the South

Powder River Basin Coal EIS, which

is available on request.

The study area for each tract includes

the tract as applied for, the adjacent

lands that BLM is considering adding

to each tract, and the anticipated

permit amendment study area for

each applicant mine. The anticipated

permit amendment study area is

defined as those lands adjacent to

and outside of an applicant mine’s

current permit area that the applicant

anticipates would be contained within

the amended mine permit area, to

include the new federal coal lease. 

Critical elements of the human

environment (BLM 1988) that could

potentially be affected by the

Proposed Actions or action

alternatives include air quality,

cultural resources, Native American

religious concerns, T&E species,

hazardous or solid wastes, water

quality, wetlands/riparian zones,

invasive non-native species, and

environmental justice. Five other

critical elements (areas of critical

environmental concern, prime or

unique farmlands, floodplains, wild

and scenic rivers, and wilderness) are

not present in the project area and

are not addressed further. In

addition to the critical elements that

are potentially present in the General

Analysis Area, this EIS discusses the

status and potential effects of mining

each LBA tract on topography and

physiography, geology and mineral

resources, soils, water quantity,

alluvial valley floors, vegetation,

wildlife, land use and recreation,

paleontological resources, visual

resources, noise, transportation

resources, and socioeconomics.

3.1 General Setting

The General Analysis Area is located

in the PRB, a part of the Northern

Great Plains that includes most of

northeastern Wyoming. Vegetation is

primarily sagebrush and mixed grass

prairie. The climate is semi-arid, with

an average annual precipitation at

Wright (Figure 1-1) of just over

11 inches (Martner 1986). June (2.35

inches) and May (2.04 inches) are the

wettest months, and February (0.29

inch) is the driest. Snowfall averages

25.1 inches per year, with most 1 Refer to page xii for a list of abbreviations

and acronyms used in this document.
3.0 Affected Environment

3-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-1
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-3

occurring in March (5.0 inches) and

December (4.5 inches). Potential

evapotranspiration, at approximately

31 inches (National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration 1969),

exceeds annual precipitation. The

average daily mean temperature is

44.2°F. The highest recorded

temperature was 103°F and the

lowest was -34°F. July is the

warmest month, with a mean daily

temperature of 70°F, and January is

the coldest (20.5°F). The frost-free

period is 100-125 days.

In the General Analysis Area the

regional wind speeds average from

nine to 13 mph with local variations

in speed and direction due to

differences in topography. Wind

speeds are highest in the winter and

spring and are predominantly from

the northwest or southeast. Wind

velocity tends to increase during the

day and decrease during the night.

Winter gusts often reach 30-40 mph.

During periods of strong wind, dust

may impact air quality across the

region. There are an average of 15

air-stagnation events annually in the

PRB with an average duration of two

days each (BLM 1974). 

3.2 Topography and Physiography

The General Analysis Area is a high

plains area within the eastern

portion of the PRB. The PRB is

bounded by the Black Hills on the

east; the Big Horn Mountains on the

west; the Hartville Uplift, CasperArch, and Laramie Mountains on the

south; and the Miles City Arch and

the Yellowstone River on the north.

Landforms of the area consist of a

dissected rolling upland plain with

low relief, broken by low red-capped

buttes, mesas, hills, and ridges.

Playas are common in the basin, as

are buttes and plateaus capped by

clinker or sandstone. Elevations in

the PRB range from less than 2,500 ft

to greater than 6,000 ft above sea

level. The major river valleys have

wide, flat floors and broad floodplains.

The drainages dissecting the area are

incised, typically are ephemeral or

intermittent, and do not provide yearround water sources.

The General Analysis Area and its

tributaries are drained by the

Cheyenne River. Elevations range

from about 4,500 ft to 5,000 ft above

sea level. Slopes in the General

Analysis Area range from flat to

greater than 50 percent. In the

individual LBA tracts, the average

slopes range from one to five percent.

3.3 Geology

Stratigraphic units in the General

Analysis Area that would be impacted

if the tracts under consideration for

leasing are mined include, in

descending order, recent (Holocene

age) alluvial and eolian deposits, the

Eocene age Wasatch Formation (the

overburden), and the Paleocene age

Fort Union Formation (which contains

the target coal beds). Variations

between the LBA tracts occur

primarily in the thickness of the

mineable coal seams, the thickness of

overburden, the parting thickness(es)

between the various seams comprising

the Wyodak coal seam and the surface

topography. Figure 3-2 is a chart

showing the stratigraphic
3.0 Affected Environment

3-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-2. Stratigraphic Relationships and Hydrologic Characteristics of Upper

Cretaceous, Lower Tertiary, and Recent Geologic Units, PRB,

Wyoming. (Compiled from Hodson et al. 1973 and Lewis and

Hotchkiss 1981).
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-5

relationships of the surface and

subsurface geologic units in the

General Analysis Area. Surficial

deposits in the General Analysis Area

include alluvial and eolian deposits,

clinker, and weathered Wasatch and

Fort Union Formations. Although

clinker is present throughout the

General Analysis Area, the NARO

South LBA Tract is the only LBA tract

analyzed in this EIS that contains

appreciable amounts of clinker.

There are thin alluvial deposits along

ephemeral streams and closed basin

drainage channels. These alluvial

deposits typically consist primarily of

poorly to well-sorted, irregularly

bedded to laminated, unconsolidated

sand, silt, and clay with minor

intervals of fine gravel. The valley

floors of Porcupine Creek and

Antelope Creek contain appreciable

amounts of alluvium both in width

and depth. The alluvial deposits in

Porcupine Creek and Antelope Creek

contain much more coarse-grained

material (sands and gravels) than the

ephemeral tributaries that drain most

of the General Analysis Area.

The Wasatch Formation forms most

of the overburden on top of the

recoverable coal seams in the General

Analysis Area. It consists of

interbedded lenticular sandstones,

siltstones, shales, and thin

discontinuous coals. There is no

distinct boundary between the

Wasatch Formation and the

underlying Fort Union Formation.

From a practical standpoint, however,

the top of the mineable coal zone is

considered as the contact between the

two formations. Overburden

thicknesses in the tracts under

consideration for leasing range from

around 110 ft to more than 300 ft.

The overburden is relatively thin in

the NARO South and West Antelope

LBA Tracts and relatively thicker in

the NARO North, Little Thunder, and

West Roundup LBA Tracts.

The Fort Union Formation consists

primarily of shales, mudstones,

siltstones, lenticular sandstones, and

coal. It is divided into three

members: Tongue River (which

contains the target coal seams), Lebo,

and Tullock, in descending order

(Figure 3-2).

The Tongue River member of the Fort

Union Formation consists of

interbedded claystone, silty shale,

carbonaceous shale, and coal, with

lesser amounts of fine-grained

sandstone and siltstone.

Within the General Analysis Area

there are up to four mineable coal

seams. The nomenclature of these

seams varies from mine operator to

mine operator. The U.S. Geological

Survey (Flores et al. 1999) refers to

the thick mineable coals in the

Gillette coal field as the WyodakAnderson coal zone of the Tongue

River member of the Fort Union

Formation. Locally these beds are

referred to as Wyodak, WyodakAnderson, Anderson, and Canyon.

The number of mineable coal seams

varies from tract to tract. There is

one mineable seam in the West

Roundup LBA Tract (Wyodak); two

mineable coal seams in the NARO

North and NARO South LBA Tracts

(referred to by the operator as the

Wyodak-Anderson 1 and 2); three

mineable coal seams in the Little

Thunder LBA Tract (referred to by the
3.0 Affected Environment

3-6 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

operator as the Upper, Middle, and

Lower Wyodak); and four mineable

seams in the West Antelope LBA Tract

(referred to by the operator as the

Anderson, Lower Anderson,

Canyon/Upper Canyon, and Lower

Canyon). Interburden between the

coal seams varies from 0 to around

100 ft.

The Fort Union coal seams are

subbituminous and are generally lowsulfur, low-ash coals. Typically, the

coal being mined has a higher heating

value and lower sulfur content south

of Gillette than north of Gillette. In

the tracts under consideration for

leasing, the heating values of the coal

seams is expected to range from

7,850 to 9,130 Btu/lb. The ash

content in the coal seams is expected

to vary from 4 to 14 percent, the

sulfur content from 0.1 to 0.6

percent, the fixed carbon from 30 to

41 percent, and the moisture content

from 22 to 29 percent. 

The Lebo Shale and Tullock members

of the Fort Union Formation underlie

the Tongue River member (Figure 3-

2). They consist primarily of

sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, shale

and coal. In general, the Tullock

member contains more sand than the

Lebo Shale member. 

3.3.1 Mineral Resources

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

scoria are mined in the PRB (WSGS,

2002a).

Coal

There are 15 coal mines lying along a

north/south line that parallels

Highway 59, starting north of Gillette,

Wyoming and extending south for

about 75 miles (Figure 1-1). These

mines are located where the Wyodak

coal is at its shallowest depths, i.e.,

nearest the outcrop. A 16th mine, the

Dave Johnston Mine, located near

Glenrock, Wyoming about 30 miles

southwest of the Antelope Mine, has

shut down coal mining operations.

Oil and Gas

Oil and conventional (non-CBM) gas

have been produced in the PRB for

more than 100 years from reservoir

beds that range in age from

Pennsylvanian to Oligocene (De Bruin

1996). There are approximately 500

fields that produce oil and/or natural

gas. The estimated mean amounts of

undiscovered hydrocarbons in the

basin are 1.94 billion barrels of

recoverable oil and 1.60 trillion ft3

 of

recoverable, non-CBM gas (USGS

1995). Depth to gas and oil-bearing

strata are generally between 4,000 ft

and 13,500 ft, but some wells are as

shallow as 250 ft.

The LBA tracts overlie geologic

structures that contain producible

quantities of oil and gas. A portion of

the Little Thunder LBA Tract is over

the Hilight Oil and Gas Field, which

was discovered in 1969. The main

zone of production at the Hilight Field

is the Early Cretaceous Muddy

Sandstone which lies approximately

9,000 ft below the surface in this

area. The western edge of the West

Roundup LBA Tract overlies a portion
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-7

of the House Creek Oil and Gas Field,

which produces from the Parkman

Sandstone of the Upper Cretaceous

Mesaverde Group. The Parkman

Sandstone is approximately 6,400 ft

below the surface in the vicinity of the

West Roundup LBA Tract. The

western portion of the NARO South

LBA Tract overlies both the Porcupine

and House Creek Oil and Gas Fields.

The Porcupine Field produces from

the Upper Cretaceous Parkman,

Sussex, and Turner Sandstones and

the Niobrara Shale, also Upper

Cretaceous in age. The Porcupine

Field also produces from the Lower

Cretaceous Muddy and Dakota

Sandstones (De Bruin 1999). See

Section 3.11 for further discussion of

producing wells and their associated

facilities. 

Coal Bed Methane

The generation of methane gas from

coal beds occurs as a natural

process. Methane generated in the

coal may be trapped there by

overburden pressure, by the pressure

of water in the coal, or by

impermeable layers immediately

above the coal. Deeper coal beds

have higher pressures and generally

trap more gas. Under favorable

geologic conditions, methane can be

trapped at shallow depths in and

above coal beds, and this seems to be

the case in the PRB. Without the

existence of conditions which act to

trap the gas in shallow coals or in

adjacent sandstones, the gas escapes

to the atmosphere. It is likely that an

appreciable quantity of methane

generated by the coal beds in the PRB

has gradually escaped into the

atmosphere because of the relatively

shallow coal burial depths. However,

a large amount remains in the coal.

One study estimates that there are

approximately 38.2 trillion ft3

 of CBM

gas in place in coal beds that are

thicker than 20 ft and deeper than

200 ft. This study estimates that

there are 25.6 trillion ft3

 of

recoverable CBM reserves (Finley and

Goolsby 2000).

Historically, methane has been

reported flowing from shallow water

wells and coal exploration holes in

parts of the PRB. According to De

Bruin and Jones (1989), most of the

documented historical occurrences

have been in the northern PRB. Olive

(1957) references a water well in

T.54N., R.74W. that began producing

gas for domestic use in 1916.

CBM has been commercially

produced in the PRB since 1989

when production began at the

Rawhide Butte Field, west of the

Eagle Butte Mine. CBM exploration

and development is currently ongoing

throughout the PRB in Wyoming, and

more than 12,000 CBM wells have

been drilled or are permitted for

drilling. The predominant CBM

production to date has occurred from

coal beds of the Wyodak - Anderson

zone in seams known as the

Anderson, Canyon, Wyodak, Big

George and other locally-used names.

These are the same (or equivalent)

seams that are being mined along the

eastern margin of the basin, including

the mines which are included in this

analysis. 

CBM is being produced from other,

deeper seams locally throughout the

PRB. The only CBM well completions
3.0 Affected Environment

3-8 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

within the General Analysis Area to

date have been within the Wyodak -

Anderson coal seams. Coal mining

does not directly affect production of

CBM from coal seams below the

Wyodak-Anderson, however, it does

delay any proposed CBM development

in the deeper seams in order to avoid

interference with mining. 

The presence of splits in the coal

seams affects potential CBM

development. Current CBM well

completion technology within the PRB

will not accommodate completion of

two seams separated by thick shales

within a single wellbore. As a result,

in the areas where the coal seams

are split, two wells would be required

to produce essentially the same

reserve that would be produced from

a single well in a single contiguous

seam. 

Since the early 1990s, the BLM has

completed numerous EAs and three

EISs analyzing CBM projects. The

latest of these is the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement and

Draft Planning Amendment for the

Powder River Basin Oil and Gas

Project, the draft of which was

completed in 2002. That DEIS covers

almost 12,500 square miles,

encompasses almost the entire PRB

in all or parts of Campbell, Converse,

Johnson, and Sheridan Counties, and

covers both private and public (state

and federal) lands. It analyzes the

impacts of drilling, completing, and

operating approximately 39,400 new

CBM wells over the next ten years.

These wells would be in addition to

the more than 12,000 CBM wells that

have been drilled or are permitted for

drilling. The DEIS also analyzes the

impacts of developing 3,200 new

conventional oil and gas wells,

constructing, operating, and

reclaiming various ancillary facilities

needed to support the new wells,

including roads, pipelines for

gathering gas and produced water,

electrical utilities, and compressors

by the end of 2011 (BLM 2002a).

The Little Thunder LBA Tract is the

only LBA tract included in this

analysis with producing CBM wells.

The other LBA tracts included in this

analysis contain CBM wells in various

stages of development (e.g.,

permitting, drilling, etc.) which were

not producing when this Draft EIS

was prepared. Approved spacing for

CBM wells is one well per 80 acres or

eight wells per section. A maximum

of 243 CBM wells could be drilled on

all of the LBA tracts under the largest

alternative tract configurations being

analyzed in this EIS. The ownership

of oil and gas resources in the LBA

tracts is discussed in Section 3.11 of

this EIS.

Bentonite

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, and because of this

characteristic it is used in a number

of processes and products, including

cat litter and drilling mud. No

mineable bentonite reserves have

been identified on any of the proposed

LBA tracts.
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-9

Uranium

There are substantial uranium

resources in southwestern Campbell

and northwestern Converse Counties.

Uranium exploration and mining were

very 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. There are currently two insitu leach operations in the PRB.

Production at a third ended in 2000.

No known uranium reserves exist on

the LBA tracts.

Scoria

Scoria or clinker is present in the

General Analysis Area and has been

and continues to be a major source of

aggregate for road construction in the

area. Only the NARO South LBA

Tract contains scoria. No scoria from

the NARO South LBA Tract has ever

been sold for use as an aggregate for

road construction or any other uses.

A search of the BLM mining claim

index revealed that no mining claims

are presently located within the

General Analysis Area.

3.4 Soils

Numerous baseline soil surveys

associated with surface mining

operations and oil field development

have been conducted in the General

Analysis Area. Soil surveys of

Campbell and Converse Counties,

Wyoming, including the General

Analysis Area, have also been

conducted by the NRCS. Each of the

LBA study areas is comprised of the

LBA tract as applied for, BLM’s

alternative tract configurations, and

the applicant mine’s anticipated

permit amendment study area.

Soils within the LBA study areas were

identified by series, which consist of

soils that have similar horizons in

their profile. Horizons are soil layers

having similar color, texture,

structure, reaction, consistency,

mineral and chemical composition,

and arrangement in the profile.

Soils vary depending upon where and

how they were formed. Major factors

involved in the formation of soils

include whether or not the material

was transported and how the

material was weathered during

transportation. Three primary

transportation processes causing

three different soil types were noted:

1) those soils developed

predominantly in alluvial or colluvial

fan deposits, 2) those soils developed

predominantly in residuum on

uplands, and 3) those soils developed

predominantly in eolian sand

deposits. The major soil series

encountered within the General

Analysis Area were grouped according

to the primary transportation

processes and are listed as follows:

Soils developed predominantly in

alluvial or colluvial fan deposits

• Arvada • Hilight

• Absted • Kishona

• Bahl • Lawver

• Bankard • Lithic Ustic
3.0 Affected Environment

3-10 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

• Bidman • Lohmiller

• Bone • Openay

• Briggsdale • Parmleed

• Cambria • Pugsley

• Clarkelen • Rauzi

• Decolney • River Wash

• Dillingson • Savageton

• Draknab • Shingle

• Felix • Silhouette

• Forkwood • Taluce

• Fort Collins • Teckla

• Glenberg • Turnercrest

• Heldt • Ulm

• Haverdad • Wags

• Haverson • Zigweid

• Hiland

Soils developed predominantly in

residuum on uplands

• Bowbac • Sear

• Cushman • Taluce

• Gateson • Tassel

• Gullied land • Terro

• Hiland • Thedalund

• Hilight • Theedle

• Keeline • Tullock

• Parmleed • Turnercrest

• Razor • Ustic Torrifluvent

• Renohill • Wags

• Samday • Wibaux

• Shingle • Worf

• Savageton • Worfka

• Samsil

Soils developed predominantly in

aeolian sand deposits

• Delconey • Orpha

• Dwyer • Pugsley

• Embry • Rauzi

• Maysdorf • Turnercrest

• Nomil • Vonalee

The baseline soil studies of the LBA

study areas indicate that the amount

of suitable topsoil which would be

available for redistribution on all

disturbed acres during reclamation

would vary from an average depth of

1.5 ft to an average depth of 3.3 ft.

3.5 Air Quality and Climate

The air quality of any region is

controlled primarily by the magnitude

and distribution of pollutant

emissions and the regional climate.

The transport of pollutants from

specific source areas is strongly

affected by local topography. In the

mountainous western United States,

topography is particularly important

in channeling pollutants along

valleys, creating upslope and

downslope circulations that may

entrain airborne pollutants, and

blocking the flow of pollutants toward

certain areas. In general, local effects

are superimposed on the general

synoptic weather regime and are most

important when the large-scale wind

flow is weak.

3.5.1 Topography

The General Analysis Area is located

in the southern portion of the PRB, a

part of the Northern Great Plains that

includes most of northeastern

Wyoming. The topography is

primarily rolling plains and
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-11

tablelands of moderate relief (with

occasional valleys, canyons, and

buttes). Elevations range from about

4,500 ft to 5,000 ft above sea level.

Slopes in the General Analysis Area

range from flat to greater than 50

percent.

3.5.2 Climate and Meteorology

The climate in the General Analysis

Area is semi-arid, with an average

annual precipitation at Wright of just

over 11 inches (Martner 1986).

Snowfall averages 25.1 inches per

year, with most occurring in March

and December. Evaporation exceeds

annual precipitation, with relatively

short warm summers and longer cold

winters. The average daily mean

temperature is 44.2 degrees F. The

highest recorded temperature within

the General Analysis Area was 103

degrees F and the lowest was minus

34 degrees F. July is the warmest

month, with a mean daily

temperature of 70 degrees F, and

January is the coldest (20.5 degrees

F). The frost-free period is 100-125

days.

In the General Analysis Area, the

regional wind speeds average from

nine to 13 mph with local variations

in speed and direction due to

differences in topography. Winds are

predominantly from the northwest or

southeast and tend to be strongest in

the winter and spring and calmer in

the summer. Wind velocity tends to

increase during the day and decrease

during the night. The air quality and

meteorological sampling locations and

associated wind rose diagrams for the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex

and Black Thunder, North Rochelle,

and Antelope Mines are shown in

Figures 3-3 through 3-6.

3.5.3 Existing Air Quality

WDEQ/AQD detects changes in air

quality through monitoring and

maintains an extensive network of air

quality monitors throughout the

state. Particulate matter is most

commonly measured as particles finer

than 10 microns or PM10. The

eastern side of the PRB has one of the

most extensive networks of monitors

for PM10 in the nation due to the

density of coal mines (Figure 3-7).

There is a monitoring network

associated with the coal mines, which

is discussed more in Section 3.5.4.

In addition, there are also monitors in

Sheridan and Gillette, and the

WDEQ/AQD installed monitors at

Arvada and Wright, Wyoming in

November 2002.

WDEQ/AQD uses monitors located

throughout the state to anticipate

issues related to air quality. These

monitoring stations are located to

measure ambient air quality and not

located to measure impacts from a

specific source. Monitors located to
3.0 Affected Environment

3-12 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-3
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-13

Figure 3-4
3.0 Affected Environment

3-14 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-5
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-15

Figure 3-6
3.0 Affected Environment

3-16 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-7
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-17

measure impacts from a specific

source may also be used for trends.

These data are used to pro-actively

arrest or reverse trends towards air

quality problems. When WDEQ

became aware that particulate

readings were increasing due to

increased CBM activity and

exacerbated by prolonged drought,

the WDEQ approached the counties,

coal mines, and CBM industry. A

coalition involving the counties, coal

companies, and CBM operators have

made significant efforts towards

minimizing dust from roads.

Measures taken have ranged from the

implementation of speed limits to

paving of heavily traveled roads.

Monitoring is also used to measure

compliance. Where monitoring shows

a violation of any standard, 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.

WDEQ has also sited two visibility

monitoring stations in the PRB. One

of these sites is 32 miles north of

Gillette and includes a Nephelometer,

a Transmissometer, an Aerosol

Monitor (IMPROVE Protocol),

instruments to measure

meteorological parameters

(temperature, RH, wind speed, wind

direction), a digital camera,

instruments to measure Ozone and

instruments to measure Oxides of

Nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOx). The other

visibility monitoring station is located

14 miles west of Buffalo and includes

a Nephelometer, a Transmissometer,

an Aerosol Monitor (IMPROVE

Protocol), instruments to measure

meteorological parameters

(temperature, RH, wind speed, wind

direction), and a digital camera.

Other air quality monitoring in the

PRB includes WDEQ NO2 monitoring

along the east side of the Basin,

WARMS monitoring of sulfur and

nitrogen concentrations near Buffalo,

Sheridan, and Newcastle, and NADP

monitoring of precipitation chemistry

in Newcastle.

Air quality conditions in rural areas

are likely to be very good, as

characterized by limited air pollution

emission sources (few industrial

facilities and residential emissions in

the relatively small communities and

isolated ranches) and good

atmospheric dispersion conditions,

resulting in relatively low air

pollutant concentrations. Occasional

high concentrations of CO and

particulate matter may occur in more

urbanized areas (for example, Buffalo,

Gillette, and Sheridan) and around

industrial facilities, especially under

stable atmospheric conditions

common during winter.

As part of an analysis of air quality

impacts that was conducted to

analyze potential air quality impacts

from the oil and gas development

alternatives being considered in the

Wyoming FEIS and Draft Planning

Amendment for the PRB Oil and Gas

Project (BLM 2003), the Proposed

RMP Amendments FEIS (BLM in

press), and the Montana Statewide
3.0 Affected Environment

3-18 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Oil and Gas FEIS and Proposed

Amendment of the Powder River and

Billings RMPs (BLM in press),

monitoring data measured

throughout northeastern Wyoming

and southeastern Montana were

assembled and reviewed. Although

monitoring is primarily conducted in

urban or industrial areas, the data

selected are considered the best

available representation of

background air pollutant

concentrations throughout the PRB in

Wyoming and Montana. Specific

values are presented in Table 3-1,

along with applicable ambient air

quality standards and PSD

increments, and were used to define

background conditions in the air

quality impact analysis. The

assumed background pollutant

concentrations are below applicable

NAAQS and WAAQS for all criteria

pollutants and averaging times.

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, loading and hauling

of overburden and coal, and the large

areas of disturbed land all produce

fugitive dust. Stationary or point

sources are associated with coal

crushing, storage, and handling

facilities. In general, particulate

matter (PM10) is the major significant

pollutant from coal mine point

sources.

Blasting is responsible for another

type of emission from surface coal

mining. Overburden blasting

sometimes produces gaseous, orangecolored clouds that contain NO2.

Exposure to NO2 may have adverse

health effects, as discussed in Section

4.1.4. NO2 is one of several products

resulting from the incomplete

combustion of explosives used in the

blasting process. Wyoming’s ambient

air standards for NO2 are shown in

Table 3-1.

Other existing air pollutant emission

sources within the region include:

• exhaust emissions (primarily CO

and NOx) from existing natural gas

fired compressor engines used in

production of natural gas and

CBM; gasoline and diesel vehicle

tailpipe emissions of combustion

pollutants (VOCs, CO, NOx, PM10,

PM2.5, and SO2);

• dust (particulate matter) generated

by vehicle travel on unpaved

roads, windblown dust from

neighboring areas, and 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.

3.5.4 Historical Ambient Air Quality:

Particulates

Until 1989, the federally regulated

particulate matter pollutant was

measured as TSP. This measurement

included all suspendable dust

(generally less than 100 microns in

diameter). In 1989 the federally

regulated particulate matter pollutant
South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-19

Table 3-1. Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations, Applicable Ambient Air Quali

PSD Increment Values (in μg/m3).

Pollutant

Averaging

Time1

Background

Concentration

Primary

NAAQS2

Secondary

NAAQS2

Wyoming

Standards

PSD 

Incre

Carbon monoxide 1-hour

8-hour

3,5003

1,500

40,00010,000

40,00010,000

40,00010,000

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 16.54 100 100 100 

Ozone 1-hour

8-hour

825

1305

235157

235157

235157

PM10 24-hour

Annual

427

177

150

50

150

50

150

50

PM2.5 24-hour

Annual

197

7.67

6515

6515

6515

Sulfur dioxide 3-hour

24-hour

Annual

86

8636

---

365

80

1,300

------

1,300

------

1 Annual standards are not to be exceeded; short-term standards are not to be exceeded more than once per y2 Primary standards are designed to protect public health; secondary standards are designed to protect public 3 Amoco Ryckman Creek collected for an eight month period during 1978-1979, summarized in the Riley Ridge 4 Data collected in Gillette, WY (1996 - 1997).5 Data collected in Pinedale, WY (1992 - 1994).6 Data collected in Devil’s Tower, WY (1983).7 Data collected in Gillette, WY (1999).

Source: (Argonne 2002)
3.0 Affected Environment

3-20 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

was changed from a TSP based

standard to a PM10 based standard.

PM10 is particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns

or less that can potentially penetrate

into the lungs and cause health

problems. Wyoming added PM10

based standards to match the federal

standards in 1989 and retained the

TSP standards as state standards

until March 2000. Wyoming’s

ambient air standards for PM10 are

shown in Table 3-1.

Regional

WDEQ/AQD requires the collection of

information documenting the quality

of the air resource at each of the

SPRB mines. Each mine monitored

air quality for a 24-hour period every

six days at multiple monitoring sites

through the end of 2001. All PM10

monitors are now required by

WDEQ/AQD to sample air quality for

a 24-hour period every three days

beginning in 2002. Data for TSP

dates back to 1980 with data for PM10

dating back to 1989. This has

resulted in nearly 52,000 TSP and

8,000 PM10 samples collected through

2000 and makes the eastern PRB one

of the most densely monitored areas

in the world (Figure 3-7). Table 3-2

uses the annual arithmetic average of

all sites to summarize these data.

As indicated in Table 3-2, the longterm trend in particulate emissions

remained relatively flat through 1998.

TSP concentration from 1980 through

1998 averaged 33.1 μg/m3

, ranging

between 27.8 μg/m3

 and 39.4 μg/m3.

There were increases in 1988 and

1996, which may have been the result

of fires in the region during those

years. PM10 concentration from 1989

through 1998 averaged 15.4 μg/m3

,

ranging between 12.9 and 16.5

μg/m3.

This time period (1980-1998) was

associated with significant growth in

the surface coal mining industry.

Coal production increased from about

59 mmtpy to over 308 mmtpy (an

increase of over 249 mmtpy), and

associated overburden production

increased from 105 mmbcy to over

710 mmbcy per year (a 605 mmbcy

per year increase). From 1990

through 2000 the average annual

increase in coal production was 7.4

percent, while annual overburden

production increased an average of

14.6 percent over the same time

period. The larger annual increase in

overburden production is probably

due to the fact that mines are

gradually moving into deeper coals as

the shallower reserves are mined out.

The relatively flat trend in particulate

emissions from 1980 through 1998 is

due in large part to the Wyoming Air

Quality Program that requires BACT

at all permitted facilities. BACT

control measures include watering

and chemical treatment of roads,

limiting the amount of area disturbed,

temporary revegetation of disturbed

areas to reduce wind erosion, and

timely final reclamation.

Concentrations increased from 33.9

μg/m3

 in 1998 to 55.3 μg/m3 in 1999,

and continued to increase at a

slightly slower pace in 2000. There

were no major fires in the region

during this time. The increases in
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-21

Table 3-2. Summary of WDEQ/AQD Reports on Air Quality Monitoring in

Wyoming's PRB, 1980-2000.

Year

Coal

Produced

(mmtpy)

Yards

Moved

(mmbcy)

Number of

Mines

Operating/

Monitoring

TSP/

Monitoring

PM10

1

Number of

Sites

TSP/PM10

2

(μg/m3)

TSP

Average

(μg/m3)

PM10

Average

(μg/m3

)

1980 58.7 105.3 10/14/0 34/0 35.5 na3

1981 71.0 133.4 11/13/0 35/0 39.4 na

1982 76.1 141.1 11/14/0 40/0 31.2 na

1983 84.9 150.9 13/14/1 41/1 32.6 11.2

1984 105.3 169.5 14/16/1 42/1 33.9 11.1

1985 113.0 203.4 16/17/0 49/0 32.3 na

1986 111.2 165.7 16/17/0 45/0 29.3 na

1987 120.7 174.6 16/17/0 43/0 31.7 na

1988 138.8 209.7 16/17/0 43/0 37.7 na

1989 147.5 215.6 15/17/3 40/3 32.1 15.9

1990 160.7 223.5 17/17/5 47/5 34.3 14.8

1991 171.4 245.9 17/17/5 46/6 32.7 16.5

1992 166.1 296.0 17/17/7 41/7 31.7 15.9

1993 188.8 389.5 17/17/8 40/11 27.8 14.5

1994 213.6 483.9 17/18/8 44/11 31.7 15.5

1995 242.6 512.7 16/18/8 41/12 29.6 12.9

1996 257.0 605.4 17/18/8 41/12 35.4 16.0

1997 259.7 622.0 16/17/10 39/15 33.3 15.9

1998 308.6 710.7 16/17/12 36/17 33.9 15.9

1999 317.1 758.0 15/17/12 36/18 55.3 21.6

2000 322.5 845.3 15/15/12 31/17 56.1 23.4

1 Mines include Buckskin, Rawhide, Eagle Butte, Dry Fork, Fort Union, Clovis Point, Wyodak,

Caballo, Belle Ayr, Caballo Rojo, Cordero, Coal Creek, Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North

Rochelle, North Antelope, Rochelle, and Antelope. 2 Some sites include more than one sampler, so the number of samplers is greater than the

number of sites. 3 Not applicable because no monitoring for PM10 was done.

Sources: 1980 through 1996 emissions and production data from April 1997 report prepared

by WMA for WDEQ/AQD. 1997 through 2000 emissions data from EPA AIRData

database and production data from WDEQ/AQD.
3.0 Affected Environment

3-22 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

coal production over those two years

(2.3 percent per year and 13.9 mmtpy

over the two year period) and

associated overburden production

(9.5 percent per year and 135 mmbcy

over the two year period) were not

larger than the two-year increases

during some of the previous 18 years,

but the particulate concentration

increase was much larger than in

previous years.

Site Specific

Within the General Analysis Area,

historical particulate matter ambient

air quality data generally show the

same results as described above for

the PRB as a whole. At the four

mines included in this analysis, there

are 13 TSP monitoring samplers and

11 PM10 monitoring samplers. Each

mine has a meteorological station.

Figure 3-8 presents the average

annual TSP and PM10 measured at

these samplers within the General

Analysis Area. These data were

collected for the years 1995 through

2000.

Cumulative coal and overburden

production for the SPRB mines for

these years are also shown on Figure

3-8. As discussed above, coal and

overburden production for the SPRB

mines have steadily increased since

1980.

As discussed above, TSP was the

federally regulated pollutant until

1989 and was retained as a state

regulated pollutant until 2000. PM10

became a federal standard in 1989

and was also adopted by the State of

Wyoming. There were no violations of

the TSP standard at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, or Antelope

Mines when TSP was the federally

regulated pollutant. After 1989, and

until recently, TSP measurements

were used as a surrogate for PM10 in

lieu of having to replace and/or colocate an existing TSP sampler with a

new PM10 sampler. There were no

violations of the PM10 standards

anywhere in the PRB through the first

quarter of 2001.

In 2001 and 2002 the 24-hour PM10

standard was exceeded several times

in the General Analysis Area (specific

monitoring data are presented in

Appendix E). The WDEQ/AQD is

continually reviewing the data and

considering regulatory options.

Particulate emissions from nonmining sources have not been

quantified; however, more intense

monitoring and regulatory inspections

have been implemented at all PRB

coal mines. In addition, the close

proximity of the monitors where the

standard was exceeded to unpaved

county roads has resulted in

county/industry partnerships to treat

portions of these roads with chemical

dust suppressants.

Control Measures

Control of particulate emissions at

the SPRB mines is accomplished with

a variety of measures. Emissions at

coal crushing, storage, and handling

facilities (point sources) are controlled

with baghouse dust collection

systems, PECs, or atomizers/foggers.

These are all considered BACT

controls by WDEQ/AQD.
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-23

Figure 3-8
3.0 Affected Environment

3-24 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Fugitive emissions are also controlled

with a variety of measures that the

agency considers BACT. Typically,

mine access roads have 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 to reduce fugitive

emissions from roads. Material drop

heights for shovels and draglines

(bucket to truck bed or backfill) are

limited to the minimum necessary to

conduct the mining operations.

Timely permanent and temporary

revegetation of disturbed areas is

utilized to minimize wind erosion.

Fugitive emissions from the coal

truck dumps are controlled with

stilling sheds. Some of the mines

have participated in the control of

fugitive emissions from some nearby

unpaved county roads by applying

dust suppressants.

3.5.5 Historical Ambient Air Quality:

NO2

Regional

NO2 was monitored from 1975

through 1983 in Gillette and from

March 1996 through April 1997 at

four locations in the PRB. One of

these locations is in the General

Analysis Area. Table 3-3 summarizes

the results of that monitoring.

Beginning in 2001, the coal industry

in cooperation with WDEQ/AQD

installed a network of NO2 monitors in

the PRB. The 2001 data from this

regional network are summarized in

Table 3-4.

Annual NO2 levels measured in the

March 1996 to April 1997 timeframe

were below applicable standards. The

highest reading was 22 μg/m3

 as

compared to the 100 μg/m3 standard.

All 2001 annual mean NO2

concentrations are well below the 100

μg/m3 standard.

Site Specific

As discussed above, NO2 monitoring

results are available from several sites

in the General Analysis Area. The

Gillette monitoring site is located

approximately 38 miles north, the

Belle Ayr Mine site is located

approximately 23.5 miles north, the

Black Thunder Mine site is located

within the General Analysis Area, and

the Bill site is located approximately

18 miles south.

Control Measures

All four mines included in this

analysis have implemented programs

designed to control/limit public

exposure to the intermittent, shortterm NO2 releases associated with

blasting and they all comply with the

blasting plan publication/notification

requirements associated with the

Permits to Mine issued by

WDEQ/LQD.

There have been no reported events of

public exposure to NO2 from blasting

activities at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, the

North Rochelle Mine, or the Antelope

Mine. These mines have instituted

voluntary measures to be

implemented when large blasts are
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-25

Table 3-3. Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data.

Site Gillette

Black Thunder

Mine Belle Ayr Mine Bill

Year

NO2

(μg/m3)

1

Percent

of

Standard

NO2

(μg/m3)

1

Percent

of

Standard

NO2

(μg/m3)

1

Percent

of

Standard

NO2

(μg/m3)

1

Percent

of

Standard

1975 6* 6

1976 4* 4 1* 1

1977 4* 4 5* 5

1978 11* 11

1979 11 11

1980 12 12

1981 14 14

1982 11 11

19832 17 17

19963 16 16 16 16 22 22 22 22

1 Based on arithmetic averaging of data. 2 Monitoring discontinued December 1983, reactivated March 1996 to April 1997. 3 Arithmetic average - actual sampling ran from March 1996 to April 1997.

* Inadequate number of samples for a valid annual average.

Source: McVehil-Monnett 1997

Table 3-4. 2001 Annual Ambient NO2 Concentration Data.

Monitor Annual Mean NO2 Concentration (μg/m3

)

Antelope Mine 7

Belle Ayr Mine 14

Black Thunder Mine 5*

* Data for the 3rd quarter is questionable and therefore is not used in the determination of

the annual mean for the site.

planned. These voluntary measures

include:

• phone notification of neighbors

and workers in the general area of

the mine prior to large blasts;

• monitoring of weather and

atmospheric conditions prior to

the decision to detonate a large

blast;

• minimizing blast size to the extent

possible; and

• posting of signs on major public

roads that enter the general mine

area and on all locked gates

accessing the active mine area.
3.0 Affected Environment

3-26 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Black Thunder Mine received several

reports of public exposure to NO2

from blasting prior to 2001.

Measures to prevent future such

incidences have been instituted at the

Black Thunder Mine when large

overburden blasts are planned.

These measures include:

• notification of neighbors and

workers in the general area of the

mine prior to the blast;

• blast detonation between 12:00

p.m. and 3:00 p.m. whenever

possible to avoid temperature

inversions and minimize

inconvenience to neighbors;

• monitoring of weather and

atmospheric conditions prior to

the decision to detonate a blast;

• posting of signs on major public

roads that enter the general mine

area and on all locked gates

accessing the active mine area;

and

• closing public roads when

appropriate to protect the public.

All of the mines in the General

Analysis Area are participating in a

coal industry study of blasting

emissions. They have also

participated in the installation and

operation of the regional NO2

monitoring network discussed earlier.

3.5.6 Air Quality Related Values -

Visibility and Acidification of Lakes

AQRVs, including the potential air

pollutant effects on visibility and the

acidification of lakes and streams, are

applied to PSD Class I and sensitive

Class II areas. The land management

agency responsible for the Class I

area sets an LAC for each AQRV. The

AQRVs reflect the land management

agency’s policy and are not legally

enforceable standards.

3.5.6.1 Visibility

Potential impacts to visibility were

considered at 29 PSD Class I and

sensitive Class II areas in the vicinity

of the General Analysis Area. Table

3-5 shows the nearest distances from

the sensitive receptor areas to the

General Analysis Area.

Visibility can be defined as the

distance one can see and the ability

to perceive color, contrast, and detail.

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is the

main cause of visibility impairment.

Visual range, one of several ways to

express visibility, is the furthest

distance a person can see a

landscape feature. Maximum visual

range in the western United States

would be about 140 miles. Presently,

the visibility conditions monitored in

the Bridger Wilderness Area are

among the best in the United States.

Visual range monitoring in the

Bridger Wilderness Area shows that

one can see more than 70 miles 70

percent of the time.

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.

A change in visibility of 1.0 dv

represents a “just noticeable change”

by an average person under most

circumstances. Increasing dv values
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-27

Table 3-5. Approximate Distances and Directions from the General Analysis

Area to PSD Class I and Class II Sensitive Receptor Areas.

Receptor Area

Distance

(miles)

Direction to

Receptor

Mandatory Federal PSD Class I

Badlands Wilderness Area1 135 E

Bridger Wilderness Area 195 WSW

Wind Cave National Park 85 E

Yellowstone National Park 230 W

Tribal Federal PSD Class I

Fort Peck Indian Reservation 210 N

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 125 NNW

Federal PSD Class II

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 155 NW

Black Elk Wilderness Area 80 ENE

Cloud Peak Wilderness Area 85 WNW

Crow Indian Reservation 115 NW

Devils Tower National Monument 65 NNE

Fort Laramie national Historic Site 90 SSE

Jewel Cave National Monument 70 E

Mount Rushmore National Memorial 90 ENE

1 The U.S. Congress designated the Wilderness Area portion of Badlands National Park as a mandatory

federal PSD Class I area. The remained of Badlands National Park is a PSD Class II area.

represent proportionately larger

perceived visibility impairment.

Figure 3-9 shows annual averages for

the 20 percent best, worst, and

middle visibility days at Badlands and

Bridger Wilderness Areas from 1988

to 1998, respectively (IMPROVE

2002).

3.5.6.2 Acidification of Lakes

The acidification of lakes and streams

is caused by atmospheric deposition

of pollutants (acid rain). Lake

acidification is expressed as the

change in ANC measured in

microequivalents per liter (μeq/L),

the lake’s capacity to resist
3.0 Affected Environment

3-28 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-9
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-29

acidification from acid rain. Table 3-

6 shows the existing ANC monitored

in some mountain lakes and their

distance from the General Analysis

Area.

3.5.7 Regulatory Framework

The potential impacts of leasing the

LBA tracts must be evaluated with

respect to two programs, NAAQS and

PSD, as applicable.

The NAAQS set nationwide thresholds

for maximum acceptable

concentrations of various pollutants.

WAAQS must be at least as stringent

as NAAQS. Selected Wyoming and

national ambient air standards are

shown in Table 3-1. The NAAQS and

WAAQS set the absolute upper limits

for specific air pollutant

concentrations at all locations where

the public has access. Existing air

quality throughout most of the PRB in

Wyoming is in attainment with all

ambient air quality standards, as

demonstrated by the relatively low

concentration levels presented in

Table 3-1. However, the Sheridan,

Wyoming area has been designated as

a federal non-attainment area (PM10 -

moderate) where the applicable

standards have been violated in the

past. EPA Region 8 staff are

concerned that PM10 monitoring data

collected near and south of Gillette,

Wyoming, have also exceeded both

the NAAQS and the available PSD

Class II increment. Specific

monitoring data are presented in

Appendix E (EPA 2002a). The

analysis of the proposed Alternatives

must demonstrate continued

compliance with all applicable local,

state, tribal, and federal air quality

standards.

Future development projects which

have the potential to emit more than

250 tons per year of any criteria

pollutant (or certain listed sources

that have the potential to emit more

Table 3-6. Existing Acid Neutralizing Capacity in Sensitive Lakes.

Wilderness Area Lake Background ANC (μeq/L)

Bridger Black Joe 69.0

Deep 61.0

Hobbs 68.0

Upper Frozen 5.81

Cloud Peak Emerald 55.3

Florence 32.7

Fitzpatrick Ross 61.4

Popo Agie Lower Saddlebag 55.5

1 Since the background ANC value is less than 25 μeq/L, the potential ANC change is

expressed in μeq/L, and the applicable threshold is one μeq/L

Source: Argonne (2002)
3.0 Affected Environment

3-30 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

than 100 tons per year) would be

required to undergo a regulatory PSD

Increment Consumption analysis

under the federal New Source Review

permitting regulations. Development

projects subject to the PSD

regulations must also demonstrate

the use of BACT and show that the

combined impacts of all PSD sources

will not exceed the allowable

incremental air quality impacts for

NO2, PM10, or SO2. A regulatory PSD

Increment Consumption analysis may

be conducted as part of a New Source

Review, or independently. The

determination of PSD increment

consumption is a legal responsibility

of the applicable air quality regulatory

agencies, with EPA oversight. Finally,

an analysis of cumulative impacts

due to all existing sources and the

permit applicant’s sources, is also

required during PSD analysis to

demonstrate that applicable ambient

air quality standards will be complied

with during the operational lifetime of

the permit applicant’s operations. In

addition, sources subject to PSD

permitting requirements would

provide specific analysis of potential

impairment of AQRVs such as

visibility and acid rain.

The federal CAA also provides specific

visibility protection of mandatory

federal Class I areas. Mandatory

Federal Class I areas were designated

by the U.S. Congress on August 7,

1977, and include wilderness areas

greater than 5,000 acres in size and

national parks greater than 6,000

acres in size. The mandatory federal

Class I areas located nearest to the

General Analysis Area are listed in

Table 3-5. In addition, the Northern

Cheyenne Tribe (located north of the

General Analysis Area in Montana)

has designated their lands as PSD

Class I. As shown in Table 3-1, the

allowable incremental impacts for

NO2, PM10, and SO2 within these PSD

Class I areas are very limited. Most of

the PRB in Wyoming is designated as

PSD Class II with less stringent

requirements.

This NEPA analysis compares

potential air quality impacts from the

Proposed Action and Alternatives to

applicable ambient air quality

standards, PSD increments, and

AQRVs (such as visibility), but it does

not represent a regulatory PSD

analysis. Comparisons to the PSD

Class I and II increments are

intended to evaluate a threshold of

concern for potentially significant

adverse impacts, and do not

represent a regulatory PSD Increment

Consumption Analysis. Even though

the development activities would

occur within areas designated PSD

Class II, the potential impacts are not

allowed to cause incremental effects

greater than the stringent Class I

thresholds to occur inside any distant

PSD Class I area. Finally, the CAA

directs the EPA to promulgate the

Tribal Authority Rule, establishing

tribal jurisdiction over air emission

sources within the exterior

boundaries of tribal lands. Pursuant

to this rule, the Crow and Northern

Cheyenne tribes north of the General

Analysis Area in Montana may

request that they be treated in the

same manner as a state (including

Section 105 grants and formal

recognition as an affected “state”

when emission sources are located

within 50 miles of tribal lands) under

the CAA.
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-31

Coal mining in the General Analysis

Area is not currently affected by the

PSD regulations for two reasons:

surface coal mines are not on the EPA

list of 28 major emitting facilities for

PSD regulation, and point-source

emissions from individual mines do

not exceed the PSD emissions

threshold of 250 tons per year.

The WDEQ/AQD administers a

permitting program to assist the

agency in managing the State's air

resources. Under this program,

anyone planning to construct, modify,

or use a facility capable of emitting

designated pollutants into the

atmosphere must obtain an air

quality permit to construct. Coal

mines fall into this category.

In order to obtain a construction

permit, an operator may be required

to demonstrate that the proposed

activities will not increase air

pollutant levels above annual

standards established by the

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and

Regulations (WDEQ/AQD 2000). The

operator will also be required to

utilize BACT for minimizing emissions

from the facility. Monitoring may be

required as a condition of the permit

to construct. A permit to operate will

also be required and will contain

specific emission limitations and

other measures of performance for

operation of the facility.

The demonstration required for a

construction permit often entails

development of an emission inventory

for the proposed facility, an estimate

of the emissions from all other

permitted sources of air pollutants in

the vicinity, and the collection of local

ambient air quality and meteorology

data. This information is utilized in

dispersion modeling to predict the

cumulative impact of the proposed

facility along with existing sources on

the quality of the air in the immediate

vicinity, including the impact on any

special resource areas.

3.6 Water Resources

3.6.1 Groundwater

The General Analysis Area contains

three water-bearing geologic units

that could be disturbed by mining. In

descending order, these units are the

recent Alluvium, Wasatch Formation

overburden, and the Wyodak coal

seam or its local equivalent. The subcoal Fort Union Formation and the

Fox Hills Sandstone of the Lance

Formation are utilized for water

supply by coal mines within the

General Analysis Area, but these

units are not physically disturbed by

mining activities. Site-specific data

have been collected by PRCC, TBCC,

TCC, and ACC to characterize

baseline hydrologic conditions in each

of the respective LBA tracts. Figure

3-2 presents the hydrostratigraphic

units underlying the General Analysis

Area. The four mines included in this

analysis have at total of 64

monitoring wells within or near the

five LBA tracts. These include 10

monitoring wells in the alluvium, 12

monitoring wells in the Wasatch

overburden, 32 monitoring wells in

the coals, and 10 monitoring wells in

the underburden.

Recent Alluvium
3.0 Affected Environment

3-32 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

With the exception of Porcupine

Creek (NARO North LBA Tract) and

Antelope Creek (West Antelope LBA

Tract), which both contain alluvial

aquifers composed of coarse-grained

sand and fine gravels, the drainages

in the LBA tracts are generally dry

draws. The alluvial and colluvial

deposits associated with these draws

are generally thin and not laterally

extensive enough to be considered an

aquifer.

Wasatch Formation 

Within the PRB the Wasatch

Formation consists of interbedded

sandstones, siltstones, and shale with

occasional discontinuous coal

stringers and clinker deposits. This

description basically holds true for all

of the LBA tracts and their

alternatives contained within the

General Analysis Area. Saturated

strata within the Wasatch are limited

in areal extent and are typically thin,

lenticular sandstones. The hydraulic

connection between sandstone lenses

is tenuous due to intervening shale

aquitards; thus, groundwater

movement through the Wasatch

Formation overburden is limited. The

sandstone and thin coal stringers,

where saturated, will yield water to

wells, and this water is primarily used

for stock watering. Because the

saturated sandstone and coal units

within the Wasatch Formation are not

continuous, the Wasatch is not

considered to be a regional aquifer.

Another geologic unit which may be

considered a part of the Wasatch

Formation is scoria, also called

clinker or burn. It consists of

sediments which were baked, fused,

and melted in place when the

underlying coal burned

spontaneously. These burned

sediments collapsed into the void left

by the burned coal. Scoria deposits

can be a very permeable aquifer and

can extend laterally for miles in the

eastern PRB. The occurrence of

scoria is site specific; the NARO

South LBA Tract is the only tract in

the General Analysis Area containing

any appreciable amount of scoria.

The hydrologic function of scoria in

the general area is to provide

infiltration of precipitation and

recharge to laterally contiguous

overburden and Wyodak coal.

Recharge to the Wasatch Formation is

from the infiltration of precipitation

and lateral movement of water from

adjacent clinker bodies. Regionally,

groundwater is discharged from the

Wasatch Formation by evaporation

and transpiration, by pumping wells,

and by seepage into the alluvium

along stream drainages. For the

Wasatch Formation as a whole, the

discontinuous nature of the water

bearing units results in low overall

hydraulic conductivity and low

groundwater flow rates. Because of

the varied nature of the aquifer units

within the Wasatch, hydraulic

properties are variable as well. 

Water quality in the Wasatch

Formation is extremely variable, with

TDS concentrations ranging from 360

mg/L to 7,360 mg/L in the General

Analysis Area.

Wyodak Coal

Within the General Analysis Area the

Wyodak coal seam is most often
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-33

divided by partings that separate it

into two or more units. The separate

units are typically given local names

which vary from mine to mine. (e.g.,

Upper and Lower Wyodak). A general

discussion of the coal seam aquifer is

presented as follows.

Due to its continuity, the Wyodak

coal seam is considered a regional

aquifer within the PRB. Hydraulic

conductivity within the Wyodak coal

seam is highly variable and is

reflective of the amount of fracturing

the coal has undergone, as

unfractured coal is virtually

impermeable. The yield of

groundwater to wells and mine pits

is smallest where the permeability of

the coal is derived primarily from

localized unloading fractures. These

fractures, which are the most

common, were created by the

expansion of the coal as the weight of

overlying sediments was slowly

removed by erosion. The highest

permeability is imparted to the coal

by tectonic fractures. These are

through-going fractures of areal

importance created during

deformation of the south Powder

River structural basin. The presence

of these fractures can be recognized

by their linear expression at the

ground surface, controlling the

orientation of stream drainages and

topographic depressions. Due to

their pronounced surface expression,

these tectonic fractures are often

referred to as “lineaments”. Coal

permeability along lineaments can be

increased by orders of magnitude over

that in the coal fractured by

unloading only. 

The chemistry of groundwater in the

coal is variable within the General

Analysis Area. In general, it is a

sodium-bicarbonate type with TDS

concentrations increasing in a

downdip direction. Within the

General Analysis Area, TDS

concentrations range from 382 mg/L

to 4,840 mg/L.

Prior to mining, the direction of

groundwater flow within the coal

aquifer was generally from recharge

areas near the outcrop and burn zone

into the basin, following the dip of the

coal. Site-specific water-level data

collected by mining companies and

presented in the GAGMO 20-year

report (Hydro-Engineering 2000)

indicate that the groundwater flow

directions have been influenced by

mining activities. Near active mining

areas, groundwater flow within the

coal aquifer is typically toward the

mine pits.

Subcoal Fort Union Formation

The subcoal Fort Union Formation

can be divided into three hydrologic

units: the Tongue River aquifer, the

Lebo member, and the Tullock aquifer

(Law 1976). The hydrologic units

below the Wyodak coal are not

directly disturbed by mining, but

many mines use them for water

supply wells. In a few cases there

have been drawdowns in the subcoal

aquifer due to leakage into mine pits,

dewatering, and CBM development

(BLM 2001b). The Tongue River

aquifer consists of lenticular finegrained shale and sandstone. The

Lebo member, also referred to as “the

Lebo confining layer”, is typically

more fine-grained than the other two
3.0 Affected Environment

3-34 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

members and generally retards the

movement of water (Lewis and

Hotchkiss 1981). The Tullock aquifer

consists of discontinuous lenses of

sandstone separated by interbedded

shale and siltstone. Transmissivity is

the equal to an aquifer’s hydraulic

conductivity or permeability times its

thickness and is commonly used

when discussing the hydraulic

properties of the Fort Union

Formation, where wells are completed

by exposing many discrete sand

lenses to the well bore.

Transmissivities are generally higher

in the deeper Tullock aquifer than in

the Tongue River or Lebo, and many

mines in the PRB have water-supply

wells completed in this interval

(Martin et al. 1988). The average

transmissivity for this member as

reported by OSM (1984) is 290

ft2

/day. All five of the mines located

within the General Analysis Area use

deep wells completed in the subcoal

Fort Union Formation for water

supply. Fort Union water supply

wells in the General Analysis Area

generally range from 600 to 2,000 ft

in depth.

The water quality of the Fort Union

Formation is generally good. TDS

concentrations measured at various

Fort Union Formation water supply

wells in the General Analysis Area

range from 230 mg/L to 520 mg/L.

Water from the subcoal Fort Union

Formation is of the sodiumbicarbonate type. This water is

generally suitable for domestic use

and may be suitable for livestock and

wildlife watering, and irrigation,

depending upon site-specific SAR

values.

Lance and Fox Hills Formations

Underlying the Fort Union Formation

is the Lance Formation of Cretaceous

age. At the base of the Lance

Formation is the Fox Hills Sandstone.

The Lance Formation and Fox Hills

Sandstone are used for water supply

by PRCC at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex. The

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex

water supply well is 5,400 ft deep and

capable of producing about 400 gpm.

Water from this well is of the sodiumbicarbonate type with a TDS

concentration of approximately 1,200

mg/L. This water is suitable for

livestock and wildlife watering.

3.6.2 Surface Water

From north to south, the General

Analysis Area is drained by North

Prong Little Thunder Creek, Little

Thunder Creek, Porcupine Creek,

Spring Creek, and Antelope Creek

(Figure 3-10). North Prong Little

Thunder Creek is a tributary of Little

Thunder Creek, which is a tributary

of Black Thunder Creek. Porcupine

Creek and Spring Creek are

tributaries of Antelope Creek. Both

Black Thunder Creek and Antelope

Creek are tributaries of the Cheyenne

River.
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-35

Figure 3-10
3.0 Affected Environment

3-36 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

The Little Thunder and West

Roundup LBA Tracts are located in

the headwater area of Little Thunder

Creek. Surface water flow in this

area is typically ephemeral (i.e., only

in direct response to rainfall or

snowmelt).

The NARO North LBA Tract is drained

by Porcupine Creek and its

tributaries. In this area, flow in

Porcupine Creek is ephemeral.

The NARO South and West Antelope

LBA Tracts are in the Antelope Creek

watershed. Antelope Creek is an

intermittent stream that, prior to

mining, received a small degree of

baseflow from coal seams.

Water quality in each of these

streams is highly dependent on flow.

Typically, high flows are low in TDS

and low flows are higher in TDS. The

ephemeral nature of the majority of

these streams results in a paucity of

surface water quality data. Antelope

Creek does, however, have regular

flow, and as such, ACC has extensive

flow and quality records. 

3.6.3 Water Rights

Water rights in Wyoming are

administered by Wyoming SEO.

Water rights are granted for both

groundwater and surface water

appropriations. Prior to development

of water resources associated with

energy development, water

appropriations (either groundwater or

surface water) in the southern PRB

were typically for livestock use.

Currently, the majority of the water

rights in the General Analysis Area

are held by mining companies and

methane development.

Records of the SEO were searched for

groundwater rights within a threemile radius of each LBA as applied for

under the Proposed Action and

Alternatives. This information is

required for WDEQ permitting. The

results of these searches are provided

below for each tract. A listing of the

non-coal mine groundwater rights

within three miles of each tract is

presented in Appendix F.

For the NARO North LBA Tract, SEO

data indicate there are 539 permitted

water wells within three miles of the

tract, of which 412 are owned by coal

mining companies. The other 127

wells are permitted for the following

uses:

• 49 monitoring and

miscellaneous

• 37 livestock

• 16 livestock and CBM

development

• 11 miscellaneous

• 6 livestock and domestic

• 3 CBM development

• 2 livestock and miscellaneous

• 2 livestock, miscellaneous, and

CBM development

• 1 industrial

For the NARO South LBA Tract, SEO

data indicate there are 615 permitted

water wells within three miles of the

tract, of which 544 are owned by coal

mining companies. The 71 other

wells are apportioned into the

following use categories:

• 27 livestock
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-37

• 6 livestock and CBM

development

• 16 monitoring and

miscellaneous

• 6 livestock and domestic

• 3 industrial

• 1 CBM development

• 1 livestock and irrigation

• 1 livestock, miscellaneous and

CBM development

SEO data indicate there are 634

permitted water wells within three

miles of the Little Thunder LBA Tract,

of which 182 are owned by coal

mining companies. The other 451

wells are permitted for the following

uses:

• 233 CBM development only

• 116 CBM development and

livestock watering

• 38 monitoring and

miscellaneous

• 37 livestock watering only

• 10 livestock watering and

domestic use

• 5 CBM development and

miscellaneous

• 5 monitoring, livestock

watering and miscellaneous

• 3 livestock watering, industrial

and miscellaneous

• 2 reservoir supply and

miscellaneous

• 2 CBM development, livestock

watering and miscellaneous

SEO data indicate there are 441

permitted water wells within three

miles of West Roundup LBA Tract, of

which 221 are owned by coal mining

companies. The other 220 other wells

are permitted for the following uses:

• 90 CBM development only

• 50 monitoring or miscellaneous

• 38 livestock watering only

• 27 CBM development and

livestock watering

• 8 monitoring only

• 3 industrial

• 2 domestic use and livestock

watering

• 2 CBM development, livestock

watering and miscellaneous

SEO data indicate there are 276

permitted water wells within three

miles of West Antelope LBA Tract, of

which 198 are owned by coal mining

companies. Permitted uses of the 78

other wells are summarized as

follows:

• 33 livestock watering only

• 16 CBM development and

livestock watering

• 10 monitoring or miscellaneous

• 8 livestock watering or

domestic

• 5 CBM development only

• 2 livestock watering and

miscellaneous

• 1 livestock watering and

reservoir supply

• 1 industrial

• 1 livestock watering,

miscellaneous and CBM

development

• 1 domestic use only

3.7 Alluvial Valley Floors

WDEQ regulations define AVFs as

unconsolidated stream laid deposits

where water availability is sufficient

for subirrigation or flood irrigation

agricultural activities. Prior to leasing

and mining, AVFs must be identified

because SMCRA restricts mining

activities which affect AVFs that are
3.0 Affected Environment

3-38 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

determined to be significant to

agriculture. Impacts to designated

AVFs are generally not permitted if

the AVF is determined to be

significant to agriculture. If the AVF

is determined not to be significant to

agriculture, or if the permit to affect

the AVF was issued prior to the

effective date of SMCRA, the AVF can

be disturbed during mining but must

be restored as part of the reclamation

process. The determination of

significance to agriculture is made by

WDEQ/LQD, and it is based on

specific calculations related to the

production of crops or forage on the

AVF and the size of the existing

agriculture operations on the land of

which the AVF is a part. For any

designated AVF, regardless of its

significance to agriculture, it must be

demonstrated that the essential

hydrologic functions of the valley will

be protected.

Guidelines established by OSM and

WDEQ/LQD for the identification of

AVFs require detailed studies of

geomorphology, soils, hydrology,

vegetation, and land use. These

technical disciplines are applied as

limiting criteria along three paths to

identify 1) the possibility for artificial

flood irrigation, 2) past and/or

present flood irrigation, and 3)

apparent subirrigated areas and the

possibility for natural flood irrigation.

Areas passing the limiting criteria are

subjected to an assessment of their

practical use for agriculture.

Investigations have been conducted

by PRCC, TBCC, TCC, and ACC to

determine the presence of AVFs

within and surrounding the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines, respectively. 

AVF investigations conducted within

the General Analysis Area have

identified AVFs that occur along

Porcupine Creek, Antelope Creek,

Little Thunder Creek, and North

Prong Little Thunder Creek

downstream of the LBA tracts (see

Figure 3-10 for the general location of

surface water features in the General

Analysis Area). One 250-acre floodirrigated hay meadow near the

confluence of Porcupine Creek and

Antelope Creek has been determined

to be significant to agriculture. This

hay meadow is the only flood-irrigated

land identified in the SPRB General

Analysis Area. This flood-irrigated

AVF is not within the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex’s current

mine permit area, with the exception

of 2.5 acres of flood-irrigated land

within the mine’s railroad spur. This

AVF does lie within the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex’s

anticipated permit amendment study

area. A total of approximately 100

acres of declared AVF occur within

the mine’s railroad spur along

Porcupine and Antelope Creeks, eastsoutheast of the NARO South LBA

Tract. This AVF is outside the area of

anticipated coal removal. Special

measures have been designated to

ensure that the mine operation will

not interrupt or preclude farming on

the flood-irrigated lands, and

Porcupine Creek downstream from

the mine’s facilities will not be

affected by mining. No other

declared AVFs or potential AVFs

identified in the General Analysis

Area have been determined by the
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-39

WDEQ/LQD to be significant to

agriculture.

The NARO North and Little Thunder

LBA Tracts have been declared nonAVF by WDEQ/LQD. The NARO

South LBA Tract, West Roundup LBA

Tract and portions of the West

Antelope LBA Tract have not yet been

formally evaluated for the presence of

AVFs. 

Portions of Porcupine Creek and its

tributaries, Boss Draw and Corder

Creek, cross the NARO North LBA

Tract (Figure 3-10). WDEQ/LQD has

determined that no AVF lands are

present within these drainages. The

declared AVF on Porcupine Creek is

located several miles downstream of

the NARO North LBA Tract.

Portions of Little Thunder Creek and

North Prong Little Thunder Creek

cross the Little Thunder LBA Tract

(Figure 3-10). WDEQ/LQD has

declared 143 acres along the lower

reach of Little Thunder Creek and

194 acres along the lower reach of

North Prong Little Thunder Creek as

AVFs. The declared AVFs are located

several miles downstream from the

Little Thunder LBA Tract and will not

be affected by the planned mining

and reclamation within the tract.

No unconsolidated stream laid

deposits are found within the NARO

South LBA Tract; therefore, it is

unlikely that an AVF declaration

would be made.

A portion of Olson Draw, a tributary

of Trussler Creek which is a tributary

of the Little Thunder Creek, is located

on the West Roundup LBA Tract

(Figure 3-10). Based on previous

non-AVF declarations made on Olson

Draw downstream of the West

Roundup LBA Tract, it is unlikely

that this channel would receive an

AVF declaration upstream on the LBA

tract where the drainage is smaller

and AVF characteristics are

negligible. 

Antelope Creek within and extending

two miles upstream from the existing

Antelope Mine permit boundary,

including a portion of the West

Antelope LBA Tract (Figure 3-10), has

been investigated for the presence of

an AVF (ACC 1998). A portion of

Antelope Creek within the current

permit area has been designated by

WDEQ/LQD as “possible subirrigated

AVF of minor importance to

agriculture”. ACC’s approved mining

plan avoids disturbing Antelope Creek

and an adjacent buffer zone. Portions

of Spring Creek within the West

Antelope LBA Tract are potential AVF

due to the presence of stream laid

deposits that are subirrigated,

however historical efforts at flood

irrigation within the Spring Creek

valley have not been successful.

Site-specific studies will be part of the

mine permitting process if lease sales

are held and the LBA tracts are

proposed for mining. Declarations of

the presence or absence of AVFs,

their significance to agriculture, and

the appropriate perimeters will then

be made by the WDEQ/LQD. It is

reasonable to assume that if the

WDEQ/LQD determines AVFs are

present within any of the LBA tracts

that are leased, mining would be

permitted because all of the proposed
3.0 Affected Environment

3-40 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

lease areas consist entirely of

undeveloped rangeland.

3.8 Wetlands

Waters of the U.S. is a collective term

for all areas subject to regulation by

the COE under Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act. Waters of the U.S.

include special aquatic sites,

wetlands, and jurisdictional wetlands.

Special aquatic sites are 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 that includes

“those areas that are inundated or

saturated by surface or groundwater

at a frequency and duration sufficient

to support, and that under normal

circumstances do support, a

prevalence of vegetation typically

adapted for life in saturated soil

conditions. Wetlands generally

include swamps, marshes, bogs, and

similar areas” (33 CFR 328.3(a)(7)(b)).

Jurisdictional wetlands are defined as

those wetlands which are within the

extent of COE regulatory review.

They must contain three components:

hydric soils, a dominance of

hydrophytic plants, and wetland

hydrology. As the result of a recent

Supreme Court ruling (Solid Waste

Agency of Northern Cook County v.

United States Army Corps of

Engineers, January 9, 2001) nonnavigable, isolated intrastate

wetlands (e.g., playas) and other

waters of the U.S. are not considered

jurisdictional. Navigable, nonisolated wetlands and other waters of

the U.S. are still considered

jurisdictional by the COE.

Many wetland scientists consider

areas that contain only one of the

three criteria listed above as

functional wetlands. The USFWS

used this categorization in producing

the NWI maps. These maps were

produced using aerial photo

interpretation, with limited field

verification.

Several types of wetland systems are

present within the General Analysis

Area. These wetland systems are

limited in size, however the vegetation

in these environments is highly

productive and diverse, and provides

habitat for many wildlife species.

Further, the systems as a whole play

important roles in controlling flood

waters, recharging groundwater, and

filtering pollutants (Niering 1985).

Wetlands can occur in a variety of

forms within the General Analysis

Area. Riverine wetlands, defined by

their close association with perennial

streams, occur sporadically along

drainages within the General Analysis

Area. These areas are supported not

only by the groundwater associated

with the drainages, but also by

periodic flooding events. Common

species in these settings can include

willows (Salix spp.), scouring rush

(Equisetum spp.), sedges (Carex spp.),

and rushes (Juncus spp.) (USFS

1987a).

Depressional areas that are naturally

subirrigated support palustrine

wetlands. These wetlands are

commonly referred to as wet meadows

and support a variety of lush plant
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-41

life. Common species are sedges,

rushes, cordgrass (Spartina spp.),

mint (Mentha spp.), and buttercup

(Ranunculus spp.). Depressional

areas that hold water may support

lacustrine wetlands. When natural,

these wetland areas are called playa

lakes; however, man made structures

such as stock ponds also may

support these systems. Cattails

(Typha spp.) and bulrush (Scirpus

spp.) are the most common species in

these systems, although lady’s thumb

(Polygonum spp.), verbena (Verbena

spp.), and milkweed (Asclepias spp.)

also may occur (USFS 1987a).

The NARO North and NARO South

LBA Tracts and anticipated

disturbance area include 46.9 acres

of waters of the U.S. of which 18.4

acres are jurisdictional wetlands and

28.5 acres are non-jurisdictional

wetlands. 

The Little Thunder LBA Tract and

anticipated disturbance area includes

8.59 acres of jurisdictional waters of

the U.S., with 5.19 acres of

jurisdictional wetlands. The tract

includes an additional 16.77 acres of

non-jurisdictional wetlands. 

The West Roundup LBA Tract and

anticipated disturbance area includes

28.85 acres of waters of the U.S. with

6.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.

The tract includes 20.21 acres of nonjurisdictional wetlands. 

The West Antelope LBA Tract and

anticipated disturbance area includes

33.52 acres of waters of the U.S. with

31.77 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.

No non-jurisdictional wetlands were

identified on this tract.

The presence of jurisdictional

wetlands on a mine property does not

preclude mining. Jurisdictional

wetlands must be identified and

special permitting procedures are

required to assure that after mining

there will be no net loss of wetlands.

A wetland delineation must be

completed according to approved

procedures (COE 1987) and

submitted to the COE for verification

as to the amounts and types of

jurisdictional wetlands present. In

Wyoming, once the delineation has

been verified, it is made a part of the

mine permit document. The

reclamation plan is then revised to

incorporate at least equal types and

number of jurisdictional wetlands.

Section 404 does not cover functional

wetlands. They may be restored as

required by the surface managing

agency (on public land) or by the

private landowner. There are public

lands administered by USFS included

in the NARO North, Little Thunder,

and West Roundup LBA Tracts. 

3.9 Vegetation

Numerous baseline vegetation

surveys associated with surface

mining operations have been

conducted within the General

Analysis Area. Vegetation surveys of

the General Analysis Area have been

conducted by Intermountain

Resources of Laramie, Wyoming, BKS

Environmental Associates, Inc. of

Gillette, Wyoming, and Ecologic of

Bakersfield, California. Each of the

LBA study areas is comprised of the

LBA tract as applied for, BLM’s

alternative tract configuration, and

the applicant mine’s anticipated

permit amendment study area.
3.0 Affected Environment

3-42 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

The vegetation of the General

Analysis Area consists of species

common to eastern Wyoming. Forty

vegetation types were identified within

the General Analysis Area: Blue

Grama Roughland, Blue Grama

Upland, Big Sagebrush

Upland/Shrubland/Grassland,

Birdsfoot Sagebrush Upland, Sandy

Saline Meadow, Grassy Bottom,

Mixed Sandy Upland, Wet

Meadow/Water/Riparian,

Greasewood Lowland, Silver

Sagebrush Lowland, Treated Grazing

Land, Big Sagebrush Draw, Disturbed

Lands, Mixed Grass Prairie, Rough

Breaks Shrublands, Streamside

Meadow, Playa Barrens/Grassland,

Reservoirs, Cultivated Pastureland,

Pastureland/Hayland, Alkali

Shrubland, Densely/Sparsely

Vegetated Playa, Cropland, Reclaimed

Lands, Alkali Bottomland Grass,

Spicebush Playa, Upland Grassland,

Breaks Grassland, Scoria Grassland,

Greasewood Grassland, Meadow

Grassland, Salt Grassland,

Agriculture, and Silver Sagebrush. 

The vegetation of the General

Analysis Area varies from sagebrush

and grassland-dominated uplands to

the heavily vegetated riparian areas

and stream terraces. The

predominant vegetation types, in

terms of total acres or occurrence, are

the sagebrush and grassland types,

which occur on approximately 65

percent of the lands inventoried in the

General Analysis Area. Other

common plant species on the level

uplands include western wheatgrass,

needleandthread grass, and plains

pricklypear. On the stream terraces,

common species include blue grama,

silver sagebrush, and greasewood.

Spicebush, foxtail barley, and inland

saltgrass occur near and around

playas. Within the bottomlands and

riparian areas are mixtures of

western wheatgrass, Kentucky

bluegrass, and sedges. Cottonwood

trees varying in density and extent

occur within some of the larger

stream valleys. Blue grama, big

sagebrush, and bluebunch

wheatgrass occur on the ridges and

rougher areas. The occurrence and

relative distribution of the dominant

vegetation types is shown in Table 3-

7.

3.9.1 Threatened, Endangered,

Proposed, and Candidate Plant

Species and USFS Region 2 Sensitive

Species

Refer to Appendix G.

3.10 Wildlife

Background information on wildlife in

the General Analysis Area was drawn

from several sources, including:

• FEIS for the North Jacobs

Ranch Coal Lease Application

(BLM 2001b);

• FEIS for the Horse Creek Coal

Lease Application (BLM 2000a);
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-43

Table 3-7. Dominant Vegetation Types in the General Analysis Area.

Vegetation Types Acreage Percentage

Grassland 14,674 33.40

Big Sagebrush 14,075 32.00

Breaks Grassland 3,894 8.90

Playa Barrens 2,119 4.80

Disturbed Areas 1,907 4.30

Meadows/Riparian 1,828 4.20

Greasewood 1,530 3.50

Pasture/Hayland 1,190 2.70

Saline Grasslands 1,135 2.60

Agriculture 649 1.50

Birdsfoot Sagebrush 280 0.64

Silver Sagebrush 256 0.60

Playa Grasslands 252 0.76

Reservoirs/Stockponds 154 0.40

Reclaimed Land 40 0.09

Total 43,983 100.00 

• FEIS for the Powder River Coal

and Thundercloud Coal Lease

Applications (BLM 1998);

• FEIS for the North Rochelle

Coal Lease Application (BLM

1997b);

• FEA for the Antelope Coal

Lease Application (BLM 1995);

• FEIS for the West Black

Thunder Coal Lease

Application (BLM 1992a);

• Wyoming Natural Diversity

Database (University of

Wyoming 2001);

• WGFD and USFWS records;

and

• personal contacts with WGFD

and USFWS biologists.

Site-specific data for the proposed

lease areas were also obtained from

WDEQ/LQD permit applications and

annual wildlife reports for the

applicant mines. Baseline and

annual monitoring surveys cover

large perimeters around each mine’s

current permit areas. Consequently,

a majority of the LBA tracts as

applied for under the Proposed

Actions, BLM’s alternative tract

configurations, and the applicant

mines’ anticipated permit amendment

study areas have been surveyed

during baseline and annual wildlife

surveys for the Jacobs Ranch, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, and

Antelope Mines. In addition, PRCC

conducted wildlife baseline

investigations in 2000 on the NARO

North and NARO South LBA Tracts as

proposed, the area added by

Alternative 2, the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex’s

anticipated permit amendment study

area, and areas within a two-mile

radius. No comprehensive wildlife

baseline studies have yet been

conducted expressly for the Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts, although sitespecific surveys for the entire
3.0 Affected Environment

3-44 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

proposed lease areas and appropriate

perimeters will be part of the mine

permitting process if lease sales are

held and the tracts are proposed for

mining. 

The General Analysis Area consists

primarily of uplands. The topography

is relatively level to gently sloping,

except along some of the drainages

where channel incision has created

some steeper slopes and gullying.

All of the vegetation types listed in the

vegetation section provide habitat for

some wildlife species. In an

undisturbed condition, the major

vegetation types in the General

Analysis Area provide high quality

habitats for many species. Vegetation

types tend to occur in a mosaic

across the landscape; therefore, many

wildlife species can be expected to

utilize more than one habitat type.

Wildlife habitat types include

sagebrush-grassland, upland

grassland, seeded grassland,

bottomland grassland and riparian

areas. The predominant habitat is

sagebrush-grassland, which consists

mostly of big sagebrush, western

wheatgrass, needleandthread, prairie

junegrass, sandberg bluegrass, blue

grama, and cheatgrass brome. The

upland grassland or mixed-grass

prairie is the next largest habitat type

and it consists mostly of

needleandthread, western

wheatgrass, prairie junegrass, sixweeks-grass, cheatgrass brome, and

fluffweed. Seeded grassland is

dominated by crested wheatgrass, but

older seedings have a mixture of less

dominant species including

needleandthread, fringed sagewort,

prairie junegrass, threeawn, and big

sagebrush. Bottomland grassland

and riparian habitat is limited to

corridors along Antelope Creek,

Spring Creek, Horse Creek, Porcupine

Creek, Trussler Creek, West School

Creek, Little Thunder Creek, North

Prong Little Thunder Creek, and some

of the larger tributaries of these

streams. Vegetation common to these

areas includes Kentucky bluegrass,

western wheatgrass, blue grama,

green needle grass, mutton bluegrass,

sedges, foxtail barley, Japanese

brome, alkali bluegrass, and poverty

weed.

Several playas dominated by western

wheatgrass are scattered throughout

the General Analysis Area. Very few

trees are present in the General

Analysis Area with the exception of

some stands of cottonwood along

Antelope Creek and a few isolated

cottonwoods along some of the larger

drainages.

An occasional rough breaks habitat is

found within the General Analysis

Area and is distinguished by the

irregularity of vegetation, slopes, and

soils. Vegetation on the rough breaks

is typically sparse and comprised

mostly of western wheatgrass,

needleandthread, blue grama, broom

snakeweed, rubber rabbitbrush,

wildbuckwheat, birdfoot sagewort,

and big sagebrush.

All streams are ephemeral or

intermittent, but a few persistent

pools are often present in their

channels. Development of CBM

resources in the area west of and

within the General Analysis Area

could potentially increase surface

flows in some drainages and fill
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-45

reservoirs, ponds, and playas,

resulting in an increase in habitat for

waterfowl, shorebirds, and aquatic

species.

3.10.1 Big Game

The four big game species that are

expected to occur in suitable habitat

throughout the General Analysis Area

include pronghorn (Antilocapra

americana), mule deer (Odocoileus

hemionus), white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus), and elk

(Cervus elaphus). No crucial big game

habitat or migration corridors are

recognized by the WGFD in this area.

Pronghorn are the most common big

game species in this area. This

species is most abundant in the

upland grassland or mixed-grass

prairie habitats. Reclaimed grassland

constitutes only a small portion of the

available habitat around the mines,

although a large portion of pronghorn

are observed during winter surveys in

these areas. Home range for

pronghorn can vary between 400

acres to 5,600 acres, according to

several factors including season,

habitat quality, population

characteristics, and local livestock

occurrence. Typically, daily

movement does not exceed six miles.

Pronghorn make seasonal migrations

between summer and winter habitats,

but migrations are often triggered by

availability of succulent plants and

not local weather conditions

(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). The WGFD

has classified the General Analysis

Area as yearlong and winter/yearlong

pronghorn range. The WGFD

Cheyenne River Herd Unit

encompasses the majority of the

General Analysis Area, while a small

part of the area is included the WGFD

Hilight Herd Unit. In post-season

2000, the WGFD estimated the

Cheyenne River Herd Unit to be

roughly 34,200 animals with an

objective of 38,000. The WGFD

estimated the 2000 post-season

population of the Hilight Herd Unit to

be approximately 10,000 animals,

just under the objective of 11,000

(WGFD 2000).

Mule deer use nearly all habitats, but

prefer sagebrush grassland, rough

breaks, and mixed-grass prairie.

Browse is an important component of

the mule deer’s diet throughout the

year, comprising as much as 60

percent of total intake during

autumn, while forbs and grasses

typically make up the rest of their diet

(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). This species

tends to be more migratory than

white-tailed deer, traveling from

higher elevations in the summer to

winter ranges that provide more food

and cover. The WGFD has classified

most of the General Analysis Area as

out of the normal mule deer use

range, although areas that roughly

follow the predominant stream

channels are classified as yearlong

range and some winter/yearlong

range is found near Antelope Creek in

Converse County. The entire area is

located within the WGFD Thunder

Basin Mule Deer Herd Unit. The

WGFD estimated the post-season

2000 mule deer population for that

unit at approximately 21,700, roughly

67 percent over the current objective

of 13,000. However, as reported in

the 2000 WGFD Annual Big Game

Herd Unit Report (WGFD 2000),

historical data suggest that a herd
3.0 Affected Environment

3-46 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

objective of 20,000 would be more

appropriate for the Thunder Basin

Herd Unit. Consequently, the WGFD

has proposed increasing the herd unit

objective to that higher level.

White-tailed deer are not managed

separately by WGFD, but are

included with mule deer as part of the

Thunder Basin Herd Unit. Whitetailed deer prefer riparian habitats

and are therefore seldom observed in

the General Analysis Area due to the

lack of that particular habitat. WGFD

classifies the entire General Analysis

Area, with the exception of a narrow

corridor along Antelope Creek, as out

of the normal white-tailed deer use

range. White-tailed deer are

occasionally recorded along Antelope

Creek, which is classified as yearlong

range.

Elk reside in the Rochelle Hills that

border the eastern edge of the

General Analysis Area. Elk do

wander from the protection of the

Rochelle Hills to forage in native and

reclaimed grasslands within the

General Analysis Area, although none

of the area is classified by the WGFD

as an elk use area. As more lands are

reclaimed from mining, elk are

shifting their winter use to these

areas. The WGFD has designated an

approximately five square mile area

on reclaimed lands within the Jacobs

Ranch Mine permit area as crucial

winter habitat for the Rochelle Hills

elk herd (Odekoven 1994).

3.10.2 Other Mammals

A variety of small and medium-sized

mammal species occur in the vicinity

of the General Analysis Area. These

include predators and furbearers,

such as coyote (Canis latrans), red fox

(Vulpes vulpes), bobcat (Lynx rufus),

striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis),

long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata),

badger (Taxidea taxus), muskrat

(Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon

lotor), and beaver (Castor canadensis).

Prey species include various rodents

(such as mice, rats, voles, gophers,

ground squirrels, chipmunks,

muskrats, and prairie dogs) and

lagomorphs (jackrabbits and

cottontails). These species are

cyclically common and widespread

throughout the region

(Commonwealth 1980, Powder River

Eagle Studies 1987-1999).

Porcupines and bats (hoary and big

brown) have also been recorded. The

prey species are important for raptors

and other predators. 

Surveys have been conducted to

locate prairie dog colonies on and

within a half mile of the proposed

lease areas, current mine permit

areas and anticipated permit

amendment study areas in the

General Analysis Area. 

There are six prairie dog towns

located on or within a half mile of the

two NARO LBA tracts. No colonies

were observed on the NARO North

LBA Tract and one colony is within a

half-mile radius of that tract. Three

colonies were observed on the NARO

South LBA Tract and two others are

within a half-mile radius of that tract.

No colonies were observed on the area

added to the NARO South tract under

Alternate 2.

Recent surveys indicate prairie dog

colonies are not located on or within
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-47

one-half mile of the proposed lease

area for the Little Thunder LBA Tract

or the area added under Alternative 2.

Recent surveys indicate no prairie dog

colonies are located within the West

Roundup LBA Tract. One small

colony is located within the area

added under Alternatives 2 and 3.

One other colony is located just over

a half mile south of the LBA tract. 

Four small black-tailed prairie dog

colonies have been inventoried on and

within one-half-mile of the West

Antelope LBA Tract and Alternative 2

area. Two colonies are included in, or

overlap the proposed lease area; one

in the north-central part and one in

the south-central part of the LBA

tract as applied for under the

Proposed Action. A third colony

covers roughly 2.5 acres in the

southwestern corner of the lands

added by Alternative 2. The fourth

colony is on an existing lease at the

Antelope Mine just beyond the

eastern boundary of the LBA tract

and has been disturbed by the

Antelope Mine operations.

3.10.3 Raptors

Common raptor species expected to

occur in suitable habitats in the

General Analysis Area include golden

eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), 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), burrowing owl (Athene

cunicularia), and short-eared owl (Asio

flammeus). Those species that

commonly nest in the General

Analysis Area are the ferruginous

hawk, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk,

Swainson’s hawk, great horned owl,

and burrowing owl. Habitat is limited

for those species that nest exclusively

in trees or on cliffs, but several

species are adapted to nesting on the

ground, creek banks, buttes, or rock

outcrops. Over time, natural forces

have destroyed many nests, while

others have been relocated for

mitigation or removed by mining

activities. In some cases, nests have

been created to mitigate other nest

sites impacted by mining operations

at these mines. 

As of a survey that was completed in

2000, there were 77 intact raptor

nests within the NARO North and

NARO South LBA Tracts and a twomile radius area, 45 of which were

active.

After the 2001 breeding season 63

known nests were intact within Black

Thunder Mine’s current raptor survey

area, which includes the current

Black Thunder Mine permit area and

a two-mile radius area.

After the 2001 breeding season 28

known nests were intact within the

West Roundup LBA Tract raptor

survey area, which includes West

Roundup LBA tract, areas added

under Alternatives 2 and 3, and a

two-mile perimeter. One of those

intact nests is within the LBA tract as

proposed, one nest is within the area

added under Alternative 3, and the

other 26 nests are in the two-mile

perimeter survey area. 

At the end of 2000, there were 42

intact raptor nests within the raptor
3.0 Affected Environment

3-48 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

survey area for the West Antelope

LBA Tract, which includes the tract

as proposed, lands added by

Alternative 2 and a two-mile radius.

Nine nests in the survey area were

occupied: seven on the LBA tract as

proposed and two on the lands added

under Alternative 2.

3.10.4 Game Birds

A few upland game birds are known

to regularly occur in suitable habitats

in the General Analysis Area. The

species include mourning doves

(Zenaida macroura), sage grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus), and wild

turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). The

gray partridge (Perdix perdix) and the

sharp-tailed grouse have also been

observed sporadically in the vicinity

of the General Analysis Area. The

sage grouse is a yearlong resident and

the most common upland game bird

species in the area. Sage grouse leks,

or strutting grounds, occur within the

General Analysis Area. SPRB mining

companies conduct searches for leks

and document the number of male

sage grouse attending them every

spring. Overall, the population

appears to be steadily declining.

Disturbance of leks, nesting areas,

and brood-rearing areas are the key

threats to this species in the General

Analysis Area.

The sage grouse is a yearlong resident

and is found on lands within and

adjacent to the NARO North and

NARO South LBA Tract wildlife study

area. There are no historic sage

grouse leks on or within two miles of

the LBA tracts and none were located

on or within two miles of the LBA

tracts during the 2000 survey. 

The sage grouse is a yearlong resident

in the general Black Thunder Mine

area but does not appear to frequent

the Little Thunder LBA Tract. One

sage grouse lek was discovered on the

Black Thunder Mine permit area in

1984. Annual monitoring of that lek,

known as the Black Thunder Lek,

began in 1985 and has continued to

the present. In 2001, for the eighth

consecutive year, no grouse were

observed at the former Black Thunder

Lek. 

The Black Thunder Lek, discussed

above, is located approximately a half

mile north of the West Roundup LBA

Tract. As indicated above, the lek has

been abandoned since 1994. No new

leks were found and no sage grouse

were observed during a survey

conducted during the spring of 2001

in the North Rochelle Mine permit

area and a one-mile perimeter. 

Sage grouse are not common in the

vicinity of the West Antelope LBA

wildlife study area or the adjacent

Antelope Mine. The lack of use of this

area by sage grouse has been

documented since the late 1970s. No

sage grouse leks have been observed

on or near the Antelope Mine during

baseline studies (1978-1979) or the

mine’s annual wildlife monitoring

surveys (1982-2000), which included

the eastern 73 percent of the LBA

tract as proposed and the entire

Alternative 2 area. The nearest

known lek is approximately five miles

southeast of the LBA tract.

3.10.5 Migratory Bird Species of

Management Concern in Wyoming
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-49

Table 3-8 provides a list of the 40

Migratory Bird Species of

Management Concern in Wyoming

that the USFWS will use exclusively

for reviews concerning existing and

proposed coal mine leased land

(USFWS 2002). This listing was

taken directly from the Wyoming Bird

Conservation Plan (Cerovski et al.

2000). The regional status and

expected occurrence, historical

observations, and breeding records on

and near the SPRB LBA tracts for

each listed species are included in

Table 3-8. Depending on the

location, between 19 and 21 of the

listed species have historically been

observed within the General Analysis

Area. The species commonly

observed nesting in the area include

the ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl,

Brewer’s sparrow, lark bunting,

Swainson’s hawk, McCown’s

longspur, and vesper sparrow. The

mountain plover, upland sandpiper,

short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike,

chestnut-collared longspur,

grasshopper sparrow, and the greater

sage grouse do not have abundant

nesting habitat available, but have

been documented to nest within the

General Analysis Area.

The bald eagle is seasonally common

and most frequently observed during

the winter months. The burrowing

owl is common and classified as a

recent common breeder in the

General Analysis Area. Sage grouse,

recently added to the Level 1 list, is

uncommon in the General Analysis

Area and is classified as an

uncommon breeder.

Sited as the potential limiting factor,

suitable nesting habitat is scarce if

not absent in the General Analysis

Area for most of the Migratory Bird

Species of Management Concern in

Wyoming. The other species that are

listed in Table 3-8 have rarely or

never been recorded in the General

Analysis Area.

3.10.6 Other Species

Wildlife surveys within the General

Analysis Area have documented

numerous other wildlife species that

inhabit the region, including various

nongame birds, waterfowl,

shorebirds, herptiles, and nongame

fish. All these species were generally

common inhabitants of the area and

none were of specific concern to state

or federal agencies. Under natural

conditions, aquatic habitat is very

limited by the ephemeral nature of

surface waters in the General

Analysis Area. The lack of deep-water

habitat and extensive and persistent

water sources limits the presence and

diversity of fish and other aquatic

species. All perennial streamflow and

bodies of water in the area are now

the result of CBM-associated

discharges. With the addition of

produced water from CBM wells in
3.0 Affected Environment

3-50 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 3-8. 40 Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming for

Coal Mines: Their Regional Status, and Expected and Actual

Occurrence on or Near the SPRB Coal LBA Tracts.

Species

Seasonal

Status/Breeding

Records in

Northeastern WY1

Expected Occurrence

on and in Vicinity of

the LBA Tracts 2

Historical Sighting Records

and Breeding Status in

Vicinity of the LBA Tracts3

LEVEL I (species need conservation action)

Mountain plover* Summer/Breeder Uncommon None-Few sightings

Greater sage-grouse* Resident/Breeder Uncommon Uncommon breeder

McCown’s longspur* Summer/Breeder Common Occasional-Common breeder

Baird’s sparrow* Summer/Observed Rare None-Few sightings

Ferruginous hawk* Summer/Breeder Common Common breeder

Brewer’s sparrow* Summer/Breeder Common Common breeder

Sage sparrow Summer/Breeder Not Expected None

Swainson’s hawk Summer/Breeder Common Common breeder

Long-billed curlew* Summer/Observed Uncommon Few sightings, potential migrant

Short-eared owl* Summer/Breeder Uncommon Few sightings, potential breeder

Peregrine falcon Resident/Observed Uncommon Migrant None

Burrowing owl* Summer/Breeder Common Recent common breeder

Bald eagle* Resident/Breeder Seasonally Common Frequent in winter

Upland sandpiper* Summer/Breeder Uncommon Few sightings, potential breeder

LEVEL II (species need monitoring)

Cassin’s kingbird Never Recorded Not Expected None

Lark bunting* Summer/Breeder Common Common breeder

Dickcissel* Summer/Observed Rare None-Few Sightings

Chestnut-collared

longspur*

Summer/Breeder Common Occasional breeder

Black-chinned

Hummingbird

Never Recorded Not Expected None

Pygmy nuthatch Never Recorded Not Expected None

Marsh wren Never Recorded Not Expected None

Western bluebird Summer/Breeder Not Expected None

Sage thrasher Summer/Breeder Uncommon Uncommon breeder

Grasshopper sparrow* Summer/Breeder Uncommon Few sightings, potential breeder

Bobolink Summer/Observed Rare None

Common loon* Summer/Observed Not Expected None-Few Sightings

Black-billed cuckoo Never Recorded Not Expected None

Red-headed woodpecker Summer/Breeder Uncommon None

Yellow-billed cuckoo Summer/Observed Very Rare None

Eastern screech-owl Never Recorded Not Expected None

Western screech-owl Never Recorded Not Expected None

Western scrub-jay Never Recorded Not Expected None

Loggerhead shrike* Summer/Breeder Uncommon Occasional breeder

Vesper sparrow Summer/Breeder Common Common breeder

Lark sparrow* Summer/Breeder Uncommon Few sightings

Ash-throated flycatcher Summer/Observed Not Expected None

Bushtit Never Recorded Not Expected None

Merlin* Resident/Observed Uncommon Few sightings

Sprague’s pipit Never Recorded Not Expected None

Barn owl Summer/Observed Very Rare None

1 Compiled from Luce, et al. (1999), for extreme southern Campbell and northern Converse Counties. 2 Expected occurrence in the study area was based on range, history of occurrence, and habitat availability. 3 Sighting records were derived from actual occurrence on or within one-half mile of the LBA tracts and anticipated permit amendment

study area.

* Species marked with an asterisk have historically been recorded during baseline or monitoring surveys for the four applicant mines.
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-51

the area, an increase in habitat for

waterfowl and aquatic species may

continue to occur.

3.10.7 Threatened, Endangered,

Proposed, and Candidate Animal

Species and USFS Region 2 Sensitive

Species

Refer to Appendix G.

3.11 Ownership and Use of Land

Land ownership within the General

Analysis Area consists of private

lands intermingled with federal lands.

Table 3-9 summarizes the

distribution of surface ownership for

each LBA tract, including the tract

and the entire study area BLM is

evaluating in the alternatives for each

tract. Federally owned lands in the

General Analysis Area include

portions of the TBNG administered by

the USFS. Livestock grazing on native

rangeland is the primary land use,

while oil and gas production, wildlife

habitat, and recreation are secondary

land uses for both public and private

lands. Surface ownership for each

LBA tract is shown in Figures 3-11

through 3-14.

Areas of disturbance within and near

the five proposed lease areas include

roads, oil and gas wells and

associated production facilities, and

surface mine-related facilities and

activities. State Highways 59 and

450 are in the vicinity of the LBA

tracts. Several paved county roads

traverse and provide public and

private access within the General

Analysis Area. These include County

Road 37, Antelope Road, Reno Road,

and Edwards Road.

The oil and gas estate within the LBA

tracts is both federally and privately

owned, with the majority

(approximately 67 percent) being

federally owned. Most of the federally

owned oil and gas estate is leased.

The ownership of the oil and gas

estate for each LBA tract is shown in

Figures 3-15 through 3-18. Lists of

the current federal oil and gas lessees

for each tract are shown in Tables 3-

10 through 3-13.

Table 3-9. Distribution of Surface Ownership Within Each LBA Tract and

Study Area.

LBA Tract

Federal Ownership Private Ownership

(Acres) (Percent) (Acres) (Percent)

NARO North (As Proposed) 1,718.6 9.8 650.8 3.7

NARO South (Alternative 2) 0.0 0.0 3,201.8 18.2

Little Thunder (Alternative 2) 1,100.7 6.3 3,982.8 22.7

West Roundup (Alternative 3) 1,257.1 7.2 1,783.1 10.1

West Antelope (Alternative 2) 0.0 0.0 3,877.9 22.1

Totals 4,076.4 23.3 13,496.4 76.7

Figure 3-11
3.0 Affected Environment

3-52 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-12
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-53

Figure 3-13
3.0 Affected Environment

3-54 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-14
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-55

Figure 3-15
3.0 Affected Environment

3-56 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-16
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-57

Figure 3-17
3.0 Affected Environment

3-58 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-18
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-59

Table 3-10. NARO North and South LBA Tracts Oil and Gas Ownership.

For the following locations, both the oil and gas rights (including coal bed methane) and coal

rights are owned by the federal government.

Location Lease Number Lessees of Record

T.42N., R.70W.

Section 28 WYW 143496 Independent Prod. Co.

Lots 9,10

Section 28 WYW 127399 Big West Oil & Gas Inc.

Lots 11-14

Section 28 WYW 125978 Michael L. Diefenderfer

Lots 15, 16

Section 29 WYW 49833 Big West Oil & Gas Inc.

Lots 11-14 Independent Prod. Co.

Key Production Co. Inc.

Section 30 WYW 0100872A Damson Oil Corp.

Lot 11 Independent Prod. Co.

Section 29 IL Stalls 

Lot 5 R. Lee Tucker

Section 29 WYW 0100872 Independent Prod. Co.

Lots 6-10, 15,16

Section 30 WYW 75680 Independent Prod. Co.

Lot 12

Section 30 WYW 89160 Independent Prod. Co. 

Lots 13,14

Section 30 WYW 67022 Maurice W. Brown

Lots 15-20

T.42N., R.71W.

Section 25 WYW 67220A Powder River Coal Co.

Lots 5, 9-15 

Section 25 Expired Not Posted

Lot 6

Section 25 WYW 43652 Big West Oil & Gas Inc.

Lots 7, 8 Citadel Energy Inc.

Key Production Co. Inc.
3.0 Affected Environment

Location Lease Number Lessees of Record

3-60 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Section 26 WYW 185974B Caroline Hunt Trust Est. 

Lots 7, 8 Cenex Harvest States Coop.

Hunt Oil Company

Independent Prod. Co.

Ocean Energy Inc.

Reunion Energy Co.

Section 35 WYW 67220C Axel Johnson Expl.

Lots 9, 10, 15, 16 Black Hills Expl. & Prod. Co.

D.L. Cook

Jerry D. Ladd

Meyer Oil Co. Inc.

Whiting Petro. Corp.

Dale O Wright

Section 35 WYW 147135 Independent Prod. Co.

Lots 1, 2, 7, 8

T.41N., R.70W.

Section 30 WYW 61641 DNR Oil & Gas Inc.

Lot 5

Section 19 WYW 136937 R.K. O’Connell

Lots 15-18

Section 20

Lots 5-16

Section 29

Lots 1-12

Section 21 WYW 63650 Citation 1998 Investment LP

Lots 5, 12, 13

Section 28

Lots 3-6

Section 28 WYW 59583 DNR Oil & Gas Inc.

Lot 11, NESW GPM Inc.

Jetta Production Co. Inc.

JPG LLC

Providence Energy Corp.

Section 19 Not Posted

Lots 6-11, 13, 14, 19, 20

Section 30

Lots 6, 7-10, 11-12

T.41N., R.71W.

Section 23 WYW 141206 Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Lots 1,9
3.0 Affected Environment

Location Lease Number Lessees of Record

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-61

Section 23 WYW 141205 Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Lot 8

Section 24

Lot 12

Section 24 WYW 143508 Lance Oil & Gas Co. Inc.

Lots 1-10, 15, 16 Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Section 24 WYW 138118 Redstone Resources Inc.

Lots 11, 13, 14 Yates Petroleum Corp.

Section 25 WYW 140769 Lance Oil & Gas Co. Inc.

Lots 1-4 Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Section 25 WYW 136942 Gregor Klurfeld

Lots 9, 10, 12

Note: For the rest of the LBA tract, the oil and gas rights (including coal bed methane) are

privately owned, and the coal rights are federally owned.

Table 3-11. Little Thunder LBA Tract Oil and Gas Ownership.

For the following locations, both the oil and gas rights (including coal bed methane) and coal

rights are owned by the federal government.

Location Lease Number Lessees of Record

T.43N., R.71W.

Section 2 WYW 127786 John P. Caviuolo

Lots 5, 6, 11-14, 19, 20

Section 12 WYW 0263451 M&K Oil Co Inc

Lots 2-8, 11-14

Section 12 WYW 9923A Chisholm Trail Ventures LP

Lot 15 Key Production Co. Inc.

M&K Oil Co. Inc.

Questar Expl. & Prod. Co.

Section 12 WYW 0263451A M&K Oil Co. Inc.

Lots 9,10,16

Section 14 WYW 140772 Western Gas Resources Inc.

Lots 2, 6, 9, 14

Section 24 WYW 143063 Devon Energy Prod. Co. LP

Lots 4, 5, 10-15 Western Gas Resources Inc.

Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Section 25 WYW 140940 Western Gas Resources Inc.

Lots 1- 8

Section 1 WYW 0196946 Chisholm Trail Ventures LP

Lot 16 M&K Oil Co. Inc.
3.0 Affected Environment

3-62 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Questar Expl. & Prod. Co.

Section 11 WYW 036006 Big West Oil & Gas Inc.

Lots 3-6, 11-14 Chisholm Trail Ventures LP

Robert W. Deputy

Thomas H. Farley Jr.

G.F. Collins Jr. Trust

Kerr McGee Corp.

Key Production Co. Inc.

Questar Expl. & Prod. Co.

RBC Expl. Co.

Ryder Stilwell Oil

Diana L. Stadelman

Joseph R. Stadelman

WP Properties Corp.

Note: For the rest of the LBA tract, the oil and gas rights (including coal bed methane) are

privately owned, and the coal rights are federally owned.

Table 3-12. West Roundup LBA Tract Oil and Gas Ownership.

For the following locations, both the oil and gas rights (including coal bed methane) and coal

rights are owned by the federal government.

Location Lease Number Lessees of Record

T.42N., R.70W.

Section 4 Not Posted

Lots 17,18

Section 6 WYW 144471 Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc. 

Lots 8, 9, 15, 16, 23 Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Section 6 WYW 116352 Expired

Lot 22

Section 7 WYW 8396 Myco Industries Inc.

Lots 13, 14 Sacramento Partners LP

Section 8 WYW 143932 Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Lots 1-8 Lance Oil & Gas Co., Inc.

Section 8 WYW 042736C Independent Prod. Co.

Lots 9-12, 16

Section 9 WYW 140760 Abo. Petr. Corp.

Lots 3-6 Myco Industries Inc.

Yates Drilling Co.

Yates Petroleum Co.

Section 9 WYW 141022 Julian C. Tucker

Lots 11-14

Section 9 WYW 027703 Clayton Conrad 

Lots 1, 2, 7, 8 Independent Prod. Co.

George P. Jouflas

T.43N., R.70W.
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-63

Section 31 WYW 129487 Westport Oil & Gas Co, Inc.

Lots 13, 20

Section 31 WYW 130024 Westport Oil & Gas Co, Inc.

Lots 14, 19

Section 31 WYW 130556 Westport Oil & Gas Co. Inc

Lots 15-18

T.42N., R.71W.

Section 1 WYW 143940 Lance Oil & Gas Co. Inc

Lots 7-10 Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Section 1 WYW 147833 Lance Oil & Gas Co. Inc

Lot 15 Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Note: For the rest of the LBA tract, the oil and gas rights (including coal bed methane) are

privately owned, and the coal rights are federally owned.

Table 3-13. West Antelope LBA Tract Oil and Gas Ownership.

For the following locations, both the oil and gas rights (including coal bed methane) and coal

rights are owned by the federal government.

Location Lease Number Lessees of Record

T.40N., R.71W.

Section 3 WYW 143504 Abo Petroleum Corp.

Lots 15-18 Myco Industries Inc.

Yates Drilling Co.

Yates Petroleum Co.

Section 4 WYW 141204 Swift Energy Co.

Lots 7-10, 13, 14, 19, 20

Section 4 WYW 136674 Swift Energy Co.

Lots 5, 6, 11, 12, 15-18

Section 5

Lots 5-7, 10-12, 15

Section 9

Lot 1

Section 5 WYW 140768 Swift Energy Co.

Lots 13, 14, 19, 20

Section 10 WYW 142769 M.J. Harvey Jr.

Lots 3, 4

T.41N., R.71W.

Section 22 WYW 141206 Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Lot 2

Section 22 WYW 138119 Bowers Oil & Gas Inc.
3.0 Affected Environment

3-64 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Lot 16 Spring Creek Ranch
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-65

Section 27 WYW 136942 Gregor Klurfeld

Lots 6-11

Section 32

Lots 15, 16

Section 33

Lots 13-16

Section 28 WYW 140769 Lance Oil & Gas Co. Inc.

Lots 1, 2, 7-10, 15, 16 Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Section 28 WYW 138120 Bowers Oil & Gas Inc.

Lots 3-6, 11-14 Spring Creek Ranch 

Section 29 WYW 142771 Lance Oil & Gas Co. Inc.

Lots 1-4, 6-9, 13, 14 Williams Prod. RMT Co.

Section 32 WYW 127785 Fred L. Engle

Lots 2, 3, 6-11, 14

Section 33 WYW 124831 Abo Petroleum Co.

Lots 1-3, 9-12 Key Production Co.

Myco Industries

Yates Drilling Co.

Yates Petroleum Co.

Note: For the rest of the LBA tract, the oil and gas rights (including coal bed methane) are

privately owned, and the coal rights are federally owned.

There are 35 permitted conventional

oil and gas wells on lands included in

the LBA tracts as proposed and the

lands added under BLM’s

alternatives. Of these, 20 wells are

plugged and abandoned or shut in

and 15 wells are still producing. Of

the 15 producing wells, 12 are on

federal oil and gas leases and three

are on private leases. All of the

conventional oil and gas wells within

the LBA tract configurations were

originally drilled between 1968 and

1989.

The Supreme Court has ruled that

the CBM belongs to the owner of the

oil and gas estate (98-830).

Therefore, the oil and gas lessees

have the right to develop CBM as well

as conventional oil and gas on the

LBA tracts.

The most extensive CBM development

within the General Analysis area is

located west of the proposed LBA

tracts. The proposed Little Thunder

LBA Tract is the only LBA tract that

currently contains productive CBM

wells. CBM wells capable of

production occur adjacent to, but not

within, the other four LBA tracts

included in this analysis. There are

currently over 150 CBM wells that are

capable of production on or in

sections adjacent to the proposed

tracts. These wells are listed in

Appendix H.
3.0 Affected Environment

3-66 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Thirty-two CBM wells have been

completed for production within the

lands encompassed by the Little

Thunder LBA Tract. The WOGCC

has approved a well spacing pattern

of one well per 80 acres for

development of CBM resources in the

PRB. Most of the available 80-acre

spacing units within the Little

Thunder LBA Tract have been drilled

(Figure 3-16). Review of WOGCC

records on June 30, 2002 indicates

that all but five of these have had

some production. The reported

cumulative production from each of

these wells through April 2002

ranged from approximately 100 MCF

to more than 180,000 MCF gas.

These wells have only limited

production history and can not be

used for reliable forecasting of

production, reserves or economics.

They do, however, demonstrate that

CBM production is possible in areas

subject to mining-related

groundwater drawdown.

Certain ancillary facilities are needed

to support oil and gas production.

These support facilities may include

well access roads, well pads,

production equipment at the wellhead

(which may be located on the surface

and/or underground), well production

casing (which extends from the

surface to the zone of production),

underground pipelines (which gather

the oil, gas and/or water produced by

the individual wells and carry it to a

larger transmission pipeline or

collection facility), facilities for

treating, discharging, disposing of,

containing, or injecting produced

water, central metering facilities,

electrical power utilities, gas

compressor stations, and highpressure transmission pipelines for

delivering the gas to market.

Currently, some of these oil and gas

production facilities, particularly oil

and gas pipelines, exist on the LBA

tracts, as discussed in Section 3.17 of

this EIS. Additional support facilities

will continue to be constructed on the

LBA tracts as new conventional oil

and gas and CBM wells are drilled

and completed.

Coal mining is a dominant land use

within the General Analysis Area.

The North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, Black Thunder, North

Rochelle, Antelope, and Jacobs Ranch

Mines form a group of contiguous or

nearly contiguous active surface coal

mines located in southern Campbell

and northern Converse counties

(Figure 3-1). Coal production at these

five mines increased by 214 percent

between 1990 and 2001 (from

approximately 70 million tons in 1990

to nearly 220 million tons in 2001).

Since 1992, nine maintenance coal

leases have been sold within this

group and the five LBA tracts being

evaluated in this EIS are in this group

of mines (Tables 1-1 and 1-2).

Neither Campbell nor Converse

Counties have applicable countywide

land use plans, nor do the proposed

lease areas have designated zoning

classifications. The City of

Gillette/Campbell County

Comprehensive Planning Program (City

of Gillette 1978) provides general land

use goals and policies for state and

federal coal leases in the county. The

Converse County Land Use Plan

(Converse County 1978) does not

specifically address coal leasing.
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-67

Big game hunting is the principal

recreational land use within the

General Analysis Area, and

pronghorn, mule deer, white-tailed

deer, and elk are present within the

area. On private lands, hunting is

allowed only with landowner

permission. Land ownership within

the PRB is largely private

(approximately 80 percent), with some

private landowners permitting

sportsmen to cross and/or hunt on

their land. There has been a trend

over the past two decades towards a

substantial reduction in private lands

that are open and reasonably

available for hunting. Access fees

continue to rise and many resident

hunters feel these access fees are

unreasonable. This trend has created

problems for the WGFD in their

attempt to distribute and control

harvest at optimal levels, as well as

for sportsmen who desire access to

these animals (WGFD 1996).

In general, publicly owned lands are

open to hunting if legal access is

available. Due to safety concerns,

however, public surface lands

contained within an active mining

area are often closed to the public,

further limiting recreational use.

There are public surface lands

included within the NARO North LBA

Tract, the Little Thunder LBA Tract

as, and the West Roundup LBA Tract.

There are no public surface lands

included in the NARO South or West

Antelope LBA Tracts. (Figures 3-11

through 3-14)

Specific details regarding big game

herd management objectives within

and near the General Analysis Area

are contained in the Casper and

Sheridan Region Annual Big Game

Herd Unit Reports (WGFD 2000). The

WGFD classifies the entire General

Analysis Area as yearlong and

winter/yearlong habitat for antelope.

The extreme southern portion of the

General Analysis Area is within severe

winter range for antelope. All of the

LBA tract configurations are classified

as yearlong and/or winter/yearlong

antelope habitat. No crucial or

critical pronghorn habitat is

recognized by the WGFD in this area.

The proposed lease areas are within

pronghorn antelope Hunt Areas 24

and 27, which contain the Hilight and

Cheyenne River Herd Units,

respectively. In post-season 2000,

the population of the Hilight Herd

Unit was estimated to be

approximately 10,352 animals,

slightly below the objective of 11,000.

The post-season 2000 population of

the Cheyenne River Herd Unit was

estimated to be approximately 34,161

animals with a population objective of

38,000 antelope (WFGD 2000).

Historical problems associated with

the management of the Hilight Herd

Unit include hunter access, over

harvest on limited public lands, and

quantifying landowner preferences

and desires. Prior to 1996, not all of

the licenses were usually sold for this

herd, resulting in harvest rates below

those needed for population

regulation. Since the recent

population has been below objective

levels, fewer licenses have been

offered and all are sold through a

drawing. As the population

approaches objective levels, more

licenses will be needed and these may

be difficult to sell in this mostly

private land area. Nearly all
3.0 Affected Environment

3-68 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

landowners charge access fees for

hunting and private land access is

based on the desires and perceptions

of the landowners.

A series of harsh winter conditions

and correspondingly poor

reproduction rates are believed to be

the main reasons that population of

the Cheyenne River Herd Unit is

under objective. In an effort to

increase the population of this herd,

the WGFD will decrease the

availability of hunting licenses in

areas where winters have been

particularly hard and where the

antelope population has been low for

several years. Management direction

will be to decrease female harvest

slightly to compensate for severe

winters.

The WGFD has classified the entire

General Analysis Area as either out of

the normal mule deer use range or

yearlong range, with some

winter/yearlong range in the extreme

southern portion of the area. Crucial

or critical mule deer habitat does not

occur within the General Analysis

Area. The proposed lease areas are

located within mule deer Hunt Areas

10 and 21, which include the

Thunder Basin Mule Deer Herd Unit.

In post-season 2000, the population

of the Thunder Basin Mule Deer Herd

Unit was estimated at approximately

21,742 animals, which is roughly 67

percent above the current objective of

13,000 head. However, WGFD’s

historical data suggest that a herd

objective of 20,000 animals would be

more appropriate for the Thunder

Basin Herd Unit. The WGFD has

therefore recommended that the herd

objective be increased to 20,000

head.

The Rochelle Hills Elk herd resides in

the Rochelle Hills that border the

eastern edge of the General Analysis

Area. The LBA tracts within the

General Analysis Area are within Elk

Hunt Areas 113 and 123; however,

very limited use of these lands by elk

occurs. The herd favors the

ponderosa pine/juniper woodlands,

savanna, and steeper terrain habitat

offered by the Rochelle Hills. As more

lands are reclaimed from coal mining

adjacent to the Rochelle Hills, elk are

shifting their winter use to those

sites. Such lands typically offer

excellent winter grass supplies,

especially during more severe winters

when other sites are less accessible.

Presently, elk are regularly using the

reclaimed mined lands of the Jacobs

Ranch, Black Thunder, and North

Rochelle Mines. More such habitat

should become available over the next

several years. Much of the occupied

range of this herd is located on the

TBNG, which is administered by the

USFS. While hunting in Areas 113

and 123 has been permitted every two

or three years, Area 126, which is

south of the General Analysis Area,

has had an annual hunting season.

Bull quality is very good for this herd,

and many taken have scored in the

record books. Owing to their

habituation to humans, many people

enjoy these elk along Highway 450

and within accessible USFS land;

thus, they provide nonconsumptive

recreational use opportunities. These

elk are not causing significant

damage to private lands and most

area landowners as well as hunters

generally desire a high quality herd.
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-69

Elk have been observed dispersing

from the designated herd boundary,

possibly due to increasing population

density and habitat limitations.

White-tailed deer are not managed

separately by WGFD, but are

included with mule deer as part of the

Thunder Basin Herd Unit. Whitetailed deer are seldom observed

within the General Analysis Area due

to their preference for riparian

woodlands and irrigated agricultural

lands. WGFD classifies the entire

General Analysis Area, with the

exception of a narrow corridor along

Antelope Creek, as out of normal

white-tailed deer use range. The

narrow corridor along Antelope Creek

is classified as yearlong range.

Under natural conditions, aquatic

habitat is very limited by the

ephemeral nature of surface waters in

the General Analysis Area; therefore,

public fishing opportunities are very

limited. The lack of deep-water

habitat and extensive and persistent

water sources limits the presence and

diversity of fish and other aquatic

species. Only one fishery exists

within the General Analysis Area.

Little Thunder Creek supports

channel catfish and a variety of

nongame fish.

3.12 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources, which are

protected under the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, are

nonrenewable remains of past human

activity. The PRB, including the

General Analysis Area, appears to

have been inhabited by aboriginal

hunting and gathering people for

more than 11,000 years. Throughout

the prehistoric past, the area was

used by highly mobile hunters and

gatherers who exploited a wide variety

of resources. Several thousand

cultural sites have been recorded

within the PRB.

The general chronology for aboriginal

occupation (dated as years before

present [B.P.]) is:

• Paleoindian period (11,000-

7,500 years B.P.)

• Archaic period (7,500-1,800

years B.P.)

• Prehistoric period (1,800-400

years B.P.)

• Historic period (200-120 years

B.P.)

The Paleoindian period includes a

series of cultural complexes identified

by distinctive large projectile points

(spear points) often associated with

the remains of large, now extinct

mammals (mammoth, bison, camel,

etc.). The Archaic period is

characterized by a range of smaller

side-notched, stemmed or cornernotched projectile points and by more

generalized subsistence pursuits

including the gathering of plant

resources. This lifeway continued to

the late Prehistoric period, which is

marked by a technological change

from dart projectiles to the bow and

arrow and by the appearance of

ceramics. During the Archaic and

late Prehistoric periods, the PRB was

occupied by small bands of hunters

and gatherers whose movements were

determined to a large degree by
3.0 Affected Environment

3-70 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

seasonal and environmental changes

that influenced the occurrence of

subsistence resources (BLM 1979).

Protohistoric and early Historic sites

are found in the PRB, including the

General Analysis Area. This period is

characterized by rare historic trade

goods, sites, and routes associated

with early trappers and military

expeditions, and early ranching

attempts that date to the 1880s. A

few small coal mining sites also exist.

Historic sites within the General

Analysis Area have been recorded as

debris scatters representing

sheepherder camps and related

activities. No historic trails are

known or have been recorded within

the General Analysis Area, although

the Bozeman Trail crosses the

southwestern portion of the PRB.

A Class III cultural resources survey

is a professionally conducted,

intensive and comprehensive

inventory of a target area, designed to

locate all cultural properties which

have surface and exposed profile

indications. The goal of the survey is

to locate and evaluate for the NRHP

all cultural resources 50 years and

older within the study area. Cultural

properties are recorded and sufficient

information collected on them to

allow evaluation for possible inclusion

in the NRHP. That determination is

made by the managing federal agency

in consultation with SHPO.

Consultation with SHPO must be

completed prior to approval of the

MLA mining plan.

Once a Class III survey is completed,

site-specific testing or limited

excavation is utilized, if necessary, to

gather additional data which will: 1)

determine the final evaluation status

of a site and/or 2) form the basis of

additional work that will be

conducted during implementation of

a treatment plan if the site is eligible

for the NRHP. A treatment plan is

then developed for those sites that are

eligible for the NRHP and are within

the area of potential effect.

Treatment plans are implemented

prior to mining and can include such

mitigative measures as avoidance (if

possible), large scale excavation,

complete recording, Historical

American Building Survey/Historic

American Engineering Record

documentation, archival research,

and other acceptable scientific

practices.

Data recovery plans are required for

those sites recommended as eligible

for the NRHP following testing and

consultation with SHPO. Until

consultation has occurred and

agreement regarding NRHP eligibility

has been reached, all sites

recommended as eligible or

undetermined eligibility must be

protected from disturbance. Full

consultation with SHPO will be

completed prior to approval of the

MLA mining plans. Those sites

determined to be unevaluated or

eligible for the NRHP through

consultation would received further

protection or treatment.

Numerous Class I (survey records

review) and Class III cultural resource

surveys associated with oil field

development and surface mining

operations have been conducted in

the General Analysis Area. PRCC,
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-71

TBCC, TCC and ACC all contracted

with GCM Services, Inc. of Butte,

Montana to perform Class III and

Class I surveys of their respective

LBA study areas in 1999 and 2001.

Each of the LBA study areas is

comprised of the LBA tract as applied

for, BLM’s proposed alternative tract

configurations, and the applicant

mine’s anticipated permit amendment

study area. These areas include all

anticipated areas of disturbance

assuming the coal is mined by the

existing adjacent mines.

The NARO North and South LBA

study area has been entirely surveyed

for cultural resources at a Class III

level. A total of 194 cultural sites

were documented in the study area,

of which 79 sites are located within

the NARO North and NARO South

LBA Tracts and quarter mile

disturbance buffers. These sites are

classified as prehistoric (59 sites),

historic (17 sites), multi-component

(one site), or undetermined (two

sites). Four prehistoric sites have

been recommended as eligible for the

NRHP by the cultural site recorder.

The Little Thunder LBA study area

has been entirely surveyed for

cultural resources at a Class III level.

A total of 44 archaeological sites and

16 isolated finds have been

documented in the Little Thunder

LBA study area. These sites are

classified as prehistoric (25 sites),

historic (11 sites), or multicomponent (eight sites). All of these

sites are listed as not eligible for the

NRHP by SHPO or were recommended

as not eligible by the cultural site

recorder. No further work with

cultural resources has been

recommended in this study area.

The entire West Roundup LBA study

area has been surveyed for cultural

resources at a Class III level. A total

of 31 archaeological sites have been

recorded and documented in the West

Roundup LBA study area. These

sites are classified as prehistoric (14

sites), historic (11 sites), or multicomponent (six sites). One historic

and 17 prehistoric isolated finds were

also recorded. None of the sites have

been recommended by the cultural

site recorders or determined by an

agency to be eligible for the NRHP,

and no further work is recommended.

The West Antelope LBA study area

has been entirely surveyed for

cultural resources at a Class III level.

From these cultural inventories, 53

archaeological sites have been

recorded and documented in the West

Antelope LBA study area. These sites

are classified as prehistoric (42 sites),

historic (10 sites), or multicomponent (one site). One historic

and 12 prehistoric isolated finds were

also recorded. Three prehistoric

campsites, as well as one site

containing prehistoric stone rings, are

recommended as eligible for the

NRHP by their cultural site recorder.

An additional four eligible sites,

which are within or adjacent to the

existing Antelope Mine’s permit area,

were previously recorded and have

been mitigated to prevent adverse

effects to the site’s cultural resources.

3.13 Native American Consultation

Native American heritage sites can be

classified as prehistoric or historic.
3.0 Affected Environment

3-72 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Some may be presently in use as

offering, fasting, or vision quest sites.

Other sites of cultural interest and

importance may include rock art,

stone circles, various rock features,

fortifications or battle sites, burials,

and locations that are sacred or part

of the oral history and heritage but

have no man-made features. No

Native American heritage sites have

been identified to date within the

General Analysis Area.

No Native American heritage, special

interest, or sacred sites have been

formally recorded in the General

Analysis Area. 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 Devils Tower to

the north) creates the possibility that

existing locations may have special

religious or sacred significance to

Native American groups.

Tribes that have been identified as

potentially having concerns about

actions in the PRB include the Crow,

Northern Cheyenne, Shoshone,

Arapaho, Oglala Lakota, Rosebud

Sioux, Flandreau Santee Sioux,

Santee Sioux, Crow Creek Sioux,

Lower Brule Sioux, Standing Rock

Sioux, and Cheyenne River Sioux.

These tribal governments and

representatives are being sent copies

of the DEIS. They are also being

provided with maps showing the

location of each of the LBA tracts and

more specific information about the

known cultural sites on each of the

tracts in this analysis. Their help is

being requested in identifying

potentially significant religious or

cultural sites in the General Analysis

Area before a leasing decision is made

on each of the LBA tracts.

Native American tribes were

consulted at a general level in 1995-

1996 as part of an effort to update

the BLM Buffalo RMP. Some of the

Sioux tribes were consulted by BLM

on coal leasing and mining activity in

the PRB at briefings held in Rapid

City, South Dakota in March 2002.

3.14 Paleontological Resources

The formations exposed on the

surface of the PRB are the

sedimentary Eocene Wasatch and

Paleocene Fort Union Formations,

which are both known to contain

fossil remains. Some intensive

paleontological surveys have been

conducted in the PRB. Vertebrate

fossils that have been described from

the Wasatch Formation include

mammals such as early horses,

tapiroids, condylarths, primates,

insectivores, marsupials, creodonts,

and carnivores; reptiles such as

crocodilians, alligators, lizards, and

turtles; birds; amphibians; and fish

and non-marine invertebrates such

as eggs; plants; mollusks; and

ostrocods. The Fort Union Formation

also contains fossils of plants,

reptiles, fish, amphibians, and

mammals.

USFS has developed a draft

classification system which they have

used in the revised Land and

Resource Management Plan for the

Thunder Basin National Grassland

(USFS 2001) to classify geological

units according to the probability of
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-73

them yielding paleontological

resources that are of concern to land

managers. The classification is based

largely on how likely a geologic unit is

to produce vertebrate fossils of

terrestrial (i.e., non-marine) origin.

The five classes referenced in the

Final EIS (USFS 2002a) are described

below.

Class 1 - Igneous and metamorphic

(volcanic ashes are excluded from this

category) geologic units that are not

likely to contain recognizable fossil

remains.

Class 2 - Sedimentary geologic units

that are not likely to contain

vertebrate fossils or scientifically

significant nonvertebrate fossils.

Class 3 - Fossilferous sedimentary

geologic units whose fossil content

varies in significance, abundance,

and predictable occurrence. Also

sedimentary units of unknown fossil

potential.

Class 4 - Class 4 geologic units are

Class 5 units (see below) that have

lowered risks of human-caused

adverse impacts and/or lowered risk

of natural degradation.

Class 5 - Highly fossilferous geologic

units that regularly and predictably

produce vertebrate fossils and/or

scientifically significant invertebrate

fossils, and that are at risk of natural

degradation and/or human-caused

adverse impacts.

USFS has determined that the USFS

lands included in the NARO North,

Little Thunder, and West Roundup

LBA Tracts are classified as Class 3

or Class 5. 

Paleontological resource examinations

associated with surface mining

operations have been conducted in

conjunction with cultural resource

inventories within the General

Analysis Area. The inventories

include pedestrian examinations for

fossils along rock outcrops. A

primary goal of the paleontological

surveys that have been conducted is

to locate unique concentrations of

fossilized bone such as those reported

to occur in the Wasatch Formation

within the PRB. If unique finds are

located, qualified paleontologists are

then assigned to assess and mitigate

the site.

The lack of good rock outcrops

contributes to the lack of vertebrate

fossils, as does the low preservation

potential and conditions of deposition

of the Wasatch and Fort Union

Formations. In contrast to the lack of

fossil animal material, fossil plant

material is common. The fossil plants

inventoried are primarily leaves and

fossilized wood. The leaves usually

occur as lignitic impressions in

sandstone and siltstone and as

compact masses in shale. Leaves are

the most abundant fossils found

during paleontological surveys and

are frequently encountered during

mining operations. The fossilized

wood often occurs near the top of a

coal seam, in carbonaceous shale or

within channel sandstone.

Exposures of fossil logs are common,

but usually very fragmentary. Like

fossil leaves, fossil logs can be readily

collected in the PRB.
3.0 Affected Environment

3-74 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

No significant or unique

paleontological localities have been

recorded on federal lands in the

General Analysis Area. 

3.15 Visual Resources

Visual sensitivity levels are

determined by people’s concern for

what they see and the frequency of

travel through an area. Landscapes

within the General Analysis Area

include rolling sagebrush and shortgrass prairie, which are common

throughout the PRB. There are also

areas of altered landscape, such as oil

fields and coal mines. Existing

surface mines form a nearly

continuous band on the east side of

Highway 59 from Gillette south about

50 miles. Other man-made

intrusions include ranching activities

(fences, homesteads, and livestock),

oil and gas development (pumpjacks,

pipeline ROWs, CBM well shelters,

and CBM compressor stations),

transportation facilities (roads and

railroads) and electrical power

transmission lines. The natural

scenic quality in the immediate lease

area is fairly low because of the

industrial nature of the adjacent

existing mining operations.

Visual resource management

guidelines for BLM lands are to

manage public lands for current VRM

classifications and guidelines. The

VRM system is the basic tool used by

BLM to inventory and manage visual

resources on public lands. The VRM

classes constitute a spectrum ranging

from Class I through Class V that

provides for an increasing level of

change within the characteristic

landscape. 

BLM evaluated the visual resources

on lands in the Buffalo and Platte

River RMPs (BLM 1985a and 1985b)

for management purposes. The

inventoried lands were classified into

VRM classes. In the General Analysis

Area, which does not include any

BLM-administered surface land, the

predominant VRM class is IV. For

lands classified as VRM Class IV,

activities, such as mining, attract

attention and are dominant features

of the landscape in terms of scale.

The USFS has established visual

quality objectives for the TBNG. In

the General Analysis Area, facilities

and landscape modifications may be

visible but should be reasonably

mitigated to blend and harmonize

with natural features according to the

revised Land and Resource

Management Plan for the Thunder

Basin National Grassland (USFS

2001). The NARO North, Little

Thunder, and West Roundup LBA

Tracts include USFS surface land.

Current mine facilities and activity

are visible from various public-use

roads in the General Analysis Area,

including Antelope Road, Piney

Canyon (Mackey) Road,

Edwards/Reno Road, Hilight Road

and State Highway 59, State Highway

450, and County Road 37. Mining

activity and facilities are also visible

from the LBA tracts.

3.16 Noise

Existing noise sources in the General

Analysis Area include coal mining

activities, traffic on nearby state

highways and county roads, rail

traffic, wind, and CBM compressor
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-75

stations. Noise originating from CBM

development equipment (e.g., drilling

rigs and construction vehicles) is

apparent locally over the short term

(i.e., 30 to 60 days) where well drilling

and associated construction activities

are occurring. However, if the drilling

and construction sites are sufficiently

widespread, then the elevated levels

of noise generated from each site

should not overlap in time or space

with noise from other sites. Longterm noise from the ongoing

development of CBM resources is

associated with the new compressor

stations.

Studies of background noise levels at

adjacent mines indicate that ambient

sound levels generally are low, owing

to the isolated nature of the area.

Current noise levels in the proposed

LBA tracts are estimated to be 40-60

dBA, with the noise level increasing

with proximity to active mining at

adjacent mines. Mining activities are

characterized by noise levels of 85-95

dBA at 50 ft from actual mining

operations and activities (BLM

1992b). The unit of measure used to

represent sound pressure levels

(decibels) using the A-weighted scale

is dBA. It is a measure designed to

simulate human hearing by placing

less emphasis on lower frequency

noise because the human ear does

not perceive sounds at low frequency

in the same manner as sounds at

higher frequencies. Figure 3-19

presents noise levels associated with

some commonly heard sounds. 

The nearest occupied dwellings to the

five LBA tracts included in this

analysis are:

• one occupied dwelling is

located immediately adjacent to

the southern edge of the NARO

North LBA Tract;

• one occupied dwelling is

located less than one mile from

the western edge of the Little

Thunder LBA Tract and the

area added by Alternative 2;

• the nearest occupied dwelling

to the West Roundup LBA Tract

is located just over three miles

from the southern edge of the

tract; and

• one occupied dwelling is

located approximately one mile

from the western edge of the

West Antelope LBA Tract. 

3.17 Transportation Facilities

Within the General Analysis Area, the

major north-south public

transportation corridor is State

Highway 59 in Campbell and

Converse Counties, and the principal
3.0 Affected Environment

3-76 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-19
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-77

east-west transportation corridor is

State Highway 450 in Campbell

County. Other paved county roads,

including the Edwards Road, Reno

Road, and Antelope Road in Campbell

County and County Road 37 in

Converse County, provide public and

private access within the General

Analysis Area. There are numerous

other improved and unimproved local

roads and accesses in the area for

both public and private use.

The General Analysis Area presently

has one major railroad. The GilletteDouglas rail spur, used jointly by

BNSF & UP, runs north-south

through the area with spur lines

connecting the railroad with the

applicant mines for transporting coal

that originates in the General

Analysis Area. The DM&E Railroad is

presently proposing expansion into

Wyoming. Although the specific route

is still under consideration, the tracks

would terminate at the coal mines

located in the General Analysis Area.

There are numerous oil and gas

pipelines, power lines, telephone

lines, and ROWs in the General

Analysis Area. Figures 3-20 through

3-23 depict the current

transportation facilities in the LBA

tracts included in this analysis.

3.18 Socioeconomics

The social and economic study area

for the proposed project involves

primarily Campbell County and the

cities of Gillette and Wright; however,

it also includes the city of Douglas in

Converse County. The communities

of Gillette and Douglas would most

likely attract the majority of any new

residents due to their current

population levels and the availability

of services and shopping amenities.

3.18.1 Population

According to 2000 census data,

Campbell County had a population of

33,698, with Gillette accounting for

19,646 of the county’s residents and

Wright accounting for 1,347. The

1990 population of Gillette was

17,635, indicating a growth rate of

11.4 percent in the past ten years.

Wright grew by 111 persons or nine

percent during this time frame (U.S.

Department of Commerce 1990 and

2000).

Converse County’s population in

2000 was 12,052, with 5,288 of the

county’s residents residing in

Douglas. Douglas grew from 5,076

persons in 1990 to 5,288 in 2000, an

increase of 212 people or 4.2 percent.

CBM-spurred population growth is

occurring in both Gillette and

Douglas. The current CBM boom is

contributing to low housing vacancy

and a tight labor market. To date,

however, enrollment in Gillette-area

schools has not increased as a result

of CBM development due to a mobile,

relatively young work force (Mathes

2002).

3.18.2 Local Economy

Coal production, as reported by the

Wyoming State Inspector of Mines,

showed the State’s coal mines set a

new yearly production record of 368.9

million tons in 2001. This was an
3.0 Affected Environment

3-78 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-20
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-79

Figure 3-21
3.0 Affected Environment

3-80 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-22
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-81

Figure 3-23
3.0 Affected Environment

3-82 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

increase of 8.9 percent over the 338.9

million tons produced in 2000.

Campbell County coal production (11

active mines in 2001 and 12 active

mines in 2000) increased by 10.0

percent (299.5 million tons to 329.5

million tons) from 2000 to 2001, and

Converse County coal production (one

active mine in 2001 and two active

mines in 2000) increased by 4.2

percent (23.6 million tons to 24.6

million tons) during the same time

period. The combined 2001 coal

production in these two counties was

96 percent of the state total (Wyoming

Department of Employment 2000 and

2001).

In the first two quarters of 2001, 27

percent of the total employment and

43 percent of the total payroll in

Campbell County were attributed to

mining, which also includes oil and

gas employment. During the same

time period in Converse County, 14

percent of the employment and 24

percent of the payroll were attributed

to mining (Wyoming Department of

Employment 2002a).

Approximate taxes and royalties from

coal production in Campbell and

Converse Counties are presented in

Table 3-14. Following is a breakdown

of each revenue source, in order from

the largest total revenue producer to

the smallest. The greatest source of

combined state and federal revenue

from Wyoming coal is the federal

royalty. The current royalty rate for

federal coal leases is 12.5 percent of

the sales price, with half of this

revenue returned to the state. At an

average sale price for PRB coal in

2000 of $4.93 per ton (WSGS 2001),

royalties were about $199.1 million.

Surface coal mines contribute 35

cents per produced ton to the AML

program operated by the OSM, with

half of this revenue earmarked for

reclamation and other approved

programs within the state. With

323.1 million tons of coal produced in

Campbell and Converse Counties in

2000, AML contributions were about

$113.1 million.

Table 3-14. Estimated 2001 Fiscal Revenues from 2000 Coal Production in

Campbell and Converse Counties.

Revenue Item

Campbell County

(millions of dollars)

Converse County

(millions of dollars)

Federal Mineral Royalties 184.6 14.5

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 104.8 8.3

Severance Tax 75.1 5.2

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 76.4 3.3

Ad Valorem Tax 67.5 4.7

Black Lung Tax 59.1 4.7

Sales and Use Tax 1.5 0.3 

Totals 569.0 41.0
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-83

Severance taxes are collected by the

state for removal or extraction of

resources such as oil, natural gas,

coal, and trona. The current

Wyoming severance tax rate is seven

percent of the state valuation of

produced surface coal. The average

2000 valuation of coal produced in

Campbell County was $3.58 per ton,

while that for Converse County was

$3.16 per ton (Wyoming Department

of Revenue 2001). The State of

Wyoming retains approximately 83

percent of the severance tax, and the

remainder is returned to cities,

towns, and counties. Coal severance

tax collections in the two counties in

2000 were about $80.3 million.

Lease bonus bids are one-time

payments to the BLM for the right to

enter into lease agreements for federal

minerals. Bonus bids are paid in five

annual installments, with half of each

installment returned to the state. In

the year 2000, bonus bid payments

were made for five coal leases

(Thundercloud, Antelope, North

Rochelle, Powder River, and Horse

Creek) and totaled $79.7 million (BLM

2002b).

Ad valorem taxes are collected by the

county and disbursed to schools,

cities, towns, the state foundation,

and various other subdivisions within

the county. Ad valorem taxes

comprise production and property

taxes, with production taxes being far

greater than property taxes for

surface coal mines. Production taxes

are calculated as 100 percent of the

state valuation of produced coal times

the sum of mill levies for the

production area. Property taxes are

calculated as 11.5 percent of the

property valuation at each mine times

the mill levies. Campbell and

Converse County mill levies averaged

62.16 and 62.26, respectively, in

2000 (Wyoming Department of

Revenue 2002a). Production and

property taxes paid by surface coal

mines in the two counties in 2000

totaled about $71.3 million and $1.8

million, respectively.

The federal government levies a four

percent tax on the sales price of all

surface coal toward the Black Lung

Disability Trust Fund. The estimated

black lung taxes paid by coal mines

in Campbell and Converse County in

2000 were $63.7 million.

Sales and use taxes are distributed to

cities and towns within each county

and to the county’s general fund.

According to the Excise Tax Division

of the Wyoming Department of

Revenue (2002b), the sales and use

taxes collected from coal mines in

Campbell and Converse Counties in

2000 were $1.8 million.

Additional sources of revenue include

federal income tax and annual rentals

that are paid to the federal

government. The total fiscal benefit

to the State of Wyoming, including

half of the federal mineral royalties,

half of the AML fees, half of the bonus

bid payments, and all of the ad

valorem, severance, sales, and use

taxes for 2000 is $350.3 million, or

$1.08 per ton. This agrees with an

estimate previously proposed by the

University of Wyoming of $1.10 per

ton (Borden et al. 1994). Figure 3-24

depicts the total revenues to state
3.0 Affected Environment

3-84 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 3-24
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-85

and federal governments from 2000

coal production in Campbell and

Converse Counties.

Nationally, the minerals industry

(including oil and gas) accounted for

1.3 percent of the GDP in 2000, and

coal mining alone accounted for 0.1

percent (U.S. Department of

Commerce 2002). The most recent

GSP calculations for Wyoming (1997)

indicate that the minerals industry

accounted for 31 percent of the GSP,

which makes it the largest sector of

the Wyoming economy. Coal mining

alone accounted for seven percent of

the Wyoming GSP (Wyoming

Department of Administration and

Information 2002).

3.18.3 Employment

Coal mining has changed a great deal

since the 1970s, and new

technologies have been a major

contributor to these changes. The

local coal mining labor force grew

during the 1970s, declined during the

1980s, and remained fairly constant

through the 1990s. Since 1980,

overall production has risen while

employee numbers have generally

decreased or remained constant. The

employment decline followed large

industry capital investments in

facilities and production equipment,

the majority of which was aimed at

increasing productivity. There has

been a recent upturn in Campbell

County coal mining employment,

where the number of employees

increased from 3,011 to 3,400 from

1998 to 2001. Downsizing of the

Dave Johnston Mine outweighed

growth of the Antelope Mine and

caused Converse County mining

employment to decrease during the

same time period from 337 to 300

employees (Wyoming Department of

Employment 1998, 1999, 2000, and

2001).

In February 2002, the total labor

force in Campbell County stood at

23,272 with an unemployment rate of

3.4 percent, compared to 3.3 percent

in February 2001 (Wyoming

Department of Employment 2002a).

In 2001, around 3,950 people were

directly employed by surface coal

mines or coal contractors,

representing about 20 percent of the

employed labor force (Wyoming

Department of Employment 2001).

The most recent estimates of

employment in Campbell County

suggest that an all-time employment

record at 22,482 was set in February

2002 (Wyoming Department of

Employment 2002a). The Campbell

County annual employment record of

21,668 was set in 1985, the same

year that mining employment (which

in this case includes oil and gas

workers) peaked at 6,312. Total

employment declined to a low of

18,103 in 1988 and has generally

increased since that time. The

current CBM development has

resulted in a tight labor market for

both skilled and unskilled labor;

however, the mining industry has not

had difficulty filling positions due to

attractive wage and benefit packages

and predictable schedules (Hockert

2000).

As of December 2001, the total

Converse County labor force was

6,863 with an unemployment rate of

3.6 percent, compared to 4.2 percent
3.0 Affected Environment

3-86 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

in December 2000 (Wyoming

Department of Employment 2002b).

In 2001, 300 people, or four percent

of the labor force, were directly

employed by area coal mines

(Wyoming Department of Employment

2001). Total employment in Converse

County declined from 7,643 in 1981

to a low of 5,988 in 1990 and has

been increasing since that time.

Mining employment (include oil and

gas workers) declined from 2,129 in

1981 to a low of 723 in 1991 and has

been slowly increasing since that

time. 

3.18.4 Housing

According to the 2000 census,

Campbell County contained 13,288

housing units in April 2000, 7,931 of

which were within Gillette city limits.

A more recent estimate completed by

the City of Gillette (2001) suggests

that the number of housing units

within city limits in December 2001

was 8,323. This represents a 17.6

percent increase over the 7,078

housing units reported in the 1990

census. In early 2001, the average

price of a new three-bedroom home in

Gillette was $133,000, and the

average price of an existing threebedroom home was $89,000

(Campbell County Economic

Development Corporation 2002).

Wright had 544 housing units during

the 2000 census. This represents a

3.2 percent increase over the 527

houses reported in the 1990 census.

In Wright, the average 2001 prices of

new and existing three-bedroom

homes were $120,000 and $77,000,

respectively (Campbell County

Economic Development Corporation

2002).

Campbell County residential building

permits rose from 15 in 1990 to 100

in 1998, when the permit system was

discontinued for unincorporated

Campbell County (Wyoming

Department of Administration and

Information 2002). Due to population

growth associated with CBM

development, the housing vacancy

rate in Gillette is less than one

percent, with apartment vacancy at

nearly 0 percent (Campbell County

Economic Development Corporation

2002). Although several housing

projects are on the horizon in the

Gillette area, many new residents are

currently unable to find rentals and

are living in motels (Gillette NewsRecord 2002b).

In Converse County, residential

building permits varied between 0

and two per year from 1987 to 1990,

rose to 27 in 1997, and fell to 11 in

2000 (Wyoming Department of

Administration and Information

2002). According to the 2000 census,

Converse County contained 5,669

housing units, 2,385 of which were in

Douglas. This represents a 5.2

percent increase over the 2,267

housing units reported in the 1990

census. The average price of a new

three-bedroom home in Converse

County in 2000 was $132,000, and

the average price of an existing threebedroom home was $106,000

(Northeast Wyoming Economic

Development Coalition 2002). In

March 2002, the housing vacancy in

Douglas was less than one percent,

and the apartment vacancy was

around two percent. According to an
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-87

area realtor, the tight housing market

is typical in Douglas and may not be

attributable to CBM development

(Hollaway 2002).

According to a 2001 report on

housing needs in Campbell County,

roughly 61 percent of PRB surface

coal mining employees live in Gillette

and surrounding areas, 14 percent

live in Wright, and 25 percent live

outside of Campbell County (Pedersen

Planning Consultants 2001).

3.18.5 Local Government Facilities

and Services

Gillette has generally maintained a

steady population growth since 1987,

when it totaled 17,054 (City of Gillette

2002). Owing to the substantial

revenues generated by mineral

production, local government facilities

and services have kept pace with

growth and are adequate for the

current population. The opening of

the new South Campus of Campbell

County High School has helped to

alleviate overcrowding at the North

Campus. South Campus opened on

February 1, 1999 with approximately

300 students and 22 teachers. In the

2001-2002 school year, the numbers

have increased to approximately 500

students and 41 teachers (Mathes

2002).

The 2000 population of Douglas

(5,288) is lower than its peak of 7,800

in 1982, and local government

facilities and services are generally

adequate for the current population.

The town has limited building space

(platted lots) available for future

growth. Some indoor recreational

facilities may also be near capacity.

Wright was established in 1976 by

the Atlantic Richfield Company and is

the nearest community to the SPRB

mines. Wright’s population peaked in

1985 at approximately 1,800 and

decreased to 1,285 by 1994. The

2000 population of Wright was 1,347.

As of October 2000, the town of

Wright was not experiencing

population growth due to CBM

development (Buresh 2000).

However, increasing CBM

development and the construction of

several proposed power plants in

Campbell County will likely bring new

residents to Wright (Pedersen

Planning Consultants 2001). With

the possible exception of residential

housing units, Wright’s infrastructure

is more than adequate for the current

and planned population, and with the

current building going on it can

double in population before services

become limiting.

3.18.6 Social Conditions

Despite past boom and bust cycles in

the area’s economy, a relatively stable

social setting now exists in these

communities. Most residents have

lived in the area for a number of

years, social ties are well established,

and residents take great pride in their

communities. Many of the people

place a high priority on maintaining

informal lifestyles and small town

traditions, and there are some

concerns that the area could be

adversely affected by more than a

modest growth in population. At the

same time, there is substantial

interest in enhancing the economic

opportunities available in the area

and a desire to accommodate
3.0 Affected Environment

3-88 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

reasonable levels of growth and

development.

Wyoming’s economy reached the

bottom of an energy bust in 1987 and

started to recover (Wyoming

Department of Administration and

Information 2002). That recovery

began to slow in 1996. The forecast

is for slow growth through 2008.

Wyoming population is projected to

increase at nearly one percent per

year. Non-agricultural employment

has been projected to increase by 1.4

to 1.7 percent annually in 2001

through 2003 and taper to a 0.8

percent annual increase by 2009

(Wyoming Department of

Administration and Information

2001). Actual non-agricultural

employment increases in 2001 of 2.6

percent indicate that employment

may grow more rapidly than

previously estimated (Wyoming

Department of Employment 2002a).

Mining employment (including oil and

gas) has been projected to increase by

2.1 percent in 2001 and taper to a 0.4

percent annual increase by 2009. In

2001 there were 19,500 jobs in the

mining sector in Wyoming. This

number was up 13 percent from the

17,200 mining jobs in 2000. This

large increase was almost entirely

attributed to increases in oil and gas

jobs, from 9,400 in 2000 to 11,800 in

2001 (Wyoming Department of

Employment 2002a). Continued

development of CBM resources in

Wyoming may cause greater increases

in mining sector employment through

2009 than previously estimated.

3.18.7 Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice issues are

concerned with actions that

unequally impact a given segment of

society either as a result of physical

location, perception, design, noise, or

other factors. On February 11, 1994,

Executive Order 12898, “Federal

Action to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations,” was

published in the Federal Register (59

FR 7629). The Executive Order

requires federal agencies to identify

and address disproportionately high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their

programs, policies, and activities on

minority populations and low-income

populations (defined as those living

below the poverty level). The

Executive Order makes it clear that

its provisions apply fully to Native

American populations and Native

American tribes, specifically to effects

on tribal lands, treaty rights, trust

responsibilities, and the health and

environment of Native American

communities.

Communities within Campbell and

Converse Counties, entities with

interests in the area, and individuals

with ties to the area all may have

concerns about the presence of coal

mines within the General Analysis

Area. Communities potentially

impacted by the presence or absence

of a coal mine have been identified in

this section of the EIS.

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
3.0 Affected Environment

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 3-89

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 1.5

of this document. This EIS and

contributing socioeconomic analysis

provide a consideration of the impacts

with regard to disproportionately

adverse impacts on minority and/or

low-income groups, including Native

Americans.

3.19 Hazardous and Solid Waste

Potential sources of hazardous or

solid waste on each of the five LBA

tracts would include spilling, leaking,

or dumping of hazardous substances,

petroleum products, and/or solid

waste associated with mineral, coal,

oil and/or gas exploration and

development or agricultural or

livestock activities. No such

hazardous or solid wastes are known

to be present on any of the five LBA

tracts. Wastes produced by current

mining activities at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle and

Antelope Mines are handled according

to the procedures described in

Chapter 2.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

This chapter discloses the potential

environmental consequences that

may result from implementing the

Proposed Action or alternatives to the

action for the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA1

Tracts. The alternatives for each tract

are described in Chapter 2. The effect

or impact a consequence will have on

the quality of the human environment

is also discussed. For instance, the

consequence of an action may be to

greatly increase the number of roads

in an area. If the number of roads in

an area is increased, opportunities for

road-based recreation would be

increased but the opportunities for

primitive recreational activities and

solitude would be decreased.

Evaluation of the impact would

depend on an individual’s (or a

group’s) preferred use of that area.

If an LBA tract is leased to an

applicant as a maintenance tract

under one of the action alternatives,

the permit area for the adjacent mine

would have to be amended to include

the new lease area before it could be

disturbed. Tables 4-1 through 4-4

show the areas to be mined and

disturbance areas for the existing

applicant mines (which represent the

No Action Alternatives), and how the

mine areas would change under the

action alternatives for each LBA tract.

If a tract is leased, the area that

would have to be added to the

existing mine permit area would be

that portion of the LBA tract that lies

outside the existing permit boundary

plus an adjacent strip of land that

would be used for highwall reduction

after mining and such mine-related

activities as construction of

diversions, flood and sediment control

structures, roads, and stockpiles.

Portions of the LBA tracts that are

contiguous to the existing leases will

be disturbed under the current

mining plans in order to recover the

coal in the existing leases. For all five

of the LBA tracts included in this

analysis, the environmental

consequences of implementing either

the Proposed Action, Alternative 2, or

Alternative 3 would be similar in

nature, but in general the action

alternative that disturbs the smallest

area of land surface would have the

least impact. The smallest

disturbance area for the NARO North

and South LBA Tracts would occur if

the Alternative 3 tract configuration

for the NARO South LBA Tract is

chosen. (Table 4-1). For the Little

Thunder and West Roundup LBA

Tracts, the Proposed Action tract

configuration would have a smaller

disturbance area than the other

action alternatives (Tables 4-2 and 4-

3). For the West Antelope LBA Tract,

the Alternative 3 tract configuration

would have a smaller disturbance

area than the other action

alternatives (Table 4-4).

Surface mining and reclamation have

been ongoing in the eastern PRB for

over two decades. During this time,

effective mining and reclamation

technologies have been developed and

continue to be refined. Mining and

reclamation operations are regulated

under SMCRA and Wyoming statutes.

WDEQ technically reviews all mine

permit application packages to ensure 1 Refer to page xii for a list of abbreviations

and acronyms used in this document.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 4-1. Comparison of Existing and Proposed North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex Disturbance Area and Mining Operations.

No Action

Alternative

(Existing Permit

Area)

Proposed

Action

Alternative

2

Alternative

3

Additional Lease Area (Acres) --- 4,503.02 5,571.19 3,776.27

Total Lease Area (Acres) 14,895.50 19,398.52 20,466.69 18,671.77

Increase in Lease Area (Percent) --- 30.2 37.4 25.4

Estimated Total Disturbance Area

(Acres)1

20,410 26,000 26,685 25,273

Increase in Estimated Disturbance

Area (Percent)

--- 27.4 30.7 23.8

Estimated Recoverable Coal

Remaining as of 1/02 (Million Tons)2

904.4 1,411.3 1,518.3 1,339.3

Increase in Estimated Recoverable

Coal as of 1/02 (Percent)

--- 56.0 67.9 48.1

Notes: 1 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads,

haul roads, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc.

2 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of in-place coal × recovery factor.

For the NARO North LBA Tract, in-place coal = 323 million tons (Proposed Action), and PRCC’s

estimated recovery factor = 95 percent, based on historic operations.

For the NARO South LBA Tract, in-place coal = 241 million tons (Proposed Action), and PRCC’s

estimated recovery factor = 83 percent, based largely upon unmineable reserves within railroad

ROW and unrecoverable coal in partially burned areas.

For the NARO South LBA Tract, in-place coal = 387 million tons (Alternative 2), and PRCC’s

estimated recovery factor = 79 percent, based largely upon unmineable reserves within railroad

ROW and unrecoverable coal in partially burned areas.

For the NARO South LBA Tract, in-place coal = 141.4 million tons (Alternative 3), and PRCC’s

estimated recovery factor = 91 percent, based largely upon unrecoverable coal in partially

burned areas.

that the mining and reclamation

plans comply with all state permitting

requirements and that the proposed

coal mining operations comply with

the performance standards of the

DOI-approved Wyoming program.

BLM and USFS may attach special

stipulations to all coal leases

(Appendix D), and there are a number

of federal and state permit approvals

that are required in order to conduct

surface mining operations (Appendix

A). The regulations are designed to

ensure that surface coal mining

impacts are mitigated. The impact

assessment that follows considers all

measures required by federal and

state regulatory authorities as part of

the Proposed Action and Alternatives.

Section 4.1 analyzes the direct and

indirect impacts that would be

associated with mining the five LBA

tracts included in this analysis if they

are leased under the respective

Proposed Actions and alternative tract

configurations. Section 4.2 presents

the probable environmental

consequences of the No Action

Alternatives (Alternative 1, not

issuing leases for one or more of the
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-3

Table 4-2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Black Thunder Mine

Disturbance Area and Mining Operations.

No Action

Alternative

(Existing

Permit

Area)

Proposed

Action Alternative 2

Alternative 3

North Tract South Tract

Additional Lease

Area (Acres)

--- 3,449.32 5,083.50 1,065.49 4,018.01

Total Lease Area

(Acres)

12,772.90 16,222.22 17,856.40 17,856.40

Increase in Lease

Area (Percent)

--- 27.0 39.8 39.8

Estimated Total

Disturbance Area

(Acres)1

18,476 23,900 25,053 25,053

Increase in

Estimated

Disturbance Area

(Percent)

--- 29.4 35.6 35.6

Estimated

Recoverable Coal

as of 1/02 (Million

Tons)2

920.3 1,361.3 1,473.1 1,473.1

Increase in

Estimated

Recoverable coal

as of 1/02

(Percent)

--- 48 60 60

Notes: 1 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access

roads, haul roads, railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 2 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of in-place coal × recovery factor.

For the Little Thunder LBA Tract, in-place coal = 479.3 million tons (Proposed Action),

and TBCC’s estimated recovery factor = 92 percent, based on unmineable reserves

within railroad ROW.

For the Little Thunder LBA Tract, in-place coal = 695.3 million tons (Alternative 2),

and TBCC’s estimated recovery factor = 79.5 percent based primarily on unmineable

reserves within railroad ROW.

For the Little Thunder LBA Tract, in-place coal = 155.7 million tons (Alternative 3,

North Tract), and TBCC’s estimated recovery factor = 71.9 percent based primarily on

unmineable reserves within railroad ROW.

For the Little Thunder LBA Tract, in-place coal = 539.6 million tons (Alternative 3,

South Tract), and TBCC’s estimated recovery factor = 81.7 percent based primarily on

unmineable reserves within railroad ROW.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 4-3. Comparison of Existing and Proposed North Rochelle Mine

Disturbance Area and Mining Operations.

No Action

Alternative

(Existing

Permit Area)

Proposed

Action

Alternative

2

Alternative 2

Plus Lease

WY-127221

Modification

Alternative

3

Alternative 3

Plus Lease

WY-127221

Modification

Additional Lease

Area (Acres)

--- 1,870.65 2,496.79 2,652.69 2,894.03 3,049.93

Total Lease Area

(Acres)

3,443.5 5,314.15 5,940.29 6,096.19 6,337.53 6,493.43

Increase in Lease

Area (Percent)

--- 54.3 72.5 77.0 84.0 88.6

Estimated Total

Disturbance Area

(Acres)1

5,288 8,449 8,449 8,449 8,879 8,879

Increase in

Estimated

Disturbance Area

(Percent)

--- 59.8 59.8 59.8 67.9 67.9

Estimated

Recoverable Coal as

of 1/02 (Million

Tons)2

255 410.9 457.1 468.8 501.8 513.5

Increase in

Estimated

Recoverable Coal as

of 1/02 (Percent)

--- 61 79 84 97 101

Notes: 1 Total Disturbance Area = area to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, haul roads,

railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 2 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of in-place coal × recovery factor.

For the West Roundup LBA Tract, in-place coal = 173.2 million tons (Proposed Action), 224.6 million tons

(Alternative 2), 237.6 million tons (Alternative 2 plus Lease WYW-127221 Modification), 274.2 million tons

(Alternative 3) or 287.2 million tons (Alternative 3 plus Lease WYW-127221 Modification) and TCC’s

estimated recovery factor = 90 percent, based on historic operations.

Table 4-4. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Antelope Mine Disturbance

Area and Mining Operations.

No Action

Alternative

(Existing

Permit Area)

Proposed

Action

Alternative

2

Alternative

3

Additional Lease Area (Acres) --- 3,542.19 3,877.90 2,809.13

Total Lease Area (Acres) 8,019.20 11,561.39 11,897.10 10,828.33

Increase in Lease Area (Percent) --- 44.2 48.4 35.0

Estimated Total Disturbance Area (Acres)1 8,821 12,021 12,321 11,288

Increase in Estimated Disturbance Area

(Percent)

--- 36.3 39.7 28.0

Estimated Recoverable Coal Remaining as of

1/02 (Million Tons)2

347.3 575.7 601.6 517.7

Increase in Estimated Recoverable Coal as of

1/02 (Percent)

--- 66 73 49

Notes: 1 Total Disturbance Area = are to be mined + area disturbed for mine facilities, access roads, haul roads,

railroad facilities, stockpiles, etc. 2 Estimated Recoverable Coal Resources = tons of mineable coal × recovery factor.

For the West Antelope LBA Tract, in-place coal = 293.9 million tons, mineable coal 245.6 million tons

(Proposed Action). For the West Antelope LBA Tract, in-place coal = 321.8 million tons, mineable coal =

273.4 million tons (Alternative 2). For the West Antelope LBA Tract, in-place coal = 202.3 million tons,

mineable coal = 183.2 million tons (Alternative 3). ACC’s estimated recovery factor = 93 percent after

eliminating coal that won’t be mined beneath Antelope Creek valley.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-5

tracts). Section 4.3 discusses

regulatory compliance, mitigation,

and monitoring in terms of what is

required by federal and/or state law

(and is therefore part of the Proposed

Actions and Alternatives) and any

additional mitigation and monitoring

that may be required. Section 4.4

summarizes the residual effects of the

Proposed Actions, and Alternatives.

Section 4.5 discusses the cumulative

impacts that would occur if all these

lands were mined when added to

other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions. The

cumulative impact analysis includes

a discussion of other projects that are

in progress, or are proposed in

Campbell and Converse Counties,

Wyoming, and that would occur

independently of leasing the LBA

tracts. Projects that have proceeded

beyond preliminary planning phases

include: 1) construction and

operation of the Two Elk power plant,

which has been proposed near the

Black Thunder Mine; 2) construction

and operation of the Wygen #1 power

plant, of which construction has

began at the Wyodak Mine site; 3) the

construction and operation of the

DM&E Railroad line; and 4) the

ongoing development of CBM

resources adjacent to and west of the

area of active mining. Projects that

are in preliminary planning stages

include: 1) construction and

operation of the Two Elk Unit Two

Power Plant, also proposed adjacent

to the Black Thunder Mine; 2)

construction and operation of the

Middle Bear Power Plant, proposed to

be located east of the Cordero-Rojo

Complex; 3) construction and

operation of the Wygen #2 power

plant which has been proposed near

the Wygen #1 power plant at the

Wyodak Mine site; and 4)

construction of a power transmission

line from the Two Elk power plants.

Section 4.6 analyzes the relationship

between local short-term uses of

man’s environment and the

maintenance and enhancement of

long-term productivity. Section 4.7

presents the irreversible and

irretrievable commitments of

resources that would occur with

implementation of the Proposed

Actions or action alternatives.

4.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

of Action Alternatives

Impacts can range from beneficial to

adverse and they can be a primary

result of an action (direct) or a

secondary result (indirect). They can

be permanent, long-term (persisting

beyond the end of mine life and

reclamation), or short-term (persisting

during mining and reclamation and

through the time the reclamation

bond is released). Impacts also vary

in terms of significance. The basis for

conclusions regarding significance are

the criteria set forth by the Council

on Environmental Quality (40 CFR

1508.27) and the professional

judgement of the specialists doing the

analyses. Impact significance may

range from negligible to substantial;

impacts can be significant during

mining but be reduced to

insignificance following completion of

reclamation.

4.1.1 Topography and Physiography

Surface coal mining would

permanently alter the topography of

each LBA tract that is leased and

mined. Topsoil would be removed

from the land and stockpiled or
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-6 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

placed directly on recontoured areas.

Overburden would be blasted and

stockpiled or directly placed into the

already mined pit, and coal would be

removed. The existing topography on

each LBA tract would be substantially

changed during mining. Highwalls

with vertical heights equal to

overburden, interburden, and coal

thicknesses would exist in the active

pits. If necessary, streams would be

diverted into temporary channels or

blocked to prevent flooding of the

pits.

Typically, a direct permanent impact

of coal mining and reclamation is

topographic moderation. After

reclamation, the restored land

surfaces are generally gentler, with

more uniform slopes and restored

basic drainage networks. The original

topography in the NARO North, Little

Thunder, West Roundup and West

Antelope tracts is relatively flat, with

average slopes ranging from one to

three percent. As a result, the

expected postmining topography on

these tracts would be similar to the

premining topography. On the NARO

South LBA Tract, slopes average

about five percent. Since the NARO

South LBA Tract is characterized by

steeper slopes, the post-mining

topography on this tract would be

gentler and more uniform than the

pre-mining topography. Following

reclamation, the average surface

elevation on each LBA tract would be

lower due to coal removal. The

removal of the coal would be partially

offset by the swelling that occurs

when the overburden and

interburden are blasted and removed.

Table 4-5 presents the approximate

postmining surface elevation change

for each LBA tract as applied for

under the Proposed Action and action

alternatives. After the coal is

removed, the land surface would be

restored to approximate original

contour or to a configuration

approved by WDEQ/LQD when the

mining and reclamation permit for

the existing mine is revised to include

the LBA tract.

Direct adverse impacts resulting from

topographic moderation include a

reduction in microhabitats (e.g.,

cutbank slopes) for some wildlife

species and a reduction in habitat

diversity, particularly a reduction in

slope-dependent shrub communities

and associated habitat. These

impacts would be greater on the

tracts characterized by steeper premining topography. A potential

indirect impact may be a long-term

reduction in big game carrying

capacity. A direct beneficial impact of

the lower and flatter terrain would be

reduced water runoff, which would

allow increased infiltration and result

in a minor reduction in peak flows.

This may help counteract the

potential for increased erosion that

could occur as a result of higher

near-surface bulk density of the

reclaimed soils (Section 4.1.3). It may

also increase vegetative productivity,

and potentially accelerate recharge of

groundwater.

For each LBA tract, the approximate

original drainage pattern would be

restored, and stock ponds and playas

would be replaced to provide livestock

and wildlife watering sources. These

topographic changes would not

conflict with regional land use, and

the postmining topography would be

designed to adequately support

anticipated land use.
Table 4-5. Average Overburden, Interburden, and Coal Thicknesses and Approximate Postmin

Changes of the Five LBA Tracts.

LBA Tract andConfiguration

Overburden

Thickness

(ft)

Interburden

Thickness

(ft)

Coal

Thickness

(ft)

 Swell

Factor

(percent)

Coal Recov

Factor

(percent

NARO North

Proposed Action 307 0 79 15 95 

NARO South

Proposed Action 113 61 69 12 95 Alternative 2 145 60 70 12 95 Alternative 3 99 63 67 12 95 

Little Thunder

Proposed Action 260 54 97 16 92 Alternative 2 279 46 98 16 92 Alternative 3(North Tact)

310 18 96 16 92 

Alternative 3(South Tract)

269 58 98 16 92 

West Roundup

Proposed Action 318 0 69 16 90 Alternative 2 306 0 67 16 90 Alternative 3 316 0 67 16 90 LeaseWYW-127221Modification

233 0 57 16 90 

West Antelope

Proposed Action 138 68 88 22 93 Alternative 2 150 67 89 22 93 Alternative 3 140 62 81 22 93 

Notes: 1 Reclaimed (postmining) elevation change calculated as: (coal thickness × coal recovery factor) - swell facto

+ interburden thickness).

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-7
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-8 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

These impacts are occurring on the

existing North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, Black Thunder, North

Rochelle, and Antelope Mine coal

leases as coal is mined and minedout areas are reclaimed. Under the

Proposed Action, Alternative 2, or

Alternative 3, the areas that would be

permanently topographically changed

would increase as shown in Tables 4-

1 through 4-4.

4.1.2 Geology

The geology from the base of the

lowest coal seam mined to the land

surface would be subject to

permanent change after the coal is

removed on the LBA tracts under the

Proposed Actions and action

alternatives. The subsurface

characteristics of these lands would

be radically changed by mining. The

replaced overburden and interburden

(backfill) would be a mixture of the

geologically distinct layers of

sandstone, siltstone, and shale that

currently exist. The resulting

physical characteristics would also be

significantly altered.

Drilling and sampling programs are

conducted on the existing leases by

all mine operators to identify

overburden material that may be

unsuitable for reclamation

(i.e.,material that is not suitable for

use in reestablishing vegetation or

that may affect groundwater quality

due to high concentrations of certain

constituents such as selenium or

adverse pH levels). As part of the

mine permitting process, each mine

operator develops a management plan

to ensure that this unsuitable

material is not placed in areas where

it may affect groundwater quality or

revegetation success. Each mine

operator also develops backfill

monitoring plans as part of the mine

permitting process to evaluate the

quality of the replaced overburden.

These plans are in place for the

existing North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, Black Thunder, North

Rochelle, and Antelope Mines and

would be developed for the LBA tracts

if they are leased.

NARO North and South LBA Tracts

Within the NARO North LBA Tract,

mining would remove an average of

307 ft of overburden, no interburden,

and 79 ft of coal on about 2,369 acres

under the Proposed Action. Within

the NARO South LBA Tract under the

Proposed Action and Alternatives 2

and 3, the coal reserves beneath an

area of approximately 578 acres were

burned by spontaneous coal fires in

the past. Under the Proposed Action

for the NARO South LBA Tract,

mining would remove an average of

113 ft of overburden, 61 ft of

interburden, and 69 ft of coal on

about 1,556 acres. Under Alternative

2, mining would remove an average of

145 ft of overburden, 60 ft of

interburden, and 70 ft of coal on

about 2,624 acres from the NARO

South LBA Tract. Under Alternative

3, mining would remove an average of

99 ft of overburden, 63 ft of

interburden, and 67 ft of coal on

about 829 acres from the NARO

South LBA Tract. Some of the coal

that is included in the NARO South

LBA Tract under the Proposed Action

or Alternative 2 is located within the

BNSF & UP railroad ROW and would,

therefore, not be mined because it

has been determined to be unsuitable

for mining according to the coal
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-9

leasing unsuitability criteria (43 CFR

3461). Table 4-5 presents the

average overburden, interburden, and

coal thicknesses for the NARO North

and South LBA Tracts as applied for

and Alternatives 2 and 3. Table 4-6

presents the average overburden,

interburden and mineable coal

thicknesses for the existing North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex permit

area.

The replaced overburden and

interburden would be a relatively

homogeneous (compared to the

premining layered overburden and

interburden) and partly recompacted

mixture averaging about 357 ft in

thickness in the NARO North LBA

Tract under the Proposed Action. The

backfill in the NARO South LBA Tract

would average about 198 ft in

thickness under the Proposed Action,

about 233 ft in thickness under

Alternative 2, and about 185 ft in

thickness under Alternative 3. A total

of approximately 506.9 million

additional tons of coal would be

recovered from both tracts under the

Proposed Action, compared to an

estimated 613.9 million tons under

Alternative 2, or an estimated 434.9

million tons under Alternative 3.

Little Thunder LBA Tract

Within the Little Thunder LBA Tract,

there is an average of 260 ft of

overburden, 54 ft of interburden, and

97 ft of coal on about 3,449 acres

under the Proposed Action. There is

an average of 279 ft of overburden, 46

ft of interburden, and 98 ft of coal on

about 5,084 acres included in the

Little Thunder LBA Tract Alternative

2 tract configuration. Under

Alternative 3 for the Little Thunder

LBA Tract, there is an average of 310

ft of overburden, 18 ft of interburden,

and 96 ft of coal on about 1,065 acres

included in the north tract, and an

average of 269 ft of overburden, 58 ft

of interburden, and 98 ft of coal on

about 4,018 acres included in the

south tract. Some of the coal that is

included in the Little Thunder LBA

Tract under the Proposed Action or

Alternatives 2 or 3 is located within

the BNSF & UP railroad or Wyoming

Highway 450 ROWs and would,

therefore, not be mined because it

has been determined to be unsuitable

Table 4-6. Average Overburden, Interburden, and Coal Thicknesses for the

Applicant Mines’ Existing Permit Areas.

Applicant Mine

Average

Overburden

Thickness

(ft)

Average

Interburden

Thickness

(ft)

Average

Total Mineable

Coal Thickness

(ft)

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex 205 0 67

Black Thunder 204 11 74

North Rochelle 210 0 60

Antelope 135 62 86
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-10 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

for mining according to the coal

leasing unsuitability criteria (43 CFR

3461). Therefore, the area of coal

removal under the Proposed Action

and Alternatives 2 and 3 would

actually be somewhat smaller than

the acreages shown above. Table 4-5

presents the average overburden,

interburden and coal thicknesses for

the Little Thunder LBA Tract as

applied for and Alternatives 2 and 3.

Table 4-6 presents the average

overburden, interburden and

mineable coal thicknesses for the

existing Black Thunder Mine permit

area.

The replaced overburden and

interburden would be a relatively

homogeneous (compared to the

premining layered overburden and

interburden) and partly recompacted

mixture averaging about 372 ft in

thickness under the Proposed Action,

and about 385 ft in thickness under

Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3,

the replaced overburden would

average about 388 ft in thickness in

the North tract and about 387 ft in

thickness in the South tract.

Approximately 440 million additional

tons of coal would be recovered under

the Proposed Action, compared to 553

million tons under Alternatives 2 and

3 (111.9 million tons in the North

tract and 441.1 million tons in the

South tract).

West Roundup LBA Tract

Within the West Roundup LBA Tract,

mining would remove an average of

318 ft of overburden, no interburden,

and 69 ft of coal on about 1,871 acres

under the Proposed Action. Mining

would remove an average of 306 ft of

overburden, no interburden, and 67 ft

of coal on about 2,497 acres under

the Alternative 2 tract configuration.

Mining would remove an average of

316 ft of overburden, no interburden,

and 67 ft of coal on about 2,894 acres

under the Alternative 3 tract

configuration. Mining would also

remove an average of 233 ft of

overburden, no interburden, and 57 ft

of coal on about 156 acres of

additional lands that would be

included in the LBA Tract if federal

coal lease WYW-127221 is not

modified as is currently proposed.

These acreage figures represent the

estimated area of actual coal removal

under the Proposed Action,

Alternatives 2 and 3, and the

proposed lease WYW-127221

modification area. Table 4-5 presents

the average overburden, interburden

and coal thicknesses for the West

Roundup LBA Tract as applied for,

Alternatives 2 and 3, and lease WYW127221 modification area. Table 4-6

presents the average overburden,

interburden and coal thicknesses for

the existing North Rochelle Mine

permit area.

The replaced overburden and

interburden would be a relatively

homogeneous (compared to the

premining layered overburden and

interburden) and partly recompacted

mixture averaging about 376 ft in

thickness under the Proposed Action,

about 362 ft in thickness under

Alternative 2, about 373 ft in

thickness under Alternative 3, and

about 276 ft in thickness on the lease

WYW-127221 modification area.

Approximately 155.9 million

additional tons of coal would be

recovered under the Proposed Action,

compared to 202.1 million tons under

Alternative 2, 246.8 million tons
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-11

under Alternative 3, and 11.7 million

tons from the lease WYW-127221

modification area.

West Antelope LBA Tract

Within the West Antelope LBA Tract,

mining would remove an average of

138 ft of overburden, 68 ft of

interburden, and 88 ft of coal on

about 2,755 acres under the

Proposed Action. Mining would

remove an average of 150 ft of

overburden, 67 ft of interburden, and

89 ft of coal on about 3,091 acres

under the Alternative 2 tract

configuration. Mining would remove

an average of 140 ft of overburden, 62

ft of interburden, and 81 ft of coal on

about 2,022 acres under the

Alternative 3 tract configuration.

These acreage figures represent the

estimated area of actual coal removal

under the Proposed Action and

Alternatives 2 and 3. Table 4-5

presents the average overburden,

interburden and coal thicknesses for

the West Antelope LBA Tract as

applied for and Alternatives 2 and 3.

Table 4-6 presents the average

overburden, interburden and coal

thicknesses for the existing Antelope

Mine permit area.

The replaced overburden and

interburden would be a relatively

homogeneous (compared to the

premining layered overburden and

interburden) and partly recompacted

mixture averaging about 257 ft in

thickness under the Proposed Action,

about 271 ft in thickness under

Alternative 2, and about 252 ft in

thickness under Alternative 3.

Approximately 228.4 million

additional tons of coal would be

recovered under the Proposed Action,

compared to 254.3 million tons under

Alternative 2 and 170.4 million tons

under Alternative 3.

4.1.2.1 Mineral Resources

During mining, other minerals

present on each of the LBA tracts

could not be developed. Some of

these minerals could, however, be

developed after mining. Conventional

oil and gas wells would have to be

plugged during mining, but could be

re-completed after mining if the

remaining reserves economically

justify the expense of the recompletion. All oil and gas

production equipment would have to

be removed to a level below the coal.

The reservoir which these wells

produce from would not be disturbed

by removal of the coal. The oil and

gas lessee could re-complete or redrill wells to recover remaining oil

and gas resources from any subcoal

oil and gas reservoirs following

mining. This would only occur if they

believe that the value of the

remaining reserves would justify the

expense of reestablishing production.

Section 3.3 includes a discussion on

the oil and gas fields in the General

Analysis Area and the LBA tracts that

overlie them, as well as discussions

on the currently producing wells and

their associated facilities specific to

each of the LBA tracts and associated

action alternatives.

CBM resources that are not recovered

prior to mining would be irretrievably

lost when the coal is removed. As

discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.11,

CBM wells are being drilled on and/or

near each of the LBA tracts in the

General Analysis Area. The Little

Thunder LBA Tract is currently the
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-12 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

only LBA tract with producing CBM

wells within the General Analysis

Area. The NARO North, West

Roundup and West Antelope LBA

Tracts include CBM wells in various

stages of development (e.g.,

permitting, drilling, etc.) which were

not producing when this document

was prepared. Since there is a very

limited production history from wells

within the General Analysis Area,

there is limited data available to

estimate well life for existing or future

CBM wells. 

For the purposes of this draft EIS, the

BLM WSO-RMG reviewed the existing

CBM resource and production data in

the General Analysis Area. All

productive CBM wells within the tentownship area which covers the

General Analysis Area were reviewed

to determine whether decline curve

analysis could be used to forecast

reserves or evaluate well economics.

None of the wells had sufficient

production to yield decline curves

that could be accepted with

confidence for forecasting purposes.

These analyses did indicate that CBM

reserves are probably limited in the

General Analysis Area, suggesting

that shorter well lives might be

expected. Provisional decline curves

which were prepared for several wells

with the lengthiest production

histories suggest that well life periods

for wells located on or near the LBA

lands might be on the order of one to

five years.

Since none of the wells in the General

Analysis Area had sufficient

production histories to yield decline

curves that could be accepted with

confidence for forecasting purposes,

WSO-RMG evaluated CBM

resources/reserves using volumetric

methods: the estimated gas-in-place

(in scf/ton) within each proposed LBA

tract was multiplied by the reported

number of tons of coal within the

subject tract to obtain an in-place

resource volume. 

Detailed CBM resource analyses have

been prepared by the WSO-RMG in

support of coal leasing actions and

other program activities in the

General Analysis Area and at other

localities in the PRB mining area.

Coal seam gas-in-place is dependent

on a number of factors, including coal

rank, coal lithology, and particularly

for the purposes of these analyses,

methane adsorptive capacity of the

coals, which is controlled by

hydrostatic pressure within the coal

seam. Methane adsorption analyses

describe the volume of methane that

can be adsorbed by a specific sample

of coal across a varying range. This

pressure/volume relationship can be

represented by an equation and curve

known as an adsorption isotherm.

Although gas content can vary widely

from sample to sample depending

upon other properties of the coal, the

adsorption data provide a means of

predicting coal bed methane

adsorptive capacity based on

pressure. 

WSO-RMG has developed preliminary

CBM reservoir models based on these

principles to estimate CBM gas

content and in-place resources in the

mining areas and elsewhere in the

PRB. These analyses use publicly

available methane adsorption data

collected cooperatively by the WSORMG and the U.S. Geological Survey,

coal geology from publicly-available

coal drill holes, and hydrologic data
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-13

from groundwater monitoring wells

that are reported by GAGMO. This

model can be used to calculate and

map hydrostatic pressure within the

coal seams based on the annual

reported water levels. The data and

model were used to calculate and

map an estimated coal gas content (in

scf/ton) across the General Analysis

Area in 1982, prior to extensive

mining, and subsequently in 2000

(the latest year for which data are

available). An average gas content for

each proposed LBA tract can be

estimated from the maps (year 2000)

of estimated gas content. An

evaluation of CBM gas-in-place was

prepared using the coal reserves (in

tons) reported in each LBA

application and the estimated coal

gas content (in scf/ton) for each LBA

tract as visually estimated from the

2000 gas content map. The results of

this evaluation are shown in the

following tract discussions.

Implicit in the analysis conducted by

WSO-RMG is the observation that

coal mining and mine-related

dewatering affects CBM resources

and development potential. As

described, water production from the

coal seams is required to reduce

hydrostatic pressure in the coal

seams so that methane can desorb

from the coals for production. Minerelated dewatering of the coal seams

has the same effect of reducing

hydrostatic pressure and methane

desorption. The preliminary CBM

reservoir models indicate that

depletion of the hydrostatic pressures

and methane resources has occurred

adjacent to mining areas since not

long after mining began. Based on

the methane adsorption/pressure

analyses, the preliminary model

shows that as much as 60 percent of

the original in-place CBM resources

in the LBA areas may have been

depleted since 1982. This effect will

be enhanced as mining proceeds

toward the LBA tracts and will

continue whether or not they are

leased and mined. The short

productive life inferred for CBM wells

in the LBA areas suggests that wells

which are completed early could

recover substantial portions of the

remaining reserves prior to any

mining within the LBA tracts.

NARO North and South LBA Tracts

CBM is not currently being produced

on the NARO North and NARO South

LBA Tracts as proposed or on lands

added under Alternative 2. Under the

Proposed Action, there would

potentially be 29 and 26 CBM well

locations on the NARO North and

NARO South LBA Tracts, respectively,

if all the 80-acre spacing units within

the tract were drilled. There would be

13 more potential CBM well sites on

lands added by Alternative 2, while

Alternative 3 would remove from the

NARO South tract nine potential well

sites. As of September 2001, Peabody

Natural Gas, LLC had drilled two

CBM wells on a private oil and gas

lease within the NARO North LBA

Tract as it is configured under the

Proposed Action. These two wells are

not currently producing. No CBM

wells have been drilled on the NARO

South LBA Tract.

WSO-RMG estimates that the average

gas content in the NARO North LBA

Tract is seven scf/ton. Based on that

estimate, the recoverable CBM

resource in the NARO North LBA

Tract would be approximately 2.261
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-14 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

billion cubic feet under the Proposed

Action. For the NARO South LBA

Tract, WSO-RMG estimates that the

average gas content is four scf/ton,

and the estimated recoverable CBM

resource is 0.964 billion cubic feet. 

CBM will be produced by the existing

CBM wells and other wells, if more

are drilled, during the time it takes to

lease and permit the LBA tracts and,

on a case-by-case basis, until mining

activity approaches each well. As

indicated above, BLM’s analysis

suggests that substantial portions of

these remaining reserves could be

produced prior to initiation of mining

activity on the NARO North and

NARO South LBA Tracts under the

Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or

3. CBM reserves that are not

recovered prior to mining would be

lost. This arrangement, which is

dependent on cooperation between

the oil and gas lessees and the coal

lessees, allows for optimizing recovery

of both resources.

Little Thunder LBA Tract

CBM is currently being produced on

the Little Thunder LBA Tract as

proposed and the area added under

Alternative 2. As discussed in

Section 3.11, 32 CBM wells have been

completed for production within the

lands encompassed by the Little

Thunder LBA Tract, and most of the

available 80-acre spacing units within

the tract as proposed have been

drilled. Review of WOGCC records on

June 30, 2002 indicates that all but

five of these wells have had some

production. 

WSO-RMG estimates that the average

gas content in the Little Thunder LBA

Tract is 14 scf/ton. Based on that

estimate, the current recoverable

CBM resource in the Little Thunder

LBA Tract would be approximately

6.7 billion cubic feet. 

CBM will be produced by the existing

CBM wells and other wells, if more

are drilled, during the time it takes to

lease and permit the LBA tract and,

on a case-by-case basis, until mining

activity approaches each well. As

indicated above, BLM’s analysis

suggests that substantial portions of

these remaining reserves could be

produced prior to initiation of mining

activity on the Little Thunder LBA

Tract under the Proposed Action or

Alternatives 2 or 3. CBM reserves

that are not recovered prior to mining

would be lost. This arrangement,

which is dependent on cooperation

between the oil and gas lessees and

the coal lessees, allows for optimizing

recovery of both resources.

West Roundup LBA Tract

CBM is not currently being produced

on the West Roundup LBA Tract as

proposed or on the lands added

under Alternatives 2 and 3 and by

lease WYW-127221 modification.

Under the Proposed Action, there

would potentially be 28 well locations

on the West Roundup LBA Tract if all

the 80-acre spacing units within the

tract were drilled. There would be

nine more potential well sites on

lands added by Alternative 2, and 14

more potential well sites on lands

added by Alternative 3. As of

September 2001, Independent

Production Co., Inc. had four

approved CBM well permits to drill on

a private oil and gas lease within the

West Roundup LBA Tract as it is
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-15

configured under the Proposed

Action.

WSO-RMG estimates that the average

gas content in the West Roundup

LBA Tract is nine scf/ton. Based on

that estimate, the current recoverable

CBM resource in the West Roundup

LBA Tract would be approximately

1.558 billion cubic feet. 

CBM will be produced if wells are

completed during the time it takes to

lease and permit the LBA tract and,

on a case-by-case basis, until mining

activity approaches each well. As

indicated above, BLM’s analysis

suggests that substantial portions of

these remaining reserves could be

produced prior to initiation of mining

activity on the West Roundup LBA

Tract under the Proposed Action or

Alternatives 2 or 3. CBM reserves

that are not recovered prior to mining

would be lost. This arrangement,

which is dependent on cooperation

between the oil and gas lessees and

the coal lessees, allows for optimizing

recovery of both resources.

West Antelope LBA Tract

CBM is not currently being produced

on the West Antelope LBA Tract as

proposed or on the area added by

Alternative 2. Under the Proposed

Action, there would potentially be 47

well locations on the West Antelope

LBA Tract if all the 80-acre spacing

units within the tract were drilled.

There would be four more potential

well sites on lands added by

Alternative 2, while Alternative 3

would remove from the West Antelope

tract nine potential well sites.

WSO-RMG estimates that the average

gas content in the West Antelope

LBA Tract is nine scf/ton. Based on

that estimate, the current recoverable

CBM resource in the West Antelope

LBA Tract would be approximately

2.645 billion cubic feet.

CBM will be produced if wells are

completed during the time it takes to

lease and permit the LBA tract and,

on a case-by-case basis, until mining

activity approaches each well. As

indicated above, BLM’s analysis

suggests that substantial portions of

these remaining reserves could be

produced prior to initiation of mining

activity on the West Antelope LBA

Tract under the Proposed Action or

Alternatives 2 or 3. CBM reserves

that are not recovered prior to mining

would be lost. This arrangement,

which is dependent on cooperation

between the oil and gas lessees and

the coal lessees, allows for optimizing

recovery of both resources.

4.1.3 Soils

Removal and replacement of soil

resources during mining and

reclamation would cause changes in

soil resources. In general, soil

chemistry and soil nutrient

distribution would be more uniform,

and average topsoil quality would be

improved in reclaimed areas on the

five LBA tracts because soil material

that is not suitable to support plant

growth would not be salvaged for use

in reclamation. This would result in

more uniform vegetative productivity

on the reclaimed land. On each LBA

tract, the replaced topsoil would

support a stable and productive

vegetation community adequate in

quality and quantity to support the
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-16 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

planned postmining land uses

(wildlife habitat and rangeland).

There would be an increase in the

near-surface bulk density of the

reclaimed soil resources on each LBA

tract. As a result, the average soil

infiltration rates would generally

decrease, which would increase the

potential for runoff and soil erosion.

Topographic moderation following

reclamation would potentially

decrease runoff, which would tend to

offset the effects of decreased soil

infiltration capacity. The change in

soil infiltration rates would not be

permanent because revegetation and

natural weathering action would form

a new soil structure in the reclaimed

soils, and infiltration rates would

gradually return to premining levels.

Direct biological impacts to reclaimed

soil resources on each LBA tract

considered in this EIS would include

a short-term reduction in soil organic

matter, microbial populations, seeds,

bulbs, rhizomes, and live plant parts

for soil resources that are stockpiled

before placement.

Each mine would build sediment

control structures as needed to trap

eroded soil. Revegetation would

reduce wind erosion, and soil or

overburden materials containing

potentially harmful chemical

constituents (such as selenium)

would be specially handled. These

measures are required by state

regulations and are therefore

considered part of the Proposed

Action and action alternatives. The

previous discussion describes the

impacts to soil resources that

generally occur as a result of surface

mining and reclamation. The

following discussion is a description

of potential impacts to soil resources

on each LBA tract following

reclamation under the Proposed

Action or Alternatives 2 or 3.

NARO North and South LBA Tracts

Under the currently approved mining

and reclamation plan, approximately

20,410 acres of soil resources will be

disturbed in order to mine the coal in

the existing leases at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex (Table 4-

1). If the NARO North and South LBA

Tracts are leased, disturbance related

to coal mining would directly affect an

additional 5,590 acres of soil

resources under the two Proposed

Actions, or 6,275 acres under

Alternative 2, or 4,863 acres under

Alternative 3. Average topsoil

thickness would be 20 to 39 inches

across the entire reclaimed surface on

both tracts. The types and quantities

of soils that are present on the NARO

North and NARO South LBA Tracts

under the Proposed Action and

Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar to

soils currently being salvaged and

utilized for reclamation on the

existing North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex coal leases.

Little Thunder LBA Tract

Under the currently approved mining

and reclamation plan, approximately

18,476 acres of soil resources will be

disturbed in order to mine the coal in

the existing leases at the Black

Thunder Mine (Table 4-2). If the

Little Thunder LBA Tract is leased,

disturbance related to coal mining

would directly affect an additional

5,424 acres of soil resources on and

adjacent to the tract under the

Proposed Action, or 6,577 acres
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-17

under Alternative 2. Under

Alternative 3, the total additional

disturbance area would also equal

6,577 acres (1,382 acres would be

disturbed to mine the North tract and

5,195 acres would be disturbed to

mine the South tract). Average

topsoil thickness would be about 18

inches across the entire reclaimed

surface. The types of soils and the

quantities of the soil resource

included in the Little Thunder LBA

Tract under the alternatives

considered in this EIS are similar to

the soils on the existing coal leases at

the Black Thunder Mine.

West Roundup LBA Tract

Under the currently approved mining

and reclamation plan, approximately

5,288 acres of soil resources will be

disturbed in order to mine the coal in

the existing leases at the North

Rochelle Mine (Table 4-3). If the West

Roundup LBA Tract is leased,

disturbance related to coal mining

would directly affect an additional

3,161 acres of soil resources under

the Proposed Action, 3,161 acres

under Alternative 2, 3,161 acres

under Alternative 2 plus lease WYW127221 mod ification, or

approximately 3,591 acres under

Alternative 3 with or without the lease

WYW-127221 modification. Average

topsoil thickness would be about 38

inches across the entire reclaimed

surface. The types of soils and the

quantities of the soil resource

included in the West Roundup LBA

Tract under the alternatives

considered in this EIS are similar to

the soils on the existing coal leases at

the North Rochelle Mine. 

West Antelope LBA Tract

Under the currently approved mining

and reclamation plan, approximately

8,821 acres of soil resources will be

disturbed in order to mine the coal in

the existing leases at the Antelope

Mine (Table 4-4). If the West Antelope

LBA Tract is leased, disturbance

related to coal mining would directly

affect an additional 3,200 acres of soil

resources on and adjacent to the LBA

tract under the Proposed Action,

3,500 acres under Alternative 2, or

2,467 acres under Alternative 3.

Average topsoil thickness would be

about 19 inches across the entire

reclaimed surface. The types of soils

and the quantities of the soil resource

included in the West Antelope LBA

Tract under the alternatives

considered in this EIS are similar to

the soils on the existing leases at the

Antelope Mine. 

4.1.4 Air Quality

4.1.4.1 General Information

This section describes the impacts on

air quality in the General Analysis

Area. Specifically, this section deals

with how the air quality impacts of

mining the LBA tracts would be

expected to differ from air quality

impacts related to current mining

operations in this area. For the

purpose of impact assessment,

mining the LBA tracts is considered

to be a logical consequence of leasing

the tracts. Thus, it is actually the

impacts of mining on ambient air

quality that are being assessed. The

impacts of mining the LBA tracts, in

conjunction with other activities, on

air quality in the area are addressed

in Section 4.5.4.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-18 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

As discussed in Section 3.5, a

Wyoming air permit application is

required to demonstrate that BACT is

utilized to control emissions and that

the proposed activities will not cause

or significantly contribute to an

exceedance of the ambient air quality

standards. The demonstration of

compliance is typically made with

emission inventories and dispersion

modeling. Impacts to air quality from

mining the LBA tracts included in

this analysis can be inferred from the

impact demonstrations for currently

permitted mining in the vicinity.

Impacts would primarily result from

emissions of particulates and NO2.

As discussed in Section 3.5.3, there

are numerous activities in and

around the LBA tracts that produce

particulates and NO2.

Particulates include solid particles

and liquid droplets that can be

suspended in air. Section 3.5.4

describes historical regional and sitespecific particulate levels.

Particulates, especially fine particles,

have been linked to numerous

respiratory-related illnesses and can

adversely affect individuals with preexisting heart or lung disease. 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. Impacts to the

particulate annual ambient air

quality standard are discussed

separately for each LBA tract in the

following sections. 

NO2 is a product of incomplete

combustion at sources such as

gasoline and diesel burning engines

or from mine blasting activities.

Gaseous NO2 is reddish-brown,

heavier than air and has a pungent

odor. It is highly reactive and

combines with water to form nitric

acid and nitric oxide. “Nitrogen

dioxide gas may cause significant

toxicity because of its ability to form

nitric acid with water in the eye, lung,

mucous membranes, and skin” (EPA

2001). 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”

(EPA 2001). Impacts to the NO2

annual ambient air quality standard

are discussed separately for each LBA

tract in the following sections.

There is no NAAQS for NO2 for

periods shorter than one year.

Concern that there may be a health

risk associated with short-term

exposure to NO2 from blasting

emissions prompted a study

conducted in August 1999 and

completed in April 2000 by the WMA

with participation from the

WDEQ/LQD and WDEQ/AQD. 

The study involved collection of 15-

minute average NO2 concentrations in

areas accessible to the public near

PRB coal mining operations. It was

designed to help evaluate possible

exposure of the public to NO2

emissions resulting from blasting

activity at surface coal mines. Six

monitor locations were selected

“...based on their proximity to mining

activity and accessibility to the

public. Roads adjacent to mining

activity were felt to be areas where

the public exposure would most likely
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-19

occur. Locations were also chosen

based on dominant wind direction,

and to represent areas having the

greatest chance of being impacted by

several mining operations” (WMA

2000).

The report presents ambient NO2

concentrations in the vicinity of the

mines, associated blasting

information, meteorological data as

well as why certain decisions were

made in the design of the study. A

brief summary of the findings

follows.

• Approximately 95 percent of

the valid data points were

readings of 0 ppm (0 μg/m3

)

NO2.

• The maximum 15-minute

average valid values observed

for each of the six monitors

ranged from 0 to 1.65 ppm (0-

3,102 μg/m3) NO2.

• Where readings greater than 0

ppm did occur there was a

strong correlation between NO2

readings and temperatures.

This correlation indicates that

the NO2 readings may have

been inflated due to

temperature considerations. 

NIOSH, OSHA, and EPA short-term

exposure criteria help put these

numbers into perspective. NIOSH’s

recommended Immediately

Dangerous to Life and Health level is

20 ppm (37,600 μg/m3

). OSHA’s

Short-Term Exposure Limit, a 15-

minute time-weighted average, is five

ppm (9,400 μg/m3

). The EPA

Significant Harm Level, a one-hour

average, is two ppm (3,760 μg/m3

).

However, according to EPA “...the

exact concentrations at which NO2

will cause various health effects

cannot be predicted with complete

accuracy because the effects are a

function of air concentration and time

of exposure, and precise

measurements have not been made in

association with human toxicity. The

information that is available from

human exposures also suggests that

there is some variation in individual

response” (EPA 2001).

In conclusion:

• NO2 is being actively monitored

in the PRB and reported for

compliance with the NAAQS

annual standard;

• Monitored NO2 levels are below

the NAAQS annual standard;

and

• Short-term NO2 monitoring in

areas of public exposure show

levels below NIOSH, OSHA, and

EPA’s short-term exposure

criteria.

There are no state or federal rules

that state the public or employees

must stay back a certain distance

from mine blasting operations in

order to limit their exposure to NO2.

Pursuant to an order by the WDEQ, a

study was developed to assist the

WDEQ establish a safe setback

distance from blasting operations at

PRB mines. The study, co-sponsored

by all of the coal mining companies in

the PRB, was overseen and compiled

by McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc.

of Englewood, Colorado. The analysis

was released in July 2002 and it was

based on the results of 76 mine blasts

fully measured by TBCC at the Black
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-20 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Thunder Mine over a 14-month

period of time. A formula was

developed to calculate safe setback

distances for varying amounts of

explosives, wind speeds, and type of

blast (coal, overburden conventional,

or overburden cast). According to the

study, a minimum setback distance

of 750 feet (coal) to 1,000 feet

(overburden) will protect the public

from exposure to NO2 (The Sheridan

Press 2002).

This analysis also included a

toxicological study by Dr. Edward

Faeder, consultant to TBCC on

human health impacts from shortterm exposure to NO2. In reviewing

this study, EPA expressed significant

concern with this report (EPA 2002b).

According to EPA’s review, Dr.

Faeder’s report recommends that a

10-minute exposure to a level of five

ppm would be “protective of even

sensitive subsets of the normal

population if the exposure frequence

is one to three times a year,” while

EPA’s professional judgment is that

“if a concentration of 0.5 ppm were

not exceeded, healthy persons would

not experience adverse health effects

and the most sensitive persons would

probably not experience adverse

health effects from NO2”. The

Wyoming Environmental Quality

Council has recently been considering

the issue of safe setback distances

from blasting operations at surface

coal mines (Casper Star Tribune,

October 23, 2002).

As discussed in Section 3.5.7, PSD is

not an issue to coal mining. However,

BLM evaluates such issues for

leasing. Regional air quality impacts

for this EIS are evaluated under

cumulative impacts (Section 4.5.4).

4.1.4.2 NARO North and South LBA

Tracts

Air Quality Impacts from Currently

Permitted Operations

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit

MD-657 for the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex on

August 14, 2001. This air quality

permit reflects analyses based on a

maximum coal production of 105

mmtpy. Material movement utilizes

draglines, shovels, and trucks in

overburden, and shovels, trucks, and

conveyors in coal. 

Particulate emission inventories for

the mining activities at North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex were

prepared for all years in the currently

anticipated life of the mine. Two

years, 2001 and 2006, were then

selected for worst-case dispersion

modeling of PM10. Dispersion

modeling was performed for projected

mining at North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex using the FDM for area and

line sources and the ISCLT3 Model for

point sources. In accordance with

WDEQ policy for modeling coal

mining impacts, a PM10 concentration

of 15 μg/m3

 was added to all modeled

emissions to account for background

fugitive dust. The resulting

particulate levels were then compared

to the average annual PM10 standard

of 50 μg/m3

 to determine compliance

with the annual NAAQS. This

constitutes a demonstration of

compliance with the “long-term” or

annual NAAQS.

Long-term modeling indicated the

currently projected mine activities

would be in compliance with the

annual PM10 ambient air standard for
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-21

the currently anticipated life of the

mine, at the proposed production

rates. The highest PM10 level modeled

in 2001 was 38.53 μg/m3

. In that

year, the annual coal tonnage level

was only 77 million tons but the pits

were all in close proximity and close

to the northern ambient air

boundary. In 2006 the annual coal

production was the maximum

permitted production level of 105

million tons. This year showed the

highest particulate level in the

emission inventory. The dispersion

model showed a maximum

concentration of 49.94 μg/m3 for

2006. The locations of the maximummodeled PM10 concentrations are

shown on Figures 4-1 and 4-2.

In Wyoming, monitoring results have

been used in lieu of short-term (24-

hour) modeling for assessing shortterm coal mining-related impacts in

the PRB. WDEQ has chosen this

procedure in accordance with an

agreement between EPA and the

State. That agreement recognizes

that appropriate models do not exist

to accurately predict 24-hour

impacts. 

The validity of using this permit

analysis for predicting impacts from

the LBA tracts can be established by

a comparison with current conditions

at the mine. There have been no

exceedances of the PM10 24-hour

NAAQS at North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex through 2001. It is unlikely

that North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex has had a large contribution

(> one μg/m3

) to the recent

exceedances experienced at other

mines. They are complying with the

increased monitoring frequency and

cooperating with WDEQ/AQD to try

to determine the causes of PM10 24-

hour exceedances at other locations.

BACT measures being utilized to

control particulate emissions at North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex are

described in Section 3.5 of this

document.

As discussed in Section 3.5, NO2 is

produced by some of the emissionproducing activities in the vicinity of

the LBA tracts. North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex was not

required to conduct NO2 dispersion

modeling in their most recent permit.

This is because WDEQ determined in

1997 that NO2 levels in the PRB do

not threaten the ambient air

standard. However, North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex is

participating in the regional NO2

monitoring network. NO2 monitoring

results through 1996 are shown on

Table 3-3 and the 2001 monitoring

results are given in Table 3-4.

Monitoring results for 1997 through

2001 are available through

WDEQ/AQD. The agency is relying

on those monitoring data and

emission inventories in permit

applications to demonstrate

compliance with the annual NO2

ambient air standard (Table 3-1).

Section 4.1.4.1 provides a discussion

of short-term NO2 concentrations in

areas of public exposure. There is no

NAAQS that regulates short-term NO2

levels. There have been no reported

events of public exposure to NO2 from

blasting activities at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex through

2001. The mine has, however,

employed measures to control/limit

public exposure to intermittent,

short-term (blasting) releases as
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-22 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 4-1
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-23

Figure 4-2
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-24 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

discussed in Section 3.5 of this

document. 

Air Quality Impacts from Proposed

Action and Alternatives

The impacts to air quality from

mining the NARO North and South

LBA Tracts have been inferred from

the impacts at the currently

permitted mining operation. Twentyfour-hour impacts have been

estimated from recent monitoring and

emission control activities. This

section deals with how the air quality

impacts of mining the LBA tracts as

proposed would differ from the

currently permitted impacts of mining

the existing leases at the North

Antelope Rochelle Complex. There

have been no exceedances of the 24-

hour or annual ambient air standards

at the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex through 2001. None are

expected from mining the LBA tracts,

as discussed below.

The NARO North and South LBA

Tracts would be mined as an integral

part of the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex. The impacts to air quality

under the No Action Alternative would

be the same as those currently

permitted. The impacts to air quality

under the Proposed Action,

Alternative 2, or Alternative 3 would

be expected to increase. Coal

production without the NARO North

and NARO South LBA Tracts is

projected to average around 75

mmtpy. With the NARO North and

NARO South LBA Tracts, coal

production is anticipated to average

around 90 mmtpy. Coal thickness in

the LBA tracts is similar to the

current lease areas, however, the

average overburden thickness in the

LBA tracts is greater (approximately

10 percent) than within the current

lease. As a result, an increase in

emissions is anticipated from

increased production, increased

overburden movement, and increased

blast frequency. The overburden haul

distance and related emissions are

not expected to change, however, the

coal haul lengths would be

anticipated to increase as mining

progresses farther from crushing

facilities, resulting in a corresponding

increase in coal haulage emissions.

Material movement would continue to

utilize draglines, shovels, and trucks

in overburden and shovels and trucks

in coal. Near-pit crushers and

overland conveyors would continue to

be utilized resulting in reduced coal

haulage emissions. A facilities

expansion is planned according to the

current air quality permit, however,

expansion of the facilities is not

dependent on acquisition of the LBA

tracts. There are no plans to change

blasting procedures or blast sizes if

the LBA tracts are leased and mined.

Current BACT measures for

particulates and for NO2 would

continue to be employed.

The additional coal from the LBA

tracts would allow mining operations

to continue for a longer period of

time, ranging from two to 4.5

additional years depending upon the

action alternative that is selected. 

In summary, increases in emissions

from current levels are expected if the

NARO North and South LBA Tracts

are mined; however, air quality

impacts from mining the NARO North

and South LBA Tracts by the

applicant should be within daily and

annual NAAQS limits. Modeling for
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-25

the current North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex permit predicted no

exceedances of the annual PM10

NAAQS at a 105 mmtpy production

rate and there have been no

exceedances of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. The anticipated average coal

production levels of 90 mmtpy are

below the currently permitted levels,

which were used in the modeling.

4.1.4.3 Little Thunder LBA Tract

Air Quality Impacts from Currently

Permitted Operations

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit

MD-417 for the Black Thunder Mine

on July 1, 1999. This air quality

permit reflects analyses based on a

maximum coal production of 100

mmtpy as well as permitted

production from neighboring mines

and permitted sources in close

proximity to the mine. Material

movement utilizes draglines, shovels

and trucks in overburden, and

shovels, trucks, and conveyors in

coal.

Particulate emission inventories for

the mining activities at Black

Thunder Mine were prepared for all

years in the currently anticipated life

of the mine. Two years, 2002 and

2026, were then selected for worstcase dispersion modeling of PM10.

Dispersion modeling was performed

for projected mining at Black

Thunder Mine and emissions from

other existing and permitted sources

in the area including North Rochelle

and Jacobs Ranch Mines, Two Elk

power generating station and the

ENCOAL Liquids from Coal and power

generating facility. Area and line

sources were modeled using the FDM

and the ISCLT3 Model was used for

point surfaces. In accordance with

WDEQ policy for modeling coal

mining impacts, a PM10 concentration

of 15 μg/m3 was added to all modeled

emissions to account for background

fugitive dust. The resulting

particulate levels were then compared

to the average annual PM10 standard

of 50 μg/m3 to determine compliance

with the annual NAAQS. This

constitutes a demonstration of

compliance with the “long-term” or

annual NAAQS.

The long-term modeling indicated

that currently projected mining

activities, in conjunction with other

existing and permitted activities in

the area, would be in compliance with

the annual PM10 ambient air standard

for the life of the mine. Year 2002

was expected to have the highest

combined impacts from all three

mines, largely due to the close

proximity of Black Thunder Mine’s

North and West pits and Jacob Ranch

Mine’s pit to the respective ambient

air boundaries. The highest PM10

level modeled in 2002 was 34.96

μg/m3

. Year 2026 was selected as the

second year for dispersion modeling.

Particulate emissions in this year

were the highest in the emission

inventory and Black Thunder’s

mining activity was near the ambient

air boundary. The annual coal

production was also at the maximum

permitted production level of 100

million tons. The dispersion model

showed a maximum concentration of

34.58 μg/m3

 for 2026. The locations

of the maximum-modeled PM10

concentrations are shown on Figures

4-3 and 4-4. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-26 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 4-3
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-27

Figure 4-4
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-28 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

In Wyoming, monitoring results have

been used in lieu of short-term (24-

hour) modeling for assessing shortterm coal mining-related impacts in

the PRB. WDEQ has chosen this

procedure in accordance with an

agreement between EPA and the

State. That agreement recognizes

that appropriate models do not exist

to accurately predict 24-hour

impacts. 

The validity of using this permit

analysis for predicting impacts from

the LBA tract can be established by a

comparison with current conditions

at the mine. There were no

exceedances of the PM10 24-hour

NAAQS at Black Thunder Mine

through 2001. During 2002 there

was one exceedance of the PM10 24-

hour NAAQS at one of the Black

Thunder Mine’s air quality monitoring

sites. This exceedance occurred

during a period when winds reached

at least 25 mph for a one-hour

period. The exceedance may be the

result of increased background dust

levels combined with specific mine

activities during high wind

conditions. In addition to the BACT

measures discussed in Section 3.5 of

this document, the mine has

increased its monitoring frequency

and has worked with WDEQ/AQD to

develop and implement plans to

reduce emissions on high wind days.

Actions that the mine is implementing

include elimination of unnecessary

roads, periodic application of

magnesium chloride and surfactants

to roads, reducing the dump height of

the draglines, and increasing efforts

for timely reclamation of disturbed

areas. The one exceedance of the

PM10 24-hour standard did not

constitute a violation of the NAAQS.

A violation would require a second

exceedance in one year. There have

been no exceedances of the PM10

annual NAAQS. 

As discussed in Section 3.5, NO2 is

produced by some of the emissionproducing activities in the vicinity of

the LBA tract. Black Thunder Mine

was not required to conduct NO2

dispersion modeling in their most

recent permit. This is because WDEQ

determined in 1997 that NO2 levels in

the PRB do not threaten the ambient

standard. However, Black Thunder

Mine is participating in the regional

NO2 monitoring network. NO2

monitoring results through 1996 are

shown on Table 3-3 and the 2001

monitoring results are shown in Table

3-4. Monitoring results for 1997

through 2001 are available through

WDEQ/AQD. The agency is relying

on those monitoring data and

emission inventories in permit

applications to demonstrate

compliance with the annual NO2

ambient air standard (Table 3-1).

Section 4.1.4.1 provides a discussion

of short-term NO2 concentrations in

areas of public exposure. There is no

NAAQS that regulates short-term NO2

levels. Black Thunder Mine received

several reports of public exposure to

NO2 from blasting prior to 2001.

Measures were developed to

control/limit public exposure to

intermittent, short-term (blasting)

releases as discussed in Section 3.5.

Black Thunder Mine has also

experimented with procedures and

materials designed to reduce the

production of NO2 from blasting. No

reports of public exposure to NO2

have been received since early 2001.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-29

Air Quality Impacts from Proposed

Action and Alternatives

The annual impacts to air quality

from mining the Little Thunder LBA

Tract have been inferred from the

modeled impacts at the currently

permitted mining operation. Twentyfour-hour impacts have been

estimated from recent monitoring and

emission control activities. This

section deals with how the air quality

impacts of mining the LBA tract differ

from the currently permitted impacts

of mining the existing coal leases at

the Black Thunder Mine. One 24-

hour PM10 exceedance has occurred

and Black Thunder Mine is

investigating the exceedance of the

24-hour standard in cooperation with

the WDEQ/AQD and remedies are

being developed and implemented.

These are expected to reduce

emissions from the mine to within the

24-hour NAAQS limit. There have

been no exceedances of the annual

PM10 standard, and none are expected

from mining the LBA tract, as

discussed below.

Recent meteorology could be a

significant contributor to the 24-hour

exceedance that was measured at one

of the Black Thunder Mine’s air

quality monitoring sites in 2002.

Three years of drought conditions

coupled with stronger winds may be

transporting more dust from upwind

sources, resulting in a higher

background dust level than in more

normal meteorological conditions.

The meteorology for the period

December 2001 through February

2002 shows abnormally high average

wind speeds at the neighboring North

Rochelle Mine. During this period,

average wind speeds were nearly 50

percent and 35 percent higher than

the same period in the previous two

years when average speeds of 10.0

and 12.23 mph, respectively, were

recorded. It is very likely that a

similar increase in wind speeds has

been experienced at the Black

Thunder Mine.

The No Action Alternative is identical

to the currently permitted operation;

therefore, the impacts to air quality

under Alternative 1 would be the

same as those currently permitted.

The Proposed Action, Alternative 2,

and Alternative 3 all involve mining

the LBA tract as an integral part of

the Black Thunder Mine. The only

differences between the Alternatives

are in size of the lease area and

timing of lease sales/mining.

If the Little Thunder LBA Tract is

mined as proposed under the

Proposed Action and Alternatives 2

and 3, a net increase in total

emissions of particulates and NO2 as

compared to the currently permitted

operation would be expected.

Maximum coal production is

anticipated to be 68.5 mmtpy

regardless of whether or not the Little

Thunder LBA Tract is acquired.

Emissions from the coal extractionrelated processes should actually

decrease on an annual basis although

they would be extended for an

additional eight to 10.7 years. The

decrease would occur because as the

coal seam thickness increases in the

LBA tract, the operation would

advance through the property more

slowly. This would decrease the acres

disturbed annually, cause coal haul

distances to increase more slowly,

and require fewer blasts per ton of

coal extracted. However, the
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-30 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

increasing overburden-to-coal ratio of

the LBA tract is expected to more

than offset these decreases. With a

46 percent increase in overburden

thickness, overburden extraction and

haulage would generate more

emissions per ton of coal mined than

are modeled in the current permit. 

Coal removal would continue to be

performed with shovels and trucks.

Additional near-pit crusher and

conveyor systems would be

constructed if the LBA tract is

acquired. This would serve to keep

coal haul distances similar to haul

distances without the LBA tract. The

overburden haul distance and related

emissions are not expected to change

because the method of mining would

not change. Overburden movement

would continue to utilize draglines,

shovels, and trucks. There are no

plans to change blasting procedures

or blast sizes associated with the

mining of this LBA tract. In addition,

current BACT measures for

particulates and for NO2 would

continue to be employed.

In summary, emissions associated

with mining the Little Thunder LBA

Tract are expected to increase over

those modeled in the current air

permit. Black Thunder Mine in

conjunction with WDEQ/AQD is

developing improvements in emission

control activities to remedy current

elevated levels of emissions. The

mine anticipates that these

improvements in emission control

activities would allow permitting the

LBA tract at a maximum production

of 100 mmtpy. In the event that

compliance cannot be demonstrated

in a permit for 100 mmtpy, a lower

annual production rate and/or

further expansion of emission control

activities at the mine would have to

be evaluated for compliance prior to

approval of mining operations on the

Little Thunder LBA Tract.

4.1.4.4 West Roundup LBA Tract

Air Quality Impacts from Currently

Permitted Operations

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit

MD-454 for the North Rochelle Mine

on May 5, 2000. This air quality

permit reflects analyses based on a

maximum coal production of 35

mmtpy as well as permitted

production from neighboring mines

and permitted sources in close

proximity to the mine. Material

movement utilizes draglines, shovels

and trucks in overburden, and

shovels, trucks, and conveyors in

coal.

Particulate emission inventories for

the mining activities at North

Rochelle Mine were prepared for all

years in the currently anticipated life

of the mine. Two years, 2002 and

2012, were then selected for worstcase dispersion modeling of PM10.

Dispersion modeling was performed

for projected mining at North Rochelle

Mine and emissions from other

existing and permitted sources in the

area including Black Thunder and

Jacobs Ranch Mines, Two Elk power

generating station, and the ENCOAL

Liquids from Coal and power

generating facility. Area and line

sources were modeled using the FDM

and the ISCLT3 Model was used for

point sources. In accordance with

WDEQ policy for modeling coal

mining impacts, a PM10 concentration

of 15 μg/m3 was added to all modeled
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-31

emissions to account for background

fugitive dust. The resulting

particulate levels were then compared

to the average annual PM10 standard

of 50 μg/m3 to determine compliance

with the annual NAAQS. This

constitutes a demonstration of

compliance with the “long-term” or

annual NAAQS.

The long-term modeling indicated

that currently projected mining

activities, in conjunction with other

existing and permitted activities in

the area, would be in compliance with

the annual PM10 ambient air standard

for the life of the mine. Year 2002

was expected to have the highest

combined impacts from all three

mines, largely due to the close

proximity of Black Thunder Mine’s

South Pit and North Rochelle Mine’s

Pit 1. The highest PM10 level modeled

in 2002 was 33.9 μg/m3. Year 2012

was selected as the second year for

dispersion modeling. Particulate

emissions in this year were nearly

identical to the peak year (2005) in

the emission inventory and North

Rochelle’s mining activity was near

the ambient air boundary. The

annual coal production was also at

the maximum permitted production

level of 35 million tons. The

dispersion model showed a maximum

concentration of 42.7 μg/m3

 for 2012.

The locations of the maximummodeled PM10 concentrations are

shown on Figures 4-5 and 4-6.

In Wyoming, monitoring results have

been used in lieu of short-term (24-

hour) modeling for assessing shortterm coal mining-related impacts in

the PRB. WDEQ has chosen this

procedure in accordance with an

agreement between EPA and the

State. That agreement recognizes

that appropriate models do not exist

to accurately predict 24-hour

impacts.

The validity of using this permit

analysis for predicting impacts from

the LBA tract can be established by a

comparison with current conditions

at the mine. There were no

exceedances of the PM10 24-hour

NAAQS at North Rochelle Mine

through 2000. During 2001 and

early 2002, there have been a total of

10 exceedances of the PM10 24-hour

NAAQS at North Rochelle Mine’s air

quality monitoring sites. All of these

exceedances occurred during periods

when winds reached at least 25 mph

for a one-hour period.

Two of these exceedances appear to

be directly related to dust generated

from an unpaved county road that

was relocated to within 500 ft of one

of the monitors. Because the road

relocation occurred after the monitor

was in place, the WDEQ/AQD has

requested that a new monitor location

be developed further from the road.

In addition, the mine has treated the

road with chemical stabilizers to

reduce dust.

The remaining exceedances appear to

be the result of increased background

dust levels and mine site wind

erosion during high wind conditions.

In addition to the BACT measures

discussed in Section 3.5, the mine

has increased its monitoring

frequency and has worked with

WDEQ/AQD to develop an ongoing

compliance plan for controlling

particulates. Part of the compliance

plan involves determining the causes

of the exceedances and possible
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-32 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 4-5
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-33

Figure 4-6
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-34 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

solutions. Specific measures

implemented at the North Rochelle

Mine so far include chemical

stabilization of disturbed ground,

surface roughening through creation

of windrows, and mulching and

crimping activities. These measures

are being implemented on disturbed

acres susceptible to wind scouring

including stockpiles, areas stripped

for mine advance, and areas being

brought to final grade. In addition,

the mine is inter-seeding areas where

the recent drought has hindered

revegetation success.

As discussed in Section 3.5 of this

document, NO2 is produced by some

of the emission-producing activities in

the vicinity of the LBA tract. North

Rochelle Mine was not required to

conduct NO2 dispersion modeling in

their most recent permit. This is

because WDEQ determined in 1997

that NO2 levels in the PRB do not

threaten the ambient standard.

However, North Rochelle Mine is

participating in the regional NO2

monitoring network. NO2 monitoring

results through 1996 are shown on

Table 3-3 and the 2001 monitoring

results are given in Table 3-4.

Monitoring results for 1997 through

2001 are available through

WDEQ/AQD. The agency is relying

on those monitoring data and

emission inventories in permit

applications to demonstrate

compliance with the annual NO2

ambient air standard (Table 3-1).

Section 4.1.4.1 provides a discussion

of short-term NO2 concentrations in

areas of public exposure. There is no

NAAQS that regulated short-term NO2

levels. There have been no reported

events of public exposure to NO2 from

blasting activities at the North

Rochelle Mine through 2001. The

mine has, however, employed

measures to control/limit public

exposure to intermittent, short-term

(blasting) releases as discussed in

Section 3.5.

Air Quality Impacts from Proposed

Action and Alternatives

The annual impacts to air quality

from mining the West Roundup LBA

Tract have been inferred from the

modeled impacts at the currently

permitted mining operation. Twentyfour-hour impacts have been

estimated from recent monitoring and

emission control activities. Several

24-hour PM10 exceedances have

occurred and North Rochelle Mine is

investigating exceedances of the 24-

hour standard in cooperation with the

WDEQ/AQD and remedies are being

developed and implemented. These

are expected to reduce emissions

from the mine to within the 24-hour

NAAQS limit. There have been no

exceedances of the annual PM10

standard, and none are expected from

mining the LBA tract, as discussed

below.

Recent meteorology could be a

significant contributor to the 24-hour

exceedances experienced. Three

years of drought conditions coupled

with stronger winds may be

transporting more dust from upwind

sources, resulting in a higher

background dust level than in more

normal meteorological conditions.

The meteorology for the period

December 2001 through February

2002 shows abnormally high average

wind speeds. During this period,

average wind speeds of 16.4 mph
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-35

were recorded at the North Rochelle

Mine meteorological site. This is

nearly 50 percent and 35 percent

higher than the same period in the

previous two years when average

speeds of 10.0 and 12.23 mph,

respectively, were recorded.

The No Action Alternative is identical

to the currently permitted operation;

therefore, the impacts to air quality

under Alternative 1 would be the

same as those currently permitted.

The Proposed Action, Alternative 2,

and Alternative 3 all involve mining

the LBA tract as an integral part of

the North Rochelle Mine. The only

differences are in size of the lease

area.

The Proposed Action and Alternatives

2 and 3 are expected to result in a net

increase in total emissions of

particulates and NO2 as compared to

the currently permitted operation.

Coal production is anticipated to be

approximately 35 mmtpy regardless

of whether or not the West Roundup

LBA Tract is acquired. Emissions

from the coal extraction-related

processes should actually decrease on

an annual basis although they would

be extended for an additional 4.5 to

6.7 years. The decrease would occur

because as the coal seam thickness

increases in the LBA tract, the

operation would advance through the

property more slowly. This would

decrease the acres disturbed

annually, cause coal haul distances

to increase more slowly, and require

fewer blasts per ton of coal extracted.

However, the increasing overburdento-coal ratio of the LBA tract is

expected to more than offset these

decreases. With a nearly 50 percent

increase in overburden thickness,

overburden extraction and haulage

would generate more emissions per

ton of coal mined than are modeled in

the current permit. 

The overburden haul distance and

related emissions are not expected to

change. Material movement would

continue to utilize draglines, shovels

and trucks in overburden, and

shovels and trucks in coal. Near-pit

crushers and overland conveyors

would continue to be utilized

resulting in reduced coal haulage

emissions. There are no plans to

change blasting procedures or blast

sizes associated with the mining of

this LBA tract. In addition, current

BACT measures for particulates and

for NO2 would continue to be

employed.

In summary, emissions associated

with mining the West Roundup LBA

Tract are expected to increase over

those modeled in the current air

permit. North Rochelle Mine in

conjunction with WDEQ/AQD is

developing improvements in emission

control activities to remedy current

elevated levels of emissions. These

improvements may not be enough to

allow permitting the LBA tract at a

maximum production of 35 mmtpy.

It is likely, however, that a permit can

be obtained with a lower annual

production rate and/or further

expansion of emission control

activities at the mine.

4.1.4.5 West Antelope LBA Tract

Air Quality Impacts from Currently

Permitted Operations

WDEQ/AQD issued air quality permit

MD-616 for the Antelope Mine on
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-36 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

April 30, 2001. This air quality

permit reflects analyses based on a

maximum coal production of 32

mmtpy. Material movement utilizes

draglines, shovels and trucks in

overburden, and shovels, trucks, and

conveyors in coal.

Particulate emission inventories for

the mining activities at Antelope Mine

were prepared for all years in the

currently anticipated life of the mine.

Two years, 2006 and 2016, were then

selected for worst-case dispersion

modeling of PM10. Dispersion

modeling was performed for projected

mining at Antelope Mine. Area and

line sources were modeled using the

FDM and the ISCLT3 Model was used

for point sources. In accordance with

WDEQ policy for modeling coal

mining impacts, a PM10 concentration

of 15 μg/m3 was added to all modeled

emissions to account for background

fugitive dust. The resulting

particulate levels were then compared

to the average annual PM10 standard

of 50 μg/m3 to determine compliance

with the annual NAAQS. This

constitutes a demonstration of

compliance with the “long-term” or

annual NAAQS.

Long-term modeling indicated the

currently projected mine activities will

be in compliance with the annual

PM10 ambient air standard for the life

of the mine. The worst-case years

were selected on having the highest

PM10 emissions in the emissions

inventory. The dispersion model

showed a maximum concentration of

47.3 μg/m3 in 2006 and 49.2 μg/m3

in 2016. Coal production in both

years was the maximum permitted

production level of 32 million tons.

The locations of the maximummodeled PM10 concentrations are

shown on Figures 4-7 and 4-8.

In Wyoming, monitoring results have

been used in lieu of short-term (24-

hour) modeling for assessing shortterm coal mining-related impacts in

the PRB. WDEQ has chosen this

procedure in accordance with an

agreement between EPA and the

State. That agreement recognizes

that appropriate models do not exist

to accurately predict 24-hour

impacts.

The validity of using this permit

analysis for predicting impacts from

the LBA tract can be established by a

comparison with current conditions

at the mine. There have been no

exceedances of the PM10 24-hour

NAAQS at Antelope Mine through

2001. It is unlikely that operations at

the Antelope Mine have made a

major contribution (> one μg/m3) to

the recent exceedances experienced at

other mines in the General Analysis

Area. However, they are complying

with the increased monitoring

frequency and cooperating with

WDEQ/AQD to try to determine the

causes of PM10 24-hour exceedances

at other locations. BACT measures

being utilized to control particulate

emissions at Antelope Mine are

described in Section 3.5 of this

document.

As discussed in Section 3.5, NO2 is

produced by some of the emissionproducing activities in the vicinity of

the LBA tract. Antelope Mine was not

required to conduct NO2 dispersion

modeling in their most recent permit.

This is because WDEQ determined in

1997 that NO2 levels in the PRB do

not threaten the ambient air
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-37

Figure 4-7
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-38 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 4-8
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-39

standard. However, Antelope Mine is

participating in the regional NO2

monitoring network. NO2 monitoring

results through 1996 are shown on

Table 3-3 and the 2001 monitoring

results are given in Table 3-4.

Monitoring results for 1997 through

2001 are available through

WDEQ/AQD. The agency is relying

on those monitoring data and

emission inventories in permit

applications to demonstrate

compliance with the annual NO2

ambient air standard (Table 3-1).

Section 4.1.4.1 provides a discussion

of short-term NO2 concentrations in

areas of public exposure. There is no

NAAQS that regulates short-term NO2

levels. There have been no reported

events of public exposure to NO2 from

blasting activities at the Antelope

Mine through 2001. The mine has,

however, employed measures to

control/limit public exposure to

intermittent, short-term (blasting)

releases as discussed in Section 3.5

of this document.

Air Quality Impacts from Proposed

Action and Alternatives

The impacts to air quality from

mining the West Antelope LBA Tract

have been inferred from the impacts

at the currently permitted mining

operation. Twenty-four-hour impacts

have been estimated from recent

monitoring and emission control

activities. This section deals with

how the air quality impacts of mining

the LBA tract differ from the currently

permitted impacts. There have been

no exceedances of the 24-hour or

annual ambient air standards at the

Antelope Mine through 2001. None

are expected from mining the LBA

tract as discussed below.

The West Antelope LBA Tract would

be mined as an integral part of the

Antelope Mine. The impacts to air

quality under the No Action

Alternative would be the same as

those currently permitted. The

impacts to air quality under the

Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3

are described below. Coal production

is anticipated to increase to a

maximum rate of 32 mmtpy, then fall

off during the mine’s later years with

or without the West Antelope LBA

Tract. If the mine acquires the

additional coal in the LBA tract, they

would produce at a rate of 32 mmtpy

for a longer period of time but the life

of mine would not be extended. As a

result, the increased emissions due to

coal and overburden removal

operations (i.e., haulage, blasting,

etc.) at the 32 mmtpy production rate

would occur for a longer period of

time than is shown in the current

approved air quality permit. The

overburden haul distance and related

emissions are not expected to change,

however, the average overburden

thickness in the LBA tract is greater

than within the current lease

(approximately a 12 percent increase).

Thus, an increase in emissions would

be anticipated from increased

overburden movement and blast

frequency. This may be moderated

somewhat because the coal thickness

in the LBA tract is somewhat greater

than in the current lease areas. This

would decrease the acres disturbed

annually, cause coal haul distances

to increase more slowly, and require

fewer blasts per ton of coal extracted.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-40 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Material movement would continue to

utilize draglines, shovels, and trucks

in overburden, and shovels and

trucks in coal. Near-pit crushers and

overland conveyors would continue to

be utilized resulting in reduced coal

haulage emissions. Facilities shown

in the current air quality permit

would not change as a result of

proposed mining of the LBA tract.

There are no plans to change blasting

procedures or blast sizes associated

with the mining of the LBA tract. In

addition, current BACT measures for

particulates and for NO2 would

continue to be employed.

In summary, if the Antelope Mine

acquires and mines the West

Antelope LBA Tract, increases in

emissions from current levels are

expected due to an increase in the

time the mine would produce at a

rate of 32 mmtpy and an increase in

overburden thickness. The increases

would be moderated somewhat by a

slower rate of advance through the

tract due to the greater coal thickness

in the LBA tract. Modeling for the

current Antelope Mine permit showed

no exceedances of the annual PM10

NAAQS at a 32 mmtpy production

rate and there have been no

exceedances of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. Therefore, air quality

impacts that result from mining the

West Antelope LBA Tract by the

applicant should also be within daily

and annual NAAQS limits.

4.1.5 Water Resources

Surface Water

Changes in runoff characteristics and

sediment discharges would occur

during mining of each of the LBA

tracts as a result of the destruction

and reconstruction of drainage

channels as mining progresses.

Erosion rates could be high on the

disturbed areas because of vegetation

removal. However, both state and

federal regulations require that all

surface runoff from mined lands be

treated as necessary to meet effluent

standards. Generally, the surface

runoff sediment is deposited in ponds

or other sediment control devices

inside the permit area.

Since the LBA tracts would be mined

as extensions of existing mines under

the Proposed Actions or action

alternatives, there would not be a

major change in the size of area that

is disturbed and not reclaimed at any

given time as a result of leasing these

tracts. WDEQ/LQD would also

require monitoring programs to

assure that ponds would always have

adequate space reserved for sediment

accumulation.

The presence of disturbed areas

creates a potential that sediment

produced by large storms (i.e., greater

than the 10-year, 24-hour storm)

could potentially adversely impact

areas downstream of the mining

operations. This potential for adverse

downstream impacts would be

extended if the LBA tracts are leased.

The loss of soil structure would act to

increase runoff rates on the LBA

tracts in reclaimed areas. However,

the general decrease in average slope

in reclaimed areas, as discussed in

Section 4.1.1, would tend to

counteract the potential for an

increase in runoff. Soil structure

would gradually reform over time, and

vegetation (after successful
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-41

reclamation) would provide erosion

protection from raindrop impact,

retard surface flows, and control

runoff at approximately premining

levels.

After mining and reclamation are

complete, surface water flow, quality,

and sediment discharge from the LBA

tracts would approximate premining

conditions. The impacts described

above would be similar for the

Proposed Actions and action

alternatives, and they are similar to

the expected impacts for currently

permitted mining operations. Direct

and indirect impacts to the surface

water system resulting from mining

the five LBA tracts would add to the

cumulative impacts that will occur

due to mining existing leases. These

impacts are discussed in Section

4.5.5. Following is a description of

surface water impacts from the

leasing and subsequent mining of

each of the LBA tracts under the

Proposed Action or Alternative 2 or 3.

NARO North and South LBA Tracts

The NARO North LBA Tract may

encounter significant runoff in

Porcupine Creek, which is ephemeral

to intermittent in the vicinity of the

tract. A section of Porcupine Creek is

currently diverted around active pits

in the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex. During mining, hydrologic

control within the NARO North LBA

Tract would likely consist of diverting

Porcupine Creek around the tract and

diverting its ephemeral tributaries or

containing them in flood control

reservoirs.

Due to its location in the headwater

area of ephemeral Antelope Creek

tributaries, and due to the fact that

much of the tract drains internally to

a closed basin, runoff within the

NARO South LBA Tract would not be

expected to be significant. During

mining, hydrologic control would

most likely consist of allowing runoff

to accrue to the mine pit, or to flood

control reservoirs, where it would be

treated and discharged according to

the standards of WDEQ/WQD. 

Little Thunder LBA Tract

The Little Thunder LBA Tract may

encounter significant runoff in Little

Thunder Creek and North Prong Little

Thunder Creek. As such, hydrologic

control during mining would most

likely consist of containing these

ephemeral draws in flood control

reservoirs or diverting flows around

active pits.

West Roundup LBA Tract

The West Roundup LBA Tract is

located near the headwaters of

Trussler Creek and Olson Draw, and

runoff within the tract would not be

expected to be significant. Hydrologic

control during mining would most

likely consist of containing these

ephemeral draws in flood control

reservoirs, diverting flows around

active pits, or allowing runoff to

accrue to the mine pit, where it would

be treated and discharged according

to the standards of WDEQ/WQD.

West Antelope LBA Tract

The West Antelope LBA Tract may

encounter significant runoff in Spring

Creek and Antelope Creek. According

to ACC’s West Antelope LBA Tract

Lease Application (ACC 2000), ACC
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-42 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

would not plan to disturb Antelope

Creek and buffer zone adjacent to

Antelope Creek during mining, but

would plan to divert a portion of

Spring Creek around the open pit

area if they acquire the tract.

Groundwater

Surface coal mining impacts the

groundwater resource quantity in two

ways: 1) the coal aquifers and any

overburden aquifers are removed and

replaced with unconsolidated backfill

and 2) water levels in the coal and

overburden aquifers adjacent to the

mines are depressed as a result of

seepage and dewatering into the open

pits in the area of coal and

overburden removal. If the NARO

North, NARO South, Little Thunder,

West Roundup, and West Antelope

LBA Tracts are leased, the area of

coal removal and reclamation would

increase, and the area of impacts to

groundwater quantity would increase.

The area subject to lower water levels

would be increased roughly in

proportion to the increase in area

affected by mining. 

Mining each of the LBA tracts would

remove shallow aquifers and replace

the separate aquifer units with

backfill composed of an unlayered

mixture of the shale, siltstone, and

sand that makes up the existing

Wasatch Formation overburden and

Fort Union Formation interburden.

Impacts to the local groundwater

systems resulting from mining each of

the tracts would include completely

dewatering the coal, overburden, and

interburden within the area of coal

removal, and enlarging the area of

drawdown caused by coal and

overburden removal. The extent that

drawdowns propagate away from the

mine pits is a function of the waterbearing properties of the aquifer

materials. In materials with high

transmissivity and low storativity,

drawdowns extend further from the

pit face than in materials with lower

transmissivity and higher storage. In

general, due to the geologic makeup

of the Wasatch Formation overburden

(discontinuous lenticular sandstones

in a matrix of siltstone and shale),

overburden drawdowns do not extend

great distances from the active mine

pits (Hydro-Engineering 1997, 1998,

1999, 2000). Because of the regional

continuity and higher transmissivity

within the Wyodak coal seam,

drawdowns propagate much further

in the coal aquifer than in the

overburden. Drawdowns in the coal

seam are a function of distance from

the pit as well as geologic and

hydrologic barriers and boundaries

such as crop lines, fracture zones,

and recharge sources.

Some private permitted water wells

will be impacted (either directly by

removal of the well or indirectly by

water level drawdown) by approved

mining operations occurring at the

applicant and adjacent mines and

additional water wells would be likely

to be affected if the LBA tracts are

leased. In compliance with SMCRA

and Wyoming regulations, 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; this

mitigation is thus part of the action

alternatives. The most probable

source of replacement water would be

one of the aquifers underlying the

coal. The subcoal Fort Union aquifers
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-43

are not removed or disturbed by coal

mining, so they are not directly

impacted by coal mining activity.

As part of the permitting process, the

mine operator would be required to

update the list of potentially impacted

wells and predict impacts to these

and other water-supply wells within

the five-ft drawdown contour. The

operator would be required to commit

to replacing these water supplies with

water of equivalent quality and

quantity if they are affected by

mining.

The hydraulic properties of the

backfill aquifer reported in the

adjacent mines’ permit documents

are comparable to the Wasatch

Formation overburden and Wyodak

coal. The data available indicate that

the hydraulic conductivity of the

backfill would be greater than or

equal to premining coal values,

suggesting that wells completed in

the backfill would provide yields

greater than or equal to premining

coal wells.

Mining and reclamation also impacts

groundwater quality; the TDS

concentration in the water

resaturating the backfill is generally

higher than the TDS concentration in

the groundwater before mining. This

is due to the exposure of fresh

overburden surfaces to groundwater

that moves through the backfill.

Research conducted by the Montana

Bureau of Mines and Geology on the

coal fields of the northern PRB (Van

Voast and Reiten 1988) indicates that

upon initial saturation, mine backfill

is generally high in TDS and contains

soluble salts of calcium, magnesium

and sodium sulfates. As the backfill

is resaturated, the soluble salts are

leached by groundwater inflow and

TDS concentrations tend to decrease

with time, indicating that the long

term groundwater quality in mined

and off-site lands would not be

compromised (Van Voast and Reiten

1988).

Using data compiled from ten surface

coal mines in the eastern PRB, Martin

et al. (1988) concluded that backfill

groundwater quality improves

markedly after the backfill is leached

with one pore volume of water. The

same conclusions were reached by

Van Voast and Reiten (1988) after

analyzing data from the Decker and

Colstrip Mine areas in the northern

PRB. Postmining groundwaters are

therefore expected to be of better

quality after one pore volume of water

moves through the backfill than what

is observed in the backfill today. In

general, the mine backfill

groundwater TDS can be expected to

range from 3,000 - 6,000 mg/L,

similar to the premining Wasatch

Formation aquifer, and meet

Wyoming Class III standards for use

as stock water.

Direct and indirect impacts to the

groundwater system resulting from

mining the five LBA tracts included in

this analysis would add to the

cumulative impacts that will occur

due to mining existing leases. These

impacts are discussed in Section

4.5.5. The probable groundwater

impacts from the leasing and

subsequent mining of each of the LBA

tracts under the Proposed Action or

Alternative 2 or 3 are described in the

following paragraphs.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-44 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

NARO North and South LBA Tracts

Mining the NARO North and NARO

South LBA tracts would remove

shallow aquifers on an additional

5,590 acres (Proposed Action

configuration for NARO North and

NARO South), 6,275 acres (Proposed

Action configuration for NARO North

and Alternative 2 configuration for

NARO South), or 4,863 acres

(Proposed Action configuration for

NARO North and Alternative 3

configuration for NARO South) and

replace the separate aquifer units

with backfill composed of an

unlayered mixture of the existing

Wasatch Formation overburden and

Fort Union Formation interburden.

Overburden monitor wells for the

existing North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex that were farther than 3,000

ft from the active pits recorded less

than seven ft of drawdown from 1980

to 1999. No substantial water level

changes were observed from 1999 to

2000 in 15 overburden wells

monitored by the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex (HydroEngineering 2000). Monitoring of the

existing mining operations has

indicated that water level drawdowns

have propagated much farther in the

Wyodak coal seam aquifer than in the

overburden. Coal drawdowns from

1980 to 1995 were generally in excess

of five ft within four miles of the

active pits at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex (HydroEngineering 1996a). In 1999, PRCC

monitored water levels in 37 monitor

wells completed in the Wyodak coal

seam and the maximum drawdown

measured at that time was

approximately 115 ft in a well located

roughly 1,600 ft west of the active pit

(Hydro-Engineering 2000). The

maximum drawdown measured in

2001 was 123 ft at a well located less

than 500 ft west of the active pit

(PRCC 2001). The extent and

magnitude of drawdown in the coal

seam aquifer have been greatest in

the areas west and north of the mine.

Drawdowns recorded in monitor wells

located within one mile west of the

active pit are generally between 50 to

100 ft. Water levels and maps

showing drawdowns in the vicinity of

the pit are included in the annual

report for the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex which is

sent to WDEQ/LQD each year.

PRCC used the MODFLOW model to

predict the extent of water level

drawdown in the Wyodak coal seam

as a result of mining the existing

leases at North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex. The results of the

groundwater modeling are reported in

Appendix D6, Addendum D6-G of the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex

569-T5 permit document (PRCC

1999b). The predicted extent of

drawdown (five ft contour) over the

life of the mine if the NARO North and

NARO South LBA Tracts are mined is

shown on Figure 4-9. This prediction

is approximate and based on

extrapolation of PRCC’s earlier

predictions by extending the

drawdowns westward and northward

by the dimensions of the NARO North

and South LBA Tracts. More precise

predictions of the extent of

drawdowns would be required in

order to amend the NARO North and

South LBA Tracts into the

WDEQ/LQD permit area, if PRCC

acquires the tracts.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-45

Figure 4-9
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-46 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

In November 2001, the Wyoming SEO

records indicated a total of 539

permitted water wells are located

within three miles of the NARO North

LBA Tract and 615 permitted water

wells are located within three miles of

the NARO South LBA Tract. The

majority (956) are owned by coal

mining companies and are used for

groundwater monitoring and water

supply. The other 198 non minerelated wells are apportioned into the

following use categories:

• 65 Monitoring and

miscellaneous

• 64 livestock

• 32 livestock and CBM

development

• 12 livestock and domestic

• 11 miscellaneous

• 4 industrial

• 4 CBM development

• 3 livestock, miscellaneous and

CBM development

• 2 livestock and miscellaneous

• 1 livestock and irrigation

Three of these permitted water wells

are located within the expanded fiveft drawdown contour with completion

depths that indicate they produce

water from the Wyodak coal seam

(this excludes wells constructed for

monitoring, mine dewatering or CBM

production). These wells are shown

in Table 4-7. During the permitting

process, the mine operator would be

required to update the list of

potentially impacted wells and predict

impacts to these and other watersupply wells within the five-ft

drawdown contour. The operator

would be required to commit to

replacing these water supplies with

water of equivalent quality and

quantity if they are affected by

mining.

PRCC has three water supply wells

completed in aquifers below the coal.

If the LBA tracts are leased by the

applicant, water would be produced

from these wells for a longer period of

time, but PRCC would not require

additional sub-coal wells to mine the

LBA tracts.

Groundwater quality within the

backfill aquifer at the NARO North

Table 4-7. Water Supply Wells Possibly Subject to Drawdown if NARO North

and South LBA Tracts are Mined.

SEO

Permit

Number Applicant Use

Yield

(gpm)

Well

Depth

(ft)

Depth

to Water

(ft)

P25606P Paul & Edith Ruth Wilkinson Stock,

Domestic

3 220 100

P12754P USFS Stock 4 122 unknown

P44330W USFS Stock 3 163 94

Note: Wells in this table are believed from their completion depths to be completed in the

Wyodak coal seam, and are within the additional area of five ft or more drawdown caused

by mining the NARO North and South LBA Tracts. Wells impacted by the No Action

Alternative are already addressed in the state mine permit document.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-47

and South LBA Tracts would be

expected to be similar to groundwater

quality measured in existing wells

completed in the backfill at North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex. To date,

nine wells have been installed to

monitor water levels and water

quality in backfill at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex. In

October 1999, TDS concentrations in

the nine monitoring wells ranged from

780 to 14,200 mg/L (HydroEngineering 2000) with a geometric

mean of 3,070 mg/L. TDS

concentrations observed in the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex backfill

are generally higher than those found

in the undisturbed Wasatch

Formation overburden or Wyodak

coal aquifers.

The hydraulic properties of the

backfill aquifer at the NARO North

and South LBA Tracts would be

expected to be similar to the

hydraulic properties measured in

existing wells completed in the

backfill at North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex. The backfill aquifer has

been tested at four wells, and the

average hydraulic conductivity of 36

ft/day exceeds the average hydraulic

conductivity (9.5 ft/day) reported for

the Wyodak coal seam in the vicinity

of the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex.

Little Thunder LBA Tract

Mining the LBA tract would remove

shallow aquifers on an additional

5,424 acres (Proposed Action

configuration), 6,577 acres

(Alternative 2 configuration), 1,382

acres (Alternative 3, North tract

configuration) or 4,018 acres

(Alternative 3, South tract

configuration) and replace the

separate aquifer units with backfill

composed of an unlayered mixture of

the existing Wasatch Formation

overburden and Fort Union

Formation interburden.

Overburden water levels have been

monitored and recorded by Black

Thunder Mine since 1980 at eleven

monitor wells (Hydro-Engineering

2000). Data recorded during that

period do not indicate mining has

necessarily caused water levels in the

overburden to be depressed in

proportion to distance and direction

from the active pits or in time since

mining began. The maximum

drawdown measured to date in the

overburden is approximately 39 ft at

a monitor well located about 0.5 miles

west of the active pit. Impacts to

overburden water levels recorded to

date by other monitor wells located

within 1.5 miles of the pit have

ranged from a decrease of 19 ft to an

increase of 30 ft, with some areas

basically unchanged. Because of the

varied nature of the aquifer units

within the Wasatch Formation

overburden, water level drawdowns

are variable as well.

Water level drawdowns have

propagated much farther and in a

more consistent manner in the

Wyodak coal seam aquifer than in the

overburden. Coal drawdowns from

1980 to 1995 were generally in excess

of five ft within five miles west and

one mile north of the active pit at the

Black Thunder Mine (HydroEngineering 1996a). Since 1995, coal

monitor wells located over two miles

west of the active pits recorded an

increased rate of drawdown as a

result of dewatering associated with
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-48 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

CBM production. Coal water levels

recorded by monitor wells located

between two and 4.5 miles west of the

pit declined between 21 and 67 ft

from 1995 to 1999. During that same

time period, coal water levels less

than two miles west of the active

Black Thunder Mine pits declined

between 10 and 28 ft. In 1999, TBCC

monitored water levels in 10 monitor

wells completed in the Wyodak coal

seam and the maximum drawdown

measured at that time was

approximately 80 ft in a well located

roughly three miles west the active pit

(Hydro-Engineering 2000). Coal

monitor wells within 0.5 mile west of

the pit have recorded an overall

decline of about 60 ft. Water levels

and maps showing drawdowns in the

vicinity of the pit are included in the

annual report that the Black Thunder

Mine submits to WDEQ/LQD each

year.

TBCC used the MODFLOW model to

predict the extent of water level

drawdown in the Wyodak coal seam

as a result of mining the existing

leases at Black Thunder Mine. The

results of the groundwater modeling

which was updated in July 1999 to

predict impacts associated with the

development of the Thundercloud

Amendment Area, are presented in

Addendum MP-3.3.4 of the Black

Thunder Mine 233-T6 permit

document (TBCC 2000a). The

predicted extent of drawdown (five ft

contour) over the life of the mine if

the Little Thunder LBA Tract is mined

is shown on Figure 4-10. This

prediction is approximate and based

on extrapolation of TBCC’s earlier

predictions by extending the

drawdowns westward and northward

by the dimensions of the Little

Thunder LBA Tract. More precise

predictions of the extent of

drawdowns would be required in

order to amend the Little Thunder

LBA Tract into the WDEQ/LQD

permit area, if ALC acquires the tract.

In November 2001, the Wyoming SEO

records indicated a total of 634

permitted water wells are located

within three miles of the Little

Thunder LBA Tract. Of this total, 182

are owned by coal mining companies

and are used for groundwater

monitoring and water supply. The

other 451 non mine-related wells are

apportioned into the following use

categories:

• 233 CBM development only

• 116 CBM development and

livestock

• 38 monitoring and

miscellaneous

• 37 livestock only

• 10 livestock and domestic

• 5 CBM development and

miscellaneous

• 5 monitoring, livestock and

miscellaneous

• 3 livestock, industrial and

miscellaneous

• 2 reservoir supply and

miscellaneous

• 2 CBM development, livestock

and miscellaneous

Two of these permitted water wells

are located within the expanded fiveft drawdown contour with completion

depths that indicate they produce

water from the Wyodak coal seam

(this excludes wells constructed for

monitoring, mine dewatering or CBM

production). These wells are shown

in Table 4-8. During the permitting

process, the mine operator would be
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-49

Figure 4-10
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-50 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

required to update the list of

potentially impacted wells and predict

impacts to these and other watersupply wells within the five-ft

drawdown contour. The operator

would be required to commit to

replacing these water supplies with

water of equivalent quality and

quantity if they are affected by

mining.

TBCC has two water supply wells

completed in aquifers below the coal.

If the LBA tract is lease by the

applicant, water would be produced

from these wells for a longer period of

time, but TBCC would not require

additional sub-coal wells to mine the

LBA tract.

Groundwater quality within the

backfill aquifer at the Little Thunder

LBA Tract would be expected to be

similar to groundwater quality

measured in existing wells completed

in the backfill at Black Thunder Mine.

To date, six wells have been installed

to monitor water levels and water

quality in the backfill at Black

Thunder Mine. In October 1999, TDS

concentrations in five of the backfill

monitoring wells (one well can not be

sampled due to a lack of saturation)

ranged from 1,090 to 5,440 mg/L

(Hydro-Engineering 2000) with a

geometric mean of 2,140 mg/L. TDS

concentrations observed in the Black

Thunder Mine backfill are generally

higher than those found in the

undisturbed Wasatch Formation

overburden or Wyodak coal aquifers.

The hydraulic properties of the

backfill aquifer at the Little Thunder

LBA Tract would be expected to be

similar to the hydraulic properties

measured in existing wells completed

in the backfill at Black Thunder Mine.

The hydraulic conductivities of 0.12

ft/day and 0.86 ft/day determined by

testing two of the backfill wells are

lower than the hydraulic conductivity

(1.2 ft/day) reported for the Wyodak

coal seam within the Little Thunder

LBA Tract.

West Roundup LBA Tract

Mining the LBA tract would remove

shallow aquifers on an additional

3,161 acres (Proposed Action

configuration), 3,787 acres

(Alternative 2 configuration), 3,943

acres (Alternative 2 plus lease WYWTable 4-8. Water Supply Wells Possibly Subject to Drawdown if Little Thunder

LBA Tract is Mined.

SEO

Permit

Number Applicant Use

Yield

(gpm)

Well

Depth

(ft)

Depth

to Water

(ft)

P13289P Durham Meat Co. Stock unknown 108 66

P92738W James R. & Irene Stuart Stock unknown 100 40

Note: Wells in this table are believed from their completion depths to be completed in the

Wyodak coal seam, and are within the additional area of five ft or more drawdown caused

by mining the Little Thunder LBA Tract. Wells impacted by the No Action Alternative are

already addressed in the state mine permit document.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-51

127221 modification configuration),

4,184 acres (Alternative 3

configuration), or 4,340 acres

(Alternative 3 plus lease WYW127221 modification configuration),

and replace the separate aquifer units

with backfill composed of an

unlayered mixture of the existing

Wasatch Formation overburden and

Fort Union Formation interburden.

Overburden water levels have been

monitored and recorded by North

Rochelle Mine since 1981 at five

monitor wells (Hydro-Engineering

2000). Data recorded during that

period do not indicate mining has

necessarily caused water levels in the

overburden to be depressed in

proportion to distance and direction

unknown from the active pits or in

time since mining began. The

maximum drawdown measured to

date in the overburden is

approximately 14 ft at a monitor well

located nearly one mile east of the

active pit. Another overburden

monitor well located approximately

1,500 ft west of the active pit has

recorded an overall drawdown of 10

ft, 4.5 ft of that decline occurred from

1998 to 1999 (Hydro-Engineering

2000). No substantial water level

changes were observed during 1998

to 1999 at the other three overburden

wells monitored by TCC. Because of

the varied nature of the aquifer units

within the Wasatch Formation

overburden, water level drawdowns

are variable as well.

Water level drawdowns have

propagated much farther and in a

more consistent manner in the

Wyodak coal seam aquifer than in the

overburden. Coal drawdowns from

1980 to 1995 were generally in excess

of 20 ft within one mile of the active

pit at North Rochelle Mine (HydroEngineering 1996a). TCC monitored

water levels at five wells completed in

the coal from 1980 to 1995. The

mining operation then removed two

coal wells, leaving three coal

monitoring wells from 1995 to 1998.

In 1999, TCC monitored and recorded

water levels in two Wyodak coal wells

after a third was removed by mining.

From 1998 to 1999, the two

remaining coal monitor wells recorded

drawdowns of 8.08 and 29.99 ft and

both wells are located approximately

a half-mile west of the active pit

(Hydro-Engineering 2000). Water

levels and maps showing drawdowns

in the vicinity of the pit are included

in the annual report filed by the

North Rochelle Mine with

WDEQ/LQD each year.

TCC used the MODFLOW model to

predict the extent of water level

drawdown in the Wyodak coal seam

as a result of mining the existing

leases at North Rochelle Mine. The

results of the groundwater modeling,

which was updated in January 2000

to predict impacts associated with the

development of the North Roundup

Amendment, are presented in

Addendum MP-E of the North

Rochelle Mine 550-T5 permit

document (TCC 2000a). The

predicted extent of drawdown (five ft

contour) over the life of the mine if

the West Roundup LBA Tract is

mined is shown on Figure 4-11. This

prediction is approximate and based

on extrapolation of TCC’s earlier

predictions by extending the

drawdowns westward and northward

by the dimensions of the West

Roundup LBA Tract. More precise

predictions of the extent of
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-52 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 4-11
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-53

drawdowns would be required in

order to amend the West Roundup

LBA Tract into the WDEQ/LQD

permit area, if the North Rochelle

Mine acquires the West Roundup LBA

Tract.

In November 2001, the Wyoming SEO

records indicated a total of 441

permitted water wells are located

within three miles of the West

Roundup LBA Tract. Of this total,

221 are owned by coal mining

companies and are used for

groundwater monitoring and water

supply. The other 220 non minerelated wells are apportioned into the

following use categories:

• 90 CBM development only

• 50 monitoring and

miscellaneous

• 38 livestock only

• 27 CBM development and

livestock

• 5 monitoring, livestock and

miscellaneous

• 8 monitoring only

• 3 industrial

• 2 domestic and livestock

• 2 CBM development, livestock

and miscellaneous

Six of these permitted water wells are

located within the expanded five-ft

drawdown contour with completion

depths that indicate they produce

water from the Wyodak coal seam

(this excludes wells constructed for

monitoring, mine dewatering or CBM

production). These wells are shown

on Table 4-9. During the permitting

process, the mine operator would be

required to update the list of

potentially impacted wells and predict

impacts to these and other watersupply wells within the five-ft

drawdown contour. The operator

would be required to commit to

replacing these water supplies with

water of equivalent quality and

quantity if they are affected by

mining.

TCC has two water supply wells

completed in aquifers below the coal.

If the LBA tract is lease by the

applicant, water would be produced

from these wells for a longer period of

time, but TCC would not require

additional sub-coal wells to mine the

LBA tract.

Groundwater quality within the

backfill aquifer at the West Roundup

LBA Tract would be expected to be

similar to groundwater quality

measured in existing wells completed

in the backfill at nearby mines. Due

to the absence of saturated backfill at

North Rochelle Mine, no site-specific

data are available yet for the quality

of groundwater within the mine’s

backfill. TDS concentrations

observed in the backfill at nearby

mines are generally higher than those

found in the undisturbed Wasatch

Formation overburden or Wyodak

coal aquifer. At the Black Thunder

Mine, which is located north of and

adjacent to the North Rochelle Mine,

October 1999 TDS concentrations of

groundwater from the backfill were

varied and ranged from 1,090 to

5,440 mg/L (Hydro-Engineering

2000) with a geometric mean of 2,140

mg/L.

The hydraulic properties of the

backfill aquifer at the West Roundup

LBA Tract would be expected to be

similar to the hydraulic properties

measured in existing wells completed

in the backfill at nearby mines.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-54 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 4-9. Water Supply Wells Possibly Subject to Drawdown if West Roundup

LBA Tract is Mined.

SEO

Permit

Number Applicant Use

Yield

(gpm)

Well

Depth

(ft)

Depth

to Water

(ft)

P12757P USFS Stock 4 165 unknown

P101801W Bridle Bit Ranch Company Stock 20 264 80

P25608P Paul & Edith Ruth

Wilkinson

Stock 4 110 flowing

P5848W Paul Wilkinson Stock 3 140 0

P29746W USFS Stock 10 175 30

P25120W Atlantic Richfield Company Monitoring,

Miscellaneous

0 142 97

Note: Wells in this table are believed from their completion depths to be completed in the

Wyodak coal seam, and are within the additional area of five ft or more drawdown caused

by mining the West Roundup Tract. Wells impacted by the No Action Alternative are

already addressed in the state mine permit document.

Again, due to the minimal areal

extent of backfill and consequently a

lack of saturation at North Rochelle

Mine to date, no site-specific data are

available for the hydraulic properties

of the mine’s backfill. At Black

Thunder Mine, the backfill has been

tested at two wells, and the hydraulic

conductivities of 0.12 ft/day and 0.86

ft/day are slightly lower than the

hydraulic conductivity (1.2 ft/day)

reported for the Wyodak coal seam

within the nearby Little Thunder LBA

Tract.

West Antelope LBA Tract

Mining the LBA tract would remove

shallow aquifers on an additional

3,200 acres (Proposed Action

configuration), 3,500 acres

(Alternative 2 configuration), or 2,467

acres (Alternative 3 configuration

and replace the separate aquifer units

with backfill composed of an

unlayered mixture of the existing

Wasatch Formation overburden and

Fort Union Formation interburden.

Of the three overburden wells that are

currently monitored by ACC, no

substantial water level declines were

observed from 1979 to 2001 (ACC

2001). One of the three overburden

monitor wells exhibited a water level

decline of approximately six ft in

1999, probably due to an active pit

encroaching to within 0.5 mile of the

well. Of the three interburden wells

that are currently monitored by ACC,

one well has exhibited about six ft of

overall drawdown, one well has

recorded no drawdown, and the other

well has recorded roughly a two ft

increase in water level from 1979 to

2001 (ACC 2001). Two underburden

wells are currently being monitored

and have recorded between 35 and 40

ft of drawdown. Decreases in water

levels in underburden monitoring

wells are thought by ACC to be

caused by depressurization
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-55

associated with dewatering of the

overlying coal seams.

Water level drawdowns have

propagated much farther in the

Wyodak/Anderson and Canyon coal

seam aquifer than in the overburden.

Coal drawdowns from 1980 to 1995

were generally in excess of five ft

within four miles of the active pits at

the Antelope Mine (Hydro-Engineering

1996a). In 2000 and 2001, ACC

monitored water levels in 12 monitor

wells completed in the Anderson coal

seam and nine monitor wells in the

Canyon coal seam. The maximum

drawdown measured at that time in

an Anderson monitor well was about

32 ft. That well is located

approximately 3,500 ft northwest of

the active pit. The maximum

drawdown measured to date in the

Canyon coal seam is about 100 ft. at

a monitor well located within 1,000 ft

of the active pit (ACC 2001). Prior to

1993, mining occurred in relatively

dry portions of the Anderson coal

seam and little to no drawdown

occurred within that aquifer. The

water level in the Canyon coal seam

has shown a drawdown trend in most

monitor wells starting in 1988,

apparently due to mining activities to

the north of the Antelope Mine. The

downward trend has accelerated from

1988 to the present as a result of

mining a fully saturated Canyon coal

seam in the northeastern part of the

Antelope Mine. Those Canyon coal

monitor wells within 0.5 mile north

and west of the active pits have

recorded an overall decline of about

80 to 90 ft. Drawdowns in both

seams have resulted not only from

mining, but also from a series of

dewatering wells that have been used

to lower water levels in advance of the

pit since 1993. Water levels and

maps showing drawdowns in the

vicinity of the pit are included in the

annual report for the Antelope Mine

filed by ACC with WDEQ/LQD each

year.

ACC used the MODFLOW model to

predict the extent of water level

drawdown in the Anderson and

Canyon coal seam aquifers as a result

of mining the existing leases at

Antelope Mine. The results of the

groundwater modeling are reported in

the Mine Plan, Section MP5,

Addendum MP-C of the Antelope Mine

525-T6 permit document (ACC 1998).

The predicted extent of drawdown

(five ft contour) in the AndersonCanyon coal seam over the life of the

mine if the Antelope Mine acquires

the West Antelope LBA Tract is

shown on Figure 4-12. This

prediction is approximate and is

based on extrapolation of ACC’s

earlier predictions by extending the

drawdowns westward and northward

by the dimensions of the West

Antelope LBA Tract. More precise

predictions of the extent of

drawdowns would be required in

order to amend the West Antelope

LBA Tract into the WDEQ/LQD

permit area, if the Antelope Mine

acquires the West Antelope LBA

Tract.

In November 2001, the Wyoming SEO

records indicated a total of 276

permitted water wells are located

within three miles of the West

Antelope LBA Tract. The majority

(198) are owned by coal mining

companies and are used for

groundwater monitoring, dewatering

and water supply. The other 78 non
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-56 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 4-12
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-57

mine-related wells are apportioned

into the following use categories:

• 33 livestock

• 16 livestock and CBM

development

• 10 monitoring or miscellaneous

• 8 livestock or domestic

• 5 CBM development

• 2 livestock and miscellaneous

• 1 livestock and reservoir

• 1 industrial

• 1 livestock, miscellaneous and

CBM development

• 1 domestic

Six of these permitted water wells are

located within the expanded five-ft

drawdown contour with completion

depths that indicate they produce

water from the Anderson or Canyon

coal seam (this excludes wells

constructed for monitoring, mine

dewatering or CBM production).

These wells are shown on Table 4-10.

During the permitting process, the

mine operator would be required to

update the list of potentially impacted

wells and predict impacts to these

and other water-supply wells within

the five-ft drawdown contour. The

operator would be required to commit

to replacing these water supplies with

water of equivalent quality and

quantity if they are affected by

mining.

ACC has one water supply well

completed in aquifers below the coal.

If the LBA tract is lease by the

applicant, water would be produced

from this well for a longer period of

time, but ACC would not require

additional sub-coal wells to mine the

LBA tract.

Groundwater quality within the

backfill aquifer at the West Antelope

LBA Tract would be expected to be

similar to groundwater quality

measured in existing wells completed

in the backfill at Antelope Mine. To

date, seven wells have been installed

to monitor water levels and water

quality in backfill at the Antelope

Mine. Four of these backfill

monitoring wells are located in the

southern part of the mine and have

not yet been sampled due to a lack of

saturation. Three backfill monitoring

wells that were added to ACC’s

monitoring program in 2000 are

located in the northeastern part of the

mine and had sufficient saturation to

be sampled in 2001. TDS

concentrations in these three

monitoring wells ranged from 1,990

to 5,120 mg/L in August 2001 (ACC

2001).

The hydraulic properties of the

backfill aquifer at the West Antelope

LBA Tract would be expected to be

similar to the hydraulic properties

measured in existing wells completed

in the backfill at nearby mines. To

date, no site-specific data are

available for the hydraulic properties

of the mine’s backfill. The hydraulic

properties measured in existing wells

completed in the backfill at North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, located

northeast of the Antelope Mine, are

variable but in general comparable to

the Wasatch Formation overburden

and Wyodak coal. At North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, the

backfill aquifer has been tested at

four wells, and the average hydraulic

conductivity is 36 ft/day, which

exceeds the average hydraulic

conductivity (9.5 ft/day) reported for

the Wyodak coal seam in the vicinity
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-58 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 4-10. Water Supply Wells Possibly Subject to Drawdown if West Antelope

LBA Tract is Mined.

SEO

Permit

Number Applicant Use

Yield

(gpm)

Well

Depth

(ft)

Depth

to Water

(ft)

P23600P Patricia L. Isenberger Stock 7 300 100

P50638W Patricia L. Isenberger Stock 15 210 35

P76179W WY State Highway Dept. Monitoring,

Miscellaneous

0 300 33

P109953W Patricia L. Isenberger Litton Miscellaneous 1 350 60

P5612P Patricia L. Isenberger Litton Stock 1 350 60

P23601P Patricia L. Isenberger Stock 7 250 unknown

Note: Wells in this table are believed from their completion depths to be completed in the

Canyon or Anderson coal seam, and are within the additional area of five ft or more

drawdown caused by mining the West Antelope Tract. Wells impacted by the No Action

Alternative are already addressed in the state mine permit document.

of the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex. The data available indicate

that the hydraulic conductivity of the

backfill would be greater than or

equal to premining coal values,

suggesting that wells completed in

the backfill would provide yields

greater than or equal to premining

coal wells.

4.1.6 Alluvial Valley Floors

Impacts to designated AVFs are

generally not permitted if the AVF is

determined to be significant to

agriculture. AVFs that are not

significant to agriculture can be

disturbed during mining, but they

must be restored as part of the

reclamation process. In order to

restore the AVF, the physical and

hydrologic characteristics of the AVF

must be determined. AVF

investigations conducted within the

General Analysis Area have identified

AVFs that occur along Porcupine

Creek, Antelope Creek, Little Thunder

Creek, and North Prong Little

Thunder Creek downstream of the

LBA tracts. Within the General

Analysis Area, one flood irrigated hay

meadow near the confluence of

Porcupine Creek and Antelope Creek

has been determined by the

WDEQ/LQD to be significant to

agriculture.

The NARO North and Little Thunder

LBA Tracts, have been evaluated and

declared non-AVF by WDEQ/LQD.

The NARO South LBA Tract, West

Roundup LBA Tract and portions of

the West Antelope LBA Tract have not

yet been formally evaluated for the

presence of AVFs. 

No unconsolidated stream laid

deposits are found within the NARO

South LBA Tract; therefore, it is

unlikely an AVF declaration would be

made. 

Based on previous non-AVF

declarations made on Olson Draw
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-59

downstream of the West Roundup

LBA Tract, it is unlikely that this

channel would receive an AVF

declaration upstream on the LBA

tract where the drainage is smaller

and AVF characteristics are

negligible.

Antelope Creek within and extending

two miles upstream from the existing

Antelope Mine permit boundary has

been declared an AVF by

WDEQ/LQD, and a portion of this

declared AVF is within the West

Antelope LBA Tract. ACC’s approved

mining and reclamation plan avoids

disturbing Antelope Creek and an

adjacent designated buffer zone.

Therefore, portions of the Antelope

Creek valley within the West Antelope

LBA Tract would not be mined, if the

Antelope Mine acquires the tract.

Spring Creek within and extending

two miles upstream from the existing

Antelope Mine permit boundary has

also been investigated for the

presence of an AVF by ACC, although

no specific declarations have been

made by the WDEQ/LQD. If ACC

acquires the West Antelope LBA

Tract, those portions of the tract and

surrounding area that would be

amended into the Antelope Mine

permit that have not had specific

declarations of the presence or

absence of AVFs would be

investigated as part of the mine

permitting process. The WDEQ/LQD

has determined that the declared and

potential AVFs within the current

Antelope Mine permit boundary are

not significant to agriculture (ACC,

State Decision Document 2001).

With the exception of an unsuccessful

attempt at flood irrigation on Spring

Creek, there is no present or

historical record of agricultural use,

other than undeveloped rangeland, of

the stream laid deposits within the

West Antelope LBA Tract. If WDEQ

determines that an AVF is present on

the tract, it is reasonable to assume

that mining would be permitted in

those areas because the lack of

agricultural development in this area

precludes a determination of

significance to agriculture.

Streamflows in Spring Creek would be

diverted around the active mining

areas in a temporary diversion

channel. Consequently, disruptions

to streamflows that might supply

AVFs on Antelope Creek downstream

of the Antelope Mine would not be

expected to be substantial. 

Streamflows in the other LBA tracts

would be diverted around the active

mining areas in temporary diversion

ditches or captured in flood control

reservoirs above the pit. If flood

control impoundments are used, it

would be necessary to evacuate them

following major runoff events to

provide storage volume for the next

flood. Consequently, disruptions to

streamflows that might supply

downstream AVFs are expected to be

negligible. Groundwater intercepted

by the mine pits would be routed

through settling ponds to meet state

and federal quality criteria, and the

pond discharges would likely increase

the frequency and amount of flow in

these streams, thereby increasing

surface water supplies to downstream

AVFs.

If the LBA tracts are mined as

extensions of existing operations, the

mining would extend upstream on

streams already in active mine areas.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-60 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Therefore, no direct, indirect, or

cumulative impacts are anticipated to

off-site AVFs through mining of any of

the LBA tracts included in this

analysis.

4.1.7 Wetlands

PRCC, TBCC, TCC, and ACC have

completed wetland inventories

identifying the acres of jurisdictional

and non-jurisdictional wetlands on

each of the LBA tracts as applied for

and lands added under BLM

alternative configurations. Table 4-11

presents the inventory results for

each LBA tract. A maximum of 62.16

acres of jurisdictional and 51.58

acres of non-jurisdictional wetlands

would be disturbed if each of the LBA

tracts is leased and subsequently

mined under the largest action

alternative configuration.

Most existing wetlands on the LBA

tracts would be destroyed by

currently approved mining operations

at the adjacent mines. The exception

may be riverine wetlands associated

with Antelope Creek and wetlands

association with other streams that

cross the LBA tracts but would not be

disturbed during currently approved

mining operations. COE requires

replacement of all impacted

jurisdictional wetlands in accordance

with Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act. Replacement of functional

wetlands on privately-owned surface

may occur in accordance with

agreements with the private

landowners; privately owned surface

lands are included in all five LBA

tracts as applied for. During the

period of time after mining and before

replacement of wetlands, all wetland

functions would be lost. The replaced

wetlands may not duplicate the exact

function and landscape features of

the premine wetlands, but

replacement plans would be

evaluated by COE and replacement

would be in accordance with the

requirements of Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act as determined by

COE.

Table 4-11. Maximum Wetland Impacts in the NARO North and South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West Antelope LBA Tracts.

LBA Tract

Jurisdictional Wetlands1

(acres)

Non-Jurisdictional

Wetlands1

(acres)

NARO North and South 18.40 28.50

Little Thunder 5.19 2.87

West Roundup 6.80 20.21

West Antelope 31.77 0.00

Total 62.16 51.58

Notes: 1 Includes the area of each LBA tract as applied for, lands added under BLM

alternatives, and the additional area that would be disturbed by mining and

reclaiming the tract as part of the existing mining operation.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-61

As a result of recent court directives,

playas may no longer be identified as

jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

under Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act. These non-jurisdictional wetland

features, having significant biological

and hydrological features, cover

portions of the NARO North and

South, Little Thunder, and West

Roundup LBA Tracts. Although COE

may not require their replacement as

a result of the recent court directive,

the applicant mines plan to continue

establishing playa/depression

features within the reclaimed

topography if the LBA tracts are

mined as extensions of existing

operations. If no special segregation

and placement of overburden and

soils are necessary, reclamation costs

do not increase if playa/depressional

features are restored. However, if

special handling of materials is

necessary, the reclamation costs

associated with restoration of

playa/depressional features are

generally higher on a site-specific

basis.

4.1.8 Vegetation

Under the Proposed Actions, mining

of the five LBA tracts would

progressively remove the native

vegetation on 17,375 acres on and

near the LBA tracts. Vegetation

removal at each LBA tract under the

Proposed Actions and action

alternatives is presented as the

additional disturbance areas in

Tables 2-1 through 2-4.

Short-term impacts associated with

the removal of vegetation from the

LBA tracts would include increased

soil erosion and habitat loss for

wildlife and livestock. Potential longterm impacts include loss of habitat

for some wildlife species as a result of

reduced plant species diversity,

particularly big sagebrush, on

reclaimed lands. However, grasslanddependent wildlife species and

livestock would benefit from the

increased grass cover and production.

Reclamation, including revegetation

of these lands, would occur

contemporaneously with mining on

adjacent lands, i.e., reclamation

would begin once an area is mined.

Estimates of the time elapsed from

topsoil stripping through reseeding of

any given area range from two to four

years. This would be longer for areas

occupied by stockpiles, haulroads,

sediment-control structures, and

other mine facilities. Some roads and

facilities would not be reclaimed until

the end of mining. No new life-ofmine facilities would be located on

any of the LBA tracts under the

Proposed Actions or Alternatives 2 or

3, in which each LBA tract would be

mined as an extension of an existing

mine. 

Grazing restrictions prior to mining

and during reclamation would remove

up to 100 percent of the LBA areas

from livestock grazing. This

reduction in vegetative production

would not seriously affect livestock

production in the region, and longterm productivity on the reclaimed

land would return to premining levels

within several years following seeding

with the approved final seed mixture.

Wildlife use of the area would not be

significantly restricted throughout the

operations.

Reestablished vegetation would be

dominated by species mandated in
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-62 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

the reclamation seed mixtures (to be

approved by WDEQ). The majority of

the approved species are native to the

LBA tracts. Initially, the reclaimed

lands would be dominated by

grassland vegetation, which would be

less diverse than the premining

vegetation. At least 20 percent of the

area would be reclaimed to native

shrubs at a density of one per square

meter as required by current

regulations. Estimates for the time it

would take to restore shrubs to

premining density levels range from

20 to 100 years. An indirect impact

of this vegetative change could be

decreased big game habitat carrying

capacity. Following completion of

reclamation (seeding with the final

seed mixture) and before release of

the reclamation bond (a minimum of

ten years), a diverse, productive, and

permanent vegetative cover would be

established on the LBA tracts. The

decrease in plant diversity would not

seriously affect the potential

productivity of the reclaimed areas,

and the proposed postmining land

use (wildlife habitat and rangeland)

should be achieved even with the

changes in vegetation composition

and diversity. Private landowners

(Figures 3-6 through 3-9) would have

the right to manipulate the vegetation

on their lands as they desire once the

reclamation bond is released.

On average, approximately 3,600 to

4,000 acres would be disturbed each

year that mining occurs if all five

proposed lease areas are mined

concurrently. This disturbance would

occur regardless of which action

alternatives are selected. By the time

mining ceases, over 75 percent of

these disturbed lands would have

been reseeded. The remaining 25

percent would be reseeded during the

following two to three years as the

life-of-mine facilities areas are

reclaimed.

The reclamation plans for the existing

mines include steps to control

invasion by weedy (invasive

nonnative) plant species. The

reclamation plans for each LBA tract

would also include steps to control

invasion from such species. Native

vegetation from surrounding areas

would gradually invade and become

established on the reclaimed land.

The climatic record of the western

U.S. suggests that droughts could

occur periodically during the life of

the mines. Such droughts would

severely hamper revegetation efforts,

since lack of sufficient moisture

would reduce germination and could

damage newly established plants.

Same-aged vegetation would be more

susceptible to disease than would

plants of various ages. Severe

thunderstorms could also adversely

affect newly seeded areas. Once a

stable vegetative cover is established,

however, these events would have

similar impacts as would occur on

native vegetation.

Changes expected in the surface

water network on each LBA tract as a

result of mining and reclamation

would affect the reestablishment of

vegetation patterns on the reclaimed

areas to some extent. The postmining

maximum overland slope would be 20

percent in accordance with WDEQ

policy. The average reclaimed

overland slope on each LBA tract

would not be known until WDEQ’s

technical review of each permit

revision application is complete. No
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-63

significant changes in the average

overland slope are predicted.

Following reclamation, the LBA tracts

would be primarily a mixture of

prairie grasslands with

graminoid/forb-dominated areas. An

overall reduction in species diversity,

especially for the shrub component,

would occur. As indicated previously,

following reclamation bond release,

management of the privately-owned

surface areas would revert back to

the private surface owners, who

would have the right to manipulate

the reclaimed vegetation.

Jurisdictional wetlands would fall

under the jurisdiction of the COE.

Detailed wetland mitigation plans

would be developed at the permitting

stage to ensure no net loss of

jurisdictional wetlands within the

General Analysis Area. Functional

wetlands may be restored in

accordance with the requirements of

the surface landowner.

The decrease in plant diversity would

not seriously affect productivity of the

reclaimed areas, regardless of the

alternatives selected, and the

proposed postmining land use

(wildlife habitat and rangeland) would

be achieved even with the changes in

vegetative species composition and

diversity.

4.1.9 Threatened, Endangered,

Proposed, and Candidate Plant

Species and USFS Region 2 Sensitive

Species

Refer to Appendix G.

4.1.10 Wildlife

Local wildlife populations are directly

and indirectly impacted by mining.

These impacts are both short-term

(until successful reclamation is

achieved) and long-term (persisting

beyond successful completion of

reclamation). The direct impacts of

surface coal mining on wildlife occur

during mining and are therefore

short-term. They include road kills

by mine-related traffic, restrictions on

wildlife movement created by fences,

spoil piles, and pits, and

displacement of wildlife from active

mining areas. Displaced animals may

find equally suitable habitat that is

not occupied by other animals,

occupy suitable habitat that is

already being used by other

individuals, or occupy poorer quality

habitat than that from which they

were displaced. In the second and

third situations, the animals may

suffer from increased competition

with other animals and are less likely

to survive and reproduce. The

indirect impacts are longer term and

may included a reduction in big game

carrying capacity and microhabitats

on reclaimed land due to flatter

topography, less diverse vegetative

cover, and reduction in sagebrush

density.

These impacts are currently occurring

on the existing leases as mining

occurs. If the LBA tracts are leased

under the Proposed Actions or

Alternatives 2 or 3, the areas of

mining disturbance would extend

onto the LBA tracts. Mining would be

extended by up to 5.5 years at the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex,

10.7 years at the Black Thunder

Mine, and 7.1 years at the North
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-64 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Rochelle Mine. Mining of the West

Antelope LBA Tract by ACC is not

expected to extend the current mining

life.

Under the Proposed Actions and

action alternatives, big game would

be displaced from portions of the LBA

tracts to adjacent ranges during

mining. Pronghorn would be most

affected; however, none of the areas

within two miles of the LBA tracts has

been classified as crucial or critical

pronghorn habitat. Mule deer would

not be substantially impacted, given

their infrequent use of these lands

and the availability of suitable habitat

in adjacent areas. None of the land

within the General Analysis Area is

considered by WGFD to be an elk use

area, although elk have been

observed wintering on reclaimed

grasslands within the General

Analysis Area in recent years. Big

game displacement would be

incremental, occurring over several

years and allowing for gradual

changes in distribution patterns. Big

game residing in the adjacent areas

could be impacted by increased

competition with displaced animals.

Noise, dust, and associated human

presence would cause some localized

avoidance of foraging areas adjacent

to mining activities. On the existing

leases, however, big game have

continued to occupy areas adjacent to

and within active mining operations,

suggesting that some animals may

become habituated to such

disturbances.

Big game animals are highly mobile

and can move to undisturbed areas.

There would be more restrictions on

big game movement on or through the

tracts, however, due to the

construction of additional fences,

spoil piles, and pits related to mining.

During winter storms, pronghorn may

not be able to negotiate these

barriers. WDEQ guidelines require

fencing to be designed to permit

pronghorn passage to the extent

possible.

Recently, the WGFD reviewed

monitoring data collected on mine

sites for big game species and the

monitoring requirements for big game

species on those mine sites. Their

findings concluded that the

monitoring had demonstrated the

lack of impacts to big game on

existing mine sites. No severe minecaused mortalities have occurred and

no long-lasting impacts on big game

have been noted on existing mine

sites. The WGFD therefore

recommended that big game

monitoring be discontinued on all

existing mine sites. New mines will

be required to conduct big game

monitoring if located in crucial winter

range or in significant migration

corridors, neither of which are

present within the LBA tracts within

the General Analysis Area.

If the LBA tracts are leased, road kills

related to mine traffic would be

extended within the General Analysis

Area by up to 5.5 years for the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, 10.7

years for Black Thunder Mine, and

7.1 years for North Rochelle Mine.

The life of the Antelope Mine would

not be extended if the West Antelope

lease is mined. 

After mining and reclamation,

alterations in the topography and

vegetative cover, particularly the

reduction in sagebrush density,
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-65

would cause a decrease in carrying

capacity and diversity on the LBA

tracts. Sagebrush would gradually

become reestablished on the

reclaimed land, but the topographic

changes would be permanent.

Medium-sized mammals (such as

rabbits, coyotes, and foxes) would be

temporarily displaced to other

habitats by mining, potentially

resulting in increased competition

and mortality. However, these

animals would rebound on reclaimed

areas, as forage is developed and

small mammal prey species are

recolonized. Direct losses of small

mammals would be higher than for

other wildlife, since the mobility of

small mammals is limited and many

retreat into burrows when disturbed.

Therefore, populations of such prey

animals as voles, mice, and prairie

dogs would decline during mining.

However, these animals have a high

reproductive potential and tend to

reinvade and adapt to reclaimed

areas quickly. A research project on

habitat reclamation on mined lands

within the PRB for small mammals

and birds concluded that reclamation

objectives to encourage the

recolonization of small mammal

communities are being achieved

(Shelley 1992).

Upland game birds known to occur

within the General Analysis Area

include mourning doves, wild turkey,

gray partridge, sharp-tailed grouse,

and sage grouse. Although mourning

doves are common seasonal residents

of the General Analysis Area, the

primary upland game species within

the area is the sage grouse. Sage

grouse are yearlong residents and are

found to regularly occur in suitable

habitats in the General Analysis Area.

Following is a description of sage

grouse occurrences within each of the

LBA tracts.

NARO North and South LBA Tracts

Sage grouse are found on lands near

the NARO North and South LBA

Tracts; however, no historic or active

sage grouse leks were observed

during the 2001 survey on or within

two miles of the two LBA tracts. One

active sage grouse strutting ground

(Kort Lek), is located near the

northwest corner of the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex’s current

permit area. A small portion of the

two-mile radius from the lek, which

identifies the area in which most hens

will nest, would extend onto the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex’s

anticipated permit amendment area.

Sage grouse were not observed using

the LBA tracts during the field

survey; however, sage grouse, fresh

tracks, and droppings have been

observed on adjacent lands.

Little Thunder LBA Tract

Sage grouse currently do not appear

to frequent the Little Thunder LBA

Tract. No active sage grouse leks

were observed during the 2001 survey

on or within two miles of the LBA

tract. One inactive sage grouse lek

(Black Thunder Lek) was discovered

within the Black Thunder Mine

permit area in 1984 near the

southeast corner of the Little Thunder

LBA Tract. The two-mile radius

around the lek extends onto the LBA

tract. Annual monitoring of the Black

Thunder Lek began in 1985, and no

sage grouse have been observed at

the lek since 1994. Sage grouse were
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-66 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

not observed using the LBA tract or

adjacent lands during the 2001 field

survey.

West Roundup LBA Tract

Sage grouse commonly occur in the

vicinity of the West Roundup LBA

Tract. One inactive lek (Black

Thunder Lek) is located

approximately 0.5 mile north of the

proposed lease area, and the two-mile

radius around the lek extends onto

the LBA tract. Grouse have not been

observed using this lek since 1994.

No new leks were found and no sage

grouse were observed to be within or

adjacent to the LBA tract during the

2001 field survey.

West Antelope LBA Tract

Sage grouse do not appear to frequent

the West Antelope LBA Tract. No

sage grouse leks have been observed

on or near the Antelope Mine during

baseline studies (1978-1979) or

during annual wildlife monitoring

surveys (1982-2000), which have

included most of the LBA tract under

the Proposed Action and Alternative 3

and the entire area added in

Alternative 2. No sage grouse have

been observed within the vicinity of

the Antelope Mine or West Antelope

LBA wildlife study area since 1986.

Mining results in the temporary loss

of nesting habitat and some

disturbance to breeding activities

when mining operations are within

close proximity to sage grouse

strutting grounds. Monitoring of sage

grouse activities has indicated that

the birds frequently change lek sites.

It is likely that if mining activities

disturb a lek, sage grouse will use an

alternate lek site for breeding

activities. Currently, none of the LBA

tracts include any active sage grouse

leks. Should sage grouse establish a

lek on any of the proposed lease areas

prior to mining, the lessee would be

required to take appropriate

mitigation steps prior to mining.

Effort would also be made to

reestablish shrubs on reclaimed

lands, grade reclaimed lands to create

swales and depressions, and continue

monitoring sage grouse activity in the

area before, during, and after mining.

These and other measures would be

further developed within the

WDEQ/LQD permit approval process,

if the tracts are leased.

Mining the LBA tracts would not

impact regional raptor populations;

however individual birds or pairs may

be impacted. Raptor species that

commonly nest in the General

Analysis Area are the golden eagle,

ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk,

Swainson’s hawk, great horned owl,

and burrowing owl. Despite the lack

of suitable nesting habitat (cliffs and

tall trees), numerous raptor species

have been observed nesting on or

near the proposed lease areas.

Following is a description of raptor

occurrences on each of the LBA

tracts.

NARO North and South LBA Tracts

Nine active raptor nests were

observed during the 2000 survey in

the NARO North and South LBA

Tracts. These included four

ferruginous hawk nests, one redtailed hawk nest, and four Swainson’s

hawk nests.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-67

Little Thunder LBA Tract

A total of five raptor species have

been identified nesting within two

miles of the Little Thunder LBA Tract

as proposed and the area added by

Alternative 2, including the golden

eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed

hawk, Swainson’s hawk, and

burrowing owl. The golden eagle,

ferruginous hawk, and Swainson’s

hawk had intact nest sites on the LBA

tract during the 2001 survey.

West Roundup LBA Tract

A total of four raptor species (golden

eagle, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s

hawk, and burrowing owl) have been

identified nesting within the raptor

survey area, which includes the West

Roundup LBA Tract as proposed,

areas added under Alternatives 2 and

3, and a two-mile radius. The 2001

survey recorded 28 intact nest sites

within this raptor survey area,

including three golden eagle nests, 17

ferruginous hawk nests, two

Swainson’s hawk nests, two

burrowing owl nests, three

Swainson’s hawk/ferruginous hawk

nests, and one golden

eagle/ferruginous hawk nest. One

intact nest (ferruginous hawk) is

within the LBA tract as proposed, and

one nest (ferruginous hawk) is within

the area added under Alternative 3.

West Antelope LBA Tract

A total of five raptor species (golden

eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed

hawk, great horned owl, and

burrowing owl) have been identified

nesting within the raptor survey area,

which includes the West Antelope

LBA Tract as proposed, lands added

by Alternative 2, and a two-mile

radius. The 2000 survey recorded

nine nests within this raptor survey

area: seven nests on the LBA tract as

proposed and two nests on lands

added under Alternative 2. Nests on

the LBA tract include two red-tailed

hawk nests, one great horned owl

nest, two burrowing owl nests, one

golden eagle/great horned owl nest,

and one red-tailed hawk/golden eagle

nest. Nests on the Alternative 2 area

included two ferruginous hawk nests,

which have been inactive since at

least 1978.

Mining activity could cause raptors to

abandon nests proximate to

disturbance. USFWS recommends a

one-mile buffer around all

ferruginous hawk nests. USFWS and

WDEQ/LQD approval would be

required before mining would occur

within buffer zones for future or

adjacent active raptor nests. Each of

the four applicant mines annually

monitors territorial occupancy and

nest productivity on and around their

existing leases. Raptor nesting

activity has frequently occurred in

active mining and construction areas

and the four applicant mines have

successfully executed state-of-the-art

mitigation techniques to protect nest

productivity. There is an approved

raptor mitigation plan for each of the

existing applicant mines. These

monitoring and mitigation plans, as

required by the USFWS and

WDEQ/LQD, would be amended to

include the NARO North and South,

Little Thunder, West Roundup, and

West Antelope LBA Tracts if they are

leased. Mining near raptor territories

would minimally impact availability of

raptor forage species. At each of the

applicant mines, lack of nesting
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-68 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

habitat, not a lack of forage area, has

been determined to be the most

important factor limiting raptor

density. During mining, nesting

habitat is created by the excavation

process (highwalls), as well as

through enhancement efforts (nest

platforms and boxes). After mining,

the reclamation plan would

reestablish the ground cover

necessary for the return of a suitable

prey base. 

Displaced songbirds would have to

compete for available adjacent

territories and resources when their

habitats are disturbed by mining

operations. Where adjacent habitat is

at carrying capacity, this competition

would result in some mortality.

Losses would also occur when habitat

disturbance coincides with egg

incubation and rearing of young.

Impacts of habitat loss would be

short-term for grassland species, but

would last longer for tree- and shrubdependent species. Concurrent

reclamation would minimize these

impacts. A diverse seed mixture

planted in a mosaic with a shrubland

phase would provide food, cover, and

edge effect. Other habitat

enhancement practices include the

restoration of diverse landforms,

direct topsoil replacement, and the

construction of brush piles, snags

and rock piles. A research project 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).

Under current natural conditions,

waterfowl and shorebird habitat on

the LBA tracts is minimal, and

production of these species is very

limited. Mining the LBA tracts would

thus have a negligible effect on

migrating and breeding waterfowl.

Sedimentation ponds created during

mining would provide interim habitat

for these fauna. WDEQ and COE

would also require mitigation of any

disturbed wetlands during

reclamation, which would minimize

impacts. If the replaced wetlands on

the LBA tracts do not duplicate the

exact function and/or landscape

features of the premine wetlands,

waterfowl and shorebirds could be

beneficially or adversely affected as a

result.

No fish habitat would be impacted if

the NARO North and South, Little

Thunder, or West Roundup LBA

Tracts are leased and mined. Fish

habitat occurs on the West Antelope

LBA Tract, but is limited by the

intermittent nature of Antelope Creek

in this area. Three fish species

tolerant of intermittent stream flows

were found during a 1980 survey:

sand shiner, flathead minnow, and

plains killifish. ACC’s approved

mining plan avoids disturbing

Antelope Creek and an adjacent

designated buffer zone. Since ACC

does not plan to disturb Antelope

Creek during mining, fish habitat

would not be affected if the West

Antelope LBA Tract is leased by the

applicant mine.

The impacts discussed above would

apply to each action alternative for

each applicant mine. The assessment

of impacts to wildlife by mining the

LBA tracts would be addressed

during the WGFD and WDEQ/LQD

review of each mine’s permit
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-69

application, and within the

WDEQ/LQD permit approval process.

4.1.11 Threatened, Endangered,

Proposed, and Candidate Wildlife

Species and USFS Region 2 Sensitive

Species

Refer to Appendix G.

4.1.12 Land Use and Recreation

The major adverse environmental

consequences of the Proposed Actions

and action alternatives on land use

would be the reduction of livestock

grazing (cattle and sheep), loss of

wildlife habitat (particularly big

game), and curtailment of oil and gas

development during mining of the

coal and reclamation. Wildlife and

livestock use would be displaced

while the tracts are being mined and

reclaimed. Estimated disturbance

areas for each LBA tract and for each

alternative configuration are

presented in Tables 2-1 through 2-4.

Sections 3.11 and 4.1.2 and Appendix

G of this document address the total

number of producing, abandoned, or

shut in oil and gas (conventional and

CBM) wells that presently exist on the

LBA tracts under the Proposed

Actions and Alternatives 2 and 3.

Well location information, federal oil

and gas ownership, and federal oil

and gas lessee information are

presented in Figures 3-10 through 3-

13 and Tables 3-8 through 3-11.

BLM manages federal lands on a

multiple use basis, in accordance

with the regulations. In response to

conflicts between oil and gas and coal

lease holders, BLM has issued a

policy statement on conflicts between

CBM and coal development (BLM

Instruction Memorandum No. 2000-

081). That policy advocates

optimizing the recovery of both coal

and CBM resources to ensure that

the public receives a reasonable

return for these publicly owned

resources. Optimal recovery of both

coal and oil and gas resources

requires negotiation and cooperation

between the oil and gas lessees and

the coal lessees. Currently, the Little

Thunder LBA tract is the only tract

within the General Analysis Area with

producing CBM wells, although the

other LBA tracts contain CBM wells

in various stages of development (e.g.,

permitting, drilling, etc.).

Negotiations are ongoing between the

applicant mines and the existing oil

and gas lessees on how to proceed

with both operations if the coal tracts

are leased. Royalties have been and

would be lost to both the state and

federal governments if conventional

oil and gas wells are abandoned

prematurely, if the federal CBM is not

recovered prior to mining, or if federal

coal is not recovered due to conflicts.

State and federal governments can

also lose bonus money when the

costs of the agreements between the

lessees are factored into the fair

market value determinations.

As discussed in Section 3.11 of this

document, the NARO North, Little

Thunder, and West Roundup LBA

Tracts include federal lands, which

are administered by the USFS. As

many as 4,076.4 acres of federal

lands would be removed from public

access if these LBA tracts were leased

under the maximum tract area

configurations. The loss of

accessibility to federal lands is long

term (during mining and

reclamation), but is not permanent.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-70 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Public access to federal lands would

be restored after mining and

reclamation are complete. 

A number of federal/non-federal

lands exchanges between the USFS

and private interests have been

completed on the TBNG. These

exchanges have helped to eliminate

isolated parcels of federal lands and

consolidate federal land ownership

and to improve public access to

federal lands in the TBNG. Some of

the PRB coal mines have participated

in partnerships with USFS in

facilitating some of these exchanges.

Hunting on the LBA tracts would be

eliminated during mining and

reclamation. Pronghorn, mule deer,

and elk occur on and adjacent to the

LBA tracts. Sage grouse, mourning

dove, waterfowl, rabbit, and coyote

also inhabit these tracts. Mining the

NARO North, Little Thunder, and

West Roundup LBA Tracts would

remove public access to federal land

in pronghorn Hunt Area 27, mule

deer Hunt Area 10, and elk Hunt Area

113. None of the lands included in

NARO South or West Antelope LBA

Tracts are managed by the USFS;

thus, no federal lands would be

removed from public access if either

of these LBA tracts were leased. 

Following reclamation, the land would

be suitable for grazing and wildlife

uses, which are the historic land

uses. The reclamation standards

required by SMCRA and Wyoming

State Law meet the standards and

guidelines for healthy rangelands for

public lands administered by the BLM

in the State of Wyoming. Following

reclamation bond release,

management of the privately owned

surface would revert to the private

surface owner and management of

the federally owned surface would

revert to the federal surface managing

agency (USFS).

4.1.13 Cultural Resources

All portions of the LBA tracts as

applied for, lands added under BLM

alternatives, and the applicant mines’

anticipated permit amendment study

areas were subjected to Class I and

Class III cultural resource inventories

in 1999 and 2001. The results of

these inventories are summarized in

Section 3.12.

Data recovery plans are required for

all sites recommended eligible to the

National Register following testing

and consultation with the SHPO.

Until consultation with SHPO has

occurred and agreement regarding

NRHP eligibility has been reached, all

sites would be protected from

disturbance.

Full consultation with SHPO must be

completed prior to approval of the

MLA mining plan. At that time, those

sites determined to be unevaluated or

eligible for the NRHP through

consultation would receive further

protection or treatment. Impacts to

eligible or unevaluated cultural

resources cannot be permitted. If

unevaluated sites cannot be avoided,

they must be evaluated prior to

disturbance. If eligible sites cannot

be avoided, a data recovery plan must

be implemented prior to disturbance.

Ineligible properties may be destroyed

without further work.

The eligible sites on each LBA tract

that cannot be avoided or that have
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-71

not already been subjected to data

recovery action would be carried

forward in the mining and

reclamation plan as requiring

protective stipulations until a testing,

mitigation, or data recovery plan is

developed to address the impacts to

the sites. The lead federal and state

agencies would consult with Wyoming

SHPO on the development of such

plans and the manner in which they

are carried out.

Cultural resources adjacent to the

mine areas may be impacted as a

result of increased access to the

areas. There may be increased

vandalism and unauthorized

collecting associated with recreational

activity and other pursuits outside of

but adjacent to mine permit areas.

4.1.14 Native American Concerns

No sites of Native American religious

or cultural importance have been

identified within the General Analysis

Area. If such sites or localities are

identified at a later date, appropriate

action must be taken to address

concerns related to those sites.

4.1.15 Paleontological Resources

No unique or significant

paleontological resources have been

identified within the NARO North and

South, Little Thunder, or West

Antelope LBA Tract. One fossilized

bone fragment was found within the

West Roundup LBA Tract study area;

however, the likelihood of

encountering any further significant

paleontological resources during

mining activities is small. Lease and

permit conditions require that should

previously unknown, potentially

significant paleontological sites be

discovered, work in that area shall

stop and measures be taken to assess

and protect the site (see Appendix D).

4.1.16 Visual Resources

Most mining activities on the LBA

tracts would not be visible from any

major travel routes because the tracts

are not close to major highways and

because of the variable terrain in the

General Analysis Area. However,

much of the Little Thunder LBA Tract

would be visible from State Highway

450, which bisects the tract. Existing

mining operations at the Black

Thunder and Jacobs Ranch Mines are

currently visible from this highway.

Portions of each LBA tract would also

be visible from State Highway 59,

Hilight Road, Edwards Road, Reno

Road, Antelope Road, and/or

Converse County Road 37. Due to

existing mining activities in the five

southern mines, the predominant

BLM ARM class in the General

Analysis Area is IV. This

classification would not be altered by

the leasing and subsequent mining of

the five LBA tracts under any of the

action alternatives. After reclamation

of the LBA tracts and adjoining

mines, the VRM classification would

improve. No unique visual resources

have been identified on or near the

LBA tracts.

Reclaimed terrain would be almost

indistinguishable from the

surrounding undisturbed terrain.

Slopes might appear smoother (less

intricately dissected) than

undisturbed terrain, and sagebrush

would not be as abundant for several

years; however, within a few years

after reclamation, the mined land
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-72 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

would not be distinguishable from the

surrounding undisturbed terrain

except by someone very familiar with

landforms and vegetation.

4.1.17 Noise

Noise levels on the LBA tracts would

be increased considerably by mining

activities such as blasting, loading,

hauling, and possibly in-pit crushing.

Since the LBA tracts would be mined

as extensions of existing operations

under the Proposed Actions or action

alternatives, no rail car loading would

take place on the LBA tracts. The

Noise Control Act of 1972 indicates

that a 24-hour equivalent level of less

than 70 dBA prevents hearing loss

and that a level below 55 dBA, in

general, does not constitute an

adverse impact. OSM prepared a

noise impact report for the Caballo

Rojo Mine (OSM 1980) that

determined that the noise level from

crushers and a conveyor would not

exceed 45 dBA at a distance of 1,500

ft. Explosives would be used during

mining to fragment the overburden

and coal and facilitate their

excavation. The air overpressure

created by such blasting is estimated

to be 123 dBA at the location of the

blast. At a distance of approximately

1,230 ft, the intensity of this blast

would be reduced to 40 dBA.

Following is a description of the

dwellings located near each LBA

tract.

NARO North and South LBA Tracts

The nearest occupied dwelling to the

NARO North and South LBA Tracts is

located adjacent to the southern edge

of the NARO North LBA Tract. Since

this occupied dwelling is separated

from the LBA tract by a distance of

less than 200 yards, significant noise

impacts are expected.

Little Thunder LBA Tract

The nearest occupied dwelling to the

Little Thunder LBA Tract is located

approximately one mile from the

western edge of the tract as proposed

and 0.5 mile from the area added

under Alternatives 2 and 3 (South

tract). Since this occupied dwelling is

at least 0.5 mile (approximately 2,640

ft) from the LBA tract under any

configuration, there should be no

major noise impacts.

West Roundup LBA Tract

The nearest occupied dwelling to the

West Roundup LBA Tract is located

just over three miles from the

southern edge of the tract. No major

noise impacts are expected for this

dwelling.

West Antelope LBA Tract

The nearest occupied dwelling to the

West Antelope LBA Tract is located

approximately one mile from the

western edge of the tract. No major

noise impacts are expected for this

dwelling. 

Because of the remoteness of the LBA

tracts and because mining is already

ongoing in the area, noise would have

few off-site impacts. Wildlife in the

immediate vicinity of mining may be

adversely affected; however,

observations at surface coal mines in

the area indicate that wildlife have

generally adapted to increased noise

associated with coal mining activity.

After mining and reclamation are
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-73

completed, noise would return to

premining levels.

4.1.18 Transportation Facilities

No new or reconstructed

transportation facilities would be

required under the Proposed Action

or action alternatives. Essentially all

of the coal mined on the LBA tracts

would be transported by the existing

rail system. Vehicular traffic to and

from the mines would continue at

existing or slightly higher levels for an

extended period of time, depending on

which LBA tracts are leased and

which alternatives are selected.

Active pipelines and power

transmission lines currently cross the

LBA tracts. Any relocation of these

pipelines and utility lines would be

handled according to specific

agreements between the coal lessee

and the pipeline and utility owners if

the need arises. The Wyoming

Department of Transportation

routinely monitors traffic volumes on

area highways, and if traffic exceeds

design standards improvements are

made. BNSF & UP have upgraded

and will continue to upgrade their rail

capacities to handle the increasing

coal volume projected from the PRB,

with or without the leasing of the

proposed SPRB LBA Tracts. Likewise,

the DM&E Railroad is proposing an

expansion into the SPRB area which

is not dependent on leasing the tracts

evaluated in this EIS.

4.1.19 Socioeconomics

Socioeconomic impacts resulting from

the leasing and subsequent mining of

the LBA tracts would include

increasing federal, state, and local

revenues, extending the lives of the

affected mines, and increasing

employment.

Increases in federal and state

revenues generated by the leasing

and mining of the LBA tracts would

depend on which alternatives are

selected and the sale price of the coal.

Although spot prices in 2001 were

often higher than recent previous

years, spot prices in 2002 have

returned to previous levels and WSGS

is predicting that coal prices will

remain relatively constant over the

next five years (WSGS 2001). A

conservatively low estimate for coal

prices over the lives of the leases is

$5.00 per ton.

The federal government would collect

a royalty at the time the coal is sold

in the amount of 12.5 percent of the

sale price. In addition, the federal

government receives a bonus

payment at the time the federal coal

is leased. Bonus payments on the

federal coal leases issued in the PRB

since 1990 have ranged from 11.1

cents per ton to 70.6 cents per ton

and have averaged 26 cents per ton.

Additional federal fees include the

AML reclamation fee (35 cents per ton

sold), and the Black Lung Disability

Trust Fund fee (four percent of the

sales price). Royalty and bonus bid

payments are divided equally with the

State of Wyoming, while half of

Wyoming’s AML contributions are

earmarked for later use in the state.

Projected federal revenues for each

LBA tract are presented in Tables 4-

12 through 4-15 and Figure 4-13,

assuming an average coal price of

$5.00 per ton recovered and a bonus

payment on the leased (in-place) coal

of 26 cents per ton. If the five LBA
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-74 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

tracts were leased and mined under

the Proposed Actions, cumulative

federal revenues would be about $1.1

billion.

According to a study done by the

University of Wyoming (UW 1994), the

State of Wyoming received about

$1.10 per ton from the sale of PRB

coal produced in 1991. The taxes

and royalties included in this

calculation were severance taxes, ad

valorem taxes, sales and use taxes,

and the state’s share of federal royalty

payments on production. Although

severance tax rates have been

reduced from 10.5 percent to seven

percent since 1991, Section 3.18

demonstrates that Wyoming revenues

remain at approximately $1.10 per

ton due to increased bonus bid

revenues. Projected state revenues

for each LBA tract are presented in

Tables 4-12 through 4-15 and Figure

4-13. If the five LBA tracts were

leased and mined under the Proposed

Actions, cumulative state revenues

would be about $1.5 billion.

As indicated by Tables 4-12 through

4-15, leasing and subsequently

mining the LBA tracts would extend

the life of each mine by 0 to 11 years,

depending on which alternatives are

selected. In addition, the leases

would result in the need for 0 to 176

additional employees at each mine,

with a cumulative increase of up to

186 employees. The February 2002

unemployment in Campbell and

Converse Counties totaled 1,075

(Wyoming Department of Employment

2002a). It is likely that the additional

employees would be available from

the existing workforce in Campbell

and Converse Counties. No

additional demands on the existing

infrastructure or services in these

communities would be expected

because no influx of new residents

would be needed to fill new jobs. The

economic stability of the communities

of Douglas, Wright, and Gillette would

benefit by having the current North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mine employees living in

their communities employed for up to

11 additional years.

Issues relating to the social, cultural,

and economic wellbeing and health of

minorities and low-income groups are

termed Environmental Justice issues.

In reviewing the impacts of the

Proposed Actions and Alternatives 2

and 3 for each LBA tract on

socioeconomic resources, surface

water and groundwater quality, air

quality, hazardous materials, or other

Table 4-12. Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the NARO North and

South LBA Tracts under the Proposed Action or Action Alternatives.

Item Proposed Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3

State Revenues $ 557.6 mm $ 675.3 mm $ 478.4 mm

Federal Revenues $ 421.8 mm $ 514.4 mm $ 359.4 mm

Increased Mine Life 4 yrs 5.5 yrs 3 yrs

Additional Employees 10 10 10
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-75

Table 4-13. Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the Little Thunder

LBA Tract under the Proposed Action or Action Alternatives.

Item

Proposed

Action Alternative 2

Alternative 3

(North Tract)

Alternative 3

(South Tract)

State Revenues $ 484.0 mm $ 608.3 mm $ 123.1 mm $ 485.2 mm

Federal Revenues $ 364.8 mm $ 470.6 mm $ 97.2 mm $ 373.6 mm

Increased Mine Life 8 yrs 10.7 yrs 0.3 yrs 8 yrs

Additional Employees 0 0 0 0

Table 4-14. Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the West Roundup

LBA Tract under the Proposed Action or Action Alternatives.

Item

Proposed

Action Alternative 2

Alternative 2

Plus Lease

WYW-127221

Modification Alternative 3

Alternative 3

Plus Lease

WYW-127221

Modification

State

Revenues $ 171.5 mm $ 222.3 mm $ 235.2 mm $ 271.5 mm $ 284.4 mm

Federal

Revenues $ 129.7 mm $ 168.1 mm $ 177.9 mm $ 205.3 mm $ 215.1 mm

Increased

Mine Life 4.5 yrs 5.8 yrs 6.1 yrs 6.7 yrs 7.1 yrs

Additional

Employees 176 176 176 176 176

Table 4-15. Projected Socioeconomic Impacts from Leasing the West Antelope

LBA Tract under the Proposed Action or Action Alternatives.

Item Proposed Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3

State Revenues $ 251.2 mm $ 279.7 mm $ 187.4 mm

Federal Revenues $ 195.2 mm $ 216.7 mm $ 143.4 mm

Increased Mine Life 0 yrs 0 yrs 0 yrs

Additional Employees 0 0 0
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-76 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 4-13
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-77

elements of the human environment

in this chapter, it was determined

that potentially adverse impacts do

not disproportionately affect Native

American tribes, minority groups, or

low-income groups.

With regard to Environmental Justice

issues affecting Native American

tribes or groups, the General Analysis

Area contains no tribal lands or

Native American communities, and no

treaty rights or Native American trust

resources are known to exist for this

area.

Implementing any of the alternatives

would have no effects on

Environmental Justice issues,

including the social, cultural, and

economic wellbeing and health of

minorities and low-income groups

within the General Analysis Area.

4.1.20 Hazardous and Solid Waste

If the applicant mines acquire the five

LBA tracts, the wastes that would be

generated in the course of mining the

tracts would be similar to those

currently being generated by the

existing mining operations. The

procedures that are used for handling

hazardous and solid waste at the

existing mines are described in

Chapter 2. Wastes generated by

mining the LBA tracts would be

handled in accordance with the

existing regulations using the

procedures currently in use at the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex,

Black Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines, as described in

Chapter 2.

4.2 No Action Alternative

There are five No Action Alternatives,

one for each LBA tract. Under the No

Action Alternative for each LBA tract,

the coal lease application for that

tract would be rejected and the area

included in that tract would not be

offered for lease at this time. If a

decision is made to reject an

application for an LBA tract included

in this analysis, the tract could be

nominated for lease again in the

future but, for the purposes of this

analysis, the No Action Alternative

assumes that a tract would never be

mined if the decision is to reject the

application at this time. If an

application is rejected for a tract, the

approved mining operations for the

existing applicant mine would not be

changed. 

If the No Action alternative is selected

for any of the tracts included in this

analysis, the impacts described on

the preceding pages and in Table 2-5

to topography and physiography,

geology and minerals, soils, air

quality, water resources, alluvial

valley floors, wetlands, vegetation,

wildlife, threatened, endangered and

candidate species, land use and

recreation, cultural resources, Native

American concerns, paleontological

resources, visual resources, noise,

transportation, and socioeconomics

would occur on the existing adjacent

coal leases under the No Action

Alternative, but coal removal would

not occur on the rejected LBA tract. 

The general nature and magnitude of

cumulative impacts as summarized in

Table 2-5, which would occur from

implementation of all five of the

Proposed Actions or respective
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-78 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Alternatives 2 or 3, would not be

substantially different under one or

more of the No Action Alternatives.

Under the No Action Alternatives for

the NARO North and NARO South

LBA Tracts, coal removal and

associated disturbance and impact

would not occur on 5,590, 6,275, or

4,863 acres adjacent to the existing

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex

under the Proposed Action,

Alternative 2, or Alternative 3,

respectively. Portions of the NARO

North and South LBA Tracts adjacent

to the existing North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex would be

disturbed to recover the coal in the

existing leases. The economic

benefits that would be derived from

mining the NARO North and South

LBA Tracts during an additional 5.5

years of mining would be lost.

Under the No Action Alternative for

the Little Thunder LBA Tract, coal

removal and associated disturbance

and impact would not occur on 5,424

or 6,577 acres adjacent to the

existing Black Thunder Mine under

the Proposed Action or Alternative 2

and Alternative 3 (North and South

tracts), respectively. Portions of the

Little Thunder LBA Tract adjacent to

the existing Black Thunder Mine

would be disturbed to recover the coal

in the existing leases. The economic

benefits that would be derived from

mining the Little Thunder LBA Tract

during an additional 10.7 years of

mining would be lost.

Under the No Action Alternative for

the West Roundup LBA Tract, coal

removal and associated disturbance

and impact would not occur on

3,161, 3,161, or 3,591 acres adjacent

to the North Rochelle Mine under the

Proposed Action, Alternative 2 (with

or without Lease WYW-127221

modification), or Alternative 3 (with or

without Lease WYW-127221

modification), respectively. Portions

of the West Roundup LBA Tract

adjacent to the existing North

Rochelle Mine would be disturbed to

recover the coal in the existing leases.

The economic benefits that would be

derived from mining the West

Roundup LBA Tract during an

additional 7.1 years of mining would

be lost.

Under the No Action Alternative for

the West Antelope LBA Tract, coal

removal and associated disturbance

and impact would not occur on

3,200, 3,500, or 2,467 acres in

adjacent to the existing Antelope Mine

under the Proposed Action,

Alternative 2, or Alternative 3,

respectively. Portions of the West

Antelope LBA Tract adjacent to the

existing Antelope Mine would be

disturbed to recover the coal in the

existing leases. The economic

benefits that would be derived from

mining the West Antelope LBA Tract

would be lost.

If a decision is made not to lease one

or more of the five LBA tracts at this

time, they could be leased and mined

as maintenance leases in the future,

while the existing adjacent mines are

in operation. If they are not leased

while the existing adjacent mines are

in operation, they may or may not be

leased in the future.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-79

4.3 Regulatory Compliance,

Mitigation, and Monitoring

In the case of surface coal mining,

SMCRA and state law require

mitigation and monitoring designed to

ensure that reclamation standards

are met following mining. Measures

that are required by regulation are

considered to be part of the Proposed

Actions and the alternatives

considered in this EIS for the NARO

North, NARO South, Little Thunder,

West Roundup, and West Antelope

LBA Tracts. These requirements,

mitigation plans, and monitoring

plans are in place for the No Action

Alternative, as part of the current

approved mining and reclamation

plans for the existing North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines. These requirements,

mitigation plans, and monitoring

plans would be included in the

mining and reclamation plan revision

that would be required for each

respective LBA tract that is leased.

This mining and reclamation plan

revision would have to be approved

before mining could occur on each

tract that is leased, regardless of who

acquires the tract. The major

mitigation measures and monitoring

measures that are required by state

or federal regulation are summarized

in Table 4-16. More specific

information about some of these

mitigation and monitoring measures

and their results at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines are described in the

following sections of this document:

• Section 3.5.5, control measures

for particulate emissions;

• Section 3.5.6, control measures

for blasting emissions;

• Section 4.1.2, handling of

unsuitable overburden material

and backfill monitoring plans;

• 4.1.3, structures to control soil

erosion;

• Section 4.1.4, air quality

monitoring and modeling

practices and results and

application of BACT for

mitigation of air quality

impacts;

• Section 4.1.5, surface water

hydrologic control measures;

• Section 4.1.5, groundwater

quantity and quality

monitoring measures and

results;

• groundwater drawdown

modeling requirements;

• Section 4.1.5, mitigation for

interruption, discontinuation,

or diminishment of existing

water well rights by mining

operations;

• Section 4.1.6, restoration of

AVFs impacted by mining;

• Section 4.1.7, identification

and replacements of wetlands

impacted by mining;

• mandated reclamation seed

mixtures;

• Section 4.1.8, plans for control

of invasive, nonnative plant

species;

• Section 4.1.10, fencing

designed to permit pronghorn

passage;

• Section 4.1.10, big game

monitoring results and

requirements;

• Section 4.1.10, notification and

mitigation measures to protect

active raptor nests and nest

productivity;
4-80 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 4-16. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures required under eac

Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2, or Alternative 3. Resource Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by Stipulations or Required by State or Federal Law1 M

Topography & Physiography Restoring to approximate original contour or other approved topographic configuration LQD check

topography report Geology & Minerals Identifying & selectively placing or mixing chemically or physically unsuitable overburden materials to minimize adverse effects to vegetation or groundwater LQD requiadvance of unsuitable 

Soil Salvaging soil suitable to support plant growth for use in reclamation; Protecting soil stockpiles from disturbance and erosional influences; Selectively placing at least 4 ft of suitable overburden on the graded spoil surface below replaced topsoil to meet guidelines for vegetation root zones Monitoring 

reclaimed need for soSampling rfor compliacriteria

Air Quality Dispersion modeling of mining plans for annual average particulate pollution

impacts on ambient air;Using particulate pollution control technologies;Using work practices designed to minimize fugitive particulate emissions;Using EPA- or state-mandated BACT, including: Fabric filtration or wet scrubbing of coal storage silo and conveyor vents, Watering or using chemical dust suppression on haul roads and exposed soils, Containment of truck dumps and primary crushers, Covering of conveyors,  Prompt revegetation of exposed soils

On-site air PM10;

Off-site amPM10;On-site com

Surface Water Building and maintaining sediment control ponds or other devices during mining;

Restoring approximate original drainage patterns during reclamation; Restoring stock ponds and playas during reclamation

Monitoring sediment pMonitoring Monitoring quality

GroundwaterQuantity

Evaluating cumulative impacts to water quantity associated with proposedmining;Replacing existing water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminishedby mining with water of equivalent quantity

Monitoring in overburunderburd

1 These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing North Antelope/R

Thunder, North Rochelle and Antelope Mines in their current approved mining and reclamation plans (the No Ac

NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup or West Antelope LBA Tracts are leased, these requiremand monitoring plans would be part of a mining plan revision covering the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thu

West Antelope LBA Tracts that must be approved before mining can occur on the tract under the Proposed Ac
South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-81

Table 4-16. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures required under eac

Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2, or Alternative 3. (Continued)

Resource

Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by

Stipulations or Required by State or Federal Law1 M

GroundwaterQuality

Evaluating cumulative impacts to water quality associated with proposed mining;Replacing existing water rights that are interrupted, discontinued, or diminishedby mining with water of equivalent quality

Monitoring quality iinterburdebackfill

AlluvialValley Floors

Identifying all AVFs that would be affected by mining;Determining significance to agriculture of all identified AVFs affected by mining(WDEQ);Protecting downstream AVFs during mining;Restoring essential hydrologic function of all AVFs affected by mining

Monitorirestoration functions o

Wetlands Identifying all wetlands that would be affected by mining;

Identifying jurisdictional wetlands (COE);Replacing all jurisdictional wetlands that would be disturbed by mining;Replacing functional wetlands as required by surface managing agency or surfaceland owner

Monitoring using samidentify pwetlands

Vegetation Permanently revegetating reclaimed areas according to a comprehensive

revegetation plan using approved permanent reclamation seed mixtures consistingpredominantly of species native to the area;Reclaiming 20 percent of reclaimed area with native shrubs at a density of one persquare meter;Controlling erosion on reclaimed lands prior to seeding with final seed mixtureusing mulching, cover crops, or other approved measures;Chemically and mechanically controlling weed infestation;Direct hauling of topsoil; Selectively planting shrubs in riparian areas;Planting sagebrush;Creating depressions and rock piles;Using special planting procedures around rock piles;Posting reclamation bond covering the cost of reclamation

Monitoring & diversity reclamatioyears);Monitoring need for cestablishmUse of conrevegetatdeterminpostmining 

1 These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing North Antelope/R

Thunder, North Rochelle and Antelope Mines in their current approved mining and reclamation plans (the No Ac

NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup or West Antelope LBA Tracts are leased, these requirem

and monitoring plans would be part of a mining plan revision covering the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thu

West Antelope LBA Tracts that must be approved before mining can occur on the tract under the Proposed Ac
4-82 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 4-16. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures required under eac

Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2, or Alternative 3. (Continued) Resource Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by Stipulations or Required by State or Federal Law1 M

Wildlife Restoring premining topography to the maximum extent possible; Planting a diverse mixture of grasses, forbs and shrubs in configurations beneficial to wildlife; Designing fences to permit wildlife passage; Raptor-proofing power transmission poles; Creating artificial raptor nest sites; Increasing habitat diversity by creating rock clusters and shallow depressions on reclaimed land; Cottonwood plantings along reclaimed drainages; Replacing drainages, wetlands and AVFs disturbed by mining; Reducing vehicle speed limits to minimize mortality;

Instructing employees not to harass or disturb wildlife;Preparing raptor mitigation plans 

Baseline monitoring Monitoring Manageme

Threatened,Endangered,Proposed, &CandidateSpecies

Avoiding bald eagle disturbance;Restoring bald eagle foraging areas disturbed by mining;Restoring mountain plover habitat disturbed by mining;Using raptor safe power lines;Surveying for Ute ladies' tresses;Surveying for mountain plover;Searching for black-footed ferrets if prairie dogs move onto tract

Baseline monitoring 

Land Use Suitably restoring reclaimed area for historic uses (grazing and wildlife) Monitorin

prior to bo

CulturalResources

Conducting Class I & III surveys to identify cultural properties on all state andfederal lands and on private lands affected by federal undertakings;Consulting with SHPO to evaluate eligibility of cultural properties for the NRHP;Avoiding or recovering data from significant cultural properties identified bysurveys, according to an approved plan; Notifying appropriate federal personnel if historic or prehistoric materials areuncovered during mining operations;Instructing employees of the importance of and regulatory obligations to protectcultural resources

Monitoring during topCessation notificatiounidentifieduring top

1 These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing North Antelope/R

Thunder, North Rochelle and Antelope Mines in their current approved mining and reclamation plans (the No AcNARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup or West Antelope LBA Tracts are leased, these requirem

and monitoring plans would be part of a mining plan revision covering the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thu

West Antelope LBA Tracts that must be approved before mining can occur on the tract under the Proposed Ac
South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-83 Table 4-16. Regulatory Compliance, Mitigation and Monitoring Measures required under eac

Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2, or Alternative 3. (Continued) Resource Regulatory Compliance or Mitigation Required by Stipulations or Required by State or Federal Law1 Monitori

Native American Concerns Notifying Native American tribes with known interest in this area of leasing action and request for help in identifying potentially significant religious or cultural sites No specific Paleontological Resources Notifying appropriate federal personnel if potentially significant paleontological sites are discovered during mining No specific Visual Resources Restoring landscape character during reclamation through return to approximate original contour and revegetation with native species No specific Noise Protecting employees from hearing loss MSHA inspTransportation Facilities Relocating existing pipelines, if necessary, in accordance with specific agreement between pipeline owner and coal lessee No specific Socioeconomics Paying royalty and taxes as required by federal, state, and local regulations Surveyin

document 

Hazardous & Solid Waste Disposing of solid waste and sewage within permit boundaries according to approved plans; Storing and recycling waste oil; Maintaining of files containing Material Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals, compounds, and/or substances used during course of mining; Ensuring that all production, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials is in accordance with applicable existing or hereafter promulgated federal, state, and government requirements; Complying with emergency reporting requirements for releases of hazardous materials as established in CERCLA, as amended; Preparing and implementing spill prevention control and countermeasure plans, spill response plans, inventories of hazardous chemical categories pursuant to Section 312 of SARA, as amended; Preparing emergency response plans No specific 

required by and respon

1 These requirements, mitigation plans, and monitoring plans are in place for the existing North Antelope/R

Thunder, North Rochelle and Antelope Mines in their current approved mining and reclamation plans (the No Ac

NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup or West Antelope LBA Tracts are leased, these requirem

and monitoring plans would be part of a mining plan revision covering the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thu

West Antelope LBA Tracts that must be approved before mining can occur on the tract under the Proposed Ac
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-84 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

• Section 4.1.10, mitigation

measures to minimize habitat

loss impacts to songbirds;

• Section 4.1.13, protection of

cultural resources that are

recommended eligible for or of

undetermined eligibility for the

NRHP; and

• Appendix G, protection of

threatened, endangered,

proposed, and candidate

species.

If impacts are identified during the

leasing process that are not mitigated

by existing required mitigation

measures, BLM can include

additional mitigation measures, in the

form of stipulations on the new lease,

within the limits of its regulatory

authority. In general, the levels of

mitigation and monitoring required

for surface coal mining by SMCRA

and Wyoming state law are more

extensive than those required for

other surface disturbing activities;

however, concerns are periodically

identified that are not monitored or

mitigated under existing procedures.

An example of this type of issue is the

concern about the release of NOx from

blasting, and the resulting formation

of low-lying orange clouds that can be

carried outside the mine permit areas

by wind. After this was identified as

a potential health concern in the area

of the Wyoming PRB surface coal

mines, a monitoring program

measuring NO2 concentrations in

areas accessible to the public near

PRB coal mining operations was

conducted in 1999 (see discussion in

Section 4.1.4). In addition, WDEQ

has directed some PRB mines to take

steps designed to mitigate the effects

of NO2 emissions occurring from

overburden blasting. The steps that

may be required include: public

notifications (in the form of warning

signs along public roadways for

example); temporary closure of public

roadways near a mine during and

after a blast; establishment of safe

set-back distances from blasting

areas; prohibiting blasting when wind

direction is toward a neighbor;

prohibiting blasting during

temperature inversions;

establishment of monitoring plans;

estimation of NO2 concentrations; and

development of blasting procedures

that will protect public safety and

health.

After reviewing the required

mitigation and monitoring in the

current North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, Black Thunder, North

Rochelle, and Antelope Mine’s Mining

and Reclamation Permits and the

historical monitoring results in the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex,

Black Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mine’s annual mine reports

to the WDEQ, the BLM has not

identified additional special

stipulations that should be added to

the BLM lease or areas where

additional or increased monitoring

measures are recommended.

4.4 Residual Impacts

Residual impacts are unavoidable

impacts that cannot be mitigated and

would therefore remain following

mining and reclamation.

4.4.1 Topography and Physiography

Topographic moderation is a

permanent consequence of mining.

The indirect impacts of topographic
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-85

moderation on wildlife habitat

diversity would also be considered

permanent.

4.4.2 Geology and Minerals

Geology from the base of the coal to

the surface would be subject to

significant, permanent change. CBM

resources not recovered prior to

mining would be vented to the

atmosphere and permanently lost.

4.4.3 Soils

Existing soils would be mixed and

redistributed, and soil-forming

processes would be disturbed by

mining. This would result in longterm alteration of soil characteristics.

4.4.4 Air Quality

No residual impacts to air quality

would occur following mining.

4.4.5 Water Resources

The area of coal and overburden

removal and replacement of

overburden and associated

groundwater drawdowns would be

increased under the action

alternatives compared with the area

of coal and overburden removal and

overburden replacement and

associated groundwater drawdowns if

one or more of the five LBA tracts is

not leased and mined. The

postmining backfill may take in

excess of 100 years to reach

equilibrium water levels and water

quality. Less time would be required

near the mining boundaries. Water

level and water quality in the backfill

would be suitable to provide water to

wells for livestock use, but would be

different from premining conditions.

4.4.6 Alluvial Valley Floors

No residual impacts to AVFs would

occur following mining.

4.4.7 Wetlands

Replaced wetlands (jurisdictional or

functional) may not duplicate the

exact function and landscape features

of the premining wetland, but all

wetland replacement plans would be

approved by COE.

4.4.8 Vegetation

Reclaimed vegetative communities

may never completely match the

surrounding native plant community.

4.4.9 Wildlife

Although the LBA tracts would be

reclaimed to be as near original

condition as possible, there would be

some residual wildlife impacts. The

topographic moderation would result

in a permanent loss of habitat

diversity and a potential decrease in

slope-dependent shrub communities.

This would reduce the carrying

capacity of the land for

shrub-dependent species.

4.4.10 Threatened, Endangered,

Proposed, and Candidate Species and

USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species

No residual impacts to T&E,

proposed, or candidate species are

expected. No residual impacts to

USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species are

expected.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-86 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

4.4.11 Land Use and Recreation

No residual impacts to land use and

recreation are expected.

4.4.12 Cultural Resources

Cultural sites that are determined to

be eligible for the NRHP would be

avoided if possible. Eligible sites that

cannot be avoided would be destroyed

by surface coal mining after data from

those sites is recovered. Sites that

are not eligible for the NRHP would be

lost.

4.4.13 Native American Concerns

No residual impacts to Native

American concerns have been

identified.

4.4.14 Paleontological Resources

No residual impacts to significant

paleontological resources are

expected.

4.4.15 Visual Resources

No residual impacts to visual

resources are expected.

4.4.16 Noise

No residual impacts to noise are

expected.

4.4.17 Transportation Facilities

No residual impacts to transportation

facilities are expected.

4.4.18 Socioeconomics

No residual impacts to

socioeconomics are expected.

4.5 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.

This section briefly summarizes the

cumulative impacts that are

occurring as a result of existing

development in the area of the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder Mine, North Rochelle Mine,

and Antelope Mine and considers how

those impacts would change if the

NARO North and South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts are leased and

mined as proposed and if other

proposed development in the area

occurs.

Since decertification of the Powder

River Federal Coal Region in 1990,

the Wyoming State Office of the BLM

has held 15 competitive coal lease

sales and issued 11 new federal coal

leases containing approximately

3.178 billion tons of coal using the

LBA process (Table 1-1). In 1992 and

1993, this leasing process underwent

the scrutiny of two appeals to the

Interior Board of Land Appeals and

one audit by the General Accounting

Office.

The Wyoming BLM has pending

applications for nine additional

maintenance tracts for existing mines

containing about 2.3 billion tons of

coal (Table 1-2). All of the pending

applications have been reviewed and
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-87

recommended for processing by the

PRRCT.

BLM completed one exchange in the

PRB in 2000, authorized by Public

Law 95-554. Under this exchange,

EOG resources (formerly Belco)

received a federal lease for a 106-

million ton portion of the Hay Creek

Tract adjacent to the Buckskin Mine

in exchange for the rights to a 170-

million ton coal lease near Buffalo,

Wyoming that is unmineable due to

construction of Interstate Highway 90

(BLM 1999b). A coal exchange

proposed by Pittsburg and Midway

Coal Mining Company is also

currently being evaluated. As

proposed, federal coal in Sheridan

County, Wyoming would be

exchanged for privately owned lands

and minerals in Lincoln, Carbon, and

Sheridan Counties, Wyoming.

Four regional EISs evaluating surface

coal development in the PRB in

Wyoming were previously prepared.

They are:

Final Environmental Impact Statement,

Eastern Powder River Basin of

Wyoming, BLM, October 1974;

Final Environmental Impact Statement,

Proposed Development of Coal

Resources in the Eastern Powder River

Basin of Wyoming, BLM, March 1979;

Final Powder River Regional Coal

Environmental Impact Statement,

BLM, December, 1981; and

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for Round II Coal Lease Sale in the

Powder River Region, BLM, January

1984.

Since 1989, coal production in the

PRB has increased by an average of

6.8 percent per year. The increasing

state production is primarily due to

increasing sales of low-sulfur, lowcost PRB coal to electric utilities who

must comply with Phase I

requirements of Title III of the 1990

Clean Air Act Amendments. Electric

utilities account for 97 percent of

Wyoming's coal sales. In 2001,

approximately 30 percent of the coal

mined in the United States came from

the PRB.

The currently operational mines in

Campbell and northern Converse

Counties are shown in Figure 1-1.

Their current status and ownership

are shown in Table 4-17. There have

been numerous changes in mine

ownership during the last decade,

and this has resulted in mine

consolidations and mine closings

within the basin.

The mines are located just west of the

outcrop of the Wyodak coal, where

the coal is at the shallowest depth.

The mines in Campbell and Converse

Counties currently produce over 96

percent of the coal produced in

Wyoming each year. Table 4-18

summarizes predicted coal mining

activity (from the 1979 and 1981

regional EISs) with actual activity

that has occurred since the EISs were

prepared.

Campbell and Converse Counties’ oil

production decreased to 14.3 million

barrels of oil in 2001 from 32.8

million barrels in 1992, a 56.4

percent decrease. Oil production

throughout Wyoming is expected to

continue to decline, since exploration

and production drilling has been very
4-88 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS Table 4-17. Status of Wyoming PRB Coal Mines. 2002 Mine 1994 Mine Operator Coal Production1 2001 Mine Operator Coal Production1 S

1993 Actual2 1994 Permitted4 2001 Actual3 2002 Permitted4 Buckskin SMC (Zeigler) 11.18 24.0 Vulcan Capital Mgmt 19.18 27.5 Active Clovis Point Kerr-McGee 0.00 4.0 Wyodak Resources 0.00 0.0 Mine shut 

or sold; faAQD perm

Dry Fork Phillips/WFA 3.28 15.0 WFA 4.03 15.0 Active Eagle Butte Cyprus-Amax 16.70 29.6 RAG American 24.83 35.0 Active Fort Union Fort Union Ltd 0.06 9.3 Kennecott/KFx 0.00 9.4 Inactive Rawhide Carter (Exxon) 9.86 24.0 Peabody 0.00 24.0 Reopening Wyodak Wyodak Resources 3.03 10.0 Wyodak Resources 3.52 12.0 Active NORTHERN MINE GROUP TOTALS 44.11 115.9 51.56 122.9 Belle Ayr Cyprus-Amax 15.59 25.0 RAG American 11.75 45.0 Active Caballo Carter (Exxon)/ Western Energy 15.42 40.0 Peabody 27.12 40.0 Active/Ca

Butte & W

Cordero-Rojo Complex Kennecott/ Drummond 21.01 44.0 Kennecott 43.49 65.0 Active/Co

Coal Creek ARCO 0.11 18.0 Arch 0.00 18.0 Standby CENTRAL MINE GROUP TOTALS 52.13 127.0 82.36 168.0 Antelope Kennecott 7.29 12.0 Kennecott 24.64 30.0 Active Black Thunder ARCO 34.32 36.0 Arch 67.63 100.0 Active Jacobs Ranch Kerr-McGee 18.39 25.0 Kennecott 29.33 50.0 Active N. Antelope/ Rochelle Complex Peabody 32.94 50.0 Peabody 74.78 85-105.0 Active/No

Rochelle M

N. Rochelle SMC (Zeigler) 0.02 8.0 Vulcan Capital Mgmt 23.87 35.0 Active/fac

99 SOUTHERN MINE GROUP TOTALS 92.96 131.0 220.25 300-320.0 TOTALS FOR 3 MINE GROUPS 189.2 373.9 354.17 590.9- 610.9

1 Actual production (million tons) on left, permitted production (million tons) on right. 2 Source: Wyoming State Geological Survey GEO-NOTES, August 1994. 3 Source: Wyoming State Inspector of Mines ANNUAL REPORT for 2001. 4 Source: Judy Shamley, WDEQ/AQD, personal communication March 28, 2002. Figures are permitted capacity as of Octob
South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-89

Table 4-18. Coal Production and Development Levels, Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyom

Coal

Production

(Million Tons)

Number

of

Active

Coal

Mines

Number

of

Existing

Power

Plants

Number of

Active

Coal

Enhancement

Facilities

Direc

Coal

Employm

1979 Predictions for 1990 174.3 15 2 1 3,889 1981 Predictions for 1990 318.4 37 3 1 11,90Actual 1990 162.6 18 3 1 2,862 Actual 1995 246.5 19 4 1 3,177 Actual 1996 261.1 18 4 2 3,274 Actual 1997 264.1 18 4 2 3,164 Actual 1998 297.5 16 4 2 3,348 Actual 1999 320.3 151 4 2 3,362 

Actual 2000 323.1 12 4 2 3,335 Actual 2001 354.1 15 4 0 3,636 Existing Power Plants: PP&L Dave Johnston, PP&L Wyodak, Black Hills Power and Light Sim

Power and Light Simpson #2, and Black Hills Power and Light’s two n(40Mw each) at Wyodak site.

Proposed New Power Plants: Reasonably Foreseeable: NAPG Two Elk, Black Hills Corporation Wyg

Corporation Wygen II.Not Reasonably Foreseeable: NAPG Two Elk Unit Two and NAPG Mid

Existing Coal Enhancement: SGI International ENCOAL Plant - Buckskin Mine (inactive), KFx K-Fu

Fort Union Mine (inactive), and Wyodak Eartheo (inactive).

1 Includes the Dave Johnston Mine, which is not included in Table 4-17.

Sources: 1979 and 1981 BLM PRB Regional EISs, Wyoming State Geological Survey GEO-NOTES-1996-2001, and Wyomin

Mines Annual Reports, 1990-2001.Donald R. McKenzie, WDEQ/LQD, personal communication March 29, 2002.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-90 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

weak and old oil fields with declining

production produce most of

Wyoming’s oil (WSGS 2002a).

Natural gas production has been

increasing, particularly in Campbell

County, due to the development of

shallow CBM resources west of the

coal mines. CBM exploration and

development is currently ongoing

throughout the PRB in Wyoming.

Since the early 1990s, the BLM has

completed numerous EAs and three

EISs analyzing CBM projects. The

latest of these is the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement and

Draft Planning Amendment for the

Powder River Basin Oil and Gas

Project, which was completed in

January 2002. The project area for

this EIS includes almost eight million

acres of mixed federal, state, and

private lands within the Wyoming

portion of the PRB. This EIS analyzes

the cumulative impacts of reasonably

foreseeable CBM and conventional oil

and gas development. It will be used

to update the BLM planning

documents in the area of proposed

CBM development. The impacts of

drilling, completing, operating, and

reclaiming almost 39,400 new federal,

state, and private CBM wells in

addition to the roughly 12,100

federal, state, and private CBM wells

already drilled or permitted for the

project area. The draft EIS also

analyzes the impacts of developing

3,200 new conventional oil and gas

wells, as well as constructing,

operating, and reclaiming various

ancillary facilities needed to support

the new CBM and conventional wells,

including roads, pipelines for

gathering gas and produced water,

electrical utilities, and compressors

(BLM 2002a). A final EIS is in

preparation. CBM resources were not

being developed when the regional

coal EISs (BLM 1974, 1979, 1981,

and 1984) were prepared.

CBM wells can be drilled on private

and state oil and gas leases after

approval by the WOGCC and the

Wyoming SEO. BLM must analyze

the individual and cumulative

environmental impacts of all drilling

(federal, state, and private), as

required by NEPA, before CBM

drilling on the federal oil and gas

leases can be authorized. BLM does

not authorize drilling on state or

private leases but must consider the

impacts from those wells in their

NEPA analyses. In many areas of the

PRB the coal estate is federally

owned, but the oil and gas estate is

privately owned. A June 7, 1999

Supreme Court decision (98-830)

assigned the rights to develop CBM

on a piece of land to the owner of the

oil and gas estate.

Other mineral development levels in

the Wyoming PRB are currently lower

than predicted in the regional EISs.

In the 1970s, significant uranium

development was anticipated in

southwest Campbell County and

northwest Converse County. This

development did not materialize

because the price of uranium dropped

in the early 1980s. There are

currently two in situ uranium

operations in Converse County, but

no mines and no mills. There were

three active in situ operations in the

PRB in 1999, but one of them, located

in southeastern Johnson County, has

since ceased operations. The spot

market price of uranium has

increased from a low of $7.10 per
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-91

pound of yellowcake on December 13,

2000 to $9.90 per pound in late

February 18, 2002 (WSGS 2002b).

Scoria is quarried for use as road

surfacing material, primarily by coal

mines but also by a few excavation

and construction firms. Bentonite is

mined in parts of the Wyoming PRB,

but not in Campbell or Converse

Counties.

The five LBA tracts included in this

EIS are situated within a nearly

continuous corridor of five coal mines

in southern Campbell and northern

Converse Counties, Wyoming (Figures

1-1 and 3-1). This southern mine

corridor is approximately 24 miles

long and eight miles wide. Production

of coal in this southern mine group

began in 1977 at the Black Thunder

Mine. The current maximum

permitted production rate for these

five mines is 300 to 320 mmtpy (Table

4-17). Nine maintenance leases,

including approximately 25,935 acres

of federal coal, have been issued to

mines in this southern group since

decertification (Jacobs Ranch, West

Black Thunder, North

Antelope/Rochelle, Antelope, North

Rochelle, Powder River,

Thundercloud, Horse Creek and

North Jacobs Ranch--see Table 1-1).

CBM wells have been drilled around

all five mines in the southern mine

corridor. CBM drilling and

production is expected to continue in

the areas around the coal mines, and

on the LBAs. Due to the proximity of

the coal mining and CBM production

operations, cumulative impacts to

groundwater, surface water, air

quality and wildlife have occurred and

are likely to continue as more CBM

resources are developed adjacent to

existing surface coal mines. These

impacts are included in the following

cumulative impact discussion for

these resources. 

In addition to the ongoing coal mining

and leasing and the CBM

development, there are other projects

which are in progress or have been

proposed in the Wyoming PRB. These

projects include the Wygen I 90-Mw

coal-fired power plant currently under

construction by Black Hills

Corporation near the Wyodak Mine

east of Gillette; the Two Elk 300-Mw

coal-fired power plant proposed for

construction by NAPG east of the

Black Thunder Mine; the Wygen II

500-Mw coal-fired power plant that

would be built near Wyodak Mine

east of Gillette by Black Hills

Corporation; the proposed DM&E rail

line; the Two Elk Unit Two 500-Mw

coal-fired power plant, which NAPG

also proposes to build east of the

Black Thunder Mine; construction

and operation by NAPG of another

500-Mw coal-fired power plant, the

Middle Bear facility, near the

Cordero-Rojo Mining Complex; and

the ENCOAL coal enhancement

facility, which was proposed for

construction at the North Rochelle

Mine but has been indefinitely

delayed.

Some of these projects have advanced

farther along in their respective

planning and permitting processes

than others and are therefore more

likely to be completed in the

foreseeable future. At this time,

based on the status of their planning

and permitting efforts, the Black

Hills Corporation Wygen I and Wygen

II coal-fired power plants, the NAPG
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-92 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Two Elk coal-fired power plant, and

the proposed DM&E rail line are

considered reasonably foreseeable

developments based on the status of

their planning and permitting efforts.

The NAPG Two Elk Unit Two coalfired power plant and the NAPG

Middle Bear coal-fired power plant

are proposals which are not

reasonably foreseeable at this time,

and the ENCOAL coal enhancement

facility is indefinitely postponed.

The two NAPG Two Elk plants and the

DM&E railroad project, due to their

locations, could have directly

overlapping impacts with the impacts

of mining the five proposed SPRB LBA

Tracts.

The proposed Wygen I and II plants

would be located at the Black Hills

Corporation energy complex near

Gillette, and the proposed NAPG

Middle Bear plant would be located at

the Cordero Rojo Complex. The

impacts of mining the five proposed

SPRB LBA Tracts would not be

expected to directly overlap with the

impacts of building and operating

these power plants.

The planned NAPG Two Elk power

plant would be a coal-fired power

plant located east of Black Thunder

Mine and would generate 310-Mw.

The plant would burn low-Btu “waste

coal” and coal fines from nearby

mines as well as sub-bituminous coal

in a pulverized coal boiler. The ability

to burn low Btu waste coal and fines

would allow the Two Elk plant to

recover fuel values that might

otherwise be lost and thereby

generate electric power more

efficiently than existing coal-fired

plants. Coal and waste coal would be

transported from area mines to the

power plant by direct truck haul on

unpaved roads, and ash would be

returned to the mines by enclosed,

four-wheel off-highway trucks.

According to NAPG, the project has all

of the permits needed except for ROW

permission from the USFS to provide

access for a transmission line to the

power plant (Gillette News-Record

2002a). Construction has been

delayed while NAPG has been

attempting to secure a partner to

share the cost of constructing the

plant. NAPG’s most recent estimates

are that the project would employ a

temporary construction workforce of

up to 700 persons and a permanent

workforce of 50. Construction could

begin in 2002 (Casper Star Tribune

2002).

The Black Hills Corporation Wygen I

power plant, which is now under

construction, will be a 90-Mw coalfired power plant located near

Gillette, Wyoming. According to a

September 27, 2000 press release,

the plant would burn approximately

500,000 tons of low-sulfur coal

annually. The coal could be mined at

the adjacent Wyodak Mine. The plant

is expected to be operational by early

2003 (Gillette News-Record 2002c).

Black Hills Corporation estimates

that the project will employ about 300

people during the construction

period.

Black Hills Energy Capital, Inc., the

independent power subsidiary of

Black Hills Corporation, initiated the

permitting process to build the 500-

Mw Wygen II power plant in 2002.

The proposed plant would adjoin its

other generating plant (Wygen I) near

Gillette. It would be similar in
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-93

features to the existing 360-Mw

Wyodak power plant at the same

location. Construction could begin

on the Wygen II plant in 2003 (Gillette

News-Record 2002c), and it could be

operational by mid-2005 (Black Hills

Corporation 2001).

The Surface Transportation Board

preliminarily approved the DM&E

Railroad expansion plan (to build 280

miles of new track in the PRB and to

rehabilitate approximately 600 miles

of track across South Dakota and

Minnesota) on December 11, 1998.

The approval was made pending the

completion of an analysis of the

environmental impacts of the project.

The Surface Transportation Board

released the DEIS for public comment

in September 2000, and the FEIS for

the DM&E PRB Expansion Project

was issued November 19, 2001. On

January 30, 2002 the Surface

Transportation Board announced its

final approval for the DM&E PRB

Expansion Project, subject to a

number of environmental mitigation

conditions and the requirement that

DM&E use an environmentally

preferable route that avoids sensitive

areas along the Cheyenne River.

DM&E’s originally proposed route in

Wyoming generally followed along the

Cheyenne River valley.

DM&E had originally proposed to

start construction in 1999 and

complete the new railroad line in

2001; however, final approval and

construction could not take place

until after the environmental analysis

was completed. DM&E must still

obtain permits or approvals from

other agencies including the BLM,

USFS, and COE, and several lawsuits

were filed against the proposal

following the Surface Transportation

Board’s approval of the project (WSGS

2002b).

NAPG has also announced plans to

build the Two Elk Unit Two power

plant, a 500-Mw facility, near the Two

Elk plant adjacent to the Black

Thunder Mine and the Middle Bear

power plant, also a 500-Mw facility,

next to the Cordero-Rojo Complex

(Casper Star-Tribune 2001). The Two

Elk Unit Two plant, like the Two Elk

plant, would burn “waste coal” from

nearby mines, while the Middle Bear

plant would burn commercial-grade

coal from nearby mines. If all the

necessary permits and funding can be

secured, NAPG originally anticipated

that construction of the Two Elk Unit

Two plant, which would burn about

three million tons of coal per year,

would occur from 2006 to 2009, and

construction of the Middle Bear plant

would occur from 2003 to 2006.

These NAPG-proposed power plants

would employ up to 1,500 temporary

construction workers each (Pederson

Planning Consultants 2001).

The rate of reclamation is one aspect

of the surface coal mining operations

where the actual levels reached in

1990 and 1995 did not meet the

levels predicted for 1990 and 1995 in

the regional EISs. According to the

“Annual Evaluation Summary Report

for the Coal Regulatory Program

Administered by the Land Quality

Division of the Wyoming Department

of Environmental Quality for

Evaluation Year 2001” (OSM 2002), in

1997, the Casper Field Office of OSM

and WDEQ/LQD reviewed four mine

sites in Wyoming for compliance with

contemporaneous reclamation

requirements and compared on-the-
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-94 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

ground reclamation with the

approved reclamation plan in the

respective permit for each of those

mines. In that review, OSM and

WDEQ/LQD found that the mine

permits they reviewed did not set

clear and concise time schedules and

requirements for contemporaneous

reclamation. In response to those

findings, WDEQ/LQD agreed to

review required reclamation

schedules in all permits and revise

the annual reporting format to

include information about

contemporaneous reclamation

progress. In 2001, contemporaneous

reclamation was evaluated at four

randomly assigned mines. According

to the OSM report cited above, the

2001 evaluation of contemporaneous

reclamation “showed that reclamation

was following mining disturbance at a

reasonable rate. The reclamation rate

at all four mines was at least 90

percent for the areas disturbed for the

previous twelve months. In addition,

the standards for measuring

reclamation contained in the four

permits were reasonably clear and

concise.” However, OSM’s 2001

annual evaluation summary report

also indicated that different

conditions were found during

inspections of other mine sites and

indicated that some problems with

contemporaneous reclamation

standards still persist at certain

mines.

OSM tracks the ratio of acres of

permanent reclamation each year to

acres of net disturbance available for

reclamation each year. Areas not

available for reclamation include

things such as stockpiles, active pits,

access roads, haul roads, railroad

ROWs, coal preparation and loading

sites, offices, shops, sediment ponds,

and other long-term approved uses.

For the 2001 evaluation year, there

was a four percent increase in annual

acres of reclamation and a 31 percent

decrease in annual acres of newly

disturbed lands in Wyoming. The

ratio of reclamation to net

disturbance for the 2001 evaluation

year was 1.43. When the ratio is

greater than 1.0, the reclamation is

greater than the net disturbance.

Since 1990, the ratio of reclamation

to net disturbance has ranged from a

low of 0.40 in 1997 to a high of 1.43

in 2001 (OSM 2002).

Some of the factors that affect

achievement of contemporaneous

reclamation standards include

changing strip ratios which create

material surpluses or deficits, using

stockpiles to provide material to fill

final pit voids or to store new pit

boxcut material, changing the

direction of mining pits to conform to

lease configuration, changing plans to

accommodate production growth, and

changes in technology or mining

method.

Currently, WDEQ/LQD suggests to

operators that only large, contiguous

areas such as drainage basins be

considered for bond release, with the

assurance that the area will not be

disturbed in the future. Because

many mine plans cross a drainage

basin several times during the life of

mine, final reclamation of some

drainage basins may not occur until

late in the life of mine. 

4.5.1 Topography and Physiography

Following surface coal mining and

reclamation, topography will be
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-95

modified in an elongated corridor east

of and paralleling Highway 59 from

just north of Gillette, south for about

75 miles. The topography in the PRB

is characterized by relatively flat or

rolling topography. After reclamation,

these characteristics will be

emphasized in the reclaimed area. In

general, in the mining corridor,

premining features that were more

topographically unique (e.g., steeper

hills, gullies, and rock outcrops) will

be smoothed. As indicated in Section

4.1.1, the premining topography of

the LBA tracts is relatively flat to

gently rolling, and the expected

postmining topography for these

tracts is expected to be similar to the

premining topography. The carrying

capacity for big game may be lower in

the mining corridor as a result of the

overall reduction in topographic

diversity following reclamation. Big

game ranges are generally large and

extend outside of the mining corridor.

Also, mining activities are, in general,

not located in habitats defined as

crucial; no crucial habitat is included

in any of the LBA tracts considered in

this EIS. The overall flattening and

lowering of the topography would

result in increased infiltration of

surface water and reduced peak flows

from the drainages. These changes

would be limited because the streams

typically flow from west to east across

the area rather than north to south

along the entire corridor. Therefore,

only a small part of each stream’s

drainage area would be disturbed (see

Section 4.5.5). There would be no

substantial cumulative impacts to

topography and physiography due to

the proximity of CBM development

and the proposed railroad line and

power plants to the coal mining

operations in this area because the

construction and operation of those

projects would cause minimal

topographic and/or physiographic

changes.

4.5.2 Geology and Minerals

The PRB coalfield encompasses an

area of about 12,000 square miles.

Finley and Goolsby (2000) estimate

that there are approximately 587

billion tons of coal in beds thicker

than 20 ft and deeper than 200 ft in

the basin. The remaining strippable

Wyodak coal reserves (with 200 ft or

less of overburden) are estimated at

15.5 billion short tons (WSGS 2002b).

Converse County has a total area of

4,050 square miles of which slightly

less than one percent is within

current mine permit boundaries.

Campbell County has a total area of

about 4,760 square miles, of which

approximately four percent is within

current mine permit boundaries.

Coal mining in this area currently

disturbs about 3,000 acres annually.

Mining and reclamation rates are

expected to continue to increase

through the year 2015. In the PRB,

the coal reserves currently leased

represent a small percentage of the

total coal reserves but a large

percentage of the shallowest (hence

the most economical to recover) coal

reserves. Within the southern group

of five mines, approximately 47,500

acres of federal coal are currently

leased. This is about a 75 percent

increase over the 27,160 acres of

federal coal that were leased in the

southern group of mines in 1990,

prior to decertification. Under the

Proposed Actions, approximately

13,365 additional acres of federal coal

would be leased, which would

represent a 28 percent increase in the
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-96 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

area of leased federal coal in the

southern group of five mines. The

area of disturbance associated with

mining these leases, which would be

greater than the leases themselves, is

discussed in other parts of this

analysis (e.g., Section 4.5.3).

Coal and CBM are non-renewable

resources that form as organic matter

decays and undergoes chemical

changes over geologic time. The CBM

and coal resources that are removed

to generate heat and power would not

be available for use in the future. No

potential damages to the coal

resulting from removal of the CBM

and water prior to mining have been

identified. The CBM operators

generally do not completely dewater

the coal beds to produce the CBM

because that could damage fractures

in the coal and limit CBM production.

Construction of the proposed railroad

line and power plants would not

impact the geology or mineral

resources in the area, so there would

be no overlapping impacts related to

these projects.

4.5.3 Soils

The five existing southern mines

would disturb approximately 66,582

acres throughout their combined lives

(they would disturb approximately

2,000 acres annually during active

mining at the currently planned

mining rates). The annual

disturbance rate would remain at

approximately 2,000 acres if the

NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts are leased. If all

five LBA tracts are leased and mined

under the Proposed Actions, the

disturbance area in the southern

group of mines would increase to

approximately 83,957 acres. This

would represent an additional 26.1

percent increase in disturbance.

Assuming 10 years from initial

disturbance to utilization of parcels of

reclaimed land by domestic livestock,

approximately 20,000 acres (16.2

percent disturbed by Jacobs Ranch

Mine, 31.0 percent by North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, 28.5

percent by Black Thunder Mine, 10.0

percent by North Rochelle Mine, and

14.3 percent by Antelope Mine) would

be unavailable for such use at any

given time during active mining. The

replaced topsoil would support a

stable and productive native

vegetation community adequate in

quantity and quality to support

planned postmining land uses (i.e.,

rangeland and wildlife habitat).

Additional, although less extensive,

soil disturbance would be associated

with the proposed CBM development

west of the mines, and with

construction of the proposed power

plants and railroad line.

4.5.4 Air Quality and Climate

The EPA CALPUFF dispersion model

was used with meteorological data

generated by the MM5 (mesoscale

model) and CALMET models to

perform air pollutant dispersion

modeling to quantify potential PM10

and SO2 impacts related to proposed

oil and gas development, including

CBM development, in the PRB in

northeastern Wyoming and

southeastern Montana. The modeling

was conducted to analyze potential

air quality impacts from the oil and

gas development alternatives being

considered in the Wyoming Final EIS
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-97

and Draft Planning Amendment for the

Powder River Basin Oil and Gas

Project (BLM 2003) and the Montana

Final Statewide Oil and Gas EIS and

Proposed Amendment of the Powder

River and Billings RMPs (BLM in

press). These documents will be

referred to as the “Wyoming PRB Oil

and Gas Project EIS” and the

“Montana Statewide EIS,”

respectively, in the following

discussion. The Wyoming Project

Area for this air quality analysis

includes Campbell, Sheridan,

Johnson, and northern Converse

Counties. The Montana Project Area

for this air quality analysis includes

all of Carter, Powder River, Big Horn,

Yellowstone, Carbon, Stillwater,

Sweetgrass, Wheatland, Golden

Valley, Musselshell, and Treasure

Counties and portions of Rosebud

and Custer Counties. The General

Analysis Area for this EIS (the South

PRB Coal EIS) is located in southern

Campbell and northern Converse

Counties, Wyoming, which lies near

the southeast corner of the Wyoming

Project Area.

Surface coal mining operations in

Montana and Wyoming were included

in the air quality impact assessment

as non-project sources (other

reasonably foreseeable emission

sources). Coal-related data supplied

by the Wyoming and Montana BLM

offices for the analysis include

estimated coal production volume

(based on coal demand forecasts),

annual acreage disturbance, and

approximate location of mining

activity for active mines (based on the

currently approved mining and

reclamation plan for each mine) in

Wyoming and Montana during the

years when the overlapping impacts

of oil and gas development and other

development were estimated to be the

greatest.

Construction emissions related to the

proposed oil and gas development

would occur during potential road

and well pad construction, well

drilling, and well completion testing.

During well completion testing,

natural gas may be flared and

exhausted. Since the burned natural

gas is “sweet” (does not contain sulfur

compounds), no objectionable odors

are likely to occur.

Maximum potential near-field

particulate matter emissions from

traffic on unpaved roads and during

well pad construction were used to

predict the maximum 24-hour and

annual average PM10 concentrations.

Maximum air pollutant emissions

from each well would be temporary

(i.e., occurring during a short

construction period) and would occur

in isolation, without significantly

interacting with adjacent well

locations. During construction,

particulate matter emissions from

well pad and resource road

construction would be minimized by

application of water. The control

efficiency of the dust suppression was

computed at 50 percent during

construction. During production and

maintenance, the oil and gas

operators would not routinely employ

dust abatement procedures on roads

within the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas

Project EIS Project Area.

This analysis was prepared solely

under the requirements of NEPA to

assess and disclose reasonably

foreseeable impacts to the public and

BLM and USFS decision makers. The
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-98 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

air quality impact assessment was

based on the best available

engineering data and assumptions,

meteorology data, and dispersion

modeling procedures, as well as

professional and scientific judgment.

However, where specific data or

procedures were not available,

reasonable assumptions were

incorporated. For example, the air

quality impact assessment for

Alternative 1 of the Wyoming PRB Oil

and Gas Project EIS assumed that all

CBM wells would go into production

(no dry holes), then operate at full

production levels (no shut-ins) for

about 7 years, with an overall 20 year

LOP. Potential direct project,

indirect, and cumulative air quality

impacts were analyzed to predict

maximum potential near-field

ambient air pollutant concentrations

and potential HAP impacts, as well as

to determine maximum far-field

ambient air pollutant concentrations,

visibility, and atmospheric deposition

(acid rain) impacts. The

methodologies used to predict and

interpret potential air quality impacts

are described in Appendix E.

Air pollution impacts are limited by

state, tribal, and federal regulations,

standards, and implementation plans

established under the CAA and

administered by the applicable air

quality regulatory agencies (including

WDEQ/AQD or the EPA). Although

not applicable to the oil and gas

development alternatives that were

analyzed, the Departments of

Environmental Quality for Montana,

South Dakota, and Nebraska have

similar jurisdiction over potential air

pollutant emission sources in their

respective states, which can have a

cumulative impact with WDEQ/AQD

approved sources. Air quality

regulations require proposed new, or

modified existing air pollutant

emission sources (including CBM

compression facilities) undergo a

permitting review before their

construction can begin. Therefore,

the applicable air quality regulatory

agencies have the primary authority

and responsibility to review permit

applications and to require emission

permits, fees, and control devices,

prior to construction and/or

operations related to oil and gas

development.

The U.S. Congress (through the CAA

Section 116) also authorized local,

state, and tribal air quality regulatory

agencies to establish air pollution

control requirements more (but not

less) stringent than federal

requirements. As discussed in

Chapter 1, BLM would not authorize

mining by issuing leases for tracts

considered in this EIS, but the

impacts of mining the coal are

considered because it is a logical

consequence of issuing a lease. The

NARO North, NARO South, Little

Thunder, West Roundup, and West

Antelope LBA Tracts were applied for

by existing mines with air quality

permits that have been approved by

WDEQ/AQD. If an LBA tract is

leased as a maintenance tract to an

existing mine, that mine would have

to modify its existing approved air

quality permit and that modified

permit would have to be approved

before the LBA tract could be mined.

Additional site-specific air quality

analysis would be performed, and

additional emission control measures

(including a BACT analysis and

determination) may be required by

the applicable air quality regulatory
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-99

agencies to ensure protection of air

quality.

In cases where BLM does authorize

operations, such as approving a

permit to drill an oil and gas well,

under both FLPMA and the CAA, BLM

cannot authorize any activity which

does not comply with all applicable

local, state, tribal, and federal air

quality laws, statues, regulations,

standards, and implementation

plans. An extensive air quality

impact assessment technical support

document was prepared to analyze

potential impacts from the

development alternatives, as well as

other reasonably foreseeable emission

sources, and is available for review

(Argonne 2002).

The significance criteria for potential

air quality impacts include state,

tribal, and federally enforced legal

requirements to ensure air pollutant

concentrations will remain within

specific allowable levels. These

requirements include the NAAQS and

WAAQS which set maximum limits

for several air pollutants, and PSD

increments which limit the

incremental increase of certain air

pollutants (including NO2, PM10, and

SO2) above legally defined baseline

concentration levels. These legal

limits were presented in Table 3-1.

Where legal limits have not been

established, BLM uses the best

available scientific information to

identify thresholds of significant

impacts. Thresholds have been

identified for HAP exposure,

incremental cancer risks, potential

atmospheric deposition impacts to

sensitive lakes, and a “just noticeable

change” in potential visibility impacts.

4.5.4.1 Impacts Common to All

Alternatives

The air quality impact analysis used

market demand predictions in order

to estimate levels of coal production

in the PRB for modeling purposes.

There is enough coal leased to the

existing mines in the PRB to supply

this market demand during the time

of maximum CBM development

activity in the PRB, which is the time

when the maximum overlapping

impacts to air quality would occur.

As a result, the cumulative impacts

predicted by the PRB air quality

impact assessment would be the

same under the Proposed Action and

all of the Alternatives for leasing or

not leasing federal coal considered in

this EIS. Under the No-Action

Alternatives (Alternative 1- not leasing

the coal included in one or more of

the LBA tracts) considered in this

EIS, the currently approved mining

operations on the existing leases

would proceed as permitted. Under

the Proposed Actions and Action

Alternatives considered in this EIS,

the mining operations would move

onto the newly leased tracts and the

period of time that the mines would

be in operation would be extended or

the period of maximum anticipated

coal production at the existing mines

(which are the currently approved

rates at those mines) would be

extended.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the major

air pollutants emitted from surface

coal mining activities are fugitive dust

and tailpipe emissions from large

mining equipment. Activities such as

blasting, loading, and hauling of

overburden and coal and the large

areas of disturbed land all produce
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-100 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

dust. Stationary or point sources are

associated with coal crushing,

storage, and handling facilities. In

general, particulate matter (PM10) is

the major significant pollutant from

coal mine point sources. The

measures that are being used to

control air pollutant emissions from

existing approved mining operations,

which are also described in Chapter

3, include baghouse dust collection

systems, PECs, or atomizers/foggers,

paving mine access roads, applying

water and chemical dust

suppressants on all haul roads used

by trucks and/or scrapers, limiting

haul truck speeds, limiting material

drop heights for shovels and draglines

(bucket to truck bed or backfill),

utilizing permanent and temporary

revegetation of disturbed areas to

minimize wind erosion, and utilizing

stilling sheds at coal truck dumps. In

addition, some of the mines are

participating in the control of fugitive

emissions from some nearby unpaved

county roads by applying dust

suppressants. These measures would

be applied under all of the

alternatives being considered in this

EIS.

Air quality impacts related to oil and

gas development would occur during

construction (due to potential surface

disturbance by earth-moving

equipment, vehicle traffic fugitive

dust, well testing, as well as drilling

rig and vehicle engine exhaust) and

production (including non-CBM well

production equipment, booster [field]

and pipeline [sales] compression

engine exhausts). The amount of air

pollutant emissions during

construction would be controlled by

watering disturbed soils and by air

pollutant emission limitations

imposed by applicable air quality

regulatory agencies. Maximum

construction impacts from fugitive

dust (24 hour PM10) are estimated to

be 55 μg/m3, about one third of the

applicable WAAQS. Actual air quality

impacts depend on the amount,

duration, location, and emission

characteristics of potential emissions

sources, as well as meteorological

conditions (wind speed and direction,

precipitation, relative humidity, etc.).

The HAP impact analysis was based

on a maximum assumed six-unit

reciprocating compressor engine

station, applicable for all proposed

Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project

EIS Alternatives, as described in

Appendix E. Since neither the

WDEQ-AQD nor EPA have

established HAP standards, predicted

8-hour HAP concentrations were

compared to a range of 8-hour state

maximum Acceptable Ambient

Concentration Levels (EPA 1997a).

Formaldehyde was the only HAP

predicted to exceed even the lowest

threshold level. The maximum

predicted cumulative 8-hour

formaldehyde impact was 11.9 μg/m3

,

which is within the threshold range of

4.5 μg/m3

 (Pinnellas County Air

Pollution Control Board, Florida) to

71 μg/m3

 (State of Nevada, Division of

Environmental Protection, Air Quality

Control). The maximum formaldehyde

concentration was predicted to occur

at 85 meters (less then 300 ft)

adjacent to a compressor station; as

the distance from the emission source

increases, the predicted

concentrations decrease rapidly.

Further analysis was conducted to

determine the possible incremental

cancer-risk over a 70 year lifetime for
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-101

an MLE to residents, and to an MEI,

such as compressor station workers.

These cancer risks were calculated

based on the maximum predicted

annual concentrations, EPAs unit

risk factors for carcinogenic

compounds (EPA 1997b), and an

adjustment for time spent at home or

on the job. This analysis assumed

that residential exposure would be 20

years (well over the national nine year

average duration a family lives at a

residence) and worker exposure

would be 20 years (the full LOP). In

addition, it was assumed that family

members would be exposed to the

maximum formaldehyde

concentrations 64 percent of the day,

and to one forth of this concentration

for the remaining 36 percent of the

day.

The resulting incremental cancer

risks were calculated to be 1.6 x 10-6

(MLE) and 2.2 x 10-6 (MEI). Both of

these values fall near the lower end of

the 1 to 100 x 10-6 threshold. The

MLE and MEI cancer risks would fall

below this threshold at 310 and 460

meters away from the emission

source, respectively. This distance

would be even less for smaller

compressor stations.

When reviewing the predicted nearand far-field impacts, it is important

to understand that assumptions were

made regarding potential resource

development, emissions, meteorology,

atmospheric transport and chemistry,

and atmospheric deposition. For

example, there is uncertainty

regarding ultimate development

(number of wells, equipment to be

used, specific locations of wells, etc).

The following assumptions were used

in the analysis:

• Total predicted short-term air

pollutant impact concentrations

were assumed to be the sum of the

assumed background

concentration, plus the predicted

maximum cumulative modeled

concentrations, which may occur

under different meteorological

conditions.

• Assumed background air pollution

concentrations were assumed to

occur throughout the 20-year LOP

at all locations in the region, even

though monitoring is primarily

conducted in urban or industrial

areas, rather than rural areas.

The uniform background PM10

levels for each state are assumed

to be representative of the

background conditions for the

entire modeled area of the PRB,

based on monitoring data gathered

throughout northeastern Wyoming

and southeastern Montana.

• The maximum predicted air

quality impacts occur only in the

vicinity of the anticipated emission

sources. Actual impacts would

likely be less at distances beyond

the predicted points of maximum

impact.

• All emission sources were

assumed to operate at their

reasonably foreseeable maximum

emission rates simultaneously

throughout the LOP. Given the

number of sources included in this

analysis, the co-probability of

such a scenario actually occurring

over an entire year (or even 24-

hours) is small.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-102 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

• In developing the emissions

inventory and model, there is

uncertainty regarding ultimate

development (i.e., number of wells,

equipment to be used, specific

locations, etc.) Most (90 percent)

proposed CBM wells and 30

percent of conventional wells were

assumed to be fully operational

and remain operating (no shut-ins)

throughout the LOP.

• The total proposed booster (field)

and pipeline (sales) compression

engines were assumed to operate

at their rated capacities

continuously throughout the LOP

(no phased increases or

reductions). In reality,

compression equipment would be

added or removed incrementally as

required by the well field

operation, compressor engines

would operate below full

horsepower ratings, and it is

unlikely all compressor stations

would operate at maximum levels

simultaneously.

• The HAP analyses assumed a

9,900 horsepower, six-unit,

reciprocating compressor engine

station would operate at full load

and at maximum emission levels

continuously throughout the LOP.

• The emissions inventory and

model use peak years of

construction and peak years of

operations, which would not occur

throughout the entire development

region at the same time. However,

it is possible that conditions close

to this could occur in some

isolated areas.

• The emissions inventory and

model assumed a NOx emission

rate for compressor engines of 1.5

g/hp-hr in Montana and 1.0 g/hphr in Wyoming. Since BACT is

decided on a case-by-case basis,

actual emission rates could be

decided to be less or more than

this level by the Departments of

Environmental Quality in

Wyoming or Montana, and on

Indian lands by EPA, for field and

sales compressor engines. Actual

NOx emission rates may range

from 0.7 to 2 g/hp-hr.

• There are no applicable local,

state, tribal or federal acid

deposition standards. In the

absence of applicable standards,

the acid deposition analysis

assumed that a “limit of

acceptable change” is: a 10

percent change in ANC for lakes

with a background ANC greater

than 25 μeq/L; or a 1 μeq/L

change in ANC for lakes with a

background ANC less than 25

μeq/L, and would be a reasonably

foreseeable significant adverse

impact. Further, the atmospheric

deposition impact analysis

assumed no other ecosystem

components would affect lake

chemistry for a full year (assuming

no chemical buffering due to

interaction with vegetation or soil

materials).

• The visibility impact analysis

assumed that a 1.0 dv “just

noticeable change” would be a

reasonably foreseeable significant

adverse impact, although there are

no applicable local, state, tribal or

federal regulatory visibility

standards. However, some FLMs
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-103

are using 0.5 dv as a screening

threshold for significance.

• Mitigation measures are included

in the emissions inventory and

model that may not be achievable

in all circumstances. However,

actual mitigation decided by the

developers and local and state

authorities may be greater or less

than those assumed in the

analysis. For example,

maintaining a construction road

speed limit of 15 mph may be

reasonable in a construction zone

but difficult to enforce elsewhere.

Full (100 percent) mitigation of

fugitive dust from disturbed lands

may not be achievable. Further,

50 percent reduction in fugitive

emissions is assumed based on

construction road wetting on the

unimproved access road to the

pad and at the pad, but this level

of effectiveness is characterized as

the maximum possible. Wetting

was assumed for maintenance

traffic, which is not likely to occur,

but this is considered to be a

small effect because of limited

traffic.

• Induced or secondary growth

related to increases in VMT

(believed to be on the order of 10

percent overall) is not included in

the emissions inventory and

model. Not all fugitive dust

emissions (including county and

other collector roads) have been

included in the emissions

inventory and model.

• Fugitive dust emissions from

roads are treated as area sources

rather than line sources in the

model, which may thereby reduce

or increase the predicted ambient

concentrations at maximum

concentration receptor points near

the source, depending on the

inputs to the model (meteorology,

terrain, etc.). By not placing

modeled receptors close to

emission sources (e.g., wells and

roads), the model may not capture

higher ambient concentrations

near these sources. A more

refined, regulatory model may

yield higher concentrations at

locations near fugitive dust

sources.

• For comparisons to the PSD Class

I and II increments, the emissions

inventory and model included only

CBM and non-project sources.

Other existing increment

consuming sources such as

Campbell County coal mines were

not included in this comparison,

as the air quality analysis does not

represent a regulatory PSD

increment consumption analysis.

A regulatory PSD increment

consumption analysis needs to

identify and consider all PSD

increment consuming sources to

determine the level of PSD Class II

increment consumption.

Monitoring data in Wyoming has

indicated an upward trend in PM10

concentrations in Campbell

County since 1999, which

coincides with CBM development

but is also exacerbated by

prolonged drought in the region.

Given these assumptions, the

predicted impacts represent an

estimate of potential air quality

impacts.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-104 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

It is important to note that before

actual coal or oil and gas

development could occur, the

applicable air quality regulatory

agencies (including the state, tribe or

EPA) would review specific air

pollutant emissions pre-construction

permit applications that examine

source-specific air quality impacts.

As part of these permits (depending

on source size), the air quality

regulatory agencies could require

additional air quality impacts

analyses or mitigation measures.

Thus, before development occurs,

additional site-specific air quality

analyses would be performed to

ensure protection of air quality.

4.5.4.2 Impacts from Temporary

Generation

The exact number of temporary

natural gas and diesel generators for

gas pipeline compressor stations

cannot be predicted, but at any one

time there may be as many as 400

portable diesel generators and 70

portable gas generators operating.

Typical emission factors (in g/hp-hr)

for these generators are shown in

Table 4-19. Table 4-20 shows the

potential ground-level concentrations

resulting from operation of these

temporary generators.

4.5.4.3 Predicted Air Quality Impacts

The Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas

Project EIS evaluates four

alternatives. Alternative 1 is the

Proposed Action, which assumes that

there would be 39,400 new CBM

wells in the Wyoming PRB by 2012 in

addition to the 12,000 existing wells.

The Proposed Action also assumes

drilling of an estimated 3,200

conventional oil and gas wells in the

same time period. Alternatives 2a

and 2b evaluate alternate emission

levels and water handling scenarios.

Under Alternative 3 (the No Action

Alternative), drilling would not occur

on federal oil and gas leases but

would continue on state and private

oil and gas leases. BLM estimates

that approximately 15,500 new CBM

wells would be developed on state and

private lands by 2012 under this

alternative, in addition to the 12,000

existing wells. For the purposes of

this EIS, the range of potential

impacts predicted by the cumulative

air quality analysis for all the three oil

and gas Action Alternatives are

shown in the following tables, as well

as the potential impacts predicted

under the No Action Alternative.

Please refer to the Wyoming PRB Oil

and Gas Project Final EIS (BLM 2003)

Table 4-19. Emission Factors for Temporary Generation for Oil and Gas

Pipeline Compressors.

Pollutant Emission Factor Range (g/hp-hr)

CO 0.3 to 2.0

NOx 0.7 to 1.5

PM2.5 0.03 to 0.07

SO2 0.002

VOCs 0.5 to 1.0

Formaldehyde 0.05 to 0.2
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-105

Table 4-20. Near-Field Concentrations from a Single Temporary Generator

for Oil and Gas Pipeline Compressors.

Pollutant Averaging Time

Concentration

Range (μg/m3

)

WAAQS

(μg/m3)

CO 1-hour

8-hour

55.3 to 403.1

33.2 to 242.9

40,000

10,000

NO2 Annual 1.9 to 7.5 100

PM2.5 24-hour

Annual

1.5 to 5.3

0.1 to 0.4

65

15

SO2 3-hour

24-hour

Annual

0.2 to 0.4

0.09 to 0.3

0.007 to 0.013

1,300

260

60

to see the individual results for each

oil and gas action alternative.

4.5.4.3.1 Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas

Project EIS Alternatives 1, 2a, and 2b

Under all three oil and gas Action

Alternatives, potential direct project

air quality impacts would not violate

any local, state, tribal, or federal air

quality standards under Alternative 1.

Based on extensive air quality

modeling of potential direct project air

quality impacts (Argonne 2002),

localized short-term increases in CO,

NOx, PM10, and SO2 concentrations

would occur, but all maximum

concentrations are expected to be

below applicable NAAQS and WAAQS.

All maximum near-field direct project

NO2, PM10, and SO2 concentrations

are expected to be below applicable

PSD Class II increments (Table 4-21),

and all maximum far-field direct

project concentrations are expected to

be below applicable PSD Class I

increments (Appendix E).

Although potential direct project

impacts to even the most sensitive

far-field lakes would not be

significant, a “just noticeable change”

in visibility was predicted to occur at

from nine to 11 mandatory federal

Class I areas, ranging up to five days

at the Washakie Wilderness Area.

The maximum potential direct project

visibility impacts were predicted to

occur on from 14 to 20 days per year

on the Crow Indian Reservation. A

detailed description of the air quality

impact analysis is presented in

Appendix E.

4.5.4.3.2 Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas

Project EIS Alternative 3

Potential direct project air quality

impacts would not violate any local,

state, tribal, or federal air quality

standards under Alternative 3 of the

Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project

EIS, the No-Action Alternative. Based

on extensive air quality modeling of

potential direct project air quality

impacts (Argonne 2002), localized,

short-term increases in CO, NOx,

PM10, and SO2 concentrations would

occur, but all maximum

concentrations are expected to be

below applicable NAAQS and WAAQS.
4-106

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 4-21. Range of Predicted Maximum Potential Near-Field Impacts under Alternatives 

Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS (with Montana Alternative E).

Pollutant

Averaging

Time

Project

(μg/m3)

Non-Project

(μg/m3)2

Cumulative

(μg/m3)

PSD Class II

(μg/m3)

Background

(μg/m3)

Total

(μg/m3)

NO2 Annual 6 to 8 3 9 to 10 25 17 26 to 28 

SO2 Annual

24-hour

3-hour

#1

23

#1

25

135

2091

512

388

4

1113

PM10 Annual

24-hour

3

15 to 20

19

4

25 to 31

1730

1742

21

67 to 73

PM2.5 Annual

24-hour

1 to 2

11 to 16

19

2

12 to 24

8

19

10

38 to 43

CO 8-hour

1-hour

77 to 156

157 to 223

124142

132 to 156170 to 224

1,5003,500

1,624 to 1,6563,670 to 3,724

1 The contributions from each source represent maxima and do not necessarily occur at the same location. Therefore, the 

always equal the sum of the monitored background, Project, and Non-Project concentrations.

2 Non-Project sources include CBM sources in Montana and surface coal mining operations in Wyoming and Montana.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-107

All maximum near-field direct project

NO2, PM10, and SO2 concentrations

are expected to be below applicable

PSD Class II increments (Table 4-22),

and all maximum far-field direct

project concentrations are expected to

be below applicable PSD Class I

increments (Appendix E).

Although potential direct project

impacts to even the most sensitive

far-field lakes would not be

significant, a “just noticeable change”

in visibility was predicted to occur

one day per year at the mandatory

federal Class I Bridger, Fitzpatrick,

and Washakie Wilderness Areas. The

maximum potential direct project

visibility impacts were predicted to

occur on 10 days per year on the

Crow Indian Reservation. A detailed

description of the air quality impact

analysis is presented in Appendix E.

4.5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts

Based on a separate assessment

predicting potential far-field

cumulative air quality impacts

(Argonne 2002), the EPA

CALMET/CALPUFF dispersion model

system was used to predict maximum

potential air quality impacts at

downwind mandatory federal PSD

Class I areas, and other sensitive

receptors, to: 1) determine if the

WAAQS, NAAQS or PSD Class I

increments might be exceeded; 2)

calculate potential nitrate and sulfate

atmospheric deposition (and their

related impacts) in sensitive lakes;

and 3) predict potential impacts to

visibility (regional haze).

Meteorological information was

assembled to characterize

atmospheric transport and dispersion

from several data sources, including:

1) four kilometer gridded wind field

values derived from the MM5

(mesoscale model) with continuous

four-dimensional data assimilation;

and 2) hourly surface observations

(wind speed, wind direction,

temperature, cloud cover, ceiling

height, surface pressure, relative

humidity, and precipitation).

For each Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas

Project EIS Alternative, potential air

pollutant project sources were

combined with non-project sources to

determine the total potential

cumulative air quality impacts. This

included potential cumulative sources

from the Montana Statewide EIS

sources. The range of potential

cumulative impacts correspond to

including either the Montana

Alternative A (low) or the Montana

Alternative B/C/E (high) emission

sources. Coal mining operations in

Wyoming and Montana were included

as non-project sources.

As described above, potential CO and

NOx emissions from reasonably

foreseeable booster (field) and pipeline

(sales) compressor stations, as well as

PM2.5, PM10, and SO2 emissions from

construction equipment, were

analyzed to predict potential

maximum near-field PSD Class II

impacts, as well as potential far-field

impacts at 29 mandatory federal PSD

Class I and other sensitive areas

located in Wyoming, Montana, North

and South Dakota, and Nebraska

(Argonne 2002). Total concentrations

are expected to be in compliance with

applicable WAAQS and NAAQS

(Appendix E). Table 4-23 presents

the maximum predicted air pollutant
4-108 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 4-22. Predicted Maximum Potential Near-Field Impacts under Alternative 3 of the Wyom

Project EIS (with Montana Alternative E). Pollutant Average Time Project (μg/m3

)

2

NonProject

(μg/m3

)

2

Cumulativ

e

(μg/m3

)

PSD Class

II

(μg/m3

)

Background

(μg/m3

)

Total

(μg/m3

)

NO2 Annual 3 3 6 25 17 23 

SO2 Annual

24-hour

3-hour

#1

11

#1

25

#1

25

2091

512

388

3

1013

PM10 Annual

24-hour

17

19

2

16

1730

1742

1958

PM2.5 Annual

24-hour

#1

6

0.7

9

1

13

8

19

9

32

CO 8-hour

1-hour

183261

124142

183261

1,5003,500

1,6833,761

1 The contributions from each source represent maxima and do not necessarily occur at the same location. The

concentrations will not always equal the sum of the monitored background, Project, and Non-Project concentra

2 Non-Project sources include CBM sources in Montana and surface coal mines in Wyoming and Montana.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-109

concentrations at specified PSD Class

I areas.

Under all four Alternatives (1, 2A, 2B,

and 3) considered in the Wyoming

PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS,

potential non-project and cumulative

annual NO2 concentrations (ranging

from 4.1 to 4.2 μg/m3

) were predicted

to be above the PSD Class I increment

(2.5 μg/m3

) within the Northern

Cheyenne Reservation. Under all four

Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project

EIS Alternatives, potential project and

cumulative 24-hour PM 1 0

concentrations (ranging from 10.7 to

12.8 μg/m3) were above the PSD

Class I increment (8.0 μg/m3

) within

the Northern Cheyenne Reservation.

Under Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas

Project EIS Alternatives 1, 2A, and

2B, cumulative 24-hour PM10

concentrations (ranging from 8.5 to

9.2 μg/m3

) were also predicted to be

above the PSD Class I increment (8.0

μg/m3) within the Washakie

Wilderness Area. These impacts

would be the same under all of the

coal leasing alternatives considered in

this EIS. As described in Appendix E,

other PSD Class I areas had predicted

far-field impacts below applicable

increments. All PSD Class II areas

had predicted far-field impacts below

applicable PSD increments. This

NEPA analysis compares potential air

quality impacts from the proposed

Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project

EIS Alternatives to applicable ambient

air quality standards and PSD

increments, but comparisons to the

PSD Class I and II increments are

intended to evaluate a threshold of

concern for potential impacts, and do

Table 4-23. Maximum Predicted PSD Class I Area Cumulative Far-Field

Impacts (in μg/m3

) under Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) and all South PRB Coal EIS

Alternatives.

Pollutant

Averaging

Period Class I Area

Maximum

Modeled

Concentration

(Cumulative)

PSD Class I

Increment

NO2 Annual Northern Cheyenne

Reservation

4.2 2.5

PM10 24-hour Northern Cheyenne

Reservation

12.8 8

Annual Northern Cheyenne

Reservation

1.7 4

SO2 3-hour Northern Cheyenne

Reservation

5.1 25

24-hour Absaroka-Beartooth

Wilderness

2.4 5

Annual Northern Cheyenne

Reservation

0.3 2

Source: Argonne 2002
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-110 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

not represent a regulatory PSD

Increment Consumption Analysis.

Even though most of the development

activities would occur within areas

designated PSD Class II, the potential

impacts on regional Class I areas are

to be evaluated. For a new source

review air quality permit application

for a major source, the applicable air

quality regulatory agencies may

require a regulatory PSD increment

analysis. More stringent emission

controls beyond BACT may be

stipulated in the air quality permits if

impacts are predicted to be greater

than the PSD Class I or Class II

increments.

Several lakes within four USFS

designated wilderness areas were

identified as being sensitive to

atmospheric deposition and for which

the most recent and complete data

have been collected. The USFS has

also identified the following LAC

regarding potential changes in lake

chemistry: no more than a 10 percent

change in ANC for those water bodies

where the existing ANC is at or above

25 μeq/L; and no more than a one

μeq/L change for those extremely

sensitive water bodies where the

existing ANC is below 25 μeq/L.

Based on a Rocky Mountain Region

USFS screening method (USFS 2000),

Table 4-24 demonstrates that

potential impacts to most sensitive

lakes would be below applicable

significance thresholds. However,

under all four Wyoming PRB Oil and

Gas Project EIS Alternatives (1, 2A,

2B, and 3), potential non-project ANC

impacts (1.3 μeq/L) were predicted to

exceed the 1.0 μeq/L impact

threshold at the very sensitive Upper

Frozen Lake within the PSD Class I

Bridger Wilderness Area. Cumulative

ANC impacts ranged from 1.5 to 1.8

μeq/L. From 13 to nearly 28 percent

of these impacts are due to direct

contributions from Wyoming PRB Oil

and Gas Project EIS Alternatives 1,

2A, 2B, and 3 alone. In addition,

under Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas

Project EIS Alternative 1, cumulative

ANC impacts were predicted to exceed

the 10 percent impact threshold (up

to 10.4 percent) at Florence Lake

within the PSD Class II Cloud Peak

Wilderness Area. Nearly 30 percent

of these impacts are due to direct

contributions from Wyoming PRB Oil

and Gas Project EIS Alternative 1.

Potential impacts at all other sensitive

lakes (and under all Wyoming PRB Oil

and Gas Project EIS Alternatives)

were below the ANC threshold levels.

No sensitive lakes were identified by

either the NPS or USFWS.

Since the development of the project

and non-project air pollutant

emission sources constitute many

small sources spread out over a very

large area, discrete visible plumes are

not likely to affect the mandatory

federal PSD Class I areas, but the

potential for cumulative visibility

impacts (increased regional haze) is a

concern. Regional haze degradation

is caused by fine particles and gases

scattering and absorbing light.

Potential changes to regional haze are

calculated in terms of a perceptible

“just noticeable change” (1.0 dv) in

visibility when compared to

background conditions.

A 1.0 dv change is considered a small

but noticeable change in haziness as

described in the Preamble to the EPA

Regional Haze Regulations (Federal

Register, Vol. 64 No. 126, dated July
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-111

Table 4-24. Predicted Total Cumulative Change in Acid Neutralizing

Capacity at Sensitive Area Lakes (percent change).

Wilderness

Area Lake

Background

ANC (μeq/L)

Area

(hectares)

Change

(percent)

Thresholds

(percent)

Bridger Black Joe

Deep

Hobbs

Upper Frozen

69

61

68

5.8a

890

205

293

65

2.2 to 2.1

2.5 to 3.0

1.3 to1.5

1.5 to 1.8b

10

10

10

1b

Fitzpatrick Ross 61.4 4,455 1.8 to 2.1 10

AbsarokaBeartoothStepping Stone

Twin Island

27

36

26

45

2.3 to 2.5

1.6 to 1.8

10

10

Cloud Peak Emerald 

Florence

553

32.7

293

417

5.0 to 6.0

8.5 to 10.4

10

10

Popo Agie Lower Saddlebag 55.5 155 3.2 to 3.8 10

Notes:

a The background concentration is based on only six samples taken on four days between

1997 and 2001. b Since the background ANC value is less than 25 μeq/L, the potential ANC change is

expressed in μeq/L, and the applicable threshold is 1.0 μeq/L.

Source: Argonne 2002

1, 1999). A 1.0 dv change is defined

as about a 10 percent change in the

extinction coefficient (corresponding

to a two to five percent change in

contrast, for a black target against a

uniform sky, at the most optically

sensitive distance from an observer),

which is a small but noticeable

change in haziness under most

circumstances when viewing scenes

within mandatory federal Class I

areas.

It should be noted that a 1.0 dv

change is not a “just noticeable

change” in all cases for all scenes.

Visibility changes less than 1.0 dv are

likely to be perceptible in some cases,

especially where the scene being

viewed is highly sensitive to small

amounts of pollution, such as due to

preferential forward light scattering.

Under other view-specific conditions,

such as where the sight path to a

scenic feature is less than the

maximum visual range, a change

greater than 1.0 dv might be required

to be a “just noticeable change”.

However, this NEPA analysis is not

designed to predict specific visibility

impacts for specific views in specific

mandatory federal Class I areas based

on specific project designs, but to

characterize reasonably foreseeable

visibility conditions that are

representative of a fairly broad

geographic region, based on

reasonable emission source

assumptions. This approach is

consistent with both the nature of

regional haze and the requirements of

NEPA. At the time of a preconstruction air quality PSD permit

application, the applicable air quality

regulatory agency may require a

much more detailed visibility impact

analysis. Factors such as the

magnitude of dv change, frequency,

time of the year, and the
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-112 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

meteorological conditions during

times when predicted visibility

impacts are above the 1.0 dv

threshold (as well as the modeling

analyses assumptions) should all be

considered when assessing the

significance of predicted impacts.

The USFS, NPS, and USFWS have

published their Final FLAG Phase I

Report (Federal Register, Vol. 66 No.

2, dated January 3, 2001), providing

“a consistent and predictable process

for assessing the impacts of new and

existing sources on AQRVs”

including visibility. For example, the

FLAG report states “A cumulative

effects analysis of new growth

(defined as all PSD incrementconsuming sources) on visibility

impairment should be performed”,

and further, “If the visibility

impairment from the proposed action,

in combination with cumulative new

source growth, is less than a change

in extinction of 10 percent (1.0 dv) for

all time periods, the FLMs will not

likely object to the proposed action”.

Although the FLAG procedures were

primarily designed to provide analysis

guidance to PSD permit applicants,

the following analysis uses the Final

FLAG Phase I Report procedures for

this NEPA analysis.

Based on multiple iterations of the

non-steady state CALPUFF dispersion

modeling system, including the

CALMET meteorological model, for

four different development

alternatives, potential cumulative

visibility impacts estimated by the

seasonal FLAG screening method

exceeded the impact thresholds

(including the use of FLAG and

WDEQ/AQD provided background

extinction values) at all 29 sensitive

areas analyzed. Therefore, potential

maximum visibility impacts were

estimated using the daily FLAG

refined method (based on hourly

optical extinction and relative

humidity values measured at two

IMPROVE monitoring locations) for

each Class I and Class II sensitive

area. Although the potential modeled

impacts for each sensitive area were

based on 1996 MM5 regional

meteorology, these values were

compared to hourly optical extinction

and relative humidity data collected

at two locations in the Project Area

between 1989 and 1999.

For example, since the 1.0 dv

threshold was predicted to be reached

within the mandatory federal PSD

Class I Washakie Wilderness Area

based on the seasonal FLAG

screening methodology, the maximum

modeled cumulative impacts at that

area were also compared to

representative hourly optical and

relative humidity values measured at

Bridger Wilderness Area between

1989 and 1999 using the daily FLAG

refined method (Table 4-25). The

range of impacts was then

summarized as the annual average

number of days over the 11-year

period predicted to equal or exceed a

1.0 dv “just noticeable change” (Table

4-26).

The prediction of potential visibility

impacts based on the daily FLAG

refined methodology using measured

optical extinction conditions is

intended to disclose potential air

quality impacts on the affected

environment to the public and

decision maker before an action is

taken. It is not intended to be an air

quality regulatory analysis. Such
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-113

analysis would be conducted by the

applicable air quality regulatory

agencies.

It is important to note that before

actual development could occur, the

applicable air quality regulatory

agencies (including the state, tribe or

EPA) would review specific air

pollutant emissions pre-construction

permit applications that examine

source-specific air quality impacts.

As part of these permits (depending

on source size), the air quality

regulatory agencies could require

additional air quality impacts

analyses or mitigation measures.

Thus, before development occurs,

additional site-specific air quality

analyses would be performed to

ensure protection of air quality. For

further mitigation information see

Section 4.3 and Appendix E.

Coal mines develop predictive air

quality dispersion models (i.e., FDM,

ISCLT3) to assess the potential air

quality impacts of their mining

operations. Based on these predictive

models conducted for PRB mines,

mining operations do not have

significant off-site particulate

pollution impacts, even when

production and pollution from

neighboring mines are considered.

However, this prediction has been

based on the assumptions that

mining activities are sufficiently

removed from the permit boundaries

and that neighboring mines are not

actively mining in the immediate

vicinity (within 0.6 to 2.5 miles).

Previous modeling (BLM 1992a) has

shown that incremental particulate

pollution impacts decrease to

insignificant levels (<1 μg/m3

 PM10

annual average) within six miles of

active mining.

In cases where mines are in close

proximity (within two miles), WDEQ

follows a modeling protocol which

accounts for all mine-generated

particulate air pollutants from all

nearby mines to determine impacts to

ambient air quality. Known as the

Mine A/Mine B modeling procedure,

this model evaluates the total impacts

of a given mining operation, including

those impacts from and on

neighboring mines. Under each

Proposed Action being evaluated in

this EIS, each LBA tract is within two

miles of either an existing mine or

another LBA tract.

Table 4-25. Predicted Visibility Impacts in the Mandatory Federal PSD Class

I Washakie Wilderness Area from Direct Wyoming PRB Oil and

Gas Project EIS Alternative Sources - Daily FLAG Refined Method

(Average Number of Days per Year Predicted to Equal or Exceed

a 1.0 dv “Just Noticeable Change”).

Alternative 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

1 42764746726

2A 2 2 6 5 4 6 4 5 5 1 4

2B 1 2 6 5 3 6 4 4 5 1 3

3 10431122200

Note: Potential cumulative visibility impacts were predicted using daily background optical and relative humidity

conditions for each of the years listed above.

Source: Argonne 2002
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-114 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 4-26. Predicted Visibility Impacts in Class I Areas - Daily FLAG Refined

Method (Average Number of Days per Year Predicted to Equal or

Exceed a 1.0 dv “Just Noticeable Change”) (Results shown are the

predicted impacts under Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project

Alternatives 1, 1A, 2B, and 3. Impacts related to coal mining

under all South PRB Coal EIS Alternatives are included under

“Non-Project Sources”).

Class I Area Alt 1 Alt 2A Alt 2B Alt 3

Non-Project

Sources Cum Sources

Badlands Wilderness Area1

 3 3 1 0 13 to 17 18 to 28

Bridger Wilderness Area 4 4 3 1 7 to 9 8 to 12

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 4 3 3 1 6 to 9 8 to 12

Gates of the Mtns Wilderness Area 0 0 0 0 3 to 4 3 to 4

Grand Teton National Park 1 1 0 0 3 to 5 4 to 8

North Absaroka Wilderness Area 4 3 2 0 9 to 13 11 to 15

Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area 0 0 0 0 0 to 1 0 to 3

Scapegoat Wilderness Area 0 0 0 0 2 to 2 2 to 3

Teton Wilderness Area 3 3 2 0 6 to 9 7 to 11

Theodore Roosevelt NMP2

 (North Unit) 0 0 0 0 1 to 1 1 to 3

Theodore Roosevelt NMP2

 (South Unit) 1 0 0 0 1 to 3 2 to 7

U.L. Bend Wilderness Area 1 1 1 0 4 to 5 5 to 8

Washakie Wilderness Area 5 4 4 1 10 to 14 12 to 18

Wind Cave National Park 4 3 2 0 17 to 21 22 to 28

Yellowstone National Park 3 2 1 0 8 to 11 9 to 13

Northern Cheyenne Reservation3

 17 16 14 7 27 to 82 33 to 92

Notes:

1 The U.S. Congress designated the Wilderness Area portion of Badlands National Park as a mandatory federal PSD

Class I area. The remainder of Badlands National Park is a PSD Class II area. 2 NMP - National Memorial Park. 3 Although the Northern Cheyenne Reservation is a tribal designated PSD Class I Area, it is not a mandatory federal

PSD Class I area subject to EPA’s Regional Haze Regulations.

Non-Project Sources - The impact of all air pollutant emission sources not included in Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project

EIS Alt 1, Alt 2A, Alt 2B or Alt 3, including existing surface coal mines in Wyoming and Montana and the Montana

Statewide EIS sources. The range of potential annual average days above a 1.0 dv “just noticeable change” in

visibility corresponds to including Montana Alternative A (low) to Montana Alternative B/C/E (high).

Cum Sources - The impact of all cumulative air pollutant emission sources combined, including Wyoming PRB Oil and

Gas Project EIS Alt 1, Alt 2A, Alt 2B, Alt 3, and Non-Project Sources (which include the South PRB Coal EIS

Proposed Action and Alternatives and Montana Statewide EIS sources). The range of potential annual average days

above a 1.0 dv “just noticeable change” in visibility corresponds to: including Non-Project, Wyoming Alternative

3 and Montana Alternative A sources (low); up to including Non-Project, Wyoming Alternative 1 and Montana

Alternative B/C/E sources (high).

Source: Argonne 2002
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-115

Gaseous orange clouds, some

containing concentrations of NOx,

have been produced by overburden

blasting at surface coal mines in the

PRB. In 1995, 1998, and 1999, OSM

received citizen complaints

concerning NOx gases generated from

blasting operations drifting off mine

permit areas (OSM 2000). No citizen

complaints were received by OSM or

WDEQ during the 2001 evaluation

year, which ended on September 30,

2001 (OSM 2002). These gaseous

orange clouds generally do not

overlap due to the distances between

mines and the variation in blasting

schedules. However, areas adjacent

to the permits areas for this group of

mines could be affected on different

occasions by blasting clouds from

several different mines, depending on

the weather conditions.

The nature of these blasting clouds

and human health consequences

resulting from short-term exposures

to NOx are discussed in Section 4.1.4.

Included are the results of a study of

possible public exposure to NO2

concentrations from blasting. The

evaluation is based on short-term

measurements (15 minutes) and the

results are compared to NO2

monitoring results from annual and

daily monitoring in the PRB as well as

to existing workplace standards for

NO2 exposures. There is no shortterm ambient air standard for NO2 in

Wyoming.

In response to the public concern

about these clouds and the potential

consequences to human health,

WDEQ and the mines have developed

required and voluntary measures to

protect the public from exposure to

the clouds. These measures are

described in Section 3.5 of this

document. The mines in the eastern

PRB have also been cooperating in a

research and development effort

aimed at reducing blasting clouds

(Casper Star Tribune, February 3,

2002). This research has led to

changes in blasting agents and the

size of blasting shots that have

reduced NOx emissions during

blasting. As indicated above, no

citizen complaints were received by

OSM or WDEQ/LQD during the 2001

evaluation year.

Another air quality concern is the

venting of methane that occurs when

coal is mined. As discussed in

Section 3.3 of this document,

methane is generated from coal beds.

When coal is mined, by surface or

underground methods, the methane

that is present in the coal is vented to

the atmosphere. Methane is a

greenhouse gas that contributes to

global warming. According to the

Methane Emissions section of Energy

Information Administration/

Department of Energy (EIA/DOE)

report 0573(99), Emissions of

Greenhouse Gases in the United

States 1999, U.S. anthropogenic

methane emissions totaled 28.8

million metric tons in 1999. U.S.

1999 methane emissions from coal

mining were estimated at 2.88 million

metric tons (10 percent of the U.S.

total anthropogenic methane

emissions in 1999). According to

Table 15 of this report, surface coal

mining was estimated to be

responsible for about 0.54 million

metric tons of methane emissions in

1999. This represents about 1.88

percent of the estimated U.S.

anthropogenic methane emissions in

1999, and about 18.75 percent of the
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-116 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

estimated methane emissions

attributed to coal mining of all types.

Table 7.2 of the EIA/DOE Coal

Industry Annual Energy Review for

1999 estimated that 688.3 million

short tons of coal were produced by

surface mines in the United States in

1999. Surface mines in the Wyoming

PRB produced approximately 320

million short tons in 1999, or about

46.5 percent of the total production.

Using these numbers, it is estimated

that the Wyoming PRB coal mines

were responsible for approximately

0.9 percent of the estimated United

States 1999 anthropogenic methane

emission.

In many areas, including the PRB,

CBM is being recovered from coal and

sold. On a large scale, recovery of

CBM from the coal prior to mining by

both surface and underground

methods could potentially gradually

reduce United States emissions of

CBM to the atmosphere. In the PRB,

CBM is being produced from the coal

areas adjacent to and generally

downdip of the mines. CBM is

currently being produced from the

same coal seams that would be mined

in all five of the LBA tracts included

in this EIS. As discussed in Section

4.1.2, BLM estimates that a large

portion of the CBM reserves could be

recovered prior to initiation of mining

activity on the LBA tracts under the

Proposed Action. CBM reserves that

are not recovered prior to mining

would be vented to the atmosphere.

4.5.5 Water Resources

Surface Water

Streamflows may be reduced during

surface coal mining because SMCRA

and Wyoming state regulations

require capture and treatment of all

runoff from disturbed areas in

sedimentation ponds before it is

allowed to flow off the mine permit

areas. Also, the surface coal mine

pits in the PRB are large, and these

pits, together with ponds and

diversions built to keep water out of

the pits, can intercept the runoff from

significant drainage areas.

Changes in drainage patterns and

surface disturbance are decreasing

and will continue to decrease flows in

most of the ephemeral and

intermittent drainages exiting at the

mine sites. Development of CBM

resources in the area west of the

mines could potentially increase

surface flow in some drainages.

Currently, there is methane

production occurring in the general

analysis area. The amount of CBM

produced water that ultimately

reaches the major channels is

reduced by evapotranspiration,

infiltration into the ground, and

surface landowners, who sometimes

divert the produced water into

reservoirs for livestock use because it

is of relatively good quality. For

purposes of analysis, the PRB Oil and

Gas Project DEIS (BLM 2002a)

assumed that the discharged CBM

produced water conveyance losses

would be 80 percent due to

infiltration and evapotranspiration. A

more conservative conveyance loss

estimate is being evaluated in the

FEIS. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-117

The PRB Oil and Gas Project DEIS

estimates that the total number of

CBM wells in the Upper Cheyenne

River and Antelope Creek drainages,

in which the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, Black Thunder, North

Rochelle, and Antelope Mines are

located, will be approximately 2,900

wells by 2011. The estimated

impacts to Antelope Creek and Upper

Cheyenne River flow include

increasing the annual average flow at

the Antelope Creek gaging station

near Teckla by 0.3 to 1.0 cfs and

increasing the annual average flow of

the Cheyenne River at the Riverview

gaging station by 0.2 to 0.3 cfs during

2002 through 2017. Flow impacts

would be greater in the Antelope

Creek and Cheyenne River tributaries

within the LBA tracts, since the tracts

are closer to the CBM water discharge

locations, and conveyance losses are

therefore less than at the downstream

gaging stations. These CBM water

discharges would be constant, as

opposed to naturally occurring flows

that fluctuate widely on a seasonal

and annual basis. Most streams in

the area are naturally dry throughout

most of each year.

The U.S. Geological Survey has

predicted that, after reclamation,

major streams in the PRB will exhibit

increased runoff ranging from 0.4

percent in the Cheyenne River to 4.3

percent in Coal Creek due to

cumulative disturbance as a result of

existing surface coal mining (Martin

et al. 1988). This is based on the

assumption that unit runoff rates will

be increased after reclamation due to

soil compaction, and the percentage

changes in runoff are based on

permitted mine acreages in 1981.

The additional leases issued since

that time have increased the

permitted acreage by about 40

percent and would, under the same

assumptions, increase the U.S.

Geological Survey’s estimated runoff

increase by the same incremental

amount. This level of increase in

runoff is small compared to seasonal

and annual variability of runoff in the

PRB.

Drainage from all five southern mines

combines where Black Thunder Creek

enters the Cheyenne River. The

drainage area of the Cheyenne River

at this point is approximately 2,430

square miles. The entire area of

disturbance from these five mines as

currently permitted would impact

approximately four percent of the

drainage basin of the Cheyenne River,

and this disturbance would occur

over about 50 years. Leasing the five

proposed LBA tracts would raise this

disturbance acreage to roughly six

percent of the Cheyenne River

drainage basin at Black Thunder

Creek confluence.

Sediment concentrations should not

increase significantly in area streams

even with the addition of mining the

pending and recently issues LBA

tracts because, as discussed in

Section 4.1.5, state and federal

regulations require that all surface

runoff from mined lands pass

through sedimentation ponds or other

sediment control structures. The

potential for cumulative adverse

impacts to the Cheyenne River

drainage is also minimal because it is

typically dry for a substantial portion

of the year.

The CBM water discharges could

result in erosion and degradation of
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-118 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

small drainages, which could affect

water quality and channel hydraulic

characteristics. From a surface water

standpoint, the increased flows due to

surface CBM water discharges and

the reduced flows due to surface coal

mining would tend to offset each

other. However, conflicts could also

result. The CBM development takes

place upstream from the mines.

Provisions the mines have taken to

prevent water from entering the pits

(e.g., storage ponds or diversions)

could be adversely affected by flows

that were not included in designs or

that change conditions for future

designs.

Groundwater

As a result of statutory requirements

and concerns, several studies and a

number of modeling analyses have

been conducted to help predict the

impacts of surface coal mining on

groundwater resources in the

Wyoming portion of the PRB. Some of

these studies and modeling analyses

are discussed below.

In 1987, the U.S. Geological Survey,

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 U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Resources Investigation Report

entitled “Cumulative Potential

Hydrologic Impacts of Surface Coal

Mining in the Eastern Powder River

Structural Basin, Northeastern

Wyoming”, also known as the “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 CHIA analysis included the

proposed mining of all the 1987

leases at all of the existing mines in

the southern mine group (Jacobs

Ranch Mine, Black Thunder Mine,

North Rochelle Mine, North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, and

Antelope Mine). It did not evaluate

potential groundwater impacts related

to additional coal leasing in this area

and it did not consider the potential

for overlapping groundwater impacts

from coal mining and CBM

development. 

Each mine must assess the probable

hydrologic consequences of mining as

part of the mine permitting process.

The WDEQ/LQD must evaluate the

cumulative hydrologic impacts

associated with each proposed mining

operation before approving the mining

and reclamation plan for each mine,

and they must find that the

cumulative hydrologic impacts of all

anticipated mining would not cause

material damage to the hydrologic

balance outside of the permit area for

each mine. As a result of these

requirements, each existing approved

mining permit includes an analysis of

the hydrologic impacts of the surface

coal mining proposed at that mine. If

revisions to mining and reclamation

permits are proposed, then the

potential cumulative impacts of the

revisions must also be evaluated. If

one or more of the LBA tracts are

leased to the applicants, the existing

mining and reclamation permit for

each respective mine must be revised

and approved to include each new

lease before it can be mined.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-119

Additional groundwater impact

analyses have also been conducted to

evaluate the potential cumulative

impacts of coal mining and CBM

development. One example of these

analyses is the report entitled “A

Study of Techniques to Assess

Surface and Groundwater Impacts

Associated with Coal Bed Methane

and Surface Coal Mining, Little

Thunder Creek Drainage, Wyoming”

(Wyoming Water Resources Center

1997). This study was prepared as

part of a cooperative agreement

involving WDEQ/LQD, the Wyoming

SEO, the WSGS, BLM, OSM, and the

University of Wyoming. The Wyodak

CBM DEIS (BLM 1999a) and FEIS

(BLM 1999c) presented the results of

a modeling analysis of the potential

cumulative impacts of coal mining

and CBM development on

groundwater in the coal and overlying

aquifers as a result of coal mining

and CBM development. The technical

report for the Wyodak CBM Project

EIS modeling analyses is available for

public review at the BLM office in

Buffalo, Wyoming (Applied Hydrology

Associates, Inc. 1999). The results of

these previously prepared analyses

are incorporated by reference into

this EIS document.

The PRB Oil and Gas Project DEIS

(BLM 2002a), which was distributed

to the public January 2, 2002,

includes an updated modeling

analysis of the groundwater impacts

if an additional 39,000 new CBM

wells are drilled in the PRB by the

end of 2011. The project area for this

EIS covers all of Campbell, Sheridan,

and Johnson Counties, as well as the

northern portion of Converse County.

Another source of data on the

impacts of surface coal mining on

groundwater is the monitoring that is

required by WDEQ/LQD and

administered by the mining

operators. Each mine is required to

monitor groundwater levels and

quality in the coal and in the

shallower aquifers in the area

surrounding their operations.

Monitoring wells are also required to

record water levels and water quality

in reclaimed areas.

The coal mine groundwater

monitoring data is published each

year by GAGMO, a voluntary group

formed in 1980. Members of GAGMO

include most of the companies with

operating or proposed mines in the

Wyoming PRB, WDEQ, the Wyoming

SEO, BLM, U.S. Geological Survey,

and OSM. GAGMO contracts with an

independent firm each year to publish

the annual monitoring results. In

1991, GAGMO published a report

summarizing the water monitoring

data collected from 1980 to 1990 in

the Wyoming PRB (Hydro-Engineering

1991b). In 1996, they published a

report summarizing the data collected

from 1980 to 1995 (HydroEngineering 1996a). In 2001,

GAGMO published a report

summarizing the water monitoring

data collected from 1980 to 2000

(Hydro-Engineering 2001).

The southern group of mines uses

about 1,736 ac-ft of water per year for

drinking, sanitation, washing

equipment, and dust control.

Sources of this water include seepage

into the mine pits, sediment- and

flood-control impoundments as well

as production from the aquifers below

the coal. The five southern mines
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-120 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

pump an estimated 1,400 ac-ft per

year from the pits and dewatering

wells.

The major groundwater issues related

to surface coal mining that have been

identified are:

• the effect of the removal of the

coal aquifer and any overburden

aquifers within the mine area

and replacement of these

aquifers with spoil material;

• the extent of the temporary

lowering of static water levels in

the aquifers around the mine

due to dewatering associated

with removal of these aquifers

within the mine boundaries;

• the effects of the use of water

from the subcoal Fort Union

Formation by the mines; 

• changes in water quality as a

result of mining; and

• potential overlapping drawdown

in the coal due to proximity of

coal mining and CBM

development.

The impacts of large scale surface

coal mining on a cumulative basis for

each of these issues are discussed in

the following paragraphs.

The effects of replacing the coal

aquifer and overburden with a spoils

aquifer is the first major groundwater

concern. The following discussion of

recharge, movement, and discharge of

water in the backfill aquifer is

excerpted from the CHIA (Martin et al.

1988:24):

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 from 1990 to 2000

verify that recharge has occurred and

is continuing in the backfill (HydroEngineering 1991a, 1992, 1993,

1994, 1995, 1996b, 1997, 1998,

1999, 2000, 2001, and ACC 2001).

The water monitoring summary

reports prepared each year by

GAGMO list current water levels in

the monitoring wells completed in the

backfill and compare them with the

1980 water levels, as estimated from

the 1980 coal water-level contour

maps. In the 1991 GAGMO 10-year

report, some recharge had occurred

in 88 percent of the 51 backfill wells

reported at that time. In the GAGMO

20-year report, 79 percent of the 82

backfill wells measured contained

water.

Coal companies are required by state

and federal law to mitigate any water

rights that are interrupted,

discontinued, or diminished by

mining.

The cumulative size of the backfill

area in the PRB and the duration of
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-121

mining activity would be increased by

mining of the recently issued leases

and the currently proposed LBA

tracts. Since the mined-out areas are

being backfilled and the monitoring

data demonstrate that recharge of the

backfill is occurring, substantial

additional impacts are not anticipated

as a result of any of the pending

leasing actions. Through September

2000 more than 40 percent of the

area disturbed at the entire southern

group of mines had been backfilled

and regraded. Backfill monitoring

wells installed to date at four of the

five southern mines indicate that

recharge is occurring in the backfill.

Clinker or scoria, the baked and

fused rock formed by prehistoric

burning of the Wyodak-Anderson coal

seam, occurs all along the coal

outcrop area (Figure 4-14) and is

believed to be the major recharge

source for the spoil aquifer, just as it

is for the coal. However, not all

clinker is saturated. 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 spoil aquifer

is not being disturbed by current

mining. Clinker does not occur on

four of the five LBA tracts being

considered in this EIS.

The second major groundwater issue

is the extent of water level drawdown

in the coal and shallower aquifers in

the area surrounding the mines. In

this EIS, assessment of cumulative

impacts to groundwater related to

surface coal mining in the southern

group of mines is based on impact

predictions made by JRCC, ALC,

TCC, PRCC, and ACC for mine-related

drawdown at the Jacobs Ranch Mine,

Black Thunder Mine, North Rochelle

Mine, North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, and Antelope Mine,

respectively, and extrapolating those

drawdowns to consider mining of the

five LBA tracts included in this EIS.

Figure 4-14 depicts the extrapolated

worst-case extent of the five-ft

cumulative drawdown contour within

the Wyodak coal aquifer resulting

from the five southern mine

operations, including the five LBA

tracts included in this EIS. The

extent of the five-ft drawdown contour

is used by WDEQ/LQD to assess the

cumulative extent of impact to the

groundwater system caused by

mining operations. In Figure 4-14,

these drawdown predictions are

compared to the actual monitoring

information after 20 years of mining

and to modeled predictions in the

CHIA. Figure 4-14 shows only the

predicted drawdowns in the coal

aquifer due to mining. The limited

extent of the saturated sand aquifers

in the Wasatch Formation overburden

in the southern group of mines

dictates that drawdowns in the

Wasatch Formation are much smaller

and cover much less area than the

coal drawdowns. 

The GAGMO 20-year report provides

actual groundwater drawdown

information after 20 years of mining.

Most of the monitoring wells included

in the GAGMO 20-year report (488

wells out of 570 total) are completed

in the coal beds in the overlying

sediments, or in sand channels or

interburden between the coal beds at

16 active and proposed mine sites.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-122 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 4-14
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-123

Since 1996, some BLM monitor wells

have been included in the GAGMO

reports. The measured changes in

water levels in the coal seams after 20

years of monitoring shown on Figure

4-14, were adapted from the 2001

GAGMO 20-year report (HydroEngineering 2001). This map shows

the area where actual drawdown in

the coal seam was five ft or greater

after 20 years of mining. CBM

production has significantly affected

the extent of drawdown in the

General Analysis Area.

Figure 4-14 indicates that the

drawdowns observed after 20 years of

mining were largely beyond the extent

of cumulative drawdown due to all

anticipated mining sources predicted

in the CHIA. The addition of the

pending LBA tracts, including the five

LBA tracts included in this EIS,

would extend the predicted

cumulative extent of the five-ft

drawdown caused by coal mining

even farther beyond the cumulative

drawdown prediction in the 1988

CHIA.

The CHIA predicted the approximate

area of five ft or more water level

decline in the Wyodak coal aquifer

which would result from "all

anticipated coal mining". "All

anticipated coal mining" at that time

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 Jacobs Ranch Mine, Black

Thunder Mine, North Rochelle Mine,

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex,

and Antelope Mine were considered in

the CHIA analysis (Martin et al.

1988). The study predicted that

water supply wells completed in the

coal may be affected as far away as

eight miles from mine pits, although

the effects at that distance were

predicted to be minimal.

As drawdowns propagate 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 methane wells, few wells

are completed in the coal in the areas

west of the mines. Those wells

completed in the coal have

considerable available drawdown, so

it is unlikely that surface coal mining

would cause adverse impacts to wells

outside the immediate mine area.

Wells in the Wasatch Formation were

predicted to be impacted by

drawdown only if they were within

2,000 ft of a mine pit (Martin et al.

1988). Drawdowns occur farther

from the mine pits in the coal than in

the shallower aquifers because the

coal is a confined aquifer that is

areally extensive. The area in which

the shallower aquifers (Wasatch

Formation, alluvium, and clinker)

experience a five-ft drawdown would

be much smaller than the area of

drawdown in the coal because the

shallower aquifers are generally

discontinuous, of limited areal extent,

and often unconfined.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-124 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Of the 1,200 water supply wells

within the maximum impact area

defined in the CHIA study, about 580

are completed in Wasatch aquifers,

about 100 in the Wyodak coal aquifer,

and about 280 in strata below the

coal. There are no completion data

available for the remainder of these

wells (about 240).

If the five LBA tracts included in this

EIS are leased and mined, the

groundwater drawdown would be

extended into areas surrounding the

proposed new leases. The predicted

cumulative worst-case drawdown

effect from the five southern mines,

including the five LBA tracts included

in this EIS, is depicted on Figure 4-

14. Currently, coal drawdowns from

the Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder

and North Rochelle Mines have

coalesced, and drawdowns from the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex

and Antelope Mine have coalesced.

The areas of drawdown from the five

southern mines will coalesce in the

future with or without the addition of

mining activity on the five LBA tracts

considered in this EIS.

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 plan. In order to do that, each

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 each LBA tract that is

leased. WDEQ/LQD would use the

revised drawdown predictions to

update the CHIA for this portion of

the PRB. The applicants have

installed monitoring wells which

would be used to confirm or refute

drawdowns predicted by analysis.

This analysis would be required as

part of the WDEQ mine permitting

procedure discussed in Section 1.2.

Potential water-level decline in the

subcoal Fort Union Formation is the

third major groundwater issue.

According to the Wyoming SEO

records as of July 1999, 14 PRB

mines held permits for 42 wells

between 400 ft and 10,000 ft deep.

The zones of completion of these wells

were not specified, and not all of the

wells were producing (for example,

three of the permits were held by an

inactive mine, and one of the wells

permitted by Black Thunder Mine has

not been used since 1984).

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 one

mile of the pumped wells (Crist 1991,

Martin et al. 1988). The mine

facilities in the PRB are separated by

a distance of one mile or more, so

little interference between mine

supply wells would be expected.

In response to concerns voiced by

regulatory personnel, several mines

have conducted impact studies of the

subcoal Fort Union Formation. The

OSM commissioned a cumulative

impact study of the subcoal Fort

Union Formation to address the

effects of mine facility wells on this

aquifer unit (OSM 1984).

Conclusions from all these studies
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-125

are similar and may be summarized

as follows:

• Because of the discontinuous

nature of the sands in this

formation and because most

large-yield wells are completed

in several different sands, it is

difficult to correlate completion

intervals between wells.

• In the Gillette area, water levels

in this aquifer are probably

declining because the city of

Gillette and several subdivisions

are utilizing water from the

formation (Crist 1991). (Note:

Gillette is mixing this water with

water from wells completed in

the Madison Formation at this

time. Also, because drawdowns

have occurred, some operators

are able to dispose of CBM water

by injecting it into the subcoal

Fort Union Formation near the

City of Gillette.)

• Because large saturated

thicknesses are available

(locally) in this aquifer unit,

generally 500 ft or more, a

drawdown of 100 to 200 ft in the

vicinity of a pumped well would

not dewater the aquifer.

The four applicant mines adjacent to

the five LBA tracts included in this

EIS have permits from the Wyoming

SEO for eight subcoal Fort Union

Formation water supply wells.

Extending the life of one or more of

the mines with an LBA tract would

result in additional water being

withdrawn from the subcoal Fort

Union Formation (Tullock Member).

The additional water withdrawal

would not be expected to extend the

area of water level drawdown over a

substantially larger area due to the

discontinuous nature of the sands in

the Tullock Member and the fact that

drawdown and yield reach

equilibrium in a well due to recharge

effects. Due to the distances

separating subcoal Fort Union

Formation wells used for mine water

supply, these wells have not

experienced interference and are not

likely to in the future. The North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex wells

would be in use for roughly three to

5.5 more years if the NARO North and

South LBA Tracts are leased,

depending on which alternative is

selected. Their annual water

production may increase, though not

directly in proportion to annual coal

production, which could increase by

20 percent if the LBA tracts are

leased. The Black Thunder Mine

wells would be in use for up to 10.7

years if the Little Thunder LBA Tract

is leased, depending on which

alternative is selected. Their annual

water production may increase,

though not directly in proportion to

annual coal production, which could

increase by 11 percent if the LBA

tract is leased. The North Rochelle

Mine wells would be in use for

roughly 4.5 to 7.1 more years if the

West Roundup LBA Tract is leased,

depending on which alternative is

selected. Their annual water

production should not increase, as

annual coal production would not

increase if the LBA tract is leased.

The Antelope Mine well would not be

in use for an extended period of time

if the West Antelope LBA Tract is

leased, regardless of which alternative

is selected because mine life would

not be extended. The annual water

production may increase, though not
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-126 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

directly in proportion to annual coal

production, which could increase by

66 percent if the LBA tract is leased.

According to the Wyoming SEO, the

only permitted, non-mine water

supply wells drilled below 1,000 ft in

a 100 square-mile area surrounding

Wright are four wells permitted by the

City of Wright. As discussed above,

most of the water-level declines in the

subcoal Fort Union wells occur within

one mile of pumped wells. The Black

Thunder Mine, which is located about

six miles east of Wright, is the closest

of the four applicant mines to Wright.

None of the mines adjacent to the five

LBA tracts propose to drill new subcoal wells if they acquire additional

coal. No impacts to the water supply

for the town of Wright are anticipated

due to the distance between the

mines and the town. 

Water requirements and sources for

the proposed Two Elk and Two Elk

Two power plants near the Black

Thunder Mine are not currently

known. The Wyoming SEO is

discouraging further development of

the lower Fort Union Formation

aquifers, so the most likely

groundwater source for Two Elk

power plants is the Lance-Fox Hills.

This would reduce the chances that

the power plants would add to

cumulative hydrologic impacts of

mining.

The fourth issue of concern with

groundwater is the effect of mining on

water quality. Specifically, what

effect does mining have on the water

quality in the surrounding area, and

what are the potential water quality

problems in the backfill aquifer

following mining?

In a regional study of the cumulative

impacts of coal mining, the median

concentrations of dissolved solids and

sulfates were found to be larger in

water from backfill aquifers than in

water from either the Wasatch

overburden or the 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 which 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 CHIA, estimates of the time

required to reestablish equilibrium

range from tens to hundreds of years

(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 state standards

for livestock use when recharge

occurs (Martin et al. 1988). The

major current use of water from the

aquifers being replaced by the backfill

(the Wasatch and Wyodak Coal

aquifers) is for livestock because

these aquifers are typically too high in

dissolved solids for domestic use and

well yields are typically too low for

irrigation (Martin et al. 1988).
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-127

According to monitoring data

published by GAGMO (Hydro

Engineering 1991a, 1991b, 1992,

1993, 1994, 1995, 1996b, 1997,

1998, 1999, and 2000), TDS values in

backfill wells have ranged from 400 to

25,000 mg/L. Of the 48 backfill wells

sampled in 1999 and reported in the

2000 annual GAGMO report (HydroEngineering 2000), TDS in 75 percent

were less than 5,000 mg/L, TDS in

23 percent were between 5,000 and

10,000 mg/L, and TDS in one well

was above 10,000 mg/L. These data

support the conclusion that water

from the backfill will generally be

acceptable for its current use, which

is livestock watering, even before

equilibrium is established. The

incremental effect on groundwater

quality due to leasing and mining of

one or more of the five LBA tracts

included in this EIS would be to

increase the total volume of backfill

and, thus, the time for equilibrium to

reestablish.

The fifth area of concern is the

potential for cumulative impacts to

groundwater resources in the coal

due to the proximity of coal mining

and CBM development. The Wyodak

coal is being developed by mining and

CBM production in the same general

area. Dewatering activities associated

with reasonably foreseeable CBM

development would be expected to

overlap with and expand the area of

groundwater drawdown in the coal

aquifer in the PRB over what would

occur due to either coal mining or

CBM development alone. 

Numerical groundwater flow modeling

was used to predict the drawdown

impacts in the Wyodak CBM Project

FEIS (BLM 1999c). The modeling

considered coal mining and CBM

development in order to assess

cumulative impacts. Modeling was

done to simulate mining with and

without CBM development in order to

differentiate the impacts of the two

types of activities.

Numerical groundwater flow modeling

was also used to predict the impacts

of the cumulative stresses imposed by

mining and CBM development on the

Fort Union Formation coal aquifer in

the PRB Oil and Gas Project DEIS

(BLM 2002a). Modeling was

necessary because of the large areal

extent, variability, and cumulative

stresses imposed by mining and CBM

development on the Fort Union coal

aquifers. Information from earlier

studies was incorporated into the

modeling effort for this analysis.

As expected, modeling indicated that

the groundwater impacts from CBM

development and surface coal mining

would be additive in nature and that

the addition of CBM development

would extend the area experiencing a

loss in hydraulic head to the west of

the mining area. The 20-year

GAGMO report stated that

drawdowns in all areas have greatly

increased in the last few years due to

the water production from the

Wyodak coal aquifer by methane

producers (Hydro-Engineering 2001).

Figure 4-15 shows the cumulative

worst-case coal aquifer drawdown

map for the life of the five southern

mines (same as Figure 4-14) with the

maximum modeled drawdown

contours from the PRB Oil and Gas

Project DEIS superimposed. These

modeled composite maximum coal

drawdown contours from mining and
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-128 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Figure 4-15
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-129

CBM development would occur

during the period 2006 to 2009 and

are for the proposed action of

operating 39,367 new CBM wells and

12,077 CBM wells already drilled and

permitted for a total of 51,444 CBM

wells operating by the end of 2011

(BLM 2002a).

Figure 4-15 indicates that to the

north, south and west of the southern

mine group, the projected drawdown

in the coal aquifer due to CBM

production would exceed drawdown

due to mining. Drawdowns from

CBM development are projected to

exceed drawdowns from coal mining

as close as one mile from each of the

mines.

Drawdowns in the coal caused by

CBM development would be expected

to reduce the need for dewatering in

advance of mining, which would be

beneficial for mining. Wells

completed in the coal may also

experience increased methane

emissions in areas of significant

aquifer depressurization. There

would be a potential for conflicts to

occur over who (coal mining or CBM

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 CBM

development on water rights, a group

of CBM 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 CBM operators on

federal oil and gas leases are required

to offer this water well agreement to

the surface landowners (BLM 2002a).

The Wyodak CBM Project FEIS (BLM

1999c) established requirements for

federal CBM lessees to install

monitoring wells at specific locations

throughout the Wyodak EIS study

area. According to the PRB Oil and

Gas Project DEIS (BLM 2002a), the

CBM companies propose to continue

this program. The BLM is currently

requiring monitoring wells for

exploratory CBM development

projects outside of the Wyodak EIS

study area. 

After CBM development and coal

mining projects are completed, it will

take longer for groundwater levels to

recover due to the overlapping

drawdown impacts caused by the

dewatering and depressuring of the

coal aquifer by both operations.

4.5.6 Alluvial Valley Floors

No cumulative impacts to AVFs are

expected to occur as a result of

leasing and subsequently mining

each of the five LBA tracts. Impacts

to designated AVFs are generally not

permitted if the AVF is determined to

be significant to agriculture. AVFs

that are not significant to agriculture

can be disturbed during mining but

they must be restored as part of the

reclamation process. Impacts during

mining, prior to AVF restoration,

would be expected to be incremental,

not additive.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-130 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

4.5.7 Wetlands

Wetlands are discrete features that

are delineated on the basis of specific

soil, vegetation, and hydrologic

characteristics. Wetlands within

areas of coal mining disturbance are

impacted; wetlands outside the area

of disturbance are not directly

affected. Therefore, the impacts to

wetlands as a result of surface coal

mining are incremental, not additive.

Increasing the area to be mined

would increase the number of

wetlands that would be impacted.

The North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex has been authorized to

impact 272.60 acres of jurisdictional

wetlands, Black Thunder Mine 58.29

acres, North Rochelle Mine 20.24

acres, and Antelope Mine 76.67 acres.

These numbers would increase if the

LBA tracts are leased to these

applicants (see Sections 3.8 and 4.1.7

of this document). COE requires

replacement of all impacted

jurisdictional wetlands in accordance

with Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act. As part of the mining and

reclamation plans for each mine, COE

approves the plan to restore wetlands

and the number of acres to be

restored. Replacement of functional

wetlands may occur in accordance

with agreements with the surface

managing agency (on public land) or

by the private landowners. Federal

surface lands administered by the

USFS are included in the NARO

North, Little Thunder, and West

Roundup LBA Tracts. During mining

and before replacement of wetlands,

all wetland functions would be lost.

The replaced wetlands may not

function in the same way as the

premine wetlands did; however, all

wetlands would be replaced in

accordance with COE requirements.

4.5.8 Vegetation

Most of the land that is being or

would be disturbed is grassland,

sagebrush shrubland, or breaks

grassland and is used for grazing and

wildlife habitat. Rangeland is by far

the predominant land use in the PRB,

accounting for 92 percent of the land

use in Converse and Campbell

Counties. A small amount of

previously cultivated lands would be

disrupted by mining. At the

completion of mining, it is anticipated

that all disturbed land would be

reclaimed for grazing and wildlife

habitat, mostly in the form of mixed

native grass prairie, sagebrush

shrubland, and, where appropriate,

bottomland grassland. Some of the

minor community types, such as

those occurring on breaks, would not

be restored to premining conditions

but may be replaced to a higher level

due to use of better quality soils.

Based on annual reports prepared by

mining companies and submitted to

WDEQ, in any given year

approximately 10,000 to 15,000 acres

of land disturbed by mining activities

at the five existing southern surface

coal mines would not be reclaimed to

the point of planting with permanent

seed mixtures. Over the life of the

five southern mines, a total of

approximately 66,582 acres would be

disturbed. This disturbed area

includes all existing leases including

federal, state, and private coal. The

currently proposed NARO North,

NARO South, Little Thunder, West

Roundup, and West Antelope LBA

Tracts would add another 17,375
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-131

acres. Almost all of this acreage is

native rangeland and would be

returned to a native rangeland state

through planting of WDEQ/LQD

approved revegetation seed mixtures

as required.

Several impacts to vegetation would

occur as a result of operations at

these five mines. Most of the surface

disturbance would occur in two

vegetation types: Grassland, and Big

Sagebrush. Grassland makes up

approximately 33.4 percent of the

General Analysis Area and the Big

Sagebrush vegetation type makes up

approximately 32 percent of the

General Analysis Area. All five mines

plan to restore these two vegetation

types as required by law. It is

estimated that it would take from 20

to 100 years for Big Sagebrush

density to reach premining levels.

The Big Sagebrush component

provides important wildlife habitat

(particularly for mule deer,

pronghorn, and sage grouse). The

reduction in acreage of Big Sagebrush

vegetation type would, therefore,

reduce the carrying capacity of the

reclaimed lands for pronghorn and

sage grouse populations until

premining sagebrush density levels

are restored. Mule deer should not be

affected since they are not as

abundant in this area.

Although some of the less extensive

native vegetation types (e.g.,

Graminoid/Forb Ephemeral

Drainages) would be restored during

reclamation, the treated grazing lands

would not. Following reclamation

and release of the reclamation bond,

however, privately owned surface

lands would be returned to

agricultural management and the

areas with reestablished native

vegetation could again be subject to

sagebrush management practices.

Community and species diversities

would initially be lower on reclaimed

lands. The shrub components would

take the longest to be restored to

premining conditions. Shrub cover

and forage values would gradually

increase in the years following

reclamation. Over longer periods of

time, species re-invasion and shrub

establishment on reclaimed lands

should largely restore the species and

community diversity on these lands to

premining levels.

Over the long term, the net effect of

the cumulative mine reclamation

plans may be the restoration, at least

in part, of all vegetation types

originally found in the area. However,

the shrub component may be

substantially reduced in areal extent.

Shrubs are relatively unproductive for

livestock but very important for

wildlife. All of the vegetation types

found in the General Analysis Area,

as on the LBA tracts, are fairly typical

for this region of eastern Wyoming.

4.5.9 Wildlife

The direct impacts of surface coal

mining on wildlife occur during

mining and are therefore short-term.

They include road kills by minerelated traffic, restrictions of wildlife

movement created by fences, spoil

piles, and pits, and displacement of

wildlife from active mining areas. The

indirect impacts are longer term and

include loss of carrying capacity and

microhabitats on reclaimed land due

to flatter topography, less diverse
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-132 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

vegetative cover, and reduction in

sagebrush density.

After mining and reclamation,

alterations in the topography and

vegetative cover, particularly the

reduction in sagebrush density,

would cause a decrease in carrying

capacity and diversity on the LBA

tracts. Sagebrush would gradually

become reestablished on the

reclaimed land, but the topographic

changes would be permanent.

Cumulative impacts to most wildlife

would increase as additional habitat

is disturbed but would moderate as

more land is reclaimed. Raptor and

grouse breeding areas have been

diminishing statewide for at least the

last 30 years due, in part, to surface

disturbing activities. Coal mining

and gas exploration and development

have been identified as potential

contributors to the decline in their

breeding habitat. Therefore, surface

occupancy and disturbance

restrictions, as well as seasonal

restriction stipulations, have been

applied to operations occurring on or

near these crucial areas on public

lands. These restrictions have helped

protect important raptor and grouse

habitat on public lands, but the

success of yearlong restrictions on

activities near areas critical to grouse

has been limited because most of the

surface in the PRB is privately owned.

Erection of nesting structures and

planting of trees on reclaimed land

would gradually replace raptor

nesting and perching sites. Smalland medium-sized animals would

move back into the areas once

reclamation is completed.

Numerous grazing management

projects (fencing, reservoir

developments, spring development,

well construction, and vegetative

treatments) have also impacted

wildlife habitat in the area. The

consequences of these developments

have proven beneficial to some

species and detrimental to others.

Fencing has aided in segregation and

distribution of livestock grazing, but

sheep-tight woven wire fence has

restricted pronghorn movement.

Water developments are used by

wildlife; however, without proper

livestock management, many of these

areas can become overgrazed. The

developed reservoirs provide

waterfowl, fish, and amphibian

habitat. Vegetation manipulations

have included the removal or

reduction of native grass-shrublands

and replacement with cultivated

crops (mainly alfalfa/grass hay), as

well as a general reduction of shrubs

(mainly sagebrush) in favor of grass.

These changes have increased spring

and summer habitat for grazing

animals, but have also reduced the

important shrub component that is

critical for winter range, thus

reducing overwinter survival for big

game and sage grouse. The reduction

in sagebrush has been directly

blamed for the downward trend in the

sage grouse populations.

The regional EIS’s (BLM 1974, 1979,

1981, and 1984) predicted significant

cumulative impacts to pronghorn

from existing concentrated mining

and related disturbance as a result of

habitat disturbance and creation of

barriers to seasonal and daily

movements. Significant cumulative

indirect impacts were also predicted

because of increased human
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-133

population and access resulting in

more poaching, increased

vehicle/pronghorn collisions, and

increased disturbance in general.

However, the WGFD recently reviewed

monitoring data collected on mine

sites for big game species and the

monitoring requirements for big game

species on those mine sites. Their

findings concluded that the

monitoring had demonstrated the

lack of impacts to big game on

existing mine sites. No severe minecaused mortalities have occurred and

no long-lasting impacts on big game

have been noted on existing mine

sites. The WGFD therefore

recommended that big game

monitoring be discontinued on all

existing mine sites. New mines will

be required to conduct big game

monitoring if located in crucial winter

range or in significant migration

corridors. 

Leasing of the five LBA tracts under

the Proposed Actions would increase

the area of habitat disturbance in the

southern group of mines by 44.3

percent and would enlarge the area

where daily wildlife movement is

restricted.

The entire NARO North and South,

West Roundup, and West Antelope

LBA Tracts, and approximately 81

percent of the Little Thunder LBA

Tract as proposed are within the

Cheyenne River Pronghorn Herd Unit,

which includes 4.78 million acres.

The mining operations within the

Cheyenne River Herd Unit are the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex,

Black Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines. These mines will

cumulatively disturb 48,573 acres

within the herd unit based on existing

leases. If the five LBA tracts are

leased, the estimated mining

disturbance within the Cheyenne

River Herd Unit would increase by

about 16,344 acres to 64,917 acres.

This would represent approximately

1.4 percent of the Cheyenne River

Herd Unit area.

Approximately 19 percent of the Little

Thunder LBA Tract is within the

Hilight Pronghorn Herd Unit, which

includes approximately 546,000

acres. The mining operations within

the Hilight Herd Unit are the Caballo,

Belle Ayr, Cordero-Rojo, Coal Creek,

Jacobs Ranch, and Black Thunder

Mines. These mines will cumulatively

disturb 57,512 acres within the herd

unit based on existing leases. If the

Black Thunder LBA Tract is leased,

the estimated mining disturbance

within the Hilight Herd Unit would

increase by about 1,031 acres to

58,543 acres. This would represent

approximately 10.7 percent of the

Hilight Herd Unit area.

The five LBA tracts included in this

EIS are located within the Thunder

Basin Mule Deer Herd Unit. The herd

unit contains approximately 2.33

million acres and includes nine

permitted coal mines along Highway

59, from Caballo Mine to the north, to

Antelope Mine to the south.

Currently, permitted disturbance

within this nine-mine group includes

approximately 106,085 acres.

Addition of the five proposed LBA

tracts would increase the disturbance

area by about 17,375 acres, an

increase of 22.4 percent. The

123,460 acres of existing and

proposed mine disturbance

represents approximately 5.3 percent
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-134 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

of the 2.33 million acre Thunder

Basin Mule Deer Herd Unit. 

The WGFD big game herd unit maps

show the NARO North and South,

Little Thunder, and West Roundup

LBA Tracts are out of the normal

white-tailed deer range. However,

white-tailed deer are infrequently

recorded in the vicinity of the West

Antelope LBA Tract. Incidental

observations are generally confined to

the Antelope Creek riparian corridor.

The WGFD does not consider the five

LBA tracts to include elk use areas,

but elk have been recorded within the

vicinity of the LBA tracts over the

past several years and observed

wintering on adjacent grasslands in

recent years as well. None of the

proposed lease areas or areas within

two miles has been classified as

crucial or critical elk habitat. The

nearest crucial elk habitat is just over

four miles east of the Little Thunder

LBA Tract on the Jacobs Ranch Mine

reclaimed mine land. The WGFD

(Oedekoven 1994) designated an area

of approximately five square miles on

Jacobs Ranch Mine reclaimed or

adjacent lands as crucial winter

habitat for the Rochelle Hills elk herd.

There is potential for expansion of elk

habitat on the lease areas through

quality reclamation.

The area of active mining in the

southern group of five mines contains

significant numbers of raptor nests.

The largest concentration of nesting

activity in the area is associated with

the rough breaks country and areas

where trees have become established.

Raptor mitigation plans have been

developed and approved in the

approved mining and reclamation

plans of each mine. The raptor

mitigation plan for each mine is

subject to USFWS review and

approval before the mining and

reclamation plan is approved. Any

nests that are impacted by mining

operations must be relocated in

accordance with these plans, after

special use permits are secured from

USFWS and WGFD. The creation of

artificial raptor nest sites and raptor

perches may ultimately enhance

raptor populations in the mined area.

On the other hand, where power poles

border roads, perched raptors may

continue to be illegally shot and

continued road kills of scavenging

eagles may occur. Any influx of

people into previously undisturbed

land may also result in increased

disturbance of nesting and fledgling

raptors.

Cumulative impacts to waterfowl from

already approved mining, as well as

the five proposed LBA tracts would be

minor because most of these birds are

transient and most of the ponds in

this area are ephemeral. In addition,

the more permanent impoundments

and reservoirs that are impacted by

mining would be restored.

Sedimentation ponds and wetland

mitigation sites would provide areas

for waterfowl during mining.

Few vital sage grouse wintering areas

or leks have been, or are planned to

be, disturbed as a result of already

approved mining and no additional

wintering areas or leks would be

disturbed if the LBA tracts included

in this EIS are leased and mined.

However, noise related to the mining

activity could indirectly impact sage

grouse reproductive success. Sage

grouse leks close to active mining

could be abandoned if mining-related
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-135

noise elevates the existing ambient

noise levels. Surface coal mining

activity is known to contribute to a

drop in male sage grouse attendance

at leks close to active mining, and

over time this can alter the

distribution of breeding grouse

(Remington and Braun 1991).

Because sage grouse populations

throughout Wyoming have been

declining over the past several years,

the cumulative impact of all energy

related development occurring in the

area could be significant to the local

sage grouse population. 

The addition of the five proposed LBA

tracts to the area to be disturbed by

currently approved mining operations

in the southern PRB would

cumulatively increase a reduction in

habitat for other mammal and bird

species. Many of these species are

highly mobile, have access to

adjacent habitats, and possess a high

reproductive potential. Habitat

adjacent to existing and proposed

mine areas includes sagebrush

shrublands, upland grasslands,

bottomland grasslands, improved

pastures, haylands, wetlands,

riparian areas, greasewood

shrublands, and ponderosa pine

woodlands. As a result, these species

should respond quickly and invade

suitable reclaimed lands as

reclamation proceeds. A research

project 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 slightly less than

on adjacent undisturbed areas,

although their overall numbers were

greater (Shelley 1992).

Cumulative impacts on fish habitat

and populations would be minimal

because local drainages generally

have limited value due to intermittent

or ephemeral flows. Some of the

permanent pools along drainages

support minnows and other nongame

fish, and the larger impoundments

and streams in the area that have

fish populations would be restored

following mining.

Additional discussions of cumulative

impacts to wildlife from coal

development and industrialization of

the eastern PRB are discussed in

BLM regional EISs for the area (BLM

1974, 1979, 1981, and 1984), and

these documents are incorporated by

reference into this EIS. 

The cumulative impacts of mining the

five LBA tracts included in this EIS

would be assessed during the

WDEQ/LQD permit approval process,

if they are leased. During the permit

approval process, the mine permit

applications would be reviewed by

WGFD and WDEQ/LQD.

4.5.10 Threatened, Endangered,

Proposed, and Candidate Species and

USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species

Refer to Appendix G.

4.5.11 Land Use and Recreation

Surface coal mining reduces livestock

grazing and wildlife habitat, limits

access to public lands that are

included in the mining areas, and

disrupts oil and gas development. In

addition, when oil and gas

development facilities are present on

coal leases, all associated facilities

and equipment must be removed
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-136 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

prior to mining. Mining the coal prior

to recovery of all of the CBM

resources releases CBM into the

atmosphere. The potential impacts of

conflicts between CBM and coal

development are discussed in Section

4.1.2.

Cumulative impacts resulting from

energy extraction in the PRB include

a reduction of livestock grazing and

subsequent revenues, a reduction in

habitat for some species of wildlife

(particularly pronghorn, sage grouse,

and mule deer), and loss of

recreational access to public lands

(particularly for hunters).

There are no recreational facilities,

wilderness areas, etc., in the

immediate vicinity of the existing

southern group of mines, and the

majority of the land is seldom used by

the public except for dispersed

recreation (e.g., hunting), off-road

vehicles, and sightseeing. Hunting

and other public access is generally

limited inside of the mine permit

areas for safety reasons. However,

approximately 77 percent of this land

surface is private and access is

controlled by the landowner. Leasing

the NARO North, Little Thunder, and

West Roundup LBA Tracts would

affect access to public lands because

public lands administered by USFS

are included on these tracts. Leasing

the NARO South and West Antelope

LBA Tracts would not affect access to

public lands because no public lands

are included on these tracts.

The increased human presence

associated with the cumulative energy

development in the eastern PRB has

likely increased levels of legal and

illegal hunting. Conversely, the

mines in the area have become

refuges for big game animals during

hunting seasons since they are often

closed to hunting. Reclaimed areas

are attractive forage areas for big

game. As an example, reclaimed

lands at the Jacobs Ranch Mine have

been declared crucial elk winter

habitat by WGFD (Oedekoven 1994).

Energy development-related indirect

impacts to wildlife have resulted from

and will continue to result from

human population growth. Energy

development has been the primary

cause of human influx into the

eastern PRB. Mining the LBA tracts

under the Proposed Actions and/or

Alternatives 2 and 3 would allow a

continuation of employment and

production at the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines by up to 11 years.

The demand for outdoor recreational

activities, including hunting and

fishing, has increased proportionately

as population has increased.

However, at the same time these

demands are increasing, wildlife

habitat and populations are being

reduced. This conflict between

decreased habitat availability and

increased recreational demand has

had (or may have) several impacts:

demand for hunting licenses may

increase to the point that a lower

success in drawing particular licenses

will occur; hunting and fishing, in

general, may become less enjoyable

due to more limited success and

overcrowding; poaching may increase;

the increase in people and traffic may

continue to result in shooting of

nongame species and road kills; and

increased off-road activities may

continue to result in disturbance of
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-137

wildlife during sensitive wintering or

reproductive periods.

Campbell County’s public recreation

facilities are some of the most

extensively developed in the Rocky

Mountain Region, and use by young,

recreation-oriented residents is high.

The relatively strong financial position

of the county recreation program

appears to assure future recreation

opportunities for residents regardless

of the development of the LBA tracts

or any other specific mine. Converse

County’s recreational facilities are not

as advanced and development of the

LBA tracts and the ensuing

employment increase may increase

demand for recreational opportunities

in Converse County.

4.5.12 Cultural Resources

In most cases, treatment of eligible

sites is confined to those that would

be directly impacted, while those that

may be indirectly impacted receive

little or no consideration unless a

direct mine-associated effect can be

established. The higher population

levels associated with coal

development coupled with increased

access to remote areas can result in

increased vandalism both on and off

mine property. Surface coal mining

operations may contribute to the

permanent unintentional destruction

of segments of the archeological

record. Surface coal mining is

generally limited to lands where the

overburden thickness is relatively

thin (200 ft or less).

A majority of the known cultural

resource sites in the eastern PRB are

known because of studies at existing

and proposed coal mines. Based on

the cultural inventories conducted for

the five southern mines, there is an

estimated average density of 5.7 sites

per square mile (640 acres) in this

area and approximately 10 percent of

these sites are eligible for the NRHP.

The cultural inventories conducted on

the five LBA tracts found that the

density of sites and occurrence of

eligible sites is slightly lower than the

average density on the NARO North

and South, Little Thunder, and West

Roundup LBA Tracts, and slightly

higher than the average density on

the West Antelope LBA Tract.

Approximately 580 cultural resource

sites will be impacted by already

approved mines, with an estimated 86

of these sites being eligible for

nomination to the NRHP. These

numbers would increase if the LBA

tracts are leased.

Adverse impacts to cultural sites

include ground disturbance and

changes in setting or context.

Ground disturbance, the major

impact, can affect the integrity of or

destroy a site. Changes in setting or

context greatly impact historical

properties. Mitigation measures such

as stabilization, restoration, or

moving of buildings may cause

adverse impacts to context, in-place

values, and overall integrity.

Additionally, the loss of a site through

mitigation can constitute an adverse

impact by eliminating the site from

the regional database and/or

affecting its future research potential.

Beneficial results or impacts have

also occurred from coal development.

Valuable data have been collected

during cultural resource surveys.

Data that would otherwise not be

collected until some time in the
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-138 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

future, or lost in the interim, have

been made available for study.

Mitigation has also resulted in the

collection and preservation of data

that would otherwise be lost. The

data that has been and will be

collected provides opportunities for

regional and local archeological

research projects.

4.5.13 Native American Concerns

No cumulative impacts to Native

American traditional values or

religious sites have been identified as

a result of leasing and subsequent

mining of the NARO North and South,

Little Thunder, West Roundup, and

West Antelope LBA Tracts.

4.5.14 Paleontological Resources

Impacts to paleontological resources

as a result of the already approved

cumulative energy development

occurring in the eastern PRB consist

of losses of plant, invertebrate, and

vertebrate fossil material for scientific

research, public education

(interpretive programs), and other

values. Losses have and will result

from the destruction, disturbance, or

removal of fossil materials as a result

of surface-disturbing activities, as

well as unauthorized collection and

vandalism. A beneficial impact of

surface mining can be the exposure of

fossil materials for scientific

examination and collection, which

might never occur except as a result

of overburden removal, exposure of

rock strata, and mineral excavation.

4.5.15 Visual Resources

A principal visual impact within the

area of the five southern mines is the

visibility of mine pits and facility

areas. People most likely to see these

facilities would either be passing

through the area or visiting it on

mine-related business. Except for the

loading facilities and the draglines,

the pits and facilities are not visible

from more than a few miles away.

While sufficient capacity exists,

future changes in facilities may be

constructed to mine the LBA tracts

and to improve operating efficiency

and air quality protection at the

mines.

After mining, the reclaimed slopes

might appear somewhat smoother

than premining slopes and there

would be fewer gullies than at

present. Even so, the landscape of

the reclaimed mines would look very

much like the undisturbed landscape

within the General Analysis Area.

4.5.16 Noise

Existing land uses within the eastern

PRB (e.g., mining, livestock grazing,

oil and gas production, wildlife

habitat, and recreation) contribute to

noise levels, but wind is generally the

primary noise source. Mining on the

LBA tracts would not increase the

number of noise-producing facilities

within the eastern PRB, but it would

lengthen the time this particular

noise source would exist, expand the

area this noise source would affect,

and may augment the level of impacts

to other resources (e.g., increased

exposure of wildlife to noise impact

and increased noise impact to

recreational users). Mining-related

noise is generally masked by the wind

at short distances, so cumulative

overlap of noise impacts between

mines is not likely.
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-139

Recreational users and grazing

lessees utilizing lands surrounding

active mining areas do hear miningrelated noise, but this has not been

reported to cause a significant

impact. As stated above, wildlife in

the immediate vicinity of mining may

be adversely affected by noise;

however, observations at surface coal

mines in the area indicate that

wildlife generally adapt to noise

conditions associated with active coal

mining.

Cumulative increases in noise from

trains serving the eastern PRB mines

have caused substantial increases

(more than five dBA) in noise levels

along segments of the rail lines over

which the coal is transported to

markets. However, no significant

adverse impacts have been reported

as a result.

4.5.17 Transportation Facilities

New or enhanced transportation

facilities (road, railroads, and

pipelines) are expected to occur as a

result of energy development in the

PRB. However, no new cumulative

impacts to transportation facilities

are expected to occur as a direct

result of leasing and subsequent

mining of the LBA tracts. The

transportation facilities for the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines are already in place.

Construction of new rail facilities for

transporting the coal out of the

region, such as the proposed DM&E

railroad, would add another route of

coal transportation out of the basin,

but would not be expected to increase

the number of coal trains without an

increase in market demand for the

coal. Traffic levels from the mines

would be maintained for a longer time

period under the action alternatives.

Oil and gas pipelines on the tracts

would have to be relocated or

removed prior to mining.

4.5.18 Socioeconomics

Because of all of the energy-related

development that has been occurring

in and around Campbell and

Converse Counties in the past 30

years, socioeconomic impacts are a

major concern. Wyoming’s economy

has been structured around the basic

industries of extractive minerals,

agriculture, tourism, timber, and

manufacturing. Each of these basic

industries is important. Many

Wyoming communities depend on the

minerals industry for much of their

economic well being. The minerals

industry is by far the largest single

contributor to the economy of

Wyoming. The 2001 valuation on

minerals industry production and

property in 2000 was

$6,407,060,245, or 61 percent of the

State’s total valuation. Since most

minerals are taxed as a percentage of

their assessed valuation, this makes

the minerals industry a significant

revenue base for both local and state

government in Wyoming. Wyoming

mineral production in 2000 placed

the state first in coal production, fifth

in natural gas production, sixth in oil

production (Wyoming Department of

Administration and Information

2002), and sixteenth in nonfuel

mineral production in the United

States (USGS 2000).

Since 1990, coal production in

Campbell and Converse Counties has

increased by an average of 7.6
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-140 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

percent per year (Wyoming

Department of Commerce 1996 and

WSGS 2001c). WSGS is currently

projecting that coal production in

Campbell and Converse Counties will

decrease by 2.1 percent in 2002,

increase by 3 percent in 2003, and

increase by about one percent per

year during 2004 through 2007

(WSGS 2002b). In the first three

quarters of 2001, Wyoming coal

supplied 39 percent of the nation’s

steam coal needs, and PRB coal was

used to generate electricity for public

consumption in 28 states, Canada,

Mexico, and Spain (U.S. Department

of Energy 2002). Electricity

consumers in those states benefit

from low prices for PRB coal, from

cleaner air due to the low sulfur

content of the coal, and from the

royalties, taxes, and bonus payments

that the federal government receives

from the coal.

Locally, continued sale of PRB coal

helps stabilize municipal, county, and

state economies. By 2005, annual

coal production is projected to

generate about $2.6 billion of total

economic activity, including $351

million of personal income, and

support the equivalent of 15,885 fulltime positions (BLM 1996a).

In addition to the five proposed LBA

tracts studied in this EIS, a number

of mineral and related developments

have occurred, are in progress, or are

anticipated in Campbell County and

the surrounding area. The 90-Mw

Wygen I coal-fired power plant is

currently under construction near the

Wyodak Mine east of Gillette. The

operator of the facility, Black Hills

Energy Capital, Inc., expects the

plant to be completed by 2003 (Black

Hills Corporation 2001). A second

coal-fired plant, the 500-Mw Wygen

II, is currently being permitted

nearby. NAPG has proposed the

construction of three coal-fired power

plants in Campbell County: the 300-

Mw Two Elk and the 500-Mw Two Elk

Two plants near the Black Thunder

Mine, and the 500-Mw Middle Bear

plant near the Cordero-Rojo Mining

Complex (Billings Gazette 2001). In

addition, NAPG has proposed the

construction of a power line that

would link its two 500-Mw power

plants with interstate transmission

lines in the Front Range of Colorado

(Billings Gazette 2002). According to

Pedersen Planning Consultants

(2001), power plant development

between 2001 and 2010 could bring

over 6,000 temporary and 450

permanent jobs to Campbell County

alone.

The DM&E Railroad Corporation has

proposed the construction of a rail

line connecting its existing facilities in

South Dakota and Minnesota with

PRB coal mines. The lead regulatory

agency for the expansion project, the

Surface Transportation Board,

granted final approval in January

2002. DM&E must still obtain

permits or approvals from other

agencies including the BLM, USFS,

and COE, and several lawsuits have

been filed against the proposal

following the approval of the project

by the Surface Transportation Board

(WSGS 2002b). For Wyoming, the

estimated direct-construction

workforce is 700 persons for the

estimated $1.5 billion project.

Recently, Gillette has experienced a

population increase as a result of

CBM development in the area. In the
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-141

past several years, Gillette’s

population has increased,

unemployment has decreased,

housing has become increasingly

tight, and traffic and criminal activity

have increased. Under the Proposed

Action for the Wyoming Oil and Gas

Project DEIS (BLM 2002a), it is

assumed that CBM development

would require 2,047 employees (1,974

CBM and 67 non-CBM) for a 20-year

project life. 

If all of the new projects are

undertaken, it is likely that the

population in northeastern Wyoming

would continue to grow, and there

would be increasing demands on

housing, schools, roads, law

enforcement, and other aspects of the

communities in this area. The

population increase would be

expected to be somewhat dispersed

among all of the communities in the

area, which include Douglas, Wright,

and Newcastle as well as Gillette. The

extent of the impacts to the local

communities would depend on the

amount of overlap between the

construction periods on the proposed

projects. According to a 2001 study

of future housing needs in Campbell

County (Pederson Planning

Consultants 2001), it was estimated

that increases in CBM development

and surface coal mine employment,

coupled with the construction of

currently proposed power plants,

could increase Campbell County

housing demand by over 5,000

housing units, with the peak

occurring in about 2005. Delays in

power plant and railroad permitting

and construction could alter the

timing and magnitude of the peak in

population and housing demand. At

this time, based on the status of their

planning and permitting efforts, the

Black Hills Corporation, Inc. Wygen I

and Wygen II coal-fired power plants,

the NAPG Two Elk coal-fired power

plant, and the proposed DM&E rail

line are considered reasonably

foreseeable developments based on

the status of their planning and

permitting efforts. The NAPG Two Elk

Unit Two coal-fired power plant, and

the NAPG Middle Bear coal-fired

power plant are proposals which are

not reasonably foreseeable at this

time, and the ENCOAL coal

enhancement facility is indefinitely

postponed. Of the currently proposed

power plants, only the Wygen I plant

is currently under construction.

Construction of the other proposed

plants would be dependent on

completion of permitting

requirements and availability of

financing. Construction of the

proposed DM&E railroad is also

dependent on completion of

permitting requirements and

availability of financing as well as

resolution of legal issues. Increases

in mining employment would

potentially occur gradually as new

coal leases are permitted for mining.

Up to 186 additional jobs are

anticipated if all five LBA tracts

studied in this EIS are leased.

The construction of coal-fired power

plants and the DM&E Railroad

expansion and continued CBM

development would result in direct

fiscal benefits to city, county, and

state governments. Equipment and

facilities would be subject to excise

(sales and use) and ad valorem

(property) taxes. Counties that have

a major construction project of $50

million or larger also receive extra

revenues in the form of impact
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-142 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

assistance. According to an article in

the Gillette News-Record, if the three

NAPG power plants are constructed,

Campbell, Converse, Weston, and

Crook Counties could receive as

much as $11 million in impact

assistance (Gillette News-Record

2001c).

4.6 The Relationship Between

Local Short-term Uses of

Man*s Environment and the

Maintenance and

Enhancement of Long-term

Productivity

From 2002 on, the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex would be

able to produce coal at an average

production level of 75 mmtpy for 12

years under Alternative 1 (No Action

Alternative), compared with an

average of 90 mmtpy for 16 years

under the Proposed Action, an

average of 90 mmtpy for 17.5 years

under Alternative 2, or an average of

90 mmtpy for 15 years under

Alternative 3 (Table 2-1). From 2002

on, the Black Thunder Mine would be

able to produce coal at an average

production level of 38.3 mmtpy for 24

years under Alternative 1 (the No

Action Alternative), compared with an

average of 42.5 mmtpy for 32 years

under the Proposed Action, or an

average of 42.5 mmtpy for 34.7 years

under Alternatives 2 and 3 (Table 2-

2). From 2002 on, the North Rochelle

Mine would be able to produce coal at

an average production level of 35

mmtpy for 7.3 years under Alternative

1 (No Action Alternative), compared

with an average of 35 mmtpy for

another 11.8 years under the

Proposed Action, or an average of 35

mmtpy for 13.1 years under

Alternative 2 (13.4 years under

Alternative 2 plus Lease WYW127221 modification), or an average

of 35 mmtpy for another 14 years

under Alternative 3 (14.4 years under

Alternative 3 plus Lease WYW127221 modification) (Table 2-3).

From 2002 on, the Antelope Mine

would be able to produce coal at an

average production level of 13.9

mmtpy for another 25 years under

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative),

compared with an average of 23

mmtpy for 25 years under the

Proposed Action, an average of 24.1

mmtpy for 25 years under Alternative

2, or an average of 20.7 mmtpy for

another 25 years under Alternative 3

(Table 2-4).

As the coal is mined, almost all

components of the present ecological

system, which have developed over a

long period of time, would be

modified. In partial consequence, the

reclaimed land would be

topographically lower, and although it

would resemble original contours, it

would lack some of the original

diversity of geometric form.

The forage and associated grazing

and wildlife habitat that the LBA

tracts provide would be temporarily

lost during mining and reclamation.

During mining of the LBA tracts there

would be a combined loss of native

vegetation on 17,375 acres (Proposed

Action for all five LBA tracts) up to a

maximum of 19,943 acres (Alternative

2 for all tracts except Alternative 3

plus lease WYW-127221 modification

for the West Roundup LBA Tract) with

an accompanying disturbance of

wildlife habitat and grazing land.

This disturbance would occur

incrementally over a period of years.

The mine sites would be returned to
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-143

equivalent or better forage production

capacity for domestic livestock before

the performance bonds are released.

Long-term productivity would depend

largely on postmining rangemanagement practices, which to a

large extent would be controlled by

private landowners.

Mining would disturb pronghorn

habitat, but the LBA tracts would be

suitable for pronghorn following

successful reclamation. Despite loss

and displacement of wildlife during

mining, it is anticipated that

reclaimed habitat would support a

diversity of wildlife species similar to

premining conditions. The diversity

of species found in undisturbed

rangeland would not be completely

restored on the leased lands for an

estimated 50 years after the initiation

of disturbance. Re-establishment of

mature sagebrush habitat--which is

crucial for pronghorn and sage

grouse--could take even longer.

CBM is currently being recovered

from within and/or near each of the

LBA tracts and BLM’s analysis

suggests that a large portion of the

CBM resources on each of the tracts

can be recovered prior to mining.

CBM that is not recovered prior to

mining would be vented to the

atmosphere during the mining

process. Methane is a greenhouse

gas which contributes to global

warming. According to the Methane

Emissions section of Energy

Information Administration/

Department of Energy (EIA/DOE)

report 0573(99), Emissions of

Greenhouse Gases in the United

States 1999, U.S. anthropogenic

methane emissions totaled 28.8

million metric tons in 1999. U.S.

1999 methane emissions from coal

mining were estimated at 2.88 million

metric tons (10 percent of the U.S.

total anthropogenic methane

emissions in 1999). According to

Table 15 of this report, surface coal

mining was estimated to be

responsible for about 0.54 million

metric tons of methane emissions in

1999. This represents about 1.88

percent of the estimated U.S.

anthropogenic methane emissions in

1999, and about 18.75 percent of the

estimated methane emissions

attributed to coal mining of all types.

Based on the 1999 coal production

figure, the Wyoming PRB coal mines

were responsible for approximately

0.9 percent of the estimated U.S.

1999 anthropogenic methane

emission, and the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black

Thunder, North Rochelle, and

Antelope Mines were responsible for

approximately 0.4 percent of

estimated U.S. 1999 anthropogenic

methane emissions. Currently, the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex,

Black Thunder Mine, and Antelope

Mine anticipate increasing coal

production rates if they acquire leases

for the NARO North and South LBA

Tracts, the Little Thunder LBA Tract,

and the West Antelope LBA Tract,

respectively. The North Rochelle Mine

does not propose to increase coal

production rates if they acquire a

lease for the West Roundup LBA

Tract.

Total U.S. methane emissions

attributable to coal mining would not

be likely to decrease if one or more of

these five LBA tracts are not leased at

this time because a decision to lease

or not to lease these tracts would not

directly affect total U.S. coal
4.0 Environmental Consequences

4-144 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

production. However, the methane

on an LBA tract could be more

completely recovered if leasing is

delayed.

If these LBA tracts are leased and

mined, there would be a deterioration

of the groundwater quality in the

lease areas; however, the water

quality would still be adequate for

livestock and wildlife. This

deterioration would probably occur

over a long period of time. As a result

of mining alone, depth to

groundwater would increase within

roughly 25 miles away from the five

southern mine pits in the coal

aquifer. The water levels in the coal

aquifer should return to premining

levels at some time after mining has

ceased because recharge areas would

not be disturbed in order to recover

the coal in the LBA tracts.

Mining operations and associated

activities would degrade the air

quality and visual resources of the

area on a short-term basis. Following

coal removal, removal of surface

facilities, and completion of

reclamation, there would be no longterm impact on air quality. The longterm impact on visual resources

would be negligible.

Short-term impacts to recreation

values may occur from reduction in

big game populations due to habitat

disturbance and reduction in access

to some public lands. These changes

would primarily impact hunting in

the lease areas. However, because

reclamation would result in a wildlife

habitat similar to that which

presently exists and access to public

lands would be restored, there should

be no long-term adverse impacts on

recreation.

The long-term economy of the region

would be enhanced as a result of the

Proposed Actions and action

alternatives. The Proposed Action,

Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 would

extend the life of the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex by from

three to 5.5 years (Table 2-1). The

Proposed Action, Alternative 2, and

Alternative 3 would extend the life of

the Black Thunder Mine by from eight

to 10.7 years (Table 2-2). The

Proposed Action, Alternative 2,

Alternative 2 plus lease WYW-127221

modification, Alternative 3, and

Alternative 3 plus lease WYW-127221

modification would extend the life of

the North Rochelle Mine by from 4.5

to 7.1 years (Table 2-3). The

Proposed Action and Alternatives 2

and 3 are not predicted to extend the

life of the Antelope Mine.

4.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable

Commitments of Resources

The major commitment of resources

would be the mining and

consumption of 1,331.2 million tons

(Proposed Action for all five LBA

tracts) up to a maximum of 1,731.4

million tons (Alternative 2 for all

tracts except Alternative 3 plus lease

WYW-127221 modification for the

West Roundup LBA Tract) of coal to

be used for electrical power

generation. CBM that is not

recovered prior to mining would also

be irreversibly and irretrievably lost

(see additional discussion of the

impacts of venting CBM to the

atmosphere in Section 4.6). It is

estimated that one to two percent of

the energy produced would be
4.0 Environmental Consequences

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 4-145

required to mine the coal, and this

energy would also be irretrievably

lost.

The quality of topsoil on

approximately 17,375 acres (Proposed

Action for all five LBA tracts) up to a

maximum of approximately 19,943

acres (Alternative 2 for all tracts

except Alternative 3 plus lease WYW127221 modification for the West

Roundup LBA Tract) would be

irreversibly changed. Soil formation

processes, although continuing,

would be irreversibly altered during

mining-related activities. Newly

formed soil material would be unlike

that in the natural landscape.

Loss of life may conceivably occur due

to the mining operations and

vehicular and train traffic. On the

basis of surface coal mine accident

rates in Wyoming as determined by

the Mine Safety and Health

Administration (1997) for the 10-year

period 1987-1996, fatal accidents

(excluding contractors) occur at the

rate of 0.003 per 200,000 man-hours

worked. Disabling (lost-time) injuries

occur at the rate of 1.46 per 200,000

man-hours worked. Any injury or

loss of life would be an irretrievable

commitment of human resources.

Disturbance of all known historic and

prehistoric sites on the mine areas

would be mitigated to the maximum

extent possible. However, accidental

destruction of presently unknown

archeological or paleontological

values would be irreversible and

irretrievable.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 5-1

5.0 C O N S U L T A T I O N A N D

COORDINATION

In addition to this EIS1

, other factors

and consultations are considered and

play a major role in determining the

decision on these proposed lease

applications. These include the

following.

Regional Coal Team Consultation.

The four coal lease applications

included in this draft EIS were all

reviewed and discussed at the

October 25, 2000 PRRCT public

meeting in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Each of the applicants presented

information about their existing mine

and pending lease application to the

PRRCT at that meeting. Voting and

nonvoting members of the PRRCT

include the governors of Wyoming and

Montana, the Northern Cheyenne

Tribe, the Crow Tribal Council, the

USFS, OSM, USFWS, National Park

Service, and USGS. The PRRCT

determined that the lands in the four

applications met the qualifications for

processing as production

maintenance tracts. The PRRCT

recommended that the BLM continue

to process all four lease applications.

Governor's Consultation. The BLM

Wyoming State Director notified the

Governor of Wyoming on April 5, 2000

that PRCC had filed a lease

application with BLM for the NARO

North and NARO South LBA Tracts.

The BLM Wyoming State Director

notified the Governor of Wyoming on

April 15, 2000 that ALC filed a lease

application with BLM for the Little

Thunder LBA Tract. The BLM

Wyoming State Director notified the

Governor of Wyoming on August 24,

2000 that TCC filed a lease

application with BLM for the West

Roundup LBA Tract. The BLM

Wyoming State Director notified the

Governor of Wyoming on October 3,

2000 that ACC filed a lease

application with BLM for the West

Antelope LBA Tract.

Public Notice. A notice announcing

the receipt of the PRCC, ALC, and

TCC coal lease applications was

published in the Federal Register on

September 12, 2000. This notice also

announced the date, time, and place

of the PRRCT meeting to be held on

October 25, 2000 to discuss these

applications. BLM published a Notice

of Intent to Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement and Notice of

Scoping in the Federal Register on

October 3, 2001 and in the Gillette

News-Record on September 25, 2001

and October 2, 2001. The

publications served as public notice

that the ACC coal lease application

had been received, announced the

time and location of a public scoping

meeting, and requested public

comment on all four lease

applications.

Parties on the distribution list were

sent letters announcing the time and

location of a public scoping meeting in

September 2001. The public scoping

meeting was held on October 10,

2001 in Gillette, Wyoming. At the

public meeting, PRCC, TBCC, TCC,

and ACC personnel orally presented

information about their mines and

their needs for the coal. The

presentations were followed by a 1 Refer to page xii for a list of abbreviations

and acronyms used in this document.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

question and answer period, during

which one oral comment was made.

The scoping period extended from

October 1 through October 31, 2001,

during which time BLM received 12

written comments.

The EPA will publish a Notice of

Availability in the Federal Register for

the DEIS. The BLM will publish a

Notice of Availability and Notice of

Public Hearing in the Federal Register

for the DEIS. There will be a 60-day

comment period on the DEIS. A

formal public hearing will be held

during the 60-day comment period to

solicit public comments on the DEIS

and on the fair market value, the

maximum economic recovery, and the

proposed competitive sale of coal from

the five LBA tracts. Following the

comment period on the DEIS, the

FEIS will be prepared. Comments

received from the public, state and

federal review agencies on the DEIS

will be included in the FEIS. Parties

on the distribution list will be sent

copies of the FEIS when it is

completed, and the EPA and BLM will

publish a Notice of Availability for the

FEIS. After a 30-day availability

period, BLM will make a separate

decision to hold or not to hold a

competitive lease sale for each of the

federal coal in these five tracts. A

separate ROD will be signed for each

of the tracts. Copies of each ROD will

be mailed to parties on the mailing list

and others who commented on this

LBA during the NEPA process. After

each ROD is signed, there will be a

30-day appeal period before the ROD

is implemented.

Department of Justice Consultation

After each competitive coal lease sale,

but prior to issuance of a lease, BLM

will solicit the opinion of the

Department of Justice on whether the

planned lease issuance creates a

situation inconsistent with federal

anti-trust laws. The Department of

Justice is allowed 30 days to make

this determination. If the Department

of Justice has not responded in

writing within the 30 days, BLM can

proceed with issuance of the lease.

Other Consultations. Other federal,

state, and local governmental

agencies that were directly consulted

in preparation of this EIS are listed in

Table 5-1.

List of Preparers. This EIS was

prepared by WWC Engineering, a

third party contractor, under the

direction of the BLM. Representatives

from cooperating agencies contributed

to and participated in the NEPA

process. Tables 5-2 and 5-3 provide

listings of the BLM, USFS, and OSM

interdisciplinary team and the thirdparty consultant personnel who

prepared and reviewed this EIS.

Distribution List. This EIS was

distributed to numerous

Congressional offices, federal

agencies, state governments, local

governments, industry

representatives, interest groups, and

individuals for their review and

comment (Tables 5-4a and 5-4b).
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 5-3

Table 5-1. Other Federal, State, and Local Governmental Agencies

Consulted in EIS Preparation.

Agency or Organization Individual Position

Powder River Regional Coal Team 5 Voting Members and 

21 Nonvoting Members

Wyoming Game and Fish

Department

Lynn Jahnke Wildlife & Fish Supervisor

Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality

Air Quality Division Bernard Daily Program Manager for New

Source Review Program

Judy Shamley Sr. Analyst

Land Quality Division Donald McKenzie District III Supervisor

Doug Emme Engineer

Wyoming Department of

Administration and Information

Wayne Liu Division of Economic

Analysis, Senior Economist

Wyoming Department of Revenue Allen Black Ad Valorem Tax Division,

Administrator

Randy Bolles Mineral Tax Division,

Administrator

Wyoming Employment Center Betsy Hockert Analyst

USDA/Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Randy White Soil Scientist

USDI/OSM, Casper, Wyoming Mark Humphrey Mine Engineer
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 5-2. List of Contributors and Reviewers.

Name Project Responsibility

BLM Casper Field Office

Mike Karbs Project Supervisor

Mike Brogan Water Resources 

Joe Meyer Soils

Chris Arthur Cultural

Willie Fitzgerald Wildlife

BLM Wyoming State Office

Bob Janssen Coal Program Coordination 

Janet Kurman NEPA Coordination

Mavis Love Land Adjudication

Julie Weaver Land Adjudication

Susan Caplan Air Quality and Climate

BLM Buffalo Field Office

B.J. Earle Cultural Resources

Tom Bills Wildlife Resources

Larry Gerard Wildlife Resources

BLM National Science and Technology Center

Scott Archer Air Quality and Climate

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Western Regional Coordinating Center

Floyd McMullen EIS Project Coordinator

U.S. Forest Service 

Douglas Ranger District

JoAnne Homuth EIS Project Coordinator and Paleontological Resources

Joe Reddick Project Coordination 

Tim Byer Wildlife Resources 

Ian Ritchie Cultural Resources

U.S. Forest Service

Nebraska National Forest

Barbara A. Beasley Paleontological Resources
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 5-5

Table 5-3. List of Preparers.

Name Education/Experience Responsibility

BLM Casper Field Office

Nancy Doelger M.S., B.S. Geology,

25 years professional experience

EIS Project Leader/Editor

BLM Wyoming State Office

Reservoir Management Group

Dwain McGarry B.S. Graduate Study, Geology,

24 Years professional experience

CBM Geology 

Lee Almasy B.S. Petroleum Engineering,

6 years professional experience

CBM Reservoir

Engineering

WWC Engineering-Third Party Contractor

Ken Collier B.S. Geology,

24 years professional experience

(Licensed Wyoming Geologist)

Project Management

Report Preparation

Doyl Fritz M.S., B.S. Civil Engineering,

31 years professional experience

(Licensed Professional Engineer)

Report Preparation

Steve Holzerland M.S., B.S. Rangeland Ecology and

Watershed Management,

12 years professional experience

Report Preparation

Jack Fritz B.S. Chemical Engineering,

4 years professional experience

Report Preparation

Mal McGill 2 years professional experience CADD

Rodney Ventling 11 years professional experience CADD

Heidi Robinson 10 years professional experience Document Production

Intermountain Resources-Subcontractor 

Jim Orpet M.S., B.S. Wildlife Management,

23 years professional experience

Physical Resources

Russell Tait B.S. Wildlife Management,

10 years professional experience

Physical Resources

GCM Services, Inc.-Subcontractor

David Ferguson M.A. Anthropology,

14 years professional experience

Cultural Resources

Garren Meyer B.A. Anthropology,

10 years professional experience

Cultural Resources

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc.-Subcontractor

Phil Dinsmoor M.S. Landscape Architecture,

B.S. Landscape Architecture/Natural

Resource Management,

25 years professional experience

Air Quality

Robin Carlson B.S. Geology,

18 years professional experience

(Licensed Wyoming Geologist)

Air Quality
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5-6 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 5-3. List of Preparers (Continued).

Name Education/Experience Responsibility

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc.- Subcontractor

Brenda Schladweiler B.S. Range Management,

M.S. Soil Science,

23 years professional experience

Vegetation Baseline

Paige Wolken B.A. Biology,

M.S. Plant and Soil Science,

8 years professional experience

Vegetation Baseline

Heidi Smith B.S. Horticulture,

M.S. Agronomy,

3 years professional experience

Vegetation Baseline

Thunderbird Wildlife Consulting, Inc.-Subcontractor

Kort Clayton M.S. Biology,

8 years professional experience

Wildlife Baseline

Kimberly Brown M.S. Biology,

10 years professional experience

Wildlife Baseline

Gwyn McKee M.S. Wildlife Ecology,

15 years professional experience

Wildlife Baseline

Bonnie Postovit M.S. Zoology,

25 years professional experience

Wildlife Baseline

Howard Postovit M.S. Wildlife Ecology,

25 years professional experience

Wildlife Baseline

William Winland B.S. Biology,

15 years professional experience

Wildlife Baseline

Argonne National Laboratories

Kyong C. Chun PhD. Environmental Health Engineering,

30 years professional experience

Air Quality Impact

Assessment

Young-soo Chang Ph.D. Chemical Engineering,

20 years professional experience

Air Quality Impact

Modeling
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 5-7

Table 5-4a. BLM Distribution List for Coal Leasing.

Federal & State Officials

Governor of Wyoming Jim Geringer

Governor of Montana Judy Martz

U.S. Representative Barbara Cubin

U.S. Senator Craig Thomas

U.S. Senator Mike Enzi

Wyoming Senator Bill Barton

Wyoming Representative Bruce Burns

Wyoming Representative Nick Deegan 

Wyoming Senator Dick Erb

Wyoming Representative John Hines

Wyoming Senator Tom Kinnison

Wyoming Representative Jack Landon

Wyoming Representative George McMurtry

Wyoming Representative Douglas Osborn

Wyoming Senator John Schiffer

Wyoming Representative Jeff Wasserburger

Wyoming Senator Steve Youngbauer

Federal Agencies

BLM Washington Office

BLM Buffalo Field Office

BLM Casper Field Office

BLM Montana State Office

BLM Powder River Field Office

BLM Rawlins Field Office

BLM Wyoming State Office

Bureau of Indian Affairs (multiple offices)

Bureau of Reclamation

Department of Energy

EPA Region VIII

Federal Highway Administration

HQ-USAF/CEVP

Mineral Management Service 

National Park Service, Washington Office

National Park Service, Air Resources Div.

Devils Tower National Monument

Office of Surface Mining, Washington Office

OSM, Western Regional Coordinating Ctr.

OSM, Casper Office

USDI Rocky Mountain Regional Solicitor

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, WY

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia

U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Federal Ctr.

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resource Div.

USDA Forest Service, Washington Office

USDA Forest Service Rocky Mtn. Region

USDA Forest Service, Med. Bow Nat’l Forest

USDA Forest Service, Douglas Ranger Dist.

State Agencies

Montana Office of the Governor

Wyoming Clearinghouse Coordinator

WY Employment Research & Planning Dept.

Wyoming Dept. of Environmental Quality--

Land Quality & Air Quality Divisions

Wyoming Div. of Economic Analysis

Wyoming Office of Federal Land Policy

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Comm.

Wyoming Parks & Cultural Resources Dept.

Wyoming State Engineer's Office

Wyoming Department of Transportation

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office

Wyoming Game & Fish Department

Wyoming Business Council

Wyoming Department of Agriculture

Wyoming Industrial Siting Division

Wyoming Public Service Commission

Wyoming State Geological Survey

Wyoming State Inspector of Mines

Wyoming Water Development Commission

Local Agencies and Government

Big Horn County, Montana Planning Board

Campbell County, Wyoming Commission

Campbell Cty, WY School Superintendent

City of Douglas, Wyoming

City of Gillette, Wyoming

City of Newcastle, Wyoming

Converse County, Wyoming Commissioners
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5-8 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 5-4a. BLM Distribution List for Coal Leasing (Continued).

Converse County, Wyoming School District

Converse Cty., Wyoming Joint Powers Board

Converse County, Wyoming Planning Office

Powder River County, Montana

Rosebud County, Montana Commission

Town of Wright, Wyoming

 Weston County, Montana Commission

Tribal Organizations and Individuals

Arapahoe Business Council

C'Hair, William

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

E. Shoshone Spiritual Leader

E. Shoshone Tribal Attorney

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe

Long Sioux, Clifford

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

N. Arapaho Historian

N. Cheyenne Cultural Committee

N. Cheyenne Tribal Council

N. Cheyenne Tribe

Oglala Sioux Tribal Administration

Oglala Sioux Tribal Council

Rosebud Sioux Tribe

S. Cheyenne/S. Arapaho Tribes

Santee Sioux Tribal Council

Shoshone Business Council

Sicangu Lakota Treaty Council

Standing Rock Sioux Agency

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Organizations

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Big Horn Audubon Society

Campbell County Economic Dev. Corp.

Cheyenne Audubon Society

Foundation for N. American Wild Sheep

Friends of the Bow/Biodiversity Assoc.

Izaak Walton League of America

Medicine Wheel Coalition

Murie Audubon Society

National Mining Association

National Wildlife Federation

Natural Resources Defense Council

Petroleum Association of Wyoming

Powder River Basin Resource Council

Sierra Club (Sheridan, Wyoming)

The Fund for Animals

The Nature Conservancy

Wildlife Management Institute

Wyoming Assoc of Professional Archeologists

Wyoming Bankers Association

Wyoming Business Alliance

Wyoming Geological Association

Wyoming Mining Association

Wyoming Outdoor Council

Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Wyoming Wool Growers Association

Companies/Businesses

American Colloid Company

Antelope Coal Company

Ark Land Company

Arnjac

Belle Ayr Mine

Bjork, Lindley, Danielson & Baker, P.C.

Bridgeview Coal Company

Buckskin Mine

Burlington Northern Railroad Company

Burns & McDonnell

C.H. Snyder Company

CE&MT, Incorporated

CH2M Hill

Consol, Inc., Exploration & Land Dept.

Cordero-Rojo Mine Complex

Decker Coal Company

Dry Fork Coal Company

Ducker, Montgomery, Lewis, & Aronstein

Duke Energy

Eagle Butte Mine

ECC
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 5-9

Table 5-4a. BLM Distribution List for Coal Leasing (Continued).

ENCOAL

Environmental Solutions, Incorporated

Evergreen Enterprises

Foster-Wheeler Environmental

Glenrock Coal Company

Greystone

Hardin & Associates

Independent Consultants Network

Independent Production Company

Intermountain Resources

Jacobs Ranch Coal Corporation

Kennecott Energy Company

Kenneth R. Paulsen Consultants

Kfx Wyoming Incorporated

Kiewit Mining Company

KN Energy

L.E. Peabody & Associates

M&K Oil Company, Incorporated

Marston & Marston

McGraw-Hill

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc.

Meineadair Consultants

Mine Engineers, Incorporated

Mining Associates of Wyoming

Nerco Coal Company

North Rochelle Mine

Norwest Mine Services

P&M Coal Company

Pacificorp/Interwest Mining

PIC Technologies

Poudre Environmental Consulting

Powder River Coal Company

Powder River Eagle Studies

Powder River Energy Corporation

RAG Coal West, Incorporated

Redstone Resources 

Riverside Technology, Incorporated

Royal Gold Incorporated

San Juan Coal Company

Shea & Gardner

The Rim Companies

Thunder Basin Coal Company

Thunder Basin Coalition

Torch Energy

TRC Environmental

TRC Mariah Associates Incorporated

Triton Coal Company

URS Greiner Woodward Clyde

U.S. West Communications

Western Energy Company

Western Fuels Association

Western Gas Resources

Williams Production RMT Company

WWC Engineering

Wyodak Resources Dev. Corporation

Yates Petroleum Company

Press

Associated Press 

Casper Journal

Casper Star Tribune

Cheyenne-Wyoming Eagle 

Douglas Budget

Gillette News-Record

Rocky Mountain Oil Journal

Western Coal Newsletter 

Educational Institutions

Northwestern Univ. Policy Research Inst.

UW Libraries, Coe Reference Department 

CSU, The Libraries 

Individuals

Antelope, Sr., Howard

Barbero, Ralph

Benson, Scott

Bierman, Sheldon

Cundy, Cecil

Daub, Jerry

Higgins, Nancy

Jacob, Gerald

Natta, F.L.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5-10 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 5-4a. BLM Distribution List for Coal Leasing (Continued).

Olson, Ted

Robertson, C.J.

Saulcy, Bill

Williams, John

Winland, Mark

Table 5-4b. Distribution List for SPRB Coal Draft EIS.

Individuals

Addison, Rodney

Amber , Richard

Anderson, Jacque Putnam

Baalman, Lynne & Mark

Balog, Peter

Bartlett, Randy

Beal, Carl & Mitzi

Bishop, Hugh & Valeri

Boland, Edward

Bovey, Glenn S.

Bradshaw, Donald B.

Breecher, V.M.

Brenk, William C.

Brenk, Charles A.

Broadhead, Dean

Brown, Maurice

Budd, May

Cagle, Bill

Cavaiuolo, John P.

Champion, W.H.

Cheesema, Rilla

Cogil, Jolene A.

Collins, GF Trust

Columbus, Joseph A.

Cook, D.L.

Cook, Rita C.

Crandall, Terry R.

Crary, Calvert D.

Culver Trust, A.M.

Dale, Robert L.

Dean, Hudson

Deemar, Irving R.

DeFevere, Brandy Jo

Delzell, Larry

Deputy, Robert W.

Devlin, James A.

Diefenderfer, Michael R.

Dilts, John C. & Betty

Dilts, Jerry and Barbara

Dilts, Fred W.

Dix, David R.

Dorman, Jenise E.

Dorough , Thomas A.

Dymond, Michael S.

Ellbogen, John P.

Engle, Fred L.

Faith, J. Gregory

Farley, Thomas H.

Gallegos, Beth H.

Gamberg, Russell J.

Gates, John W.

Gibbons, J.P.

Gray, Martha

Haefele, James & Estelle

Hammond, William C.

Hando, Ronald E.

Hanson, Joyce A.

Harden, James L.

Harrell, J.S.

Harvey, M.J.

Head, Debra Johnson

Hobson, DeMar Johnson

Holt, David T.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 5-11

Table 5-4b. Distribution List for SPRB Coal Draft EIS (Continued).

Horn, Clarence W.

Isenberger, Matthew & Peggy

Jacobs, Donald F.

Jacobs, Donald & Rosemae

Johnstone, Wilma

Kane, Ollie M.

Kane, Frank & Patsy

Kaufman, Marcella

Keisling, James D.

Kelly, Gale O. & Patsy R.

Kennedy, M. John

Kentta, Harold

Killion, B.K.

Klabzuba, Robert

Klaenhammer, H.M.

Klungness, Milton L.

Klurfeld, Gregor

Krokosz, Emily

Kuta, Delores

Kutter, Julie E.

Ladd, Jerry D.

Larmon, Jim S. & Connie L.

Lauchnor, Emily H.

Lawson, Don & Marjorie

Leutwyler, Scott

Litton, Patricia L.

Lunning, Leonard

Mackey, Robert & Dorothy

Mackey, William

Macy, Rose T.

Madrid, Louis A.

Mares, Ben E.

McBride, Dorothy L.

McCurley, Karan Lea Kane

Medema, James & Millie

Miller, Mary Lou

Mills, Clark & Doris

Mills, Dale & Edith

Mitchell, Victor, Cynthia

Nelson, Richard R.

Nimmo, Jolynn & Terry

Noonan, Thomas J.

O'Connell, R.K.

Ogle, Morris E.

Ostling, Michael E.

Ostling, Susan M.

Pasternak, Alan B.

Peel, Daniel

Provine, Charles & Evelyn

Putnam, Forest & Jan

Putnam, Harry

Putnam, Forest

Randolph, Rex L.

Rasmussen, Donald B.

Redle, William D.

Reid, Stewart

Reno, Floyd C. & Eda

Reynolds, Kathleen Ann 

Rickard, O.L.

Robinson, Thomas M.

Roderick, Jonathan & Carol

Roemer, Lamar B.

Rogers, Keating M.

Rogers, Geri

Rogers, Richard J.

Rousch, Linda

Sauble, Dennis Mackey

Saye, Frank M.

Schlenker, Kenneth

Schulte, Frank L.

Shainholtz, James & Barbara

Sharp, Jim L.

Sheets, R.P.

Shockley, Melba J.

Shogrin, F.L.

Smolik, Leroy M.

Smolik, Robert G.

SnowBillie, Ruth

Spencer, Russell A.

Sprinkle, Joseph A.

Stadelman, Diana & Joseph

Stalls, I.L.
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5-12 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 5-4b. Distribution List for SPRB Coal Draft EIS (Continued).

Stone, Elizabeth

Storms, Michael C.

Storms, Robert F.

Strang, John P.

Stuart, Paul R.

TeSelle, Roger

Thomas, Vern Guy

Treichel, William

Tsukishima, Mary S.

Tucker, Julian C.

Tucker, Toni A.

Tucker, R. Lee

Vaught, George G.

Voiles, Joy Lynn Kane

VonDrehle, William F.

Wagner, Richard L.

Wanger, Sharlene

Wanger, Deena L.

Weese, Jennie 

M.Weinmann, John G.

Weinstein, Ethel B.

Wilkinson, Jerry

Wilkinson, John Allen

Wold, John S.

Worthington, Tina Marie

Wunderlich, Leann A.

Young, Dennis

Businesses/Organizations

A.G. Andrikopoulos Res., Incorporated

AE Investments, Incorporated

Altex Oil Corporation

American Exploration Company

American Oil & Gas Corporation

American Prod. Partnership Ltd III

Ameriplor Corporation

Andover Oil Company

APC Operating Partnership

Axcon Corporation

B&J Resources LLC

B.S. & B. Oil Company

Bank One, Texas

Bankers Trust Company

Bankfirst

Basin Exploration, Incorporated

BBI Company

Beacon Exploration Company

Beard Oil Company

Belle Fourche Pipeline Company

Berenergy Corporation

Big West Oil & Gas, Incorporated

Black Hills Exploration & Production Co.

Black Magic #1, LLC

Blake Construction Company

Bowers Oil & Gas, Incorporated

Box Creek Mineral Ltd Partnership

Bridle Bit Ranch Company

Buck Stanley Trust

Burlington Northern Railroad

BWAB LLC

Caroline Hunt Trust Estate

Cenex Harvest States Coop

Chemical Bank

Chisholm Trail Ventures, L.P.

Citation 1998 Investment, L.P.

CNG Producing Company

Coastal Oil & Gas Corporation

Columbus Energy Corporation

Cometra-Bank-Texas

Conoco, Incorporated

Coral Petroleum, Ltd.

Cramer Oil Company

Credit Lyonnais New York Branch

Crest Resources, Incorporated

D&D Resources

Daven Corporation

Davis Oil Company

Dee Bentley, Incorporated

Dever Minerals

Devon Energy Corporation
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 5-13

DNR Oil & Gas Incorporated

Double Eagle

Table 5-4b. Distribution List for SPRB Coal Draft EIS (Continued).

Dymond Resources Ltd. Partnership

Eland Energy

Eloise McKee Trust

Energen Resources MAQ, Incorporated

Enterprise 1987 Ltd.

Eureka Oil Company

Fairway Resources, Incorporated

Fayette Oil & Gas Corporation

FDIC

FDM Property Trust

Fidelity Oil Holdings, Incorporated

Fina Oil & Chemical

First Interstate Bank of Commerce

First Interstate Bank of Denver 

Forcenergy Gas Exploration

Four G Oil Company

Four-Ten Exploration

FSU Foundation

Future Realty, Incorporated

G.H. Corporation

Gene F. Lang & Company

Geotech Production Company

Gordon L. Heele Trust

GPM Incorporated

Gunsmoke Production Company

Hanson & Strahn, Incorporated

Headington Oil Company, L.P.

Hewitt Family Partnership

High Plains Associates, Incorporated

Howell Petroleum Corporation

Hunt Oil Company

Hurley Oil Properties

Independent Production Company

Internationale Nederlanden (U.S.)

Interstate Investment Company

Intoil, Incorporated

J.A. Humphrey Trust

J.K. Brown Holdings, Incorporated

Jenne, Lucile Trusts I & II

Jetta Production Company Inc./JPC LLC

Jim's Water Service

JN Exploration & Production L.P.

JRJ Ranches

KAB Acquisition L.P.-III

Kaffka & Company

Kaiser-Francis Oil Company

Karen McDonald Trust

Kenneth F. Cummings & Company

Kenneth Revland Trust

Kerr McGee Corporation

Key Production Company

Kirby Minerals

KN Gas Gathering, Incorporated

KN Production Company

L.B. Industries

Lance Oil & Gas Company

LFL Joint Venture Investments

Lloyd Company

Lucille F. Emery Trust

LY Ltd. Liability Company

Lyeth-Burk Partnership

Mach Petroleum, Incorporated

Machris, Maurice A. Trust

Malibu Presbyterian Church

Manufacturers Hanover Trust

Marathon Oil Company

Martin Exploration Management Company of 

Maxim Drilling & Exploration

Maxus Exploration Company

McCullis Resources Company, Incorporated

McMurry Oil Company

McNeil Street Drilling Venture

Meany Land & Exploration, Incorporated

Merit Petroleum Company

MIGC, Incorporated

Morse Acquisition LLC
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5-14 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Mullinex Associates 69/Mullinex 

Murjo Oil & Royalty Company

N. American Explorer, Incorporated

Naomi Hopkins Trust

Nationsbanc Leasing Corp. of N. America 

New England Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Table 5-4b. Distribution List for SPRB Coal Draft EIS (Continued).

Nortex Corporation

North Baptist Church

Northern Production Company, Incorporated

Norwest Bank of Colorado

Norwest Bank of Denver, Trustee

Ocean Energy, Incorporated

Oilfield Salvage & Service

Olive Oil, L.C.

Oxy USA, Incorporated

PAMCO Investments Corporation

Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company

Pathfinder Energy, Incorporated

Paul Revere Life Insurance Company

Peak Resource Management, Incorporated

Pennzoil Corporation

Perry & Butler

Perry R. Bass, Incorporated

Petro Atlas Corporation

Petroleum, Incorporated

Phillips Petroleum Company

Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company

Platte Valley Management Company

Powder River Coal Company

Powder River Oil & Gas Vent., LLC

Preston, Reynolds, & Company,

Incorporated

Prima Oil & Gas Company

Princess Properties, LLC

Providence Energy Corporation

Providence Mutual Life Ins. Company

Questar Exploration & Production

R.E. McDonald & Company

R.W. Scott Investments, LLC

Ralph W. Zimmer Trust

RBC Exploration Company

Redle, Yonkee, & Toner

Redstone Resources

Resources Investment Corporation

Reunion Energy Company

Richard Altman & Company

Rockrimmon Royalty Company, LLC

ROEC, Incorporated

Ryder Stilwell Oil

Samson Hydrocarbon Company

Scorpio Resources

Seco Energy Corporation

Shell Western E&P Company

Sioux Ranch, Incorporated

Skelly Oil Company

Smithco Properties

Sonat Exploration Company

South Coast Oil Corporation

Spear Lazy S Land Company

Sports Resources, Incorporated

Spring Creek Ranch, LLC

Stanwich Energy Company

State Leases, LLC

States, Incorporated

Stockman's Bank & Trust

Stroock & Rogers

Sunshine Valley Petroleum Corporation

Swift Energy Company

Talala Corporation

Tarus Exploration USA, Incorporated

TBI Exploration, Incorporated

TCPL Resources USA, Ltd.

Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc.

Textron Collective Investment Trust
5.0 Consultation and Coordination

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 5-15

The Chase Manhattan Bank

The Daube Company

The Esperanza Corporation

The Oswald Family Trust

The Thermo Company

Thorofare Resources

Tindall Operating Company

Tom Brown, Incorporated

Two Rivers Ranch

TXP Operating Company

U.S. National Bank Association

United Pipe & Supply, Incorporated

United States National Bank of Ogden

University of Montana

Unocal

Table 5-4b. Distribution List for SPRB Coal Draft EIS (Continued).

U.S. West Communications, Incorporated

Vale Company

Vastar Resource, Incorporated

Victoria Exploration, Incorporated

Walker Trust

Wells Resources, Incorporated

Wellstar Corporation

Western Production Company

Western Ranches International

Westport Oil & Gas Company, Incorporated

Westtex 66 Pipeline Company

Whiting Petroleum Corporation

WP Properties Corporation

Young Trust

ZAB, Inc./Zalman Resources
6.0 References Cited

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 6-1

6.0 REFERENCES CITED

Antelope Coal Company, 1982-2001,

Antelope Coal Mine Annual

Reports. On file with

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

, 1998, Antelope Mine Permit,

WDEQ Surface Mine Permit 525-

T6, approved October 29, 1998.

On file with WDEQ/LQD,

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

, 1999, Permit No. 525 Horse

Creek Amendment/Revision

Application, December 15, 1999.

On file with WDEQ/LQD,

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

, 2000, Lease By Application for

the West Antelope Tract

Proposed Lease Area, presented

to BLM Wyoming State Office,

September 7, 2000.

, 2001, Antelope Mine State

Decision Document, Permit No.

525-T6-A1, Change No. 18,

December 4, 2001. On file with

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

Applied Hydrology & Associates, Inc.,

1999, Technical Report on

Groundwater Modeling of CBM

Development, Powder River

Basin, Wyoming. Prepared for

BLM, Buffalo, Wyoming.

Argonne, 2002, Technical Support

Document - Air Quality Impact

Assessment for the Montana

Final Statewide Oil and Gas

Environmental Impact Statement

and Proposed Amendment of the

Powder River and Billings

Resource Management Plans and

the Final Environmental Impact

Statement and Draft Planning

Amendment for the Powder River

Basin Oil and Gas Project.

Prepared for the U.S.

Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management,

Montana and Wyoming State

Offices, by the Environmental

Assessment Division, Argonne

National Laboratory. Argonne,

Illinois.

Billings Gazette, 2000, “Western Area

Power Administration Delays

Review of Plan for Power Plant”,

February 5. Acquired from

website on the Internet:

<http//www.billingsgazette.

com>.

, 2001, “Group finds partner to

build Wright power plant”,

October 18. Acquired from

website on Internet:

<http://www.billingsgazette.

com/index>.

Black Hills Corporation, 2001, Press

release February 26, 2001.

Acquired from website on

Internet: <http://www.black

hillscorp.com/022601.html>.

Borden, G.W., R.R. Fletcher, and D.T.

Taylor, 1994, “Economic Impact

of Coal on Wyoming’s Economy”,

Cooperative Extension Service

Department of Agricultural

Economics, College of

Agriculture, University of

Wyoming, B-987.
6.0 References Cited

6-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Bureau of Land Management, 1974,

Final Environmental Impact

Statement, Eastern Powder River

Basin of Wyoming. U.S.

Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management.

, 1979, Final Environmental

Impact Statement, Proposed

Development of Coal Resources

in the Eastern Powder River

Wyoming. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Washington, D.C.

, 1981, Final Powder River

Regional Coal Environmental

Impact Statement. U.S.

Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management,

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

, 1983, Final Environmental

Impact Statement on the Riley

Ridge Natural Gas Project,

Sublette, Lincoln, and

Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming.

BLM-YA-EA-84-002-1327.

Prepared by Environmental

Research and Technology, Inc.,

for the U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land

Management, Wyoming State

Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

, 1984, Draft Environmental

Impact Statement for Round II

Coal Lease Sale in the Powder

River Region. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, State Office,

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

, 1985a, Buffalo Resource Area

Resource Management Plan

Environmental Impact

Statement. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Buffalo Resource

Area, Casper, Wyoming.

, 1985b, Platte River Resource

Area Resource Management Plan

Environmental Impact

Statement. Platte River

Resource Area, Casper,

Wyoming.

, 1988, NEPA Handbook H1790-1. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.

, 1989, Manual 3420,

Competitive Coal Leasing. U.S.

Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management.

, 1991, Powder River Regional

Coal Team Operational

Guidelines for Coal Lease-ByApplications. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.

, 1992a, Final Environmental

Assessment for the West Black

Thunder Coal Lease Application.

U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management,

Casper District Office, Casper,

Wyoming.

, 1992b, Final West Rocky Butte

Coal Lease Application

Environmental Impact

Statement. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Casper District

Office, Casper, Wyoming.

, 1992c, Final Environmental

Assessment for the North
6.0 References Cited

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 6-3

Antelope and Rochelle Coal

Lease Application for Powder

River Coal Company. Casper

District Office, Casper, Wyoming.

, 1995, Final Environmental

Assessment for the Antelope Coal

Lease Application. U.S.

Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management,

Casper District Office, Casper,

Wyoming.

, 1996a, Draft Economic

Summary for the Buffalo

Resource Area. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Casper District

Office, Buffalo, Wyoming.

, 1996b, Draft Natural Systems

Paper for the Buffalo Resource

Area*s Land Use Plan. U.S.

Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management,

Casper District Office, Buffalo,

Wyoming.

, 1996c, Draft Environmental

Consequences of Existing

Management for the Buffalo

Resource Area. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Casper District

Office, Buffalo, Wyoming.

, 1996d, Draft Existing

Management of the Buffalo

Resource Area. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Casper District

Office, Buffalo, Wyoming.

, 1996e, Southern Powder River

Basin Coal Leasing Study. U.S.

Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management,

State Office, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

, 1996f, Coal Development Status

Check Powder River Federal Coal

Region Montana & Wyoming

Data Tables. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Casper District

Office, Casper, Wyoming.

, 1996g, Draft Energy Resources

Booklet for the Buffalo Resource

Area. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Casper District

Office, Buffalo, Wyoming.

, 1997a, Draft and Final Gillette

South CBM Project

Environmental Impact

Statement, U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Buffalo Resource

Area, Buffalo, Wyoming.

, 1997b, Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the North

Rochelle Coal Lease Application

(WYW127221). U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Casper District

Office, Casper, Wyoming.

, 1998, Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the Powder

River Coal Lease Application

(WYW136142) and Thundercloud

Coal Lease Application

(WYW1361458), Casper District

Office.

, 1999a, Wyodak Coal Bed

Methane Project Draft

Environmental Impact
6.0 References Cited

6-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Statement. Buffalo Field Office,

Buffalo, Wyoming.

, 1999b, Final Environmental

Assessment WY-070-EA-9-191

for the Proposed Enron (Belco)-

BLM Coal Lease Exchange

WYW322794. Casper Field

Office, October 1999.

, 1999c, Wyodak Coal Bed

Methane Project Final

Environmental Impact

Statement. Buffalo Field Office,

October 1999.

, 2000a, Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the Horse

Creek Lease Application

(WYW141435), Casper Field

Office, Casper, Wyoming.

, 2000b, Instruction

Memorandum No. 2000-081,

Policy on Conflicts between CBM

and Coal Development,

Washington Office, Washington,

D.C., February 2000.

, 2000c, Wyodak Drainage Coal

Bed Methane Environmental

Assessment, EA #WY-070-01-

034. USDI BLM, Buffalo Field

Office, Buffalo, Wyoming.

, 2001a, Approved Resource

Management Plan for Public

Lands Administered by the

Bureau of Land Management.

Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo,

Wyoming. Available from

website on Internet:

<http://www/wy.blm.gov>.

, 2001b, Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the North

Jacobs Ranch Coal Lease

Application (WYW146744).

Casper Field Office, Casper,

Wyoming.

, 2002a, Draft Environmental

Impact Statement and Draft

Planning Amendment for the

Powder River Basin Oil and Gas

Project. Buffalo Field Office,

January 2002.

, 2002b, Powder River Basin coal

lease information, available on

the Internet as of March 2002:

<http://www.wy.blm.gov>.

, 2003, Final Environmental

Impact Statement and Draft

Planning Amendment for the

Powder River Basin Oil and Gas

Project. Buffalo Field Office,

Buffalo, Wyoming. January

2003.

, in press, Final Statewide Oil

and Gas Environmental Impact

Statement and Proposed

Amendment of the Powder River

and Billings Resource

Management Plans. Montana

State Office, Billings, Montana.

Buresh, Tammy, Wright Water and

Sewer District, October 17, 2000,

personal communication.

Campbell County Economic

Development Corporation, 2002,

housing information available

from website on Internet as of

March 2002: <http://www.

ccedc.net>.

Casper Star Tribune, 2001, “Coalfired Power Plant Sought near
6.0 References Cited

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 6-5

Gillette”, April 9. Acquired from

website on Internet:

<http://www.trib.com/HOME

NEWS/WYO>.

, 2002, “$64M Two Elk Tax Free

Bonds OK’d”, Dustin Bleizeffer,

September 5.

Cerovski, A.M., G.T. Byer, K. Duffy,

and D. Felley, 2000, Wyoming

Bird Conservation Plan, Version

1.0, Wyoming Partners in Flight,

Lander, Wyoming.

City of Gillette, 1978, City of

Gillette/Campbell County

Comprehensive Planning

Program. Gillette, Wyoming.

, 2001, Department of

Community Development,

Planning Division, “2001-2002

Land Use Inventory, Housing

and Demographic Estimates”,

December 31, 2001.

, 2002, Department of

Community Development,

Planning Division, Gillette

population estimates - 1977

through 1989.

Commonwealth Associates Inc., 1980,

Environmental Baseline Study,

Antelope Coal Field.

Connelly, J.W., and C.E. Braun,

1997, Long-term changes in sage

grouse populations in western

North America. Wildlife Biology

3:229-234.

Converse County, 1978, Converse

County Land Use Plan, Douglas,

Wyoming.

Crist, M.A., 1991, Evaluation of

groundwater-level changes near

Gillette, northeastern Wyoming.

U.S. Geological Survey, Water

Resources Investigations Report

88-4196. 

Dailey, Bernard J., WDEQ/AQD,

November 28, 2001, e-mail

communication listing power

plant applications on file with

AQD.

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern

Railroad Corporation, 1998,

DM&E Website,

<http://www.cmerail.com>. Site

includes links to news, STB

application, maps and other

company information.

De Bruin, R.H., and R.W., Jones,

1989, Coalbed methane in

Wyoming: Guidebook on gas

resources of Wyoming, pp. 97-

104.

De Bruin, R.H., 1996, Oil and gas

map of Wyoming: Wyoming State

Geological Survey Map Series

MS-48, scale 1:500,000.

, 1999, Oil and Gas Fields Map of

the Powder River Basin,

Wyoming: Wyoming State

Geological Survey Map Series

MS-51, scale 1:350,000.

Environmental Protection Agency,

1997a, National Air Toxics

Information Clearinghouse

(NATICH) Database. Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards.

Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina.
6.0 References Cited

6-6 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

, 1997b, Integrated Risk

Information System (IRIS)

Database. Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards.

Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina.

, 2001, letter to Nancy Doelger,

BLM, Comment letter on North

Jacobs Ranch Coal Lease

Application DEIS, dated March

1, WMA Report “PRB Short-Term

Exposure NO2 Study”, April

2000.

, 2002a, AirData: Access to Air

Pollution Data. Acquired from

website on the Internet August

14, 2002: <http://www.epa.gov/

air/data/monvals.html?st~WY~

Wyoming>.

, 2002b, Memorandum in

response to Dr. Edward Faeder’s

December 11, 2001 report,

“Short Term Exposures to

Nitrogen Dioxide”, from Suzanne

Wuerthele and Robert Benson,

EPA Regional Toxicologists, to

Richard Long, EPA Director Air

and Radiation Program, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 8, Denver, Colorado.

Ferguson, David, 2001a, Class I and

Class III Cultural Resource

Inventories of the Powder River

Coal Company’s Tract L,

Campbell and Converse

Counties, Wyoming. Prepared

for Powder River Coal Company

by GCM Services, Inc., Butte,

Montana.

, 2001b, Class I and Class III

Cultural Resource Inventories of

Lands Within Antelope Coal

Company’s “West Antelope LBA”,

Converse and Campbell

Counties, Wyoming. Prepared

for Antelope Coal Company by

GCM Services, Inc., Butte,

Montana.

Ferguson, David, and G. Meyer,

2000, A Class I and Class III

Cultural Resource Inventory and

Historical Overview of Triton

Coal Company’s Proposed Permit

Amendment Area, Campbell

County, Wyoming. Prepared for

Triton Coal Company, Gillette,

Wyoming by GCM Services,

Butte, Montana.

, 2001, A Class III Cultural

Resource Inventory of the “Little

Thunder Creek LBA” for Thunder

Basin Coal Company’s Black

Thunder Mine, Campbell

County, Wyoming. Prepared for

Thunder Basin Coal Company,

Wright, Wyoming by GCM

Services, Inc., Butte, Montana.

Finley, A., and J. Goolsby,

2000, Estimates of Coal Volumes

and Coalbed Methane in Place,

Powder River Basin, Wyoming.

Wyoming State Geological

Survey, Wyoming Geo-Notes No.

68, p. 16-18.

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and

D.M. Armstrong, 1994,

Mammals of Colorado. Denver

Museum of Natural History,

Denver, Colorado.

Flores, R.M., A.M. Ochs, L.R. Bader,

R.C. Johnson, and D. Vogler,

1999, Framework geology of the
6.0 References Cited

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 6-7

Fort Union Coal in the Powder

River Basin, Wyoming and

Montana. Chapter PF, pages 1-

40 in Fort Union Coal

Assessment Team. 1999

Resource Assessment of Selected

Tertiary Coal Beds and Zones in

the Northern Rocky Mountains

and Great Plains Region.

U.S.G.S. Professional Paper

1625-A.

Fox, Douglas G; Ann M. Bartuska,

James G. Byrne; and others,

1989, A Screening Procedure to

Evaluate Air Pollution Effects on

Class I Wilderness Areas.

General Technical Report RM168. Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station.

Fort Collins, Colorado.

Gillette News-Record, 2001a, “New

line would feed electricity to

Denver area”, Stephanie Cooper,

January 31.

, 2001b, “What’s going up?”,

Stephanie Cooper, May 6.

, 2001c, “Company Considers 3

Power Plants”, August 5.

Acquired from website on

Internet:<http://www.gillette

newsrecord.com/archives>.

, 2002a, “Two Elk Plant gets

partner”, Adam Rankin, May 7.

, 2002b, “Gillette’s Housing Still

Tight”, January 26. Acquired

from website on Internet:

<http://www.gillettenewsrecord.

com/archives>.

, 2002c, “Power plant permit

stalls”, Adam Rankin, June 30.

Greiser, Sally, J.S. Stevens, A.L.

Stanfill, H. Plochman, T. Weber

Greiser, and S. Vetter, 1982,

Eastern Powder River Basin

Prehistory: Archaeological

Investigations at the Antelope

Mine. Prepared for Northern

Energy Resource Company

(NERCO), Inc., Portland, Oregon

by Historical Research

Associates [HRA], Missoula,

Montana.

Hall, D., C. Coe, J. Grady, M. Grant,

and T.J. Lennon, 1981, A

Cultural Resource Inventory of

the Proposed Antelope Coal Mine

in Converse County, Wyoming

(Revised). Prepared for NERCO

by Western Cultural Resource

Management, Inc., Boulder,

Colorado.

Hartman, Bob, BLM, November 29,

2001, personal communication.

Hockert, Betsy, Wyoming

Employment Center, Gillette,

Wyoming, October 17, 2000,

personal communication.

Hodson, W.G., R.H. Pearl, and S.A.

Druse, 1973, Water Resources of

the Powder River Basin and

Adjacent Areas, Northeastern

Wyoming. U.S. Geological

Survey Hydrologic Investigations

Atlas HA-465.

Hollaway, Deirdre, Horizon Realty,

Douglas, Wyoming, March 19,

2002, personal communication.
6.0 References Cited

6-8 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Humphrey, Mark, OSM, Casper,

Wyoming, personal

communication, March 2002.

Hydro-Engineering, 1991a, GAGMO

1991 Annual Report. Prepared

for the Gillette Area Groundwater

Monitoring Organization.

, 1991b, GAGMO 10-year

Report. Prepared for Gillette

Area Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

, 1992, GAGMO 1992 Annual

Report. Prepared for the Gillette

Area Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

, 1993, GAGMO 1993 Annual

Report. Prepared for the Gillette

Area Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

, 1994, GAGMO 1994 Annual

Report. Prepared for the Gillette

Area Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

, 1995, GAGMO 1995 Annual

Report. Prepared for the Gillette

Area Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

, 1996a, GAGMO 15-Year Report.

Prepared for Gillette Area

Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

, 1996b, GAGMO 1996 Annual

Report. Prepared for Gillette

Area Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

, 1997, GAGMO 1997 Annual

Report. Prepared for the Gillette

Area Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

, 1998, GAGMO 1998 Annual

Report. Prepared for the Gillette

Area Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

, 1999, GAGMO 1999 Annual

Report. Prepared for the Gillette

Area Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

, 2000, GAGMO 2000 Annual

Report. Prepared for the Gillette

Area Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

, 2001, GAGMO 20-Year Report.

Prepared for Gillette Area

Groundwater Monitoring

Organization.

IMPROVE, 2002, Visibility report

from 1996-1999 acquired from

the Colorado State University

website on the Internet:

<http://vista.cira.colostate.

edu/improve/Publications/

Reports/2000/PDF/

Executivesumfinal00.pdf>.

Jacobs Ranch Coal Company , 1999,

Jacobs Ranch Mine Permit

Application 271-T4. On file with

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

, 2000, Jacobs Ranch Mine State

Decision Document, Permit No.

271-T4-R2, Change No. 4, July

5, 2000. On file with

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.
6.0 References Cited

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 6-9

, 2002, Addendum D11-F, AVF

Investigations within the North

Jacobs Amendment Area,

prepared for Jacobs Ranch Mine

by WWC Engineering, Sheridan,

Wyoming, January 2002.

Keck, John T., 1997, June 6, 1997

Letter of Decision on Antelope

Coal Company’s Tract Revision

Project. Wyoming State Historic

Preservation Officer, Letter No.

69KLK012.

Law, B.E., 1976, Large-scale

compaction structures in the

coal/bearing Fort Union and

Wasatch Formations, northeast

Powder River Basin, Wyoming: in

Wyoming Geological Association:

Guidebook on geology and

energy resources of the Powder

River Basin, pp. 221-229.

Lewis, B.D., and W.R. Hotchkiss,

1981, Thickness, percent sand,

and configuration of shallow

hydrogeological units in the

Powder River Basin, Montana

and Wyoming. U.S. Geological

Survey Miscellaneous

Investigation Series Map I-1317.

Luce, B., B.O. Oakleaf, A. Cerovski, L.

Hunter, and J. Friday, 1999,

Atlas of birds, mammals,

reptiles, and amphibians in

Wyoming. Wyoming Game and

Fish Department, Lander,

Wyoming.

Mariah Associates, 1991, Test

Excavations and Data recovery

Plan, Antelope Coal Mine,

Converse County, Wyoming.

Prepared for Antelope Coal

Company.

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

Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality and U.S.

Office of Surface Mining,

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Martner, B.E., 1986, Wyoming

Climate Atlas. Prepared in

cooperation with the Wyoming

Water Research Center,

University of Wyoming.

Mathes, George Jr., 2002, Director of

Human Resources, Campbell

County School District No. 1,

personal communication, March

20, 2002.

McKenzie, Donald R., WDEQ/LQD,

March 29, 2002, personal

communication.

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc.,

1997, NO2 Concentrations in

Northeastern Wyoming:

Historical Data and Projections.

Report prepared and submitted

to WDEQ/AQD July 1997.

Meyer, Garren, 2001, A Class III

Cultural Resource Inventory of

Triton Coal Company’s Proposed

West Roundup LBA and Adjacent

Areas, Campbell County,
6.0 References Cited

6-10 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Wyoming. Prepared for Triton

Coal Company, Gillette,

Wyoming by GCM Services, Inc.,

Butte, Montana.

Mine Safety and Health

Administration, 1997, 645

Database, Wyoming Summary

Employment and Injury

Information.

Munson, Gene, 1996, Class III

Cultural Resource Inventory of

Black Thunder Mine Proposed

Expansion of Mine Permit

Boundary, Campbell County,

Wyoming. Prepared for Black

Thunder Mine Gillette, Wyoming

by GCM Services, Butte,

Montana.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, 1969,

Climatography of the United

States: Asheville, North

Carolina, National Climatic

Center, Climatological

Summaries, No. 20-48.

Niering, W.A., 1985, Wetlands.

Chanticlear Press, Inc., New

York, New York. 638 pages.

Northeast Wyoming Economic

Development Coalition

(NEWEDC), 2002, Converse

County housing information

available from website on the

Internet, as of March 2002:

<http://www.newedc.net/

converse/conhouse.htm>.

Oedekoven, O.O., 1994, Distribution,

habitat use, and population

dynamics of the Rochelle Hills

elk herd, Final Report, Wyoming

Game and Fish Department,

Gillette, Wyoming.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement, 1980, Noise

impact assessment for the

Caballo Rojo Mine. Unpublished

Report prepared by James M.

Montgomery, Consulting

Engineers, Inc. Aurora,

Colorado.

, 1984, Correlation and effect of

mine facility wells on the Tullock

Aquifer in the Gillette, Wyoming,

vicinity. Prepared by G.E.

McIntosh, C.A. Harrison and J.V.

Wilcox.

, 1985, Reconnaissance maps to

assist in identifying alluvial

valley floors, Powder River Basin,

Montana and Wyoming, U.S.

Department of the Interior. Draft

prepared by Earth Resource

Associates, Helena, Montana.

, 2000, Annual Evaluation

Summary Report for the Coal

Regulatory Program

Administered by the Land

Quality Division of the Wyoming

Department of Environmental

Quality for Evaluation Year

2000, December 7, 2000.

, 2002, Annual Evaluation

Summary Report for the Coal

Regulatory Program

Administered by the Land

Quality Division of the Wyoming

Department of Environmental

Quality for Evaluation Year

2001, February 8, 2002.
6.0 References Cited

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 6-11

Olive, W.W., 1957, The Spotted Horse

Coalfield, Sheridan and

Campbell Counties, Wyoming:

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin

1050.

Payton, R., 2002, Personal

Communication dated

September 9, 2002, with Scott

Archer, Senior Air Resource

Specialist, USDI- Bureau of Land

Management, regarding

Campbell County (Wyoming)

PM10 monitoring data. Denver,

Colorado.

Pedersen Planning Consultants,

2001, Campbell County Housing

Needs Assessment, May 15,

2001.

Pitchford, M.L., and W.C. Malm,

1994, Development and

Applications of a Standard

Visual Index. Atmospheric

Environment 28(5):1,049-54.

Powder River Coal Company, 1994,

North Antelope Mine Permit to

Mine Application 532-T4. On file

with WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

, 1994-2000, North Antelope

Mine and Rochelle Mine Annual

Reports. Submitted to

WDEQ/LQD by Powder River

Coal Company. On file with

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

, 1996, Alluvial Valley Floor

Investigations Within and

Adjacent to the North Antelope

Mine: Addendum D11-1 to

Permit to Mine Application 532-

T4. On file with WDEQ/LQD,

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

, 1997, North Antelope Mine

State Decision Document, March

17,1997. On file with

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

, 1998, Appendix D6, Addendum

D6-G1 of Mine Permit 569-T5

Groundwater Modeling of the

North Antelope and Rochelle

Mines and Adjacent Areas,

Revised 1998. On file with

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

, 1999a, Appendix D11 of Mine

Permit 569-T5, North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex,

Alluvial Valley Floors, Revised

June 1999. On file with

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

, 1999b, Appendix D6,

Addendum D6-6 of Mine Permit

569-T5, North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex, Groundwater Model.

On file with WDEQ/LQD,

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

, 2001, North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex Annual Report,

Appendix D, Hydrology; Coal

Drawdown Map. On file with

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

Powder River Eagle Studies, 1987-

1999, Belle Ayr Mine and Eagle

Butte Mine Annual Reports.

Submitted to WDEQ/LQD by

RAG Coal West, Inc.
6.0 References Cited

6-12 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

, 1994, Baseline Report for

Powder River Coal Company

Extension. Submitted to

WDEQ/LQD by Powder River

Coal Company.

, 1999, Baseline Report for

Antelope Coal Mine’s Horse

Creek Extension. Submitted to

WDEQ/LQD by Antelope Coal

Company.

, 2000, Annual Wildlife Report

for Antelope Coal Mine.

Submitted to WDEQ/LQD by

Antelope Coal Company.

Rehm, B.W., G.H. Groenewold, and

K.A. Morin, 1980, Hydraulic

properties of coal and related

materials, Northern Great Plains:

Groundwater, v. 18, no. 6, pp.

551-561.

Remington, T.E., and C.E. Braun,

1991, How surface coal mining

affects sage grouse, North Park,

Colorado. Pages 128-132 in R.D.

Comer, P.R. Davis, S.Q. Foster,

C.V. Grant, S. Rush, O. Thorne, II,

and J. Todd (eds.), Proceedings V:

Issues and technology in the

management of impacted

wildlife. Thorne Ecological

Institute, Boulder, Colorado.

Rotenberry, J.T., M.A. Patten, and

K.L. Preston, 1999, Brewer’s

sparrow, in the Birds of North

America, No. 390. The Academy

of Natural Sciences,

Philadelphia, PA, and The

American Ornithologists Union,

Washington, D.C.

Shamley, Judy, WDEQ/AQD, March

28, 2002, personal

communication.

Shelley, Kevin, 1992, Habitat

Reclamation for Birds and Small

Mammals on Surface Mined

Lands in the Powder River Basin,

Wyoming. M.S. Thesis

Department of Zoology and

Physiology, University of

Wyoming.

Sheridan Press, 2002, “Arch Coal’s

blasting study goes to DEQ”,

Associated Press, July 26.

Stephenson, Gary, 1992, February

24, Letter of Decision concerning

Antelope Mine 1992 Plan

Revisions: Test Excavations and

Data Recovery Plan, Antelope

Coal Mine, Converse County,

Wyoming. Prepared by Mariah

Associates. SHPO Letter No.

0292RLB012.

Sundstrum, 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 p.

Surface Transportation Board, 2000,

Draft EIS for the DM&E Powder

River Basin Expansion Project.

Prepared in cooperation with the

BLM. September 2000.

Thunder Basin Coal Company, 1980-

1996, Black Thunder Mine

Annual Reports. On file with

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.
6.0 References Cited

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 6-13

, 2000a, Black Thunder Mine

Permit, WDEQ Surface Mine

Permit No. 233-T6, approved

December 2000. On file at

WDEQ/LQD office in Sheridan,

Wyoming.

, 2000b, Black Thunder Mine

State Decision Document, Permit

No. 233-T6-A1, Change No. 4,

December 15, 2000. On file with

WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

Thunderbird Wildlife Consulting, Inc.,

2000, NARO LBA Tracts Wildlife.

Prepared for PRCC.

Triton Coal Company, LLC, 2000a,

North Rochelle Mine Permit,

WDEQ Surface Mine Permit No.

550-T5 revised October 2000.

On file at WDEQ/LQD office in

Sheridan, Wyoming.

, 2000b, North Rochelle Mine

State Decision Document, Permit

No. 550-T5, August 25, 2000.

On file with WDEQ/LQD,

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987,

Corps of Engineers Wetlands

Delineation Manual, by the

Environmental Laboratory,

Department of the Army,

Waterways Experiment Station.

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002,

Energy Information

Administration, Wyoming Coal

Production, Consumption, and

Export Information, available

from website on the Internet as

of March 2002:

<http://www.eia.doe.gov>.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990,

Economics and Statistics

Administration, Bureau of the

Census, 1990 Census of

Population and Housing.

, 2000, Economics and Statistics

Administration, Bureau of the

Census, 2000 Census of

Population and Housing.

, 2002, Bureau of Economic

Analysis, Gross Domestic

Product data for the U.S.,

available from website on the

Internet as of March 2002:

<http://www.bea.doc.gov>.

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1998, Interagency

Workgroup on Air Quality

Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2

Summary Report:

Recommendations for Modeling

Long Range Transport Impacts

Research Triangle Park, North

Caroline (EPA-454/R-98-09).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, May

28, 2002, Correspondence from

Wyoming Field Office Supervisor

Mary Jennings (acting) to BLM

Casper Field Office, Field

Manager.

, 2002, Coal Mine List of

Migratory Bird Species of

Management Concern in

Wyoming based on Wyoming

Bird Conservation Plan, 1 May

2000, report available from

Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

U.S. Forest Service, 1985, Land and

Resource Management Plan,
6.0 References Cited

6-14 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Medicine Bow National Forest

and Thunder Basin National

Grassland, USDA Forest Service,

October 1985.

, 1987a, Plant Associations of

Region Two, Edition 4. USFS

Publication RC-ECOL-87-2,

USFS Rocky Mountain Region,

Denver, Colorado. 429 pages.

, 1987b, Forest Service

Handbook, FSH 2509-19 - Air

Resource Management

Handbook.

, 2000, Screening Methodology

for Calculating ANC Change to

High Elevation Lakes. Published

by the USDA Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Region,

Lakewood, Colorado.

, 2001, Land and Resource

Management Plan for the

Thunder Basin National

Grassland.

, 2002a, Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the

Northern Great Plains

Management Plans Revision for

Thunder Basin National

Grassland, May 2002.

, 2002b, Letter from Norman

Wagoner, USFS District Ranger,

Douglas Ranger District, to Mike

Karbs, Assistant Field Manager

Solid Minerals, BLM Casper Field

Office, September 12, 2002.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1988, Martin,

L.G., D.L. Naftz, H.W. Lowham,

and J.G. Rankl, 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 Wyoming

Department of Environmental

Quality and U.S. Office of

Surface Mining, Cheyenne,

Wyoming.

, 1995, 1995 National

Assessment of United States Oil

and Gas Resources Circular

1118.

, 2000, “The Minerals Industry of

Wyoming” in “Minerals Yearbook

2000”, available from website on

the Internet as of March 2002:

<http://minerals.usgs.gov>.

University of Wyoming, 1994,

Economic Impact of Coal on

Wyoming's Economy.

Cooperative Extension Service,

Department of Agricultural

Economics, College of

Agriculture. B-987.

, 2001, Data Search for Species

Listed with the Wyoming Natural

Diversity Database. Letter and

computer printouts from A.J.

Fedder to G. McKee

(Thunderbird Wildlife

Consulting, Inc.), dated April 16,

2001.

Van Voast, W.A., and J.C. Reiten,

1988, Hydrogeologic

response–twenty years of surface

coal mining in southeastern
6.0 References Cited

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 6-15

Montana: Montana Bureau of

Mines and Geology Memoir 62.

Wyoming Department of

Administration and Information,

2001, Economic Analysis

Division, “Outlook 2001:

Economic Forecast to 2009”,

April 2001.

, 2002, Economic Analysis

Division, Wyoming economic and

demographic data, available from

website on the Internet as of

March 2002: <http://

eadiv.state.wy.us>.

Wyoming Department of Commerce,

1996, Economic and Community

Development Division, Energy

Section, “Wyoming 1996 Mineral

and Energy Yearbook”, January

1996.

Wyoming Department of Employment,

1998, Office of the State

Inspector of Mines, Annual

Report for the Year Ending

December 31, 1998.

, 1999, Office of the State

Inspector of Mines, Annual

Report for the Year Ending

December 31, 1999.

, 2000, Office of the State

Inspector of Mines, Annual

Report for the Year Ending

December 31, 2000.

, 2001, Office of the State

Inspector of Mines, unpublished

data for the 2001 Annual Report

for Year Ending December 31,

2001.

, 2002a, Research and Planning

Division, Wyoming labor market

information acquired from

website on the Internet March

2002: <http://lmi.state.

wy.us>.

, 2002b, Research and Planning

Division, Wyoming Labor Force

Trends, February 2002.

Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality, Air

Quality Division, 2000, Wyoming

Air Quality Standards and

Regulations.

, Air Quality Division, 2001,

Information provided by Bernie

Dailey regarding PRB Mines Air

Quality and Production Data for

1997-2000.

Wyoming Department of Revenue,

2001, Annual Report - Fiscal

Year 2001, available from

website on the Internet as of

March 2002:

<http://revenue.state.wy.us>.

, 2002a, Ad Valorem Tax

Division, Property Tax Mill Levy

by Tax District, Summary 2001,

available on the Internet as of

March 2002: <http://revenue.

state.wy.us/adval/advalframe.

htm>.

, 2002b, Excise Tax Division,

Sales and Use Tas Distribution

Reports for January through

December 2000, available on the

Internet as of March 2002:

<http//revenue.state.wy.us/

excise/exciseframe.htm>.
6.0 References Cited

6-16 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Wyoming Game and Fish

Department, 1996, Wildlife

Observation System, Wyoming

Game and Fish Dept. Publ.,

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

, 2000, Casper and Sheridan

Region Annual Big Game Herd

Unit Reports.

Wyoming Mining Association, 1997,

“PRB Mines-Air Quality and

Production Data”, 1980-1996

prepared for WDEQ/AQD.

, 2000, Air Quality

Subcommittee, Powder River

Basin Short-Term Exposure NO2

Study, April 2000.

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation

Commission, 2001, information

acquired from WOGCC website,

December 2001: <http://wogcc.

state.wy.us>.

Wyoming SHPO, 2001, File Searches

3105 and 3173 conducted on

May 2 and 9.

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office,

2000, Retrieval of Groundwater

and Surface Water Rights, May

2000, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Wyoming State Geological Survey,

1994, Wyoming Geo-Notes, No.

43, 49 pp.

, 1996, Wyoming Geo-Notes, No.

52, 59 pp.

, 1997, Wyoming Geo-Notes, No.

54, 66 pp.

, 1998, Wyoming Geo-Notes, No.

58, 73 pp.

, 1999, Wyoming Geo-Notes, No.

61, 79 pp.

, 2000, Wyoming Geo-Notes, No.

67, 64 pp.

, 2001a, Wyoming Geo-Notes, No.

69, 44 pp.

, 2001b, Wyoming Geo-Notes,

No. 70, 44 pp.

, 2001c, Wyoming Geo-Notes, No.

72, 40 pp.

, 2002a, Wyoming Geo-Notes, No.

73, 44 pp.

, 2002b, Wyoming Geo-Notes,

No. 74, 36 pp.

Wyoming State Inspector of Mines,

1990-2001, Annual Report of the

State Inspector of Mines of

Wyoming, Office of the State

Inspector of Mines, Rock

Springs, Wyoming.

Wyoming Water Resources Center,

1997, A study of techniques to

assess surface and groundwater

impacts associated with CBM

and surface coal mining. In

conjunction with WDEQ/LQD,

SEO, WSGS, BLM and OSM.
7.0 Glossary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 7-1

7.0 GLOSSARY

aboriginal - Related to early or primitive cultures in a region.

ad valorem tax - A tax paid as a percentage of the assessed value of property.

adverse impact - An apparent direct or indirect detrimental effect.

aliquot - An exact portion. 

alkalinity - The degree to which the pH of a substance is greater than 7. 

alluvial deposit - Deposits of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and/or other materials

carried by moving surface water, such as streams, and deposited at points of weak

water flow; alluvium.

alluvial valley floor (AVF) - An area of unconsolidated stream-laid deposits

holding streams with water availability sufficient for subirrigation or flood

irrigation agricultural activities (see 30 CFR 701.5).

alluvium - Sorted or semi-sorted sediment consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel, or

other unconsolidated rock material deposited in comparatively recent geologic

time by a stream or other body of running water in the bed of that stream or on

its flood plain or delta.

alternative - In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, one of several

substitute or alternate proposals that a federal agency is considering in an

environmental analysis.

ambient - Surrounding conditions (or environment) in a given place and time.

annual precipitation - The quantity of water that falls yearly in the form of rain,

hail, sleet, and snow.

approximate original contour - Post-mining surface configuration achieved by

backfilling and grading of mined-out areas so that the reclaimed land surface

resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining (see 30

CFR 701.5).

aquatic - Living or growing in or on the water.

aquifer - A layer of permeable rock, sand, or gravel that stores and transmits

water in sufficient quantities for a specific use.
7.0 Glossary

7-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

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.

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.

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 methane (CBM) - Methane gas that is generated during the coal-forming

process.
7.0 Glossary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 7-3

colluvium - Rock fragments, sand, or soil material that accumulates at the base

of slopes; slope wash.

confluence - The point at which two or more streams meet. 

conglomerate - A rock that contains rounded rock fragments or pebbles

cemented together by another mineral substance.

contiguous - Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary, lands

having only a common corner are not contiguous.

cooperating agency - An agency which has jurisdiction by law in an action being

analyzed in an environmental document and who is requested to participate in the

NEPA process by the agency that is responsible for preparing the environmental

document [see 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5].

crucial wildlife habitat - Parts of the habitat necessary to sustain a wildlife

population during periods of their life cycle. It may be a limiting factor on the

population, such as nesting habitat or winter habitat.

cultural resources - The remains of human activity, occupation, or endeavor

reflected in districts, sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works

of art, architecture, and natural features that reveal the nature of historic and

prehistoric human events. These resources consist of (1) physical remains, (2)

areas where significant human events occurred, and (3) the environment

immediately surrounding the resource. 

cumulative impact - The impact on the environment which results from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or

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).

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.

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). 
7.0 Glossary

7-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

discharge - Any of the ways that ground water comes out of the surface, including

through springs, creeks, or being pumped from a well.

dissected upland - An upland or high area in which a large part of the original

surface has been deeply cut into by streams.

dragline - A type of excavating crane that casts a rope- or cable-hung bucket a

considerable distance, collects the dug material by pulling the bucket toward itself

on the ground with a second rope or cable, elevates the bucket, and dumps the

material on a backfill bank or pile.

eolian deposit - Sediment carried, formed, or deposited by the wind, as sand

dunes.

ephemeral stream - A stream that flows occasionally because of surface runoff,

and is not influenced by permanent ground water.

erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice or

other geologic agents.

evapotranspiration - The sum total of water lost from the land by evaporation

and plant transpiration. 

excavation (archeological) - The scientifically controlled recovery of subsurface

materials and information from a cultural site. Recovery techniques are relevant

to research problems and are designed to produce maximum knowledge about the

site's use, its relation to other sites and the natural environment, and its

significance in the maintenance of the cultural system.

fair market value - The amount in cash, or in terms reasonably equivalent to

cash, for which in all probability a coal deposit would be sold or leased by a

knowledgeable owner willing but not obligated to sell or lease to a knowledgeable

purchaser who desires but is not obligated to buy or lease.

fixed carbon - In coal, the solid combustible material remaining after removal of

moisture, ash, and volatile matter. It is expressed as a percentage.

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.
7.0 Glossary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 7-5

formation (geologic) - A rock body distinguishable from other rock bodies and

useful for mapping or description. Formations may be combined into groups or

subdivided into members.

fossil - The remains or traces of an organism or assemblage of organisms that

have been preserved by natural processes in the earth's crust. Many minerals that

may be of biologic origin are not considered to be fossils (e.g. oil, gas, asphalt,

limestone).

geometric mean - The nth root of the product of the values of n positive numbers.

ground water - Subsurface water that fills available openings in rock or soil

materials to the extent that they are considered water saturated.

habitat - A place where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows.

habituation - The process of becoming accustomed to, or used to, something;

acclimation.

hazardous materials - Substance which, because of its potential for corrosivity,

toxicity, ignitability, chemical reactivity, or explosiveness, may cause injury to

persons or damage to property.

hazardous waste - Those materials defined in Section 101 (14) of the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980,

and listed in 40 CFR § 261.

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;

permeability coefficient. Expressed as the volume of water at the prevailing

temperature that will move in unit time under a unit hydraulic gradient through

a unit area. Units include gallons per day per square foot, centimeters per second.

hydraulic - Pertaining to fluid in motion, or to movement or action caused by

water.

hydric soil - A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the

growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and

regeneration of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation. Hydric soils that occur in

areas having positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology

are wetland soils.
7.0 Glossary

7-6 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

hydrocarbon - Any organic compound, gaseous, liquid, or solid, consisting solely

of carbon and hydrogen.

hydrogeology - The science that deals with subsurface waters and with related

geologic aspects of surface waters.

hydrology - The science dealing with the behavior of water as it occurs in the

atmosphere, on the surface of the ground, and underground.

hydrophytic vegetation - The plant life growing in water or on a substrate that

is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content.

When hydrophytic vegetation comprises a community where indicators of hydric

soils and wetland hydrology also occur, the area has wetland vegetation.

impermeable - Not capable of transmitting fluids or gasses in appreciable

quantities.

incised - Having a margin that is deeply and sharply notched.

indirect (or secondary) impact - A reasonably foreseeable impact resulting from

an action but occurring later in time than or removed in distance from that action

(see 40 CFR 1508.8). 

in-place coal reserves - The estimated volume of all of the coal reserves in a lease

without considering economic or technological factors which 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.

interdisciplinary - Characterized by participation or cooperation among two or

more disciplines or fields of study.

intermittent stream - A stream that does not flow year-round but has some

association with ground water for surface or subsurface flow.

laminated - Consolidated or unconsolidated sediment that is characterized by

thin (less than 1 cm thick) layers.

land and resource management plan (LRMP) - A land use plan that directs the

use and allocation of U.S. Forest Service lands and resources.
7.0 Glossary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 7-7

lead agency - The agency or agencies preparing or having taken primary

responsibility for preparing an environmental document (see 40 CFR 1508.16). 

lease (mineral) - A legal document executed between a mineral owner or lessor

and another party or lessee which grants the lessee the right to extract minerals

from the tract of land for which the lease has been obtained [see 43 CFR 3400.0-

5(r)].

lek - A traditional breeding area for grouse species where territorial males display

and establish dominance.

lenticular - Term describing a body of rock or earth that thins out in all directions

from the center like a double convex optical lens.

limb (geologic) - One side of a fold (syncline or anticline).

limestone - A sedimentary rock consisting chiefly of calcium carbonate.

lineament - A linear topographic feature of regional extent that is believed to

reflect crustal structure.

loadout facilities - The mine facilities used to load the mined coal for transport

out of the mine.

loam - A rich, permeable soil composed of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, and

organic matter.

maintenance tract - A federal coal tract that would continue or extend the life of

an existing coal mine.

major federal action - An action with effects that may be major and which is

potentially subject to federal control and responsibility (see 40 CFR 1508.18). 

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.
7.0 Glossary

7-8 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

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).

mining permit - A permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation

operations issued by the state regulatory authority pursuant to a state program

or by the Secretary pursuant to a federal program (see 30 CFR 701.5).

mitigation - An action to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, replace, or rectify the

impact of a management practice.

mudstone - A hardened sedimentary rock consisting of clay. It is similar to shale

but lacks distinct layers.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) - A list of districts, sites, buildings,

structures and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology

and culture maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. Expanded as authorized

by Section 2(b) of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 462) and Section

101(a)(1) (A) of the National Historic Preservation Act.

natural gas - Combustible gases (such as hydrocarbons) or mixtures of

combustible gases and non-combustible gases (such as helium) which are in a

gaseous phase at atmospheric conditions of temperature and pressure. 

NEPA process - All measures necessary for compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (see 40 CFR 1508.21).

no action alternative - An alternative where no activity would occur. The

development of a no action alternative is required by regulations implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1502.14). The no action alternative

provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives.

outcrop - A rock formation that appears at or near the surface; the intersection

of a rock formation with the surface.

overburden - Material of any nature, consolidated or unconsolidated, that overlies

a coal or other useful mineral deposit, excluding topsoil.

paleontological resource - A site containing evidence of plant or non-human

animal life of past geological periods, usually in the form of fossil remains.
7.0 Glossary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 7-9

peak discharge or flow - The highest discharge of water recorded over a specified

period of time at a given stream location; also called maximum flow. Often

thought of in terms of spring snowmelt, summer, fall or winter rainy season flows.

perennial species (vegetation) - Vegetation that lives over from season to season.

perennial stream - A stream or part of a stream that flows continuously during

the calendar year as a result of groundwater discharge or surface runoff. 

permeability - The ability of rock or soil to transmit a fluid.

permit application package - A proposal to conduct surface coal mining and

reclamation operations on federal lands, including an application for a permit,

permit revision, or permit renewal and all the information required by SMCRA, the

applicable state program, any applicable cooperative agreement, and all other

applicable laws and regulations including, with respect to federal leased coal, the

Mineral Leasing Act and its implementing regulations. 

permit area - The area of land, indicated on the approved map submitted by the

operator with his or her application, required to be covered by the operator’s

performance bond under the regulations at 30 CFR Part 800 and which shall

include the area of land upon which the operator proposes to conduct surface coal

mining and reclamation operations under the permit, including all disturbed areas

(see 30 CFR 701.5).

physiography - Physical geography. 

piezometer - A well, generally of small diameter, that is used to measure the

elevation of the water table.

playa - The sandy, salty, or mud-caked flat floor of a basin with interior drainage,

usually occupied by a shallow ephemeral lake during or after rain or snow storms.

point source (pollution) - A point at which pollution is added to a system, either

instantaneously or continuously. An example is a smokestack.

pore volume - the amount of fluid necessary to fill the void space in an

unsaturated porus medium (i.e., mine backfill).

porosity - The percentage of the bulk volume of rock, sediment or soil that is not

occupied by sediment or soil particles; the void space in rock or sediment. It may

be isolated or connected.

postmining topography - The relief and contour of the land that remains after

mining has been completed.
7.0 Glossary

7-10 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

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 hydrologic head.

predator - An animal that obtains food by killing and consuming other animals.

prime or unique farmland - Those lands which are defined by the Secretary of

Agriculture in 7 CFR part 657 (Federal Register Vol. 4 No. 21) and which have

historically been used for cropland (see 30 CFR 701.5).

proposed action - In terms of National Environmental Policy Act, the project,

activity, or action that a federal agency proposes to implement or undertake and

which is the subject of an environmental analysis.

qualified surface owner - The natural person or persons (or corporation, the

majority stock of which is held by a person or persons otherwise meeting the

requirements of this section) who:

(1) Hold legal or equitable title to the surface of split estate lands;

(2) Have their principal place of residence on the land, or personally conduct

farming or ranching operations upon a farm or ranch unit to be affected by

surface mining operations; or received directly a 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. 

rental payment - Annual payment from a lessee to a lessor to maintain the

lessee’s mineral lease rights.
7.0 Glossary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 7-11

resource management plan (RMP) - A land use plan, as prescribed by FLPMA,

that directs the use and allocation of public lands and resources managed by

BLM. Prior to selection of the RMP, different alternative management plans are

compared and evaluated in an environmental impact statement (EIS) to determine

which plan will best direct the management of the public lands and resources.

revegetation - The reestablishment and development of self-sustaining plant

cover following land disturbance. This may occur through natural processes, or

the natural processes may be enhanced by human assistance through seedbed

preparation, reseeding, and mulching.

right of way (ROW) - The right to pass over property owned by another. The strip

of land over which facilities such as roadways, railroads, or power lines are built.

riparian - The area adjacent to rivers and streams that lies between the stream

channel and upland terrain and that supports specific vegetation influenced by

perennial and/or intermittent water.

royalty (mineral) - A share of production that is free of the expense of production.

It is generally paid by a lessee to a lessor of a mineral lease as part of the terms

of the lease. 

runoff - That portion of rainfall that is not absorbed; it may be used by vegetation,

lost by evaporation, or it may find its way into streams as surface flow.

salinity - Refers to the solids, such as sodium chloride (table salt) and alkali

metals, that are dissolved in water. Often in non saltwater areas, total dissolved

solids is used as an equivalent term.

sandstone - A common sedimentary rock primarily composed of sand grains,

mainly quartz, that are cemented together by other mineral material.

scoping - A public informational process required by the National Environmental

Policy Act to determine private and public concerns, scope of issues, and/or

questions regarding a proposed action to be evaluated in an environmental impact

analysis.

scoria (clinker) - Baked and fused rock resulting from in-place burning of coal

deposits.

sedimentation pond - An impoundment used to remove solids from water in

order to meet water quality standards or effluent limitations before the water

leaves the permit area (see 30 CFR 701.5).

semi-arid - A climate or region characterized by little yearly rainfall and by the

growth of a number of short grasses and shrubs.
7.0 Glossary

7-12 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

severance tax - A tax on the removal of minerals from the ground.

shale - A very fine-grained clastic rock or sediment consisting predominately of

clay-sized particles that is laminated; lithified, layered mud.

significant impact - A qualitative term used to describe the anticipated

importance of impacts to the human environment as a result of an action.

siltstone - A fine-grained clastic rock consisting predominately of silt-sized

particles.

socioeconomics - The social and economic situation that might be affected by a

proposed action.

soil survey - The systematic examination, description, classification, and mapping

of soils in an area, usually a county. Soil surveys are classified according to the

level of detail of field examination. Order I is the most detailed and Order V is the

least detailed.

spontaneous combustion - The heating and slow combustion 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. 

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.
7.0 Glossary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 7-13

Subbituminous coal contains a high percentage of volatile matter and moisture.

surface disturbance - Any disturbance by mechanical actions which 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 which remain in suspension in

water for a considerable period of time without contact with the stream or river

channel bottom.

tectonic fracture - Fractures caused by deformation of the earth’s crust.

threatened and endangered (T&E) species - These species of plants or animals

classified as threatened or endangered pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered

Species Act. Any species which is in danger of extinction, or is likely to become

so within the foreseeable future.

Category 1 - Substantial biological information on file to support the

appropriateness of proposing to list as endangered or threatened.

Category 2 - Current information indicates that proposing to list as

endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but substantial biological

information is not on file to support an immediate ruling (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service).

topography - Physical shape of the ground surface; the configuration of land

surface including its relief, elevation, and the position of its natural and manmade

features.

topsoil - The surface layer of a soil.

total dissolved solids (TDS) - The total quantity in milligrams per liter of

dissolved materials in water. 

transmissivity - The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width of

an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient. Equals the hydraulic conductivity

multiplied by the aquifer thickness. Values are given in units of gallons per day

per foot.

transpiration - The discharge of water vapor by plants.

truck & shovel - A mining method used to remove overburden and coal in a strip

mining operation. Truck and shovel operations use large bucket-equipped digging

and loading machines (shovels) and large dump trucks to remove overburden

instead of using a dragline for overburden removal. 
7.0 Glossary

7-14 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

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 which were formed by the

expansion of a bubble of gas or steam during the solidification of the rock.

visual resources - The physical features of a landscape which 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
7.0 Glossary

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 7-15

and scenic rivers may be classified and administered under one or more of the

following categories:

wild river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments

and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines

essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of

primitive America.

scenic river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of

impoundments, with watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely

undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

recreational river areas - Rivers or sections of rivers that are readily

accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their

shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion

in the past.

wilderness - An area of undeveloped Federal land designated wilderness by

Congress, retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent

improvements or human habitation, protected and managed to preserve its

natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily

by the forces of nature with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable,

(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined

recreation, (3) has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size to make practical its

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and (4) also may contain

features that are of ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic, or

historical value. These characteristics were identified by Congress in the

Wilderness Act of 1964.
Index

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 8-1

8.0 INDEX

agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-11, 1-26, 2-49, 3-38, 3-39, 3-42,

3-43, 4-58, 4-59, 4-81, 4-129, 4-139,

G-28

alluvial valley floor or AVF . . . . . . . . . ES-8, ES-13, 2-49, 3-1, 3-7, 3-38, 3-39,

3-40, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-77, 4-79,

4-81, 4-82, 4-85, 4-129, B-3, B-6, B-9,

B-12, B-15

blasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-9, ES-10, 2-8, 2-12, 2-20, 2-27,

3-18, 3-24, 3-26, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20,

4-21, 4-24, 4-28, 4-30, 4-34, 4-35,

4-39, 4-40, 4-72, 4-79, 4-84, 4-99,

4-115, 4-126

bonus payment or bonus

bid payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-6, ES-13, 2-42, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46,

2-47, 3-83, 3-84, 4-73, 4-140

coal bed methane or CBM . . . . . . . . . ES-9, ES-12, ES-15, ES-16, ES-32,

1-23, 1-24, 1-25, 2-1, 2-41, 2-42, 2-48,

2-50, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14,

3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-34, 3-36,

3-37, 3-44, 3-49, 3-66, 3-74, 3-75,

3-60, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-77,

3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 4-5, 4-11, 4-12,

4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-46, 4-48, 4-53,

4-57, 4-69, 4-85, 4-90, 4-91, 4-95,

4-96, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-102, 4-103,

4-104, 4-106, 4-108, 4-116, 4-117,

4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-123, 4-125,

4-127, 4-129, 4-136, 4-140, 4-141,

4-143, 4-144, 7-2, E-5, E-9, E-10,

E-13, E-14, E-15, E-16, E-30, G-6,

G-14, G-17, G-18, G-28, G-37, G-38,

G-39, G-40, G-41, G-42, G-43, G-50

fair market value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1, 1-26, 2-2, 2-5, 2-10, 2-14, 2-15,

2-16, 2-18, 2-22, 2-24, 2-26, 2-31,

2-32, 2-35, 2-39, 2-40, 2-42, 4-69, 5-2,

7-4
Index

8-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

fugitive dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20, 2-28, 2-37, 3-18, 4-20, 4-25,

4-31, 4-36, 4-99, 4-100, 4-103, E-3,

E-13, E-15, E-30, E-31

grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9, 1-11, 1-14, 2-50, 3-51, 4-61, 4-69,

4-70, 4-81, 4-82, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132,

4-135, 4-136, 4-138, 4-139, 4-142, G-6,

G-7, G-9, G-21, G-37, G-38, G-39, G-40

hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-12, 2-55, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 4-70,

4-136, 4-144, G-33, G-43

mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-19, 1-26, 2-5, 2-7, 2-11, 2-18, 2-26,

2-27, 2-35, 2-36, 3-47, 4-5, 4-42, 4-63,

4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-71, 4-79, 4-80,

4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-93, 4-103,

4-104, 4-113, 4-129, 4-134, 4-137,

4-138, D-1, D-2, E-8, E-15, E-16, E-30,

E-31, E-32, G-25, G-26, G-28, G-29,

G-41, G-42, G-43, G-44

MLA mining plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7, 1-17, 1-19, 2-7, 2-11, 2-19, 2-27,

2-36, 2-42, 3-70, 4-70, G-11, G-13,

G-14, G-15, G-16, G-17, G-18, G-19,

G-20, G-51, G-22, G-23, G-24, G-26,

G-27, G-28

monitoring plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8, 4-79, 4-80 ,4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84

nitrogen oxide or NO2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-9, ES-10, ES-17, 1-26, 3-17, 3-18,

3-24, 3-25, 3-30, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20,

4-21, 4-24, 4-28, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36,

4-39, 4-40, 4-84, 4-99, 4-105, 4-106,

4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-115, E-6, E-7,

E-10, E-13, E-30, E-32

PM10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-17, ES-18, ES-19, ES-20, 3-3, 3-4,

3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-11, 3-18, 3-19,

3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-29, 3-30, 4-20,

4-22, 4-23, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-30,

4-32, 4-33, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-40,

4-80, 4-96, 4-97, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101,

4-103, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108,

4-109, 4-113, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, E-10,

E-13, E-18, E-21, E-24, E-27, E-31
Index

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS 8-3

power plant(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2, ES-16, 1-2, 1-9, 1-26, 2-43, 3-18,

3-87, 4-5, 4-89, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-95,

4-96, 4-126, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, G-28

reclamation bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-11, 2-57, 4-5, 4-62, 4-63, 4-70,

4-81, 4-131

recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-8, ES-13, 1-9, 1-11, 1-14, 1-23,

2-50, 3-1, 3-27, 3-51, 3-67, 3-69, 3-87,

4-1, 4-69, 4-71, 4-77, 4-86, 4-135,

4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-144, B-1,

B-4, B-7, B-10, B-13, G-28

royalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-6, ES-13, 1-14, 3-82, 3-84, 4-73,

4-74, 4-83, D-3

total dissolved solids or TDS . . . . . . . 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-36, 4-43, 4-47,

4-50, 4-53, 4-57, 4-127

U.S. Forest Service or USFS . . . . . . . . 1-7, 1-9, 1-11, 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21,

1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 1-25, 2-30, 2-32,

3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-51, 3-68, 3-73,

3-74, 4-2, 4-46, 4-54, 4-63, 4-69, 4-70,

4-85, 4-92, 4-93, 4-97, 4-110, 4-112,

4-130, 4-135, 4-136, 4-140, 5-1, 5-2,

5-4, 5-7, B-1, B-2, B-4, B-5, B-7, B-8,

B-10, B-11, B-13, B-14, D-5, D-6, E-3,

E-8, E-11, E-12, E-19, E-22, E-25,

E-28, G-1, G-2, G-23, G-24, G-30,

G-31, G-32, G-33, G-34, G-35, G-36,

G-37, G-38, G-39, G-40, G-41, G-42,

G-43, G-45, G-46, G-54

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

or EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-9, ES-10, 1-26, 2-3, 3-21, 3-26,

3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34,

3-46, 3-69, 3-77, 3-82, 3-83, 3-38,

3-85, 3-86, 3-88, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20 4-21,

4-28, 4-31, 4-36, 4-80, 4-96, 4-98,

4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-104, 4-107,

4-110, 4-113, 4-114, 5-2, 5-7, E-3, E-4,

E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-10, E-11,

E-13, E-14, E-16
Index

8-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or

USFWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-21, 1-25, 3-40, 3-43, 3-49, 4-67,

4-110, 4-112, 4-134, 5-1, B-2, B-5, B-8,

B-11, B-14, E-3, E-11, E-12, G-2, G-3,

G-5, G-7, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, G-12,

G-13, G-14, G-15, G-16, G-17, G-18,

G-19, G-20, G-21, G-22, G-23, G-24,

G-25, G-26, G-27, G-28, G-41, G-42,

G-43, G-50, G-51, G-52, G-53

wetland(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-5, ES-11, ES-13, 1-26, 2-49, 2-55,

3-1, 3-40, 3-41, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-68,

4-77, 4-79, 4-81, 4-82, 4-85, 4-130,

4-134, 4-135, A-1, G-9, G-21, G-35

Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality or

WDEQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-9, ES-10, ES-11, ES-181, 1-14,

1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 2-3, 2-4,

2-7, 2-8, 2-11, 2-13, 2-19, 2-27, 2-36,

2-41, 2-49, 3-11, 3-17, 3-20, 321, 3-22,

3-24, 3-31, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39,

3-40, 3-43, 4-1, 4-6, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20,

4-21, 4-25, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31,

4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41,

4-44, 4-48, 4-51, 4-53, 4-55, 4-58,

4-59, 4-62, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68,

4-69, 4-81, 4-84, 4-88, 4-89, 4-93,

4-94, 4-98, 4-100, 4-102, 4-112, 4-113,

4-115, 4-118, 4-119, 4-121, 4-124,

4-130, 4-131, 4-135, 5-3, 5-7, A-1, E-3,

E-9, E-11, E-12, E-14, E-30, E-32, G-2,

G-3, G-22, G-25, G-26, G-29, G-30,

G-50

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

or WGFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43, 3-45, 3-46, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69,

4-64, 4-68, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136,

5-3, G-50, G-52, G-53
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITTING

REQUIREMENTS AND AGENCIES
Appendix A

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS A-1

APPENDIX A:

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES & PERMITTING

REQUIREMENTS

Agency Lease/Permit/Action

FEDERAL

Bureau of Land Management Coal Lease

Resource Recovery & Protection Plan

Scoria Sales Contract

Exploration Drilling Permit

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement

Preparation of Mining Plan Approval Document

SMCRA Oversight

Office of the Secretary of the Interior Approval of Mining Plan 

Mine Safety and Health Administration Safety Permit and Legal ID

Ground Control Plan

Major Impoundments

Explosives Use and Storage Permit

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

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 Permits

STATE

State Land Commission Coal Lease

Scoria Lease

Department of Environmental Quality-Land Quality

Division

Permit and License to Mine

Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality

Division

Air Quality Permit to Operate

Air Quality Permit to Construct

Department of Environmental Quality-Water Quality

Division

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Water Discharge

Permit

Permit to Construct Sedimentation Pond

Authorization to Construct Septic Tank & Leach Field

Authorization to Construct and Install a Public Water Supply and

Sewage Treatment System

Department of Environmental Quality-Solid Waste

Management Program

Solid Waste Disposal Permit-Permanent and Construction

State Engineer’s Office Appropriation of Surface Water Permits

Appropriation of Ground Water Permits

Industrial Siting Council Industrial Siting Certificate of Non-Jurisdiction

Department of Health Radioactive Material Certificate of Registration
APPENDIX B

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE

NARO NORTH, NARO SOUTH, LITTLE THUNDER,

WEST ROUNDUP, AND WEST ANTELOPE LBA TRACTS
Appendix B

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS B-1

Appendix B. Unsuitability Criteria for the NARO North LBA

Tract

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR NARO NORTH LBA

TRACT

1. Federal Land Systems. With certain

exceptions that do not apply to this tract, all

federal lands included in the following

systems are unsuitable for mining: National

Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National

System of Trails, National Wilderness

Preservation System, National Wild and

Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas,

Lands acquired through the Land and Water

Conservation Fund, National Forests and

Federal lands in incorporated cities, towns

and villages.

There are Federal lands located around

Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright which

were determined to be unsuitable under

this criterion. The TBNG is not a

proclaimed National Forest. TBNG lands

are included in the NARO North LBA

Tract.

The TBNG lands included in the NARO

North LBA Tract are not unsuitable

under this criterion. None of the

federal lands determined to be

unsuitable under Criterion 1 are

present on the NARO North LBA Tract,

and therefore there are no unsuitable

findings.

2. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. Federal

lands that are within ROWs or easements or

within surface leases for residential,

commercial, industrial or other public

purposes, on federally owned surface, are

unsuitable for mining.

Portions of the BNSF&UP railroad, the

Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line,

and Wyoming State Highway 450 ROWs

were found to be unsuitable under this

criterion within the general review area.

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv

transmission line, the BNSF&UP, and

Highway 450 ROWs that were found to

be unsuitable are not located on the

NARO North LBA Tract. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 2

for the NARO North LBA Tract.

3. Dwellings, Roads, Cemeteries, and Public

Buildings. Federal lands within 100 ft of a

ROW of a public road or a cemetery; or

within 300 ft of any public building, school,

church, community or institutional building

or public park; or within 300 ft of an

occupied dwelling are unsuitable for mining.

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450,

Interstate Highway I-90, and one

cemetery were found to be unsuitable

under this criterion. Decisions were

deferred on other highways/roads,

occupied dwellings, and one school. 

Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery

are not located on the NARO North

LBA Tract No occupied dwellings,

other highways/roads, or schools are

located on the tract. Therefore, there

are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 3 for the NARO North LBA

Tract.

4. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal lands

designated as wilderness study areas are

unsuitable for mining while under review for

possible wilderness designation.

No lands in the general review area are

within a wilderness study area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 4 for the NARO North

LBA Tract.

5. Lands with Outstanding Scenic Quality.

Scenic federal lands designated by visual

resource management analysis as Class I

(outstanding visual quality or high visual

sensitivity) but not currently on National

Register of Natural Landmarks are

unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area meet

the scenic criteria as outlined.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 5 for the NARO North

LBA Tract. 

6. Land Used for Scientific Study. Federal

lands under permit by the surface

management agency and being used for

scientific studies involving food or fiber

production, natural resources, or technology

demonstrations and experiments are

unsuitable for the duration of the study

except where mining would not jeopardize

the purpose of the study.

A vegetation monitoring study site (NE

1⁄4 of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W.), and the

Hoe Creek Site (Sec. 7, T.47N., R.72W.)

were found to be unsuitable under this

criterion. 

Neither the vegetation monitoring site

or the Hoe Creek site are located on

the NARO North LBA Tract. There are

no unsuitable findings under Criterion

6 for the NARO North LBA Tract.

7. Cultural Resources. All publicly or privately

owned places which are included in or are

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and an

appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable.

On the basis of the consultation with

SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings

under this criterion in the general review

area. Continue using the “Standard

Archeological Stipulation for Cultural

Resources” to new leases.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 7 for the NARO North

LBA Tract. The “Standard

Archeological Stipulation for Cultural

Resources” should be applied if this

tract is leased.

8. Natural Areas. Federal lands designated as

natural areas or National Natural

Landmarks are unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area are

designated as natural areas or as

National Natural Landmarks.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 8 for the NARO North

LBA Tract.
Appendix B

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR NARO NORTH LBA

TRACT

B-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

9. Critical Habitat for Threatened or

Endangered Plant and Animal Species.

Federally designated critical habitat for

threatened or endangered plant and animal

species, and scientifically documented

essential habitat for threatened or

endangered species are unsuitable.

There is no federally designated critical

habitat for threatened or endangered

plant or animal species within the

general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 9 for the NARO North

LBA Tract.

10. State Listed Species. Federal lands

containing habitat determined to be critical

or essential for plant or animal species listed

by a state pursuant to state law as

threatened or endangered shall be

considered unsuitable.

Wyoming does not maintain a state list

of threatened or endangered species of

plants or animals. Therefore, this

criterion does not apply.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 10 for the NARO North

LBA Tract.

11. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An active bald

or golden eagle nest and appropriate buffer

zone are unsuitable unless the lease can be

conditioned so that eagles will not be

disturbed during breeding season or unless

golden eagle nests will be moved.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate

bald and golden eagle nests on a case by

case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones around nests

after consultation with USFWS.

There are currently no active bald or

golden eagle nests or established

buffer zones located on the NARO

North LBA Tract. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 11

for the NARO North LBA Tract. 

12. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and

Concentration Areas. Bald and golden eagle

roost and concentration areas on federal

lands used during migration and wintering

are unsuitable unless mining can be

conducted in such a way as to ensure that

eagles shall not be adversely disturbed.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate

bald and golden eagle roost areas on a

case by case basis prior to lease

issuance. Establish buffer zones after

consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently no bald or golden

eagle roosts or established buffer

zones located on the NARO North LBA

Tract. There are no unsuitable

findings under Criterion 12 for the

NARO North LBA Tract.

13. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer Zones.

Federal lands containing active falcon

(excluding kestrel) cliff nesting sites and a

suitable buffer zone shall be considered

unsuitable unless mining can be conducted

in such a way as to ensure the falcons will

not be adversely affected.

Defer suitability decisions on falcon

nesting sites and evaluate on a case by

case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones around nesting

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently no falcon nesting

sites or established buffer zones

located on the NARO North LBA Tract.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 13 for the NARO North

LBA Tract.

14. Habitat for Migratory Bird Species. Federal

lands which are high priority habitat for

migratory bird species of high federal

interest shall be considered unsuitable

unless mining can be conducted in such a

way as to ensure that migratory bird habitat

will not be adversely affected during the

period it is in use.

Defer suitability decisions on migratory

bird habitat and evaluate on a case by

case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones around nesting

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

No high priority habitat for migratory

bird species of high federal interest has

been identified on the NARO North LBA

Tract and adjacent areas. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 14

for the NARO North LBA Tract.

15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for Resident Species.

Federal lands which the surface management

agency and state jointly agree are fish, wildlife

and plant habitat of resident species of high

interest to the state, and which are essential

for maintaining these priority wildlife species,

shall be considered unsuitable unless mining

can be conducted in such a way as to ensure

no long-term impact on the species being

provided will occur.

Defer suitability decisions on grouse leks

and evaluate on a case by case basis prior

to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones

after consultation with USFWS. 

There are no active or inactive sage

grouse leks on or within two miles of

the NARO North LBA Tract. There are

no unsuitable findings under Criterion

15 for the NARO North LBA Tract.

16. Floodplains. Federal lands in riverine,

coastal, and special floodplains shall be

considered unsuitable where it is determined

that mining could not be undertaken

without substantial threat of loss of life or

property.

The BLM and USFS have determined

that the identified floodplains could

potentially be mined. Therefore, all

lands within the general review area are

considered suitable.

Site-specific stipulations and resource

protection safeguards will be applied if

necessary during mining and

reclamation planning. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 16

for the NARO North LBA Tract.

17. Municipal Watersheds. Federal lands which

have been committed by the surface

management agency to use as municipal

watersheds shall be considered unsuitable.

There are no designated municipal

watersheds in the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 17 for the NARO North

LBA Tract.
Appendix B

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR NARO NORTH LBA

TRACT

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS B-3

18. National Resource Waters. Federal lands

with national resource waters, as identified

by states in their water quality management

plans, and 1/4-mile buffer zones shall be

unsuitable.

There are no designated national

resource waters within the TBNG review

area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 18 for the NARO North

LBA Tract.

19. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal lands

identified by the surface management

agency, in consultation with the state, as

AVFs where mining would interrupt,

discontinue or preclude farming, are

unsuitable. Additionally, when mining

federal lands outside an AVF would

materially damage the quality or quantity of

water in surface or underground water

systems that would supply AVFs, the land

shall be considered unsuitable.

Consider areas determined to contain

AVFs significant to farming as

unsuitable. Defer decisions on other

AVFs and analyze on a case by case

basis at the time a lease action is

evaluated. 

No AVFs identified as significant to

farming and therefore unsuitable for

mining have been identified on the

NARO North LBA Tract. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 19

for the NARO North LBA Tract. 

20. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. Federal lands

to which is applicable a criterion proposed

by the state or Indian tribe located in the

planning area and adopted by rulemaking by

the Secretary are unsuitable.

There are no criterion proposed by state

or Indian tribes that have been approved

by the Secretary of the Interior. No

tribal lands are located in or near the

review area.

There are no unsuitability findings for

this criterion on the NARO North LBA

Tract.
Appendix B

B-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Appendix B. Unsuitability Criteria for the NARO South LBA

Tract

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR NARO SOUTH LBA

TRACT

1. Federal Land Systems. With certain

exceptions that do not apply to this tract, all

federal lands included in the following

systems are unsuitable for mining: National

Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National

System of Trails, National Wilderness

Preservation System, National Wild and

Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas,

Lands acquired through the Land and Water

Conservation Fund, National Forests and

Federal lands in incorporated cities, towns

and villages.

There are Federal lands located around

Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright which

were determined to be unsuitable under

this criterion. The TBNG is not a

proclaimed National Forest. No TBNG

lands are included in the NARO South

LBA Tract.

None of the federal lands determined to

be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are

present on the NARO South LBA Tract,

and therefore there are no unsuitable

findings. 

2. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. Federal lands

that are within ROWs or easements or within

surface leases for residential, commercial,

industrial or other public purposes, on

federally owned surface, are unsuitable for

mining.

Portions of the BNSF&UP railroad, the

Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line, and

Wyoming State Highway 450 ROWs were

found to be unsuitable under this

criterion within the general review area. 

The portions of the Tri-County

transmission line and Highway 450

ROWs that were found to be unsuitable

are not located on the NARO South LBA

Tract. The LBA tract includes a portion

of the BNSF&UP railroad ROW. This

ROW was designated unsuitable for

mining and the lease will be stipulated

to exclude mining within the ROW.

3. Dwellings, Roads, Cemeteries, and Public

Buildings. Federal lands within 100 ft of a

ROW of a public road or a cemetery; or within

300 ft of any public building, school, church,

community or institutional building or public

park; or within 300 ft of an occupied dwelling

are unsuitable for mining.

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450,

Interstate Highway I-90, and one cemetery

were found to be unsuitable under this

criterion. Decisions were deferred on

other highway/roads, occupied dwellings,

and one school. 

Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery

are not located on the NARO South LBA

Tract. No occupied dwellings,

unsuitable highways/roads, or schools

are located on the tract. Therefore,

there are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 3 for the NARO South LBA

Tract. 

4. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal lands

designated as wilderness study areas are

unsuitable for mining while under review for

possible wilderness designation.

No lands in the general review area are

within a wilderness study area.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 4 for the NARO South LBA

Tract.

5. Lands with Outstanding Scenic Quality.

Scenic federal lands designated by visual

resource management analysis as Class I

(outstanding visual quality or high visual

sensitivity) but not currently on National

Register of Natural Landmarks are unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area meet

the scenic criteria as outlined.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 5 for the NARO South LBA

Tract.

6. Land Used for Scientific Study. Federal lands

under permit by the surface management

agency and being used for scientific studies

involving food or fiber production, natural

resources, or technology demonstrations and

experiments are unsuitable for the duration of

the study except where mining would not

jeopardize the purpose of the study.

A vegetation monitoring study site (NE 1⁄4

of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W.) and the Hoe

Creek Site (Sec. 7, T.47N., T.72W.) were

found to be unsuitable under this

criterion. 

Neither the vegetation monitoring site or

the Hoe Creek site are located on the

NARO South LBA Tract. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 6

for the NARO South LBA Tract.

7. Cultural Resources. All publicly or privately

owned places which are included in or are

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and an

appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable.

On the basis of the consultation with

SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings

under this criterion in the general review

area. Continue to apply the “Standard

Archeological Stipulations for Culture

Resources” to new leases. 

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 7 for the NARO South LBA

Tract. The “Standard Archeological

Stipulation for Cultural Resources”

should be applied if this tract is leased.

8. Natural Areas. Federal lands designated as

natural areas or National Natural Landmarks

are unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area are

designated as natural areas or as National

Natural Landmarks.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 8 for the NARO South LBA

Tract.

9. Critical Habitat for Threatened or Endangered

Plant and Animal Species. Federally

designated critical habitat for threatened or

endangered plant and animal species, and

scientifically documented essential habitat for

threatened or endangered species are

unsuitable.

There is no federally designated critical

habitat for threatened or endangered

plant or animal species within the general

review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 9 for the NARO South LBA

Tract.
Appendix B

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR NARO SOUTH LBA

TRACT

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS B-5

10. State Listed Species. Federal lands containing

habitat determined to be critical or essential

for plant or animal species listed by a state

pursuant to state law as threatened or

endangered shall be considered unsuitable.

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of

threatened or endangered species of

plants or animals. Therefore, this

criterion does not apply.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 10 for the NARO South LBA

Tract.

11. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An active bald or

golden eagle nest and appropriate buffer zone

are unsuitable unless the lease can be

conditioned so that eagles will not be

disturbed during breeding season or unless

golden eagle nests will be moved.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate

bald and golden eagle nests on a case by

case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones around nests after

consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently no active bald or

golden eagle nests or established buffer

zones located on the NARO South LBA

Tract. There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 11 for the NARO South

LBA Tract.

12. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and

Concentration Areas. Bald and golden eagle

roost and concentration areas on federal lands

used during migration and wintering are

unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in

such a way as to ensure that eagles shall not

be adversely disturbed.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate

bald and golden eagle roost areas on a

case by case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones after consultation

with USFWS. 

There are currently no bald or golden

eagle roost areas or established buffer

zones located on the NARO South LBA

Tract. There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 12 for the NARO South

LBA Tract.

13. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer Zones.

Federal lands containing active falcon

(excluding kestrel) cliff nesting sites and a

suitable buffer zone shall be considered

unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in

such a way as to ensure the falcons will not be

adversely affected.

Defer suitability decisions on falcon

nesting sites and evaluate on a case by

case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones around nesting

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently no falcon nesting

sites or established buffer zones located

on the NARO South LBA Tract. There

are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 13 for the NARO South LBA

Tract.

14. Habitat for Migratory Bird Species. Federal

lands which are high priority habitat for

migratory bird species of high federal interest

shall be considered unsuitable unless mining

can be conducted in such a way as to ensure

that migratory bird habitat will not be

adversely affected during the period it is in

use.

Defer suitability decisions on migratory

bird habitat and evaluate on a case by

case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones around nesting

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

No high priority habitat for migratory

bird species of high federal interest has

been identified on the NARO South LBA

Tract or adjacent areas. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 14

for the NARO South LBA Tract .

15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for Resident Species.

Federal lands which the surface management

agency and state jointly agree are fish, wildlife

and plant habitat of resident species of high

interest to the state, and which are essential

for maintaining these priority wildlife species,

shall be considered unsuitable unless mining

can be conducted in such a way as to ensure

no long-term impact on the species being

provided will occur.

Defer suitability decisions on grouse leks

and evaluate on a case by case basis prior

to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones

after consultation with USFWS. 

There are no active or inactive sage

grouse leks on or within two miles of the

NARO South LBA Tract. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 15

for the NARO South LBA Tract.

16. Floodplains. Federal lands in riverine, coastal,

and special floodplains shall be considered

unsuitable where it is determined that mining

could not be undertaken without substantial

threat of loss of life or property.

The BLM and USFS have determined that

the identified floodplains could potentially

be mined. Therefore, all lands within the

general review area are considered

suitable.

Site-specific stipulations and resource

protection safeguards will be applied if

necessary during mining and

reclamation planning. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 16

for the NARO South LBA Tract. 

17. Municipal Watersheds. Federal lands which

have been committed by the surface

management agency to use as municipal

watersheds shall be considered unsuitable.

There are no designated municipal

watersheds in the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 17 for the NARO South LBA

Tract.

18. National Resource Waters. Federal lands with

national resource waters, as identified by

states in their water quality management

plans, and 1/4-mile buffer zones shall be

unsuitable.

There are no designated national

resource waters within the TBNG review

area.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 18 for the NARO South LBA

Tract.

19. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal lands identified

by the surface management agency, in

consultation with the state, as AVFs where

mining would interrupt, discontinue or

preclude farming, are unsuitable.

Additionally, when mining federal lands

outside an AVF would materially damage the

quality or quantity of water in surface or

underground water systems that would supply

AVFs, the land shall be considered unsuitable.

Consider areas determined to contain

AVFs significant to farming as unsuitable.

Defer decisions on other AVFs and analyze

on a case by case basis at the time a lease

action is evaluated.

No AVFs identified as significant to

farming and therefore unsuitable for

mining have been identified on the

NARO South LBA Tract. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 19

for the NARO South LBA Tract.
Appendix B

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR NARO SOUTH LBA

TRACT

B-6 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

20. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. Federal lands to

which is applicable a criterion proposed by the

state or Indian tribe located in the planning

area and adopted by rulemaking by the

Secretary are unsuitable.

There are no criterion proposed by state or

Indian tribes that have been approved by

the Secretary of the Interior. No tribal

lands are located in or near the review

area.

There are no unsuitability findings for

this criterion on the NARO South LBA

Tract.
Appendix B

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS B-7

Appendix B. Unsuitability Criteria for the Little Thunder LBA

Tract

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR LITTLE THUNDER

LBA TRACT

1. Federal Land Systems. With certain

exceptions that do not apply to this tract, all

federal lands included in the following

systems are unsuitable for mining: National

Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National

System of Trails, National Wilderness

Preservation System, National Wild and

Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas,

Lands acquired through the Land and Water

Conservation Fund, National Forests and

Federal lands in incorporated cities, towns

and villages.

There are Federal lands located around

Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright which

were determined to be unsuitable under

this criterion. The TBNG is not a

proclaimed National Forest. TBNG lands

are included in the Little Thunder LBA

Tract.

The TBNG lands included in the Little

Thunder LBA Tract are not unsuitable

under this criterion. None of the

federal lands determined to be

unsuitable under Criterion 1 are

present on the Little Thunder LBA

Tract, and therefore there are no

unsuitable findings.

2. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. Federal lands

that are within ROWs or easements or within

surface leases for residential, commercial,

industrial or other public purposes, on

federally owned surface, are unsuitable for

mining.

Portions of the BNSF&UP railroad, the

Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line, and

the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROWs

were found to be unsuitable under this

criterion within the general review area. 

The portion of the Tri-County

transmission line that was found to be

unsuitable is not located on the Little

Thunder LBA Tract. The LBA tract may

be configured to include a portion of the

north-south BNSF&UP ROW. This

portion of the ROW was designated

unsuitable for mining and the lease will

be stipulated to exclude mining within

the ROW. The LBA includes a portion of

the Highway 450 ROW east of the

intersection with the main north-south

railroad ROW. This portion of the ROW

was designated unsuitable for mining

and the lease will be stipulated to

exclude mining within the ROW.

3. Dwellings, Roads, Cemeteries, and Public

Buildings. Federal lands within 100 ft of a

ROW of a public road or a cemetery; or within

300 ft of any public building, school, church,

community or institutional building or public

park; or within 300 ft of an occupied dwelling

are unsuitable for mining.

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450,

Interstate Highway I-90, and one cemetery

were found to be unsuitable under this

criterion. Decisions were deferred on

other highways/roads, occupied

dwellings, and one school.

The Little Thunder LBA Tract includes a

portion of Highway 450 east of the

intersection with the north-south main

BNSF&UP railroad trunk line which was

designated unsuitable for mining and

the lease will be stipulated to exclude

mining within 100 ft of this highway

ROW. There are no other unsuitable

findings under Criterion 3 for the Little

Thunder LBA Tract. 

4. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal lands

designated as wilderness study areas are

unsuitable for mining while under review for

possible wilderness designation.

No lands in the general review area are

within a wilderness study area.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 4 for the Little Thunder LBA

Tract.

5. Lands with Outstanding Scenic Quality.

Scenic federal lands designated by visual

resource management analysis as Class I

(outstanding visual quality or high visual

sensitivity) but not currently on National

Register of Natural Landmarks are unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area meet

the scenic criteria as outlined.

There are no unsuitable findings for

Criterion 5 for the Little Thunder LBA

Tract.

6. Land Used for Scientific Study. Federal lands

under permit by the surface management

agency and being used for scientific studies

involving food or fiber production, natural

resources, or technology demonstrations and

experiments are unsuitable for the duration of

the study except where mining would not

jeopardize the purpose of the study.

A vegetation monitoring study site (NE 1⁄4,

Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W.) and the Hoe Creek

Site (Sec. 7, T.47N., R.72W.) were found to

be unsuitable under this criterion.

Neither the vegetation monitoring site or

the Hoe Creek site are located on the

Little Thunder LBA Tract. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 6

for the Little Thunder LBA Tract.

7. Cultural Resources. All publicly or privately

owned places which are included in or are

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and an

appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable.

On the basis of the consultation with

SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings

under this criterion in the general review

area. Continue using the “Standard

Archeological Stipulation for Cultural

Resources” to new leases.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 7 for the Little Thunder LBA

Tract. The “Standard Archeological

Stipulation for Cultural Resources”

should be applied if this tract is leased.

8. Natural Areas. Federal lands designated as

natural areas or National Natural Landmarks

are unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area are

designated as natural areas or as National

Natural Landmarks.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 8 for the Little Thunder LBA

Tract.
Appendix B

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR LITTLE THUNDER

LBA TRACT

B-8 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

9. Critical Habitat for Threatened or Endangered

Plant and Animal Species. Federally

designated critical habitat for threatened or

endangered plant and animal species, and

scientifically documented essential habitat for

threatened or endangered species are

unsuitable.

There is no federally designated critical

habitat for threatened or endangered

plant or animal species within the general

review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 9 for the Little Thunder LBA

Tract.

10. State Listed Species. Federal lands containing

habitat determined to be critical or essential

for plant or animal species listed by a state

pursuant to state law as threatened or

endangered shall be considered unsuitable.

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of

threatened or endangered species of

plants or animals. Therefore, this

criterion does not apply.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 10 for the Little Thunder LBA

Tract.

11. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An active bald or

golden eagle nest and appropriate buffer zone

are unsuitable unless the lease can be

conditioned so that eagles will not be

disturbed during breeding season or unless

golden eagle nests will be moved.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate

bald and golden eagle nests on a case by

case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones around nests after

consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently golden eagle nests

on the Little Thunder LBA Tract.

Evaluate suitability prior to lease

issuance during consultation with

USFWS. 

12. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and

Concentration Areas. Bald and golden eagle

roost and concentration areas on federal lands

used during migration and wintering are

unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in

such a way as to ensure that eagles shall not

be adversely disturbed.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate

bald and golden eagle roost areas on a

case by case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones after consultation

with USFWS.

Evaluate suitability prior to lease

issuance during consultation with

USFWS.

13. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer Zones.

Federal lands containing active falcon

(excluding kestrel) cliff nesting sites and a

suitable buffer zone shall be considered

unsuitable unless mining can be conducted

in such a way as to ensure the falcons will

not be adversely affected.

Defer suitability decisions on falcon

nesting sites and evaluate on a case by

case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones around nesting

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

No falcon nesting sites have been

identified on the Little Thunder LBA

Tract. There are no unsuitable

findings under Criterion 13 for the

Little Thunder LBA Tract.

14. Habitat for Migratory Bird Species. Federal

lands which are high priority habitat for

migratory bird species of high federal

interest shall be considered unsuitable

unless mining can be conducted in such a

way as to ensure that migratory bird habitat

will not be adversely affected during the

period it is in use.

Defer suitability decisions on high

priority habitat for migratory bird

species of high federal interest and

evaluate on a case by case basis prior to

lease issuance. Establish buffer zones

for nesting areas after consultation with

USFWS. 

Evaluate suitability prior to lease

issuance during consultation with

USFWS.

15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for Resident

Species. Federal lands which the surface

management agency and state jointly agree

are fish, wildlife and plant habitat of resident

species of high interest to the state, and

which are essential for maintaining these

priority wildlife species, shall be considered

unsuitable unless mining can be conducted

in such a way as to ensure no long-term

impact on the species being provided will

occur.

Defer suitability decisions on grouse

leks and evaluate on a case by case

basis prior to lease issuance. Establish

buffer zones after consultation with

USFWS. 

There are no active sage grouse leks

on or within two miles of the Little

Thunder LBA Tract. There is one

inactive sage grouse lek located on an

existing Black Thunder Mine lease

within two miles of a portion of the

Little Thunder LBA Tract. Evaluate

suitability prior to lease issuance

during consultation with USFWS. 

16. Floodplains. Federal lands in riverine,

coastal, and special floodplains shall be

considered unsuitable where it is determined

that mining could not be undertaken

without substantial threat of loss of life or

property.

The BLM and USFS have determined

that the identified floodplains could

potentially be mined. Therefore, all

lands within the general review area are

considered suitable.

Site-specific stipulations and resource

protection safeguards will be applied if

necessary during mining and

reclamation planning. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 16

for the Little Thunder LBA Tract. 

17. Municipal Watersheds. Federal lands which

have been committed by the surface

management agency to use as municipal

watersheds shall be considered unsuitable.

There are no designated municipal

watersheds in the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 17 for the Little

Thunder LBA Tract.
Appendix B

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR LITTLE THUNDER

LBA TRACT

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS B-9

18. National Resource Waters. Federal lands

with national resource waters, as identified

by states in their water quality management

plans, and 1/4-mile buffer zones shall be

unsuitable.

There are no designated national

resource waters within the TBNG review

area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 18 for the Little

Thunder LBA Tract.

19. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal lands

identified by the surface management

agency, in consultation with the state, as

AVFs where mining would interrupt,

discontinue or preclude farming, are

unsuitable. Additionally, when mining

federal lands outside an AVF would

materially damage the quality or quantity of

water in surface or underground water

systems that would supply AVFs, the land

shall be considered unsuitable.

Consider areas determined to contain

AVFs significant to farming as

unsuitable. Defer decisions on other

AVFs and analyze on a case by case

basis prior to lease issuance. 

No AVFs identified as significant to

farming and therefore unsuitable for

mining have been identified on the

Little Thunder LBA Tract. There are

no unsuitable findings under Criterion

19 for the Little Thunder LBA Tract. 

20. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. Federal lands

to which is applicable a criterion proposed

by the state or Indian tribe located in the

planning area and adopted by rulemaking by

the Secretary are unsuitable.

There are no criterion proposed by state

or Indian tribes that have been approved

by the Secretary of the Interior. No

tribal lands are located in or near the

review area.

There are no unsuitability findings for

this criterion on the Little Thunder

LBA Tract.
Appendix B

B-10 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Appendix B. Unsuitability Criteria for the West Roundup LBA

Tract

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR WEST ROUNDUP LBA

TRACT

1. Federal Land Systems. With certain

exceptions that do not apply to this tract, all

federal lands included in the following

systems are unsuitable for mining: National

Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National

System of Trails, National Wilderness

Preservation System, National Wild and

Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas,

Lands acquired through the Land and Water

Conservation Fund, National Forests and

Federal lands in incorporated cities, towns

and villages.

There are Federal lands located around

Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright which

were determined to be unsuitable under

this criterion. The TBNG is not a

proclaimed National Forest. TBNG lands

are included in the West Roundup LBA

Tract. 

The TBNG lands included in the West

Roundup LBA Tract are not unsuitable

under this criterion. None of the

federal lands determined to be

unsuitable under Criterion 1 are

present on the West Roundup LBA

Tract, and therefore there are no

unsuitable findings.

2. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. Federal lands

that are within ROWs or easements or within

surface leases for residential, commercial,

industrial or other public purposes, on federally

owned surface, are unsuitable for mining.

Portions of the BNSF&UP railroad, the TriCounty 230-Kv transmission line, and the

Wyoming State Highway 450 ROWs were

found to be unsuitable under this

criterion within the general review area.

USFS has determined that portions of the

North Rochelle Special Use Permit area

are unsuitable under this criterion (USFS

2002b).

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv

transmission line, the BNSF&UP, and

the Wyoming Highway 450 ROWs that

were found to be unsuitable are not on

the West Roundup LBA Tract. The LBA

tract may be configured to include the

North Rochelle USFS Special Use Permit

for ancillary facilities. The special use

permit area has been determined to be

unsuitable for mining and the lease will

be stipulated to exclude mining in the

unsuitable portions of the special use

permit area (USFS 2002b).

3. Dwellings, Roads, Cemeteries, and Public

Buildings. Federal lands within 100 ft of a ROW

of a public road or a cemetery; or within 300 ft

of any public building, school, church,

community or institutional building or public

park; or within 300 ft of an occupied dwelling

are unsuitable for mining.

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450,

Interstate Highway I-90, and one cemetery

were found to be unsuitable for mining

under this criterion. Decisions were

deferred on other highways/roads,

occupied dwellings, and one school.

Highway 450, I-90, and the designated

cemetery are not located on the West

Roundup LBA Tract. No occupied

dwellings, highways/roads, or schools

are located on the tract. Therefore,

there are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 3 for the West Roundup LBA

Tract. 

4. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal lands

designated as wilderness study areas are

unsuitable for mining while under review for

possible wilderness designation.

No lands in the general review area are

within a wilderness study area.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 4 for the West Roundup LBA

Tract.

5. Lands with Outstanding Scenic Quality. Scenic

federal lands designated by visual resource

management analysis as Class I (outstanding

visual quality or high visual sensitivity) but not

currently on National Register of Natural

Landmarks are unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area meet

the scenic criteria as outlined.

There are no unsuitable findings Under

Criterion 5 for the West Roundup LBA

Tract.

6. Land Used for Scientific Study. Federal lands

under permit by the surface management

agency and being used for scientific studies

involving food or fiber production, natural

resources, or technology demonstrations and

experiments are unsuitable for the duration of

the study except where mining would not

jeopardize the purpose of the study.

A vegetation monitoring study site (NE 1⁄4,

Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W.) and the Hoe Creek

Site (Sec. 7, T.47N., R.72W.) were found to

be unsuitable under this criterion.

Neither the vegetation monitoring site or

the Hoe Creek site are located on the

West Roundup LBA Tract. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 6

for the West Roundup LBA Tract.

7. Cultural Resources. All publicly or privately

owned places which are included in or are

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and an

appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable.

On the basis of the consultation with

SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings

under this criterion in the general review

area. Continue using the “Standard

Archeological Stipulation for Cultural

Resources” to new leases. 

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 7 for the West Roundup LBA

Tract. The “Standard Archeological

Stipulation for Cultural Resources”

should be applied if this tract is leased.

8. Natural Areas. Federal lands designated as

natural areas or National Natural Landmarks

are unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area are

designated as natural areas or as National

Natural Landmarks.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 8 for the West Roundup LBA

Tract.
Appendix B

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR WEST ROUNDUP LBA

TRACT

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS B-11

9. Critical Habitat for Threatened or Endangered

Plant and Animal Species. Federally

designated critical habitat for threatened or

endangered plant and animal species, and

scientifically documented essential habitat for

threatened or endangered species are

unsuitable.

There is no federally designated critical

habitat for threatened or endangered

plant or animal species within the

general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 9 for the West

Roundup LBA Tract.

10. State Listed Species. Federal lands

containing habitat determined to be critical

or essential for plant or animal species listed

by a state pursuant to state law as

threatened or endangered shall be

considered unsuitable.

Wyoming does not maintain a state list

of threatened or endangered species of

plants or animals. Therefore, this

criterion does not apply.

There are no unsuitable findings

under criterion 10 for the West

Roundup LBA Tract.

11. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An active bald

or golden eagle nest and appropriate buffer

zone are unsuitable unless the lease can be

conditioned so that eagles will not be

disturbed during breeding season or unless

golden eagle nests will be moved.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate

bald and golden eagle nests on a case by

case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones around nests

after consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently no bald or golden

eagle nests or established buffer zones

located on the West Roundup LBA

Tract. There are no unsuitable

findings under Criterion 11 for the

West Roundup LBA Tract.

12. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and

Concentration Areas. Bald and golden eagle

roost and concentration areas on federal

lands used during migration and wintering

are unsuitable unless mining can be

conducted in such a way as to ensure that

eagles shall not be adversely disturbed.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate

bald and golden eagle roost areas on a

case by case basis prior to lease

issuance. Establish buffer zones after

consultation with USFWS. 

There are currently no bald or golden

eagle roost areas or established buffer

zones located on the West Roundup

LBA Tract. There are no unsuitable

findings under Criterion 12 for the

West Roundup LBA Tract.

13. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer Zones.

Federal lands containing active falcon

(excluding kestrel) cliff nesting sites and a

suitable buffer zone shall be considered

unsuitable unless mining can be conducted

in such a way as to ensure the falcons will

not be adversely affected.

Defer unsuitability decisions on falcon

nesting sites and evaluate on a case by

case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones around nesting

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

No falcon nesting sites have been

identified on the West Roundup LBA

Tract. There are no unsuitable

findings under Criterion 13 for the

West Roundup LBA Tract.

14. Habitat for Migratory Bird Species. Federal

lands which are high priority habitat for

migratory bird species of high federal

interest shall be considered unsuitable

unless mining can be conducted in such a

way as to ensure that migratory bird habitat

will not be adversely affected during the

period it is in use.

Defer suitability decisions on high

priority habitat for migratory bird

species of high federal interest and

evaluate on a case by case basis prior to

lease issuance. Establish buffer zones

for nesting areas after consultation with

USFWS. 

Evaluate suitability prior to lease

issuance during consultation with

USFWS. 

15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for Resident

Species. Federal lands which the surface

management agency and state jointly agree

are fish, wildlife and plant habitat of resident

species of high interest to the state, and

which are essential for maintaining these

priority wildlife species, shall be considered

unsuitable unless mining can be conducted

in such a way as to ensure no long-term

impact on the species being provided will

occur.

Defer suitability decisions on grouse

leks and evaluate on a case by case

basis prior to lease issuance. Establish

buffer zones after consultation with

USFWS. 

There are no active sage grouse leks

on or within two miles of the West

Roundup LBA Tract. There is one

inactive sage grouse lek located on an

existing Black Thunder Mine lease

within two miles of a portion of the

West Roundup LBA Tract. Evaluate

suitability prior to lease issuance

during consultation with USFWS. 

16. Floodplains. Federal lands in riverine,

coastal, and special floodplains shall be

considered unsuitable where it is determined

that mining could not be undertaken

without substantial threat of loss of life or

property.

The BLM and USFS have determined

that the identified floodplains could

potentially be mined. Therefore, all

lands within the general review area are

considered suitable.

Site-specific stipulations and resource

protection safeguards will be applied if

necessary during mining and

reclamation planning. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 16

for the Little Thunder LBA Tract. 

17. Municipal Watersheds. Federal lands which

have been committed by the surface

management agency to use as municipal

watersheds shall be considered unsuitable.

There are no designated municipal

watersheds in the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 17 for the West

Roundup LBA Tract.
Appendix B

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR WEST ROUNDUP LBA

TRACT

B-12 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

18. National Resource Waters. Federal lands

with national resource waters, as identified

by states in their water quality management

plans, and 1/4-mile buffer zones shall be

unsuitable.

There are no designated national

resource waters within the TBNG review

area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 18 for the West

Roundup LBA Tract.

19. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal lands

identified by the surface management

agency, in consultation with the state, as

AVFs where mining would interrupt,

discontinue or preclude farming, are

unsuitable. Additionally, when mining

federal lands outside an AVF would

materially damage the quality or quantity of

water in surface or underground water

systems that would supply AVFs, the land

shall be considered unsuitable.

Consider areas determined to contain

AVFs significant to farming as

unsuitable. Defer decisions on other

AVFs and analyze on a case by case

basis prior to lease issuance.

No AVFs identified as significant to

farming and therefore unsuitable for

mining have been identified on the

West Roundup LBA Tract. There are

no unsuitable findings under Criterion

19 for the West Roundup LBA Tract.

20. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. Federal lands

to which is applicable a criterion proposed

by the state or Indian tribe located in the

planning area and adopted by rulemaking by

the Secretary are unsuitable.

There are no criterion proposed by state

or Indian tribes that have been approved

by the Secretary of the Interior. No

tribal lands are located in or near the

review area.

There are no unsuitability findings for

this criterion on the West Roundup

LBA Tract.
Appendix B

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS B-13

Appendix B. Unsuitability Criteria for the West Antelope LBA

Tract

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR WEST ANTELOPE

LBA TRACT

1. Federal Land Systems. With certain

exceptions that do not apply to this tract, all

federal lands included in the following

systems are unsuitable for mining: National

Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National

System of Trails, National Wilderness

Preservation System, National Wild and

Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas,

Lands acquired through the Land and Water

Conservation Fund, National Forests and

Federal lands in incorporated cities, towns

and villages.

There are Federal lands located around

Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright which

were determined to be unsuitable under

this criterion. The TBNG is not a

proclaimed National Forest. No TBNG

lands are included in the West Antelope

LBA Tract.

None of the federal lands determined to

be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are

present on the West Antelope LBA Tract,

and therefore there are no unsuitable

findings. 

2. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. Federal lands

that are within ROWs or easements or within

surface leases for residential, commercial,

industrial or other public purposes, on federally

owned surface, are unsuitable for mining.

Portions of the BNSF&UP railroad, the TriCounty 230-Kv transmission line, and

Wyoming State Highway 450 ROWs were

found to be unsuitable under this

criterion within the general review area. 

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv

transmission line, the BNSF&UP, and

the Wyoming Highway ROWs that were

determined to be unsuitable are not

located on the West Antelope LBA Tract.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 2 for the West Antelope LBA

Tract. 

3. Dwellings, Roads, Cemeteries, and Public

Buildings. Federal lands within 100 ft of a

ROWs of a public road or a cemetery; or within

300 ft of any public building, school, church,

community or institutional building or public

park; or within 300 ft of an occupied dwelling

are unsuitable for mining.

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450,

Interstate Highway I-90, and one cemetery

were found to be unsuitable under this

criterion. Decisions were deferred on

other highways/roads, occupied

dwellings, and one school. 

Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery

are not located on the West Antelope

LBA Tract. No occupied dwellings,

other highways/roads, or schools are

located on the tract. Therefore, there

are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 3 for the West Antelope LBA

Tract. 

4. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal lands

designated as wilderness study areas are

unsuitable for mining while under review for

possible wilderness designation.

No lands in the general review area are

within a wilderness study area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 4 for the West

Antelope LBA Tract.

5. Lands with Outstanding Scenic Quality.

Scenic federal lands designated by visual

resource management analysis as Class I

(outstanding visual quality or high visual

sensitivity) but not currently on National

Register of Natural Landmarks are

unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area meet

the scenic criteria as outlined.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 5 for the West

Antelope LBA Tract.

6. Land Used for Scientific Study. Federal lands

under permit by the surface management

agency and being used for scientific studies

involving food or fiber production, natural

resources, or technology demonstrations and

experiments are unsuitable for the duration of

the study except where mining would not

jeopardize the purpose of the study.

A vegetation monitoring study site (NE

1⁄4 of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W.), and the

Hoe Creek Site (Sec. 7, T.47N., R.72W.)

were found to be unsuitable under this

criterion. 

Neither the vegetation monitoring site

or the Hoe Creek site are located on

the West Antelope LBA Tract. There

are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 6 for the West Antelope LBA

Tract.

7. Cultural Resources. All publicly or privately

owned places which are included in or are

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and an

appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable.

On the basis of the consultation with

SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings

under this criterion in the general review

area. Continue using the “Standard

Archeological Stipulation for Cultural

Resources” to new leases.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 7 for the West Antelope LBA

Tract. The “Standard Archeological

Stipulation for Cultural Resources”

should be applied if this tract is leased.

8. Natural Areas. Federal lands designated as

natural areas or National Natural Landmarks

are unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area are

designated as natural areas or as National

Natural Landmarks.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 8 for the West Antelope LBA

Tract.

9. Critical Habitat for Threatened or Endangered

Plant and Animal Species. Federally designated

critical habitat for threatened or endangered

plant and animal species, and scientifically

documented essential habitat for threatened or

endangered species are unsuitable.

There is no federally designated critical

habitat for threatened or endangered

plant or animal species within the general

review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 9 for the West Antelope LBA

Tract.
Appendix B

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR WEST ANTELOPE

LBA TRACT

B-14 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

10. State Listed Species. Federal lands containing

habitat determined to be critical or essential

for plant or animal species listed by a state

pursuant to state law as threatened or

endangered shall be considered unsuitable.

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of

threatened or endangered species of

plants or animals. Therefore, this

criterion does not apply.

There are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 10 for the West Antelope LBA

Tract.

11. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An active bald or

golden eagle nest and appropriate buffer zone

are unsuitable unless the lease can be

conditioned so that eagles will not be

disturbed during breeding season or unless

golden eagle nests will be moved.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate

bald and golden eagle nests on a case by

case basis at the time of leasing.

Establish buffer zones around nests

after consultation with USFWS. 

There are golden eagle nests on the

West Antelope LBA Tract. Evaluate

suitability prior to lease issuance

during consultation with USFWS. 

12. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and

Concentration Areas. Bald and golden eagle

roost and concentration areas on federal lands

used during migration and wintering are

unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in

such a way as to ensure that eagles shall not

be adversely disturbed.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate

bald and golden eagle roost areas on a

case by case basis prior to lease

issuance. Establish buffer zones after

consultation with USFWS.

Evaluate suitability prior to lease

issuance during consultation with

USFWS. 

13. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer Zones.

Federal lands containing active falcon

(excluding kestrel) cliff nesting sites and a

suitable buffer zone shall be considered

unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in

such a way as to ensure the falcons will not be

adversely affected.

Defer suitability decisions on falcon

nesting sites and evaluate on a case by

case basis prior to lease issuance.

Establish buffer zones around nesting

sites after consultation with USFWS. 

No falcon nesting sites have been

identified on the West Antelope LBA

Tract. There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 13 for the West

Antelope LBA Tract. 

14. Habitat for Migratory Bird Species. Federal

lands which are high priority habitat for

migratory bird species of high federal interest

shall be considered unsuitable unless mining

can be conducted in such a way as to ensure

that migratory bird habitat will not be

adversely affected during the period it is in

use.

Defer suitability decisions on high

priority habitat for migratory bird

species of high federal interest and

evaluate on a case by case basis prior to

lease issuance. Establish buffer zones

for nesting areas after consultation with

USFWS. 

Evaluate suitability prior to lease

issuance during consultation with

USFWS. 

15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for Resident

Species. Federal lands which the surface

management agency and state jointly agree

are fish, wildlife and plant habitat of resident

species of high interest to the state, and

which are essential for maintaining these

priority wildlife species, shall be considered

unsuitable unless mining can be conducted

in such a way as to ensure no long-term

impact on the species being provided will

occur.

Defer suitability decisions on grouse

leks and evaluate on a case by case

basis prior to lease issuance. Establish

buffer zones after consultation with

USFWS.

There are no active or inactive sage

grouse leks on or within two miles of

the West Antelope LBA Tract. There

are no unsuitable findings under

Criterion 15 for the West Antelope LBA

Tract.

16. Floodplains. Federal lands in riverine,

coastal, and special floodplains shall be

considered unsuitable where it is determined

that mining could not be undertaken

without substantial threat of loss of life or

property.

The BLM and USFS have determined

that the identified floodplains could

potentially be mined. Therefore, all

lands within the general review area are

considered suitable.

Site-specific stipulations and resource

protection safeguards will be applied if

necessary during mining and

reclamation planning. There are no

unsuitable findings under Criterion 16

for the West Antelope LBA Tract. 

17. Municipal Watersheds. Federal lands which

have been committed by the surface

management agency to use as municipal

watersheds shall be considered unsuitable.

There are no designated municipal

watersheds in the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 17 for the West

Antelope LBA Tract.

18. National Resource Waters. Federal lands

with national resource waters, as identified

by states in their water quality management

plans, and 1/4-mile buffer zones shall be

unsuitable.

There are no designated national

resource waters within the TBNG review

area.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 18 for the West

Antelope LBA Tract.
Appendix B

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM

1985a, 2001a), PLATTE RIVER

RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985b), and

TBNG (USFS 1985, 2001, 2002a)

FINDINGS FOR WEST ANTELOPE

LBA TRACT

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS B-15

19. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal lands

identified by the surface management

agency, in consultation with the state, as

AVFs where mining would interrupt,

discontinue or preclude farming, are

unsuitable. Additionally, when mining

federal lands outside an AVF would

materially damage the quality or quantity of

water in surface or underground water

systems that would supply AVFs, the land

shall be considered unsuitable.

Consider areas determined to contain

AVFs significant to farming as

unsuitable. Defer decisions on other

AVFs and analyze on a case by case

basis prior to lease issuance. 

A portion of Spring Creek located on

the West Antelope LBA Tract is a

potential AVF, however, there is no

present or historical record of

agricultural uses of this potential AVF.

There are no unsuitable findings

under Criterion 19 for the West

Antelope LBA Tract.

20. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. Federal lands

to which is applicable a criterion proposed

by the state or Indian tribe located in the

planning area and adopted by rulemaking by

the Secretary are unsuitable.

There are no criterion proposed by state

or Indian tribes that have been approved

by the Secretary of the Interior. No

tribal lands are located in or near the

review area.

There are no unsuitability findings for

this criterion on the West Antelope

LBA Tract.
APPENDIX C

COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION

FLOW CHART
COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION

State Director (SD) notifies

Governor and Regional Coal Team

of application

District Manager (DM) 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

DM prepares 

site-specific 

Environmental

Analysis

DM recommends amendment

of LUP and/or modification of

application area

DM prepares Environmental

Analysis of LUP amendment

and application

Adjudicator evaluates

applicant’s qualifications

Confirms emergency (if applicable)

DM HOLDS PUBLIC

HEARING

Applicant submits/

Adjudicator reviews surface owner

consent agreement(s) (if necessary) 

SD MAKES

DECISION

TO

HOLD

SALE

TO REJECT

THE

APPLICATION

SD consults with 

Surface Management Agency, Governor,

Attorney General, and Indian Tribes 
APPENDIX D

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

SPECIAL COAL LEASE STIPULATIONS,

U.S. FOREST SERVICE SPECIAL STIPULATIONS,

AND FORM 3400-12 COAL LEASE
Appendix D

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS D-1

BLM will attach the following special stipulations to each LBA tract that is leased:

SPECIAL STIPULATIONS

In addition to observing the general

obligations and standards of

performance set out in the current

regulations, the lessee shall comply

with and be bound by the following

special stipulations.

These stipulations are also imposed

upon the lessee's agents and

employees. The failure or refusal of

any of these persons to comply with

these stipulations shall be deemed a

failure of the lessee to comply with

the terms of the lease. The lessee

shall require his agents, contractors

and subcontractors involved in

activities concerning this lease to

include these stipulations in the

contracts between and among them.

These stipulations may be revised or

amended, in writing, by the mutual

consent of the lessor and the lessee at

any time to adjust to changed

conditions or to correct an oversight.

(a) CULTURAL RESOURCES

(1) Before undertaking any

activities that may disturb the

surface of the leased lands, the

lessee shall conduct a cultural

resource intensive field inventory

in a manner specified by the

Authorized Officer of the BLM or of

the surface managing agency, if

different, on portions of the mine

plan area and adjacent areas, or

exploration plan area, that may be

adversely affected by lease-related

activities and which were not

previously inventoried at such a

level of intensity. The inventory

shall be conducted by a qualified

professional cultural resource

specialist (i.e., archeologist,

historian, historical architect, as

appropriate), approved by the

Authorized Officer of the surface

managing agency (BLM, if the

surface is privately owned), and a

report of the inventory and

recommendations for protecting

any cultural resources identified

shall be submitted to the Assistant

Director of the Western Support

Center of the Office of Surface

Mining, 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 Assistant 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 Assistant

Director or Authorized Officer.

(2) The lessee shall protect all

cultural resource properties 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. 
Appendix D

D-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

(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 Assistant Director

or Authorized Officer, or the

Authorized Officer of the surface

managing agency, if the Assistant

Director is not available. The

lessee shall not disturb such

resources except as may be

subsequently authorized by the

Assistant Director or Authorized

Officer.

Within two (2) working days of

notification, the Assistant 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 surface

managing agency 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 construction, the

find will be reported to the Authorized

Officer immediately. Construction

will be suspended within 250 feet of

said find. An evaluation of the

paleontological discovery will be made

by a BLM approved professional

paleontologist within five (5) working

days, weather permitting, to

determine the appropriate action(s) to

prevent the potential loss of any

significant paleontological value.

Operations within 250 feet of such

discovery will not be resumed until

written authorization to proceed is

issued by the Authorized Officer. The

lessee will bear the cost of any

required paleontological appraisals,

surface collection of fossils, or salvage

of any large conspicuous fossils of

significant scientific interest

discovered during the operations.

(c) 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.

(d) OIL AND GAS/COAL

RESOURCES

The BLM realizes that coal mining

operations conducted on Federal coal
Appendix D

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS D-3

leases issued within producing oil

and gas fields may interfere with the

economic recovery of oil and gas; just

as Federal oil and gas leases issued in

a Federal coal lease area may inhibit

coal recovery. BLM retains the

authority to alter and/or modify the

resource recovery and protection

plans for coal operations and/or oil

and gas operations on those lands

covered by Federal mineral leases so

as to obtain maximum resource

recovery.

(e) RESOURCE RECOVERY AND

PROTECTION

Notwithstanding the approval of a

resource recovery and protection plan

(R2P2) by the BLM, lessor reserves

the right to seek damages against the

operator/lessee in the event (i) the

operator/lessee fails to achieve

maximum economic recovery (MER)

(as defined at 43 CFR 3480.0-5(21)) of

the recoverable coal reserves or (ii)

the operator/lessee is determined to

have caused a wasting of recoverable

coal reserves. Damages shall be

measured on the basis of the royalty

that would have been payable on the

wasted or unrecovered coal. 

The parties recognize that under an

approved R2P2, conditions may

require a modification by the

operator/lessee of that plan. In the

event a coal bed or portion thereof is

not to be mined or is rendered

unmineable by the operation, the

operator/lessee shall submit

appropriate justification to obtain

approval by the Authorized Officer to

leave such reserves unmined. Upon

approval by the Authorized Officer,

such coal beds or portions thereof

shall not be subject to damages as

described above. Further, nothing in

this section shall prevent the

operator/lessee from exercising its

right to relinquish all or portion of the

lease as authorized by statute and

regulation.

In the event the Authorized Officer

determines that the R2P2, as

approved, will not attain MER as the

result of changed conditions, the

Authorized Officer will give proper

notice to the operator/lessee as

required under applicable

regulations. The Authorized Officer

will order a modification if necessary,

identifying additional reserves to be

mined in order to attain MER. Upon

a final administrative or judicial

ruling upholding such an ordered

modification, any reserves left

unmined (wasted) under that plan

will be subject to damages as

described in the first paragraph

under this section. 

Subject to the right to appeal

hereinafter set forth, payment of the

value of the royalty on such unmined

recoverable coal reserves shall

become due and payable upon

determination by the Authorized

Officer that the coal reserves have

been rendered unmineable or at such

time that the operator/lessee has

demonstrated an unwillingness to

extract the coal.
Appendix D

D-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

The BLM may enforce this provision

either by issuing a written decision

requiring payment of the Mineral

Management Service demand for such

royalties, or by issuing a notice of

non-compliance. A decision or notice

of non-compliance issued by the

lessor that payment is due under this

stipulation is appealable as allowed

by law.

(f) 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.
Appendix D

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS D-5

If the NARO South, Little Thunder, and/or West Roundup LBA Tracts are leased,

BLM will attach a special stipulation (g) as indicated below:

The following special stipulation (g) will

be added to the NARO South LBA

Tract:

(g) RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY

No mining activity of any kind may be

conducted within the Burlington

Northern/Santa Fe and Union Pacific

railroad right-of-way. The lessee shall

recover all legally and economically

recoverable coal from all leased lands

not within the foregoing right-of-way.

Lessee shall pay all royalties on any

legally and economically recoverable

coal which it fails to mine without the

written permission of the Authorized

Officer.

The following special stipulation (g) will

be added to the Little Thunder LBA

Tract:

(g) RAILROAD AND STATE

HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY

No mining activity of any kind may be

conducted within the Burlington

Northern/Santa Fe and Union Pacific

railroad and the Wyoming State

Highway 450 rights-of-way. The

lessee shall recover all legally and

economically recoverable coal from all

leased lands not within the foregoing

rights-of-way. Lessee shall pay all

royalties on any legally and

economically recoverable coal which it

fails to mine without the written

permission of the Authorized Officer.

The following special stipulation (g) will

be added to the West Roundup LBA

Tract:

(g) U.S. FOREST SERVICE

SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR

THE NORTH ROCHELLE MINE

No mining activity of any kind may be

conducted on the lands included in

the U.S. Forest Service special use

permit for ancillary facilities for the

North Rochelle Mine, except for those

facilities which were included in the

application from Triton Coal

Company for the West Roundup LBA

Tract. The lessee shall recover all

legally and economically recoverable

coal from all leased lands not within

the foregoing special use permit.

Lessee shall pay all royalties on any

legally and economically recoverable

coal which it fails to mine without the

written permission of the Authorized

Officer. 
Appendix D

D-6 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

The NARO North, Little Thunder, and West Roundup LBA Tracts include National

Forest System Lands. U.S. Forest Service will attach the following special stipulation

to each of those tracts that is leased:

NOTICE FOR LANDS OF THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM UNDER

JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The permittee must comply with all the rules and regulations of the Secretary of

Agriculture set forth in Title 36, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations

governing the use and management of the National Forest System when not

inconsistent with the rights granted by the Secretary of the Interior in the permit.

The Secretary of Agriculture’s rules and regulations must be complied with for (1)

all use and occupancy of the National Forest System prior to approval of an

exploration plan by the Secretary of the Interior, (2) uses of all existing

improvements, such as forest development roads, within and outside the area

permitted by the Secretary of the Interior, and (3) use and occupancy of the

National Forest System not authorized by an exploration plan approved by the

Secretary of the Interior.

All matters related to this stipulation are to be addressed to:

District Ranger

2250 East Richards

Douglas, WY 82633

Telephone: 307-358-4690

who is the authorized representative of the Secretary of Agriculture.

NOTICE

The lessee or operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the U.S. Forest

Service any cultural or paleontological resources or any other objects of scientific

interest discovered as a result of surface operations on National Forest System

lands under this lease, and shall leave such discoveries intact until directed to

proceed by the U.S. Forest Service.
APPENDIX E

AIR QUALITY IMPACT TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPACT TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

As discussed in Section 4.5.4, an air quality impact assessment was conducted

during preparation of the Wyoming Final EIS and Draft Planning Amendment for the

PRB Oil and Gas Development Project (BLM 2003) and the Montana Final Statewide

Oil and Gas EIS and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings RMPs

(BLM in press). These documents will be referred to as the Wyoming PRB Oil and

Gas Project EIS and the Montana Statewide EIS in the following discussion. The

air quality impact analysis was prepared to evaluate the impacts of proposed oil

and gas development in northeastern Wyoming and Southeastern Montana on air

quality in the region. This air quality impact assessment included projected coal

mining operations in the Wyoming and Montana PRB, and the results are

therefore included in the cumulative impact section of this EIS and this appendix.

The following technical support document describes the processes used to

conduct the air quality impact assessment, and provides summaries of relevant

analysis data:

Argonne National Laboratory.

2002. Technical Support Document - Air Quality Impact Assessment for

the Montana Final Statewide Oil and Gas EIS and Proposed

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management

Plans and the Wyoming Final EIS and Planning Amendment for the

Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Development Project. Prepared for

the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Montana and Wyoming State Offices, by the Environmental

Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne,

Illinois.

Copies of this technical support document are available upon request from:

Scott Archer, Senior Air Resource Specialist

National Science and Technology Center (ST-133)

Denver Federal Center, Building 50

P.O. Box 25047

Denver, Colorado 80225-0047

303.236.6400 Voice

303.236.3508 Telefax

scott_archer@blm.gov
Introduction

Air pollution impacts are limited by local, state, tribal and federal air quality

regulations, standards, and implementation plans established under the CAA and

administered by the WDEQ/AQD and the EPA. Although not applicable to the

Alternatives analyzed in the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas EIS or this EIS, the

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Air and Waste Management

Bureau (MDEQ-AWM) has similar jurisdiction over potential air pollutant emission

sources in Montana, which can have a cumulative impact with WDEQ/AQD

approved sources.

Fugitive dust and exhaust from construction activities, along with air pollutants

emitted during operation (i.e., well operations, booster [field] and pipeline [sales]

compressor engines, etc.), are potential causes of air quality impacts. These

issues are more likely to generate public concern where natural gas development

activities occur near residential areas. The USFS, NPS and the USFWS have also

expressed concerns regarding potential atmospheric deposition (acid rain) and

visibility impacts within distant downwind PSD Class I and PSD Class II sensitive

areas under their administration, located throughout Wyoming, Montana,

southwestern North Dakota, western South Dakota, and northwestern Nebraska.

Existing Air Quality

The Project Area for the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS includes Campbell,

Sheridan, Johnson, and northern Converse Counties. The Project Area for the

Montana Statewide EIS includes all of Carter, Powder River, Big Horn,

Yellowstone, Carbon, Stillwater, Sweetgrass, Wheatland, Golden Valley,

Musselshell, and Treasure Counties, and portions of Rosebud and Custer

Counties. The General Analysis Area for this EIS (the South PRB Coal EIS) is

located in southern Campbell and northern Converse Counties, Wyoming, which

lies near the southeast corner of the Project Area for the Wyoming PRB Oil and

Gas Project EIS.

As described in Section 3.5.3, specific air quality monitoring is not conducted

throughout most of the Project Area for the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS

and the Montana Statewide EIS, but air quality conditions are likely to be very

good, as characterized by limited air pollution emission sources (few industrial

facilities and residential emissions in the relatively small communities and

isolated ranches) and good atmospheric dispersion conditions, resulting in

relatively low air pollutant concentrations. As part of the Air Quality Impact

Assessment prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne 2002), monitoring

data measured throughout northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana

were assembled and reviewed. Although monitoring is primarily conducted in

urban or industrial areas, the data selected are considered to be the best available

representation of background air pollutant concentrations throughout the Project

Area. Specific values presented in Table AQ-1 were used to define background

conditions in the air quality impact analysis. The assumed background pollutant
concentrations are below applicable ambient air quality standards for all

pollutants and averaging times. These National and Wyoming standards, and PSD

increment values, are also presented in Table AQ-1.

Table AQ-1. Assumed Background Concentrations, Applicable Ambient Air

Quality Standards, and PSD Increment Values (in μg/m3).

Pollutant

Averaging

Time a

Background

Concentration

National

Ambient

Air Quality

Standards

Wyoming

Ambient

Air Quality

Standards

PSD

 Class I

Increment

PSD

 Class II

Increment

carbon monoxide 1-hour

8-hours

3,500b

1,500b

40,000

10,000

40,000

10,000

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

lead Quarterly n/a 1.5 1.5 - - - - - -

nitrogen dioxide Annual 16.5c 100 100 2.5 25

ozone 1-hour

8-hours

82d

130d

235

157

235

157

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

PM 2.5 24-hours

Annual

19f

7.6f

65

15

65

15

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

PM 10 24-hours

Annual

42f

17f

150

50

150

50

8

4

30

17

sulfur dioxide 3-hours

24-hours

Annual

8e

8e

3e

1,300

365

80

1,300

260

60

25

5

2

512

91

20

Source: Argonne (2002)

Notes:

μg/m3

 - micrograms per cubic meter a Annual standards are not to be exceeded; short-term standards are not to be exceeded more than once

per year. b Amoco Ryckman Creek collected for an 8 month period during 1978-1979, summarized in the Riley

Ridge EIS (BLM 1983) c Data collected in Gillette, Wyoming (1996 - 1997 d Data collected in Pinedale, Wyoming (1992 - 1994) e Data collected at Devil’s Tower (1983) f Data collected in Gillette, Wyoming (1999)

n/a - data not available

Regulatory Framework

The NAAQS and WAAQS set the absolute upper limits for specific air pollutant

concentrations at all locations where the public has access. The analysis of the

proposed Alternatives must demonstrate continued compliance with all applicable

local, state, tribal, and federal air quality standards. Existing air quality

throughout most of the Project Area for the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS

and Montana Statewide EIS is in attainment with all ambient air quality

standards, as demonstrated by the relatively low concentration levels presented

in Table AQ-1. However, four areas have been designated as federal

nonattainment areas where the applicable standards have been violated in the

past: Sheridan, Wyoming (PM10 - moderate); and Billings (CO), Lame Deer (PM10 -

moderate) and Laurel (SO2 - primary), Montana. EPA Region 8 staff are concerned

that PM10 monitoring data collected near and south of Gillette, Wyoming, have also

exceeded both the NAAQS and the available PSD Class II increment. Specific

monitoring data are presented in Tables AQ-2 and AQ-3.
Table AQ-2. Annual Average PM10 Monitoring Data Collected Near and

South of Gillette, Wyoming (in μg/m3).

Location

Station

Number 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 a

Rochelle R0-1 869 n/a n/a [15.3] 24.2 20.2 22.6 [25] b

North Rochelle E 874 n/a n/a n/a [40] b [51] b [50] b [35] b

Black Thunder BTM 26-2 877 21.0 17.7 23.2 33.4 30.9 25.6 [30] b

Antelope Site 4 881 n/a 14.5 13.4 16.2 16.7 19.8 [12] b

Triton Coal / Buckskin Mine 884 11.5 12.6 12.1 12.0 17.6* 18.3 [16] b

Cordero Hv-2 885 14.3 15.3 15.1 14.5 26.0* 24.3* [30] b

Cordero Hv-3 889 11.9 10.9 10.4 9.7 17.1 19.8 [14] b

Coal Creek Ccm 26 890 9.0 7.9 8.6 8.5 8.3 [2.0] n/a

Thunder Basin Coal / BTM 891 13.8 12.0 14.4 17 b 24.5 37 b [57] b

Belle Ayr Ba-4, 5n, 5s 892 15.5 14.6 14.2 15.0 20.1 25 b [20] b

Jacob Ranch Site 4 894 28.3 24.3* 25.1* 35.4* 35.9* 30.6* n/a

Dry Fork Coal Co 896 13.8 13.0 10.5 9.3 10.8 13.2 [13] b

Triton Coal / Gillette 899 21.5 22.7 15.3 17.2 19.0* 21.0 [18] b

AMAX Eagle Butte Eb-5 900 12.5 10.6 11.6 11.7 15.0 15 b [15] b

Jacob Ranch Site 5 905 15.0 14.6 15.1 20.5 21.3 31.7 n/a

North Rochelle 1 907 n/a 20.6 18.4 38.6 46.8 50.8 [52] b

Black Thunder BTM 36-1 915 n/a n/a n/a n/a [18] b 26 b [16] b

Gillette, Wyoming 1002 16.1 16.7 17.6* 19.1* 20.7* 19.9* [17] b

Source: EPA (2002a)

Notes:

a Incomplete data year; values reported through July 1, 2002. b Supplemental data provided by (Payton 2002).

μg/m3

 - micrograms per cubic meter.

n/a - data not available.

[data] - data in brackets are not reliable due to the small number of samples collected.

data* - starred data are combined from two or more samplers operating at the same location during the same year.

Air quality regulations require certain proposed new, or modified existing, air

pollutant emission sources (including CBM compression facilities) undergo a

permitting review before their construction can begin. Therefore, the applicable

air quality regulatory agencies have the primary authority and responsibility to

review permit applications and to require emission permits, fees and control

devices, prior to construction and/or operation. In addition, the U.S. Congress

(through the CAA Section 116) authorized local, state, and tribal air quality

regulatory agencies to establish air pollution control requirements more (but not

less) stringent than federal requirements. Also, under both FLPMA and the CAA,

BLM can not authorize any activity which would not conform to all applicable

local, state, tribal and federal air quality laws, regulations, standards, and

implementation plans.

Given the current attainment status for most of the Project Area for the Wyoming

PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS and Montana Statewide EIS, future development

projects which have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of any

criteria pollutant (or certain listed sources that have the potential to emit more

than 100 tons per year) would be required to undergo a site-specific regulatory

PSD Increment Consumption analysis under the federal New Source Review

permitting regulations. Development projects subject to the PSD regulations may

also be required by the applicable air quality regulatory agencies to incorporate

additional emission control measures (including a BACT analysis and

determination) to ensure protection of air quality resources, and demonstrate that
the combined impacts of all PSD sources will not exceed the allowable incremental

air quality impacts for NO2, PM10, and SO2.

Table AQ-3. Second Maximum 24-hour Average PM10 Monitoring Data

Collected Near and South of Gillette, Wyoming (in μg/m3).

Location

Station

Number 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 a

Rochelle R0-1 869 n/a n/a [23] 62 46 63 [55] b

North Rochelle E 874 n/a n/a 122 143 156 b [124] b

Black Thunder BTM 26-2 877 66 44 55 125 123 101 [62] b

Antelope Site 4 881 n/a 32 32 35 50 54 [25] b

Triton Coal / Buckskin Mine 884 31 34 36 36 53* 73 b [43] b

Cordero Hv-2 885 32 36 42 36 73* 65* [55] b

Cordero Hv-3 889 30 22 25 26 46 47 [40] b

Coal Creek Ccm 26 890 20 16 23 25 31 n/a n/a

Thunder Basin Coal / BTM 891 34 26 39 43 b 80 97 b [155] b

Belle Ayr Ba-4, 5n, 5s 892 39 34 53 56 48 70 b [35] b

Jacob Ranch Site 4 894 101 62* 54* 103* 88* 119 b n/a

Dry Fork Coal Co 896 34 39 35 22 32 42 [34] b

Triton Coal / Gillette 899 85 65 37 45 54* 80 b [73] b

AMAX Eagle Butte Eb-5 900 30 37 37 51 48 61 [36] b

Jacob Ranch Site 5 905 44 b 39 43 47 50 97 n/a

North Rochelle 1 907 n/a 39 49 100 125 268 b [211] b

Black Thunder BTM 36-1 915 n/a n/a n/a n/a [24] 76 b [31] b

Gillette, Wyoming 1002 46 b 29 36* 42* 60* 43 b [35] b

Source: EPA (2002a)

Notes:

a Incomplete data year; values reported through July 1, 2002. b Supplemental data provided by (Payton 2002).

μg/m3

 - micrograms per cubic meter.

n/a - data not available.

[data] - data in brackets are not reliable due to the small number of samples collected.

data* - starred data are combined from two or more samplers operating at the same location during the

same year.

A regulatory PSD Increment Consumption analysis may be conducted as part of

a New Source Review, or independently. The determination of PSD increment

consumption is a legal responsibility of the applicable air quality regulatory

agencies, with EPA oversight. In addition, an analysis of cumulative impacts due

to all existing sources and the permit applicant’s sources is also required during

New Source Review to demonstrate that applicable ambient air quality standards

will be met during the operational lifetime of the permit applicant’s operations.

Coal mining in the General Analysis Area considered in this EIS (the South PRB

Coal EIS) is not currently affected by the PSD regulations for two reasons: surface

coal mines are not on the EPA list of 28 major emitting facilities for PSD

regulation, and point-source emissions from individual mines do not exceed the

PSD emissions threshold of 250 tons per year.

Sources subject to the PSD permit review procedure are also required to

demonstrate potential impacts to AQRVs. These include visibility impacts,

degradation of mountain lakes from atmospheric deposition (acid rain), and effects

on sensitive flora and fauna in the Class I areas. The CAA also provides specific

visibility protection procedures for the mandatory federal Class I areas designated
by the U.S. Congress on August 7, 1977, which included wilderness areas greater

than 5,000 acres in size, as well as national parks and national memorial parks

greater than 6,000 acres in size as of that date. The Fort Peck and Northern

Cheyenne tribes have also designated their lands as PSD Class I, although the

national visibility regulations do not apply in these areas. The allowable

incremental impacts for NO2, PM10, and SO2 within these PSD Class I areas are

very limited. The remainder of the Project Area for the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas

Project EIS and Montana Statewide EIS is designated PSD Class II with less

stringent requirements.

Agency Roles And Authorities

EPA

The EPA administers the Federal CAA, (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) to maintain the

NAAQS that protect human health and to preserve the rural air quality in the

region by assuring the PSD Class I and Class II increments for SO2, NO2, and

PM10, are not exceeded. EPA has delegated this CAA authority to the States of

Montana and Wyoming.

Until the Tribes have an EPA-approved Tribal program, EPA will administer air

quality requirements within Indian country. EPA is responsible for assuring that

NAAQS are attained and that the Tribally-designated Northern Cheyenne Class I

sensitive airshed is protected, as well as the Class II increment limits that apply

on the Crow Reservation. EPA will implement an air permitting program for major

sources within Indian country, including BACT analysis, where appropriate. At

this time, there is no federal minor source permitting program. Therefore, EPA

cannot regulate minor sources in Indian country directly unless EPA, based on the

results of a PSD increment consumption model, decides to implement a Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP). Based on future regulatory modeling in cooperation

with MDEQ, EPA and BIA may require either Tribe to apply BACM to unimproved

roads in Indian country or other control measures sufficient to avoid exceeding the

Class I and Class II increment limits for PM10. 

Wyoming DEQ

Wyoming regulates pollutants emitted into the air through the Wyoming

Environmental Quality Act (W.S. 35-11-101 et. seq.). Wyoming is also authorized

by an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) to administer all requirements of

the PSD permit program under the CAA. Additionally, the approved Wyoming SIP

contains a number of programs which provide for the implementation,

maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including a New Source Review

program for minor source permitting which requires, among other things,

application of BACT for all new or modified sources regardless of size or source

category. Included as well are authorities for the control of particulate emissions,

including fugitive particulate emissions from haul roads, access roads, or general

facility boundaries. Wyoming is also delegated responsibility to operate an

approved ambient air quality monitoring network for the purpose of demonstrating

compliance with the National and WAAQS. 
Bureau of Land Management

NEPA requires that federal agencies consider mitigation of direct and cumulative

impacts during their preparation of an EIS (BLM Land Use Planning Manual

1601). Under the CAA, federal agencies are to comply with State Implementation

Plans regarding the control and abatement of air pollution. Prior to approval of

RMPs or Amendments to RMPs, the State Director is to submit any known

inconsistencies with SIPs to the Governor of that state. If the Governor of the

State recommends changes in the proposed RMP or Amendment to meet SIP

requirements, the State Director shall provide the public an opportunity to

comment on those recommendations. (BLM Land Use Planning Manual at Section

1610.3-2.)

Forest Service

Three of the LBAs being considered for leasing in this EIS (NARO North, Little

Thunder, and West Roundup) include lands that are part of the TBNG, which is

administered by the USFS. As part of the leasing process, USFS must consent to

leasing the TBNG lands included in each tract before a lease sale can be held.

The USFS also administers nine wilderness areas (WAs) that could be affected by

direct effects associated with the proposed development considered in the

Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS and Montana Statewide EIS: Bridger WA;

Fitzpatrick WA; North Absaroka, Absaroka-Beartooth, and Washakie WAs, next

to Yellowstone NP; Teton WA; U.L. Bend WA; Cloud Peak WA; and Popo Agie WA

with mandatory Class I designation. As federal land mangers, the USFS could act

in a consultative role to stipulate that the BLM modeling results, or any future

EPA or State-administered PSD refined modeling results (if justified), triggers

adverse impairment status. Should the USFS determine impairment of WAs, then

BLM, the State, and/or EPA may need to mitigate this predicted adverse air

quality effect.

National Park Service

Three areas administered by the NPS, Yellowstone National Park, Devils Tower

National Monument, and Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, could be

affected by direct effects associated with the proposed development considered in

the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS and Montana Statewide EIS. As federal

land managers, the Park Service could act in a consultative role to stipulate that

the BLM modeling results, or any future EPA or State-administered PSD refined

modeling results (if justified), triggers adverse impairment status. Should the

Park Service determine impairment of NPS-administered Class I areas, then BLM,

the State, and/or EPA may need to mitigate this predicted adverse air quality

effect.

Air Quality Impact Assessment
Section 4.1.4 of this EIS discusses the air quality impact modeling results for each

of the applicant mines considered in this EIS. Section 4.5.4 of this EIS discusses

the cumulative air quality impact assessment that was conducted for the

Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS and the Montana Statewide EIS. An

extensive air quality impact assessment technical support document was also

prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne 2002) and is available for

review. Argonne analyzed potential impacts from: individual proposed Alternatives

1, 2A, 2B, and 3 of the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas EIS; “Other” (non-Alternative)

emission sources, including surface coal mining in the Wyoming and Montana

PRB; and all sources cumulatively by Alternative. Alternatives 1, 2A, and 2B of

the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS have similar emission inventories,

except half of the booster (field) compressors would be electrified under Alternative

2A, and all of the booster (field) compressors would be electrified under Alternative

2B.

The air quality impact assessment conducted for the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas

Project EIS and Montana Statewide EIS was based on the best available

engineering data and assumptions, meteorology data, and dispersion modeling

procedures, as well as professional and scientific judgment. However, where

specific data or procedures were not available, reasonable assumptions were

incorporated. For example, the air quality impact assessment assumed that the

maximum CBM, conventional oil, coal and other development would occur

simultaneously, whereas actual development would occur under different time

schedules.

Potential air pollutant emissions from the emission sources under the proposed

Alternative for the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS were combined with

other (non-Alternative) sources to determine the total potential cumulative air

quality impacts. These other (non-Alternative) sources included development

associated with emission sources permitted: 1) by the WDEQ/AQD; 2) by the

MDEQ-AWM; and 3) within the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and

Nebraska; plus 4) the Montana Statewide EIS Alternative sources (BLM in press).

Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative air quality impacts from the Proposed

Action and Alternatives for the Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS, and other

(non-Alternative) sources, including surface coal mining in the Wyoming and

Montana PRB, were analyzed and reported solely under the requirements of NEPA,

in order to assess and disclose reasonably foreseeable impacts to both the public

and the BLM decision maker. Due to the preliminary nature of this NEPA

analysis, it should be considered an estimate of predicted impacts. Actual

impacts at the time of development (subject to air pollutant emission source

permitting) are likely to be different.

Given the lack of representative wind measurements throughout the CBM

emphasis area, the EPA CALPUFF dispersion model was used with regional wind

speed and direction values derived from the 1996 MM5 (mesoscale model) and

CALMET meteorological models (Argonne 2002). Meteorological information was

assembled to characterize atmospheric transport and dispersion from several
1996 data sources, including: 36 km gridded MM5 (mesoscale model) values with

continuous four-dimensional data assimilation; and hourly surface observations

(wind speed, wind direction, temperature, cloud cover, ceiling height, surface

pressure, relative humidity, and precipitation.)

Potential air quality impacts were predicted using the EPA CALPUFF dispersion

model. The meteorology data and air pollutant emission values were combined to

predict maximum potential direct, indirect, and cumulative near-field air quality

impacts in the vicinity of assumed CBM well and CBM pipeline compressor engine

emission sources for comparison with applicable air quality standards and PSD

Class II increments. Maximum potential near-field particulate matter emissions

from traffic on unpaved roads and during well pad construction were used to

predict the maximum annual and 24-hour average PM2.5, PM10, and SO2 impacts.

Maximum air pollutant emissions from each CBM well would be temporary (i.e.,

occurring during a 12-day construction period) and would occur in isolation,

without significantly interacting with adjacent well locations. Particulate matter

emissions from well pad and resource road construction would be minimized by

application of water and/or chemical dust suppressants. The control efficiency

of these dust suppressants was computed at 50 percent during construction.

During well completion testing, natural gas could be burned (flared) up to 24

hours.

Air pollutant dispersion modeling was also performed to quantify CO, NO2, PM2.5,

PM10, and HAP impacts during operation. Operation emissions would primarily

occur due to increased CBM pipeline compression requirements, including booster

(field) and pipeline (sales) compressor stations. Since produced natural gas is

nearly pure methane, with little or no liquid hydrocarbons or sulfur compounds,

direct VOC emissions or objectionable odors are not likely to occur. HAP impacts

were predicted based on an assumed 9,900 horsepower, six-unit, reciprocating

compressor engine station operating at full load with emissions generated by a

single stack.

The significance criteria for potential air quality impacts include local, state, tribal,

and federally enforced legal requirements to ensure air pollutant concentrations

will remain within specific allowable levels. These requirements and legal limits

were presented in Table AQ-1. Where legal limits have not been established, BLM

uses the best available scientific information to identify thresholds of significant

adverse impacts. Thresholds have been identified for HAP exposure, potential

ANC changes to sensitive lake water chemistry, and a 1.0 dv “just noticeable

change” in potential visibility impacts.

Since neither the WDEQ/AQD nor EPA have established HAP standards, predicted

eight-hour HAP concentrations were compared to a range of eight-hour state

maximum Acceptable Ambient Concentration Levels (EPA 1997a). Pollutants

which were predicted to exceed these state threshold levels were also analyzed to

determine the possible incremental cancer-risk for a most likely exposure (MLE)

to residents, and to a maximally exposed individual (MEI), such as compressor

station workers. These cancer risks were calculated based on the maximum
predicted annual concentrations, EPA’s unit risk factors for carcinogenic

compounds (EPA, 1997b), and an adjustment for time spent at home or on the

job.

The EPA CALPUFF dispersion model was also used to determine maximum farfield ambient air quality impacts at downwind mandatory federal PSD Class I

areas, and other sensitive receptors, to: 1) determine if the PSD Class I increments

might be exceeded; 2) calculate potential total sulfur and nitrogen deposition, and

their related impacts to in sensitive lakes; and 3) predict potential visibility

impacts (regional haze) within distant sensitive receptors.

Several lakes within five USFS designated wilderness areas were identified as

being sensitive to atmospheric deposition and for which the most recent and

complete data have been collected. The USFS (Fox et al. 1989) has identified the

following total deposition (wet plus dry) thresholds below which no adverse

impacts are likely: five kg/ha-yr for sulfur, and three kg/ha-yr for nitrogen. The

USFS (2000) has also developed a screening method which identifies the following

Limit of Acceptable Change regarding potential changes in lake chemistry: no

more than a ten percent change in ANC for those water bodies where the existing

ANC is at or above 25 μeq/L and no more than a 1.0 μeq/L change for those

extremely sensitive water bodies where the existing ANC is below 25 μeq/L. No

sensitive lakes were identified by either the NPS or USFWS.

Since the potential air pollutant emission sources constitute many small sources

spread out over a very large area, discrete visible plumes are not likely to impact

the distant sensitive areas, but the potential for cumulative visibility impacts

(increased regional haze) is a concern. Regional haze degradation is caused by

fine particles and gases scattering and absorbing light. Potential changes to

regional haze are calculated in terms of a perceptible “just noticeable change” (1.0

dv) in visibility when compared to background conditions. A 1.0 dv change is

considered potentially significant in mandatory federal PSD Class I areas as

described in the EPA Regional Haze Regulations (40 CFR 51.300 et seq.), and as

originally presented in Pitchford and Malm (1994). A 1.0 dv change is defined as

about a ten percent change in the extinction coefficient (corresponding to a two

to five percent change in contrast, for a black target against a clear sky, at the

most optically sensitive distance from an observer), which is a small but

noticeable change in haziness under most circumstances when viewing scenes in

mandatory federal Class I areas.

It should be noted that a 1.0 dv change is not a “just noticeable change” in all

cases for all scenes. Visibility changes less than 1.0 dv are likely to be perceptible

in some cases, especially where the scene being viewed is highly sensitive to small

amounts of pollution, such as due to preferential forward light scattering. Under

other view-specific conditions, such as where the sight path to a scenic feature is

less than the maximum visual range, a change greater than 1.0 dv might be

required to be a “just noticeable change”. However, this NEPA analysis is not

designed to predict specific visibility impacts for specific views in specific

mandatory federal Class I areas based on specific project designs, but to
characterize reasonably foreseeable visibility conditions that are representative of

a fairly broad geographic region, based on emission source assumptions. This

approach is consistent with both the nature of regional haze and the requirements

of NEPA. At the time of a pre-construction air quality PSD permit review, the

applicable air quality regulatory agency may require a much more detailed

visibility impact analysis. Factors such as the magnitude of change, frequency,

time of the year, and the meteorological conditions during times when predicted

visibility impacts are above the 1.0 dv threshold (as well as inherent conservatism

in the modeling analyses) should all be considered when assessing the

significance of predicted impacts.

The USFS, NPS, and USFWS have published their “Final FLAG Phase I Report”

(Federal Register, Vol. 66 No. 2, dated January 3, 2001), providing “a consistent

and predictable process for assessing the impacts of new and existing sources on

AQRVs” including visibility. For example, the FLAG report states “A cumulative

effects analysis of new growth (defined as all PSD increment-consuming sources)

on visibility impairment should be performed”, and further, “If the visibility

impairment from the proposed action, in combination with cumulative new source

growth, is less than a change in extinction of 10 percent (1.0 dv) for all time

periods, the FLMs will not likely object to the proposed action”.

The FLAG report also recommends a two-step analysis process to evaluate

potential visibility impacts from either a single proposed air pollutant emission

source (the seasonal FLAG screening method) or potential cumulative visibility

impacts from a group of air pollutant emission sources (the daily FLAG refined

method). As described in Argonne (2002), this NEPA analysis first used the

seasonal FLAG “natural background” screening method (based on both the FLAG

and WDEQ/AQD reference levels) to exclude those sensitive areas where visibility

impacts were not likely to occur. Since no areas were excluded using the seasonal

FLAG screening method, this NEPA analysis then applied the daily FLAG refined

method (based on hourly background optical extinction and relative humidity

values measured in both the Badlands and Bridger wilderness areas between

1989 and 1999) to determine the average number of days a 1.0 dv “just noticeable

change” would be reached annually in each sensitive area. Although the use of

observed hourly optical extinction and relative humidity values is appropriate in

this NEPA analysis (where the potential visibility impacts are predicted to occur

based on the reasonably foreseeable background conditions), EPA’s Regional Haze

Regulations are based on optical conditions reconstructed from PM2.5 and PM10

data collected every third day under the IMPROVE program.

Estimation of Emission Factors: AP-42

Air quality impacts for various air pollutants are determined by the use of air

dispersion models using specific source emission rates. For natural gas

compressors, the emissions of nitrogen oxides are determined by the assumed

permitted emission rate allowed by the state. For fugitive dust impacts, emission

rates are obtained from EPA’s AP-42 document that is titled “Compilation of Air

Pollutant Emission Factors”. An AP-42 emission factor is a representative value
that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with

an activity associated with the release of that pollutant. Emission factors may be

appropriate to use in a number of situations such as making source-specific

emission estimates for areawide inventories. These inventories have many

purposes including ambient dispersion modeling and analysis, control strategy

development, and in screening sources for compliance investigations. In most

cases, these factors are simply averages of all available data of acceptable quality,

and are generally assumed to be representative of long-term averages for all

sources in a specific category.

Modeling Assumptions

When reviewing the predicted near- and far-field air quality impacts, it is

important to understand that assumptions were made regarding development,

emissions, meteorology, atmospheric transport and chemistry, and atmospheric

deposition. For example, there is uncertainty regarding ultimate development of

CBM in the Wyoming and Montana PRB (i.e., number of wells, equipment to be

used, specific locations of wells, etc.).

The following assumptions were used in the analysis:

• Total predicted short-term air pollutant impact concentrations were

assumed to be the sum of the assumed background concentration, plus the

predicted maximum cumulative modeled concentrations, which may occur

under different meteorological conditions.

• Assumed background air pollution concentrations were assumed to occur

throughout the 20-year LOP at all locations in the region, even though

monitoring is primarily conducted in urban or industrial areas, rather than

rural areas. The uniform background PM10 levels for each state are

assumed to be representative of the background conditions for the entire

modeled area of the PRB, based on monitoring data gathered throughout

northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana.

• The maximum predicted air quality impacts occur only in the vicinity of the

anticipated emission sources. Actual impacts would likely be less at

distances beyond the predicted points of maximum impact.

• All emission sources were assumed to operate at their reasonably

foreseeable maximum emission rates simultaneously throughout the LOP.

Given the number of sources included in this analysis, the co-probability

of such a scenario actually occurring over an entire year (or even 24-hours)

is small.

• In developing the emissions inventory and model, there is uncertainty

regarding ultimate oil and gas development (i.e., number of wells,

equipment to be used, specific locations, etc.) Most (90 percent) proposed
CBM wells and 30 percent of conventional wells were assumed to be fully

operational and remain operating (no shut ins) throughout the LOP.

• The total proposed booster (field) and pipeline (sales) compression engines

were assumed to operate at their rated capacities continuously throughout

the LOP (no phased increases or reductions). In reality, compression

equipment would be added or removed incrementally as required by the well

field operation, compressor engines would operate below full horsepower

ratings, and it is unlikely all compressor stations would operate at

maximum levels simultaneously.

• The HAP analyses assumed a 9,900 horsepower, six-unit, reciprocating

compressor engine station would operate at full load and at maximum

emission levels continuously throughout the LOP.

• The emissions inventory and model use peak years of construction and

peak years of operations, which would not occur throughout the entire

development region at the same time. However, it is possible that

conditions close to this could occur in some isolated areas.

• The emissions inventory and model assumed a NOx emission rate for

compressor engines of 1.5 g/hp-hr in Montana and 1.0 g/hp-hr in

Wyoming. Since BACT is decided on a case-by-case basis, actual emission

rates could be decided to be less or more than this level by the Departments

of Environmental Quality in Wyoming or Montana, and on Indian lands by

EPA, for field and sales compressor engines. Actual NOx emission rates may

range from 0.7 to 2.0 g/hp-hr.

• There are no applicable local, state, tribal or federal acid deposition

standards. In the absence of applicable standards, the acid deposition

analysis assumed that a “limit of acceptable change” is: a 10 percent

change in acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) for lakes with a background ANC

greater than 25 μeq/L; or a 1.0 μeq/L change in ANC for lakes with a

background ANC less than 25 μeq/L, and would be a reasonably foreseeable

significant adverse impact. Further, the atmospheric deposition impact

analysis assumed no other ecosystem components would affect lake

chemistry for a full year (assuming no chemical buffering due to interaction

with vegetation or soil materials).

• The visibility impact analysis assumed that a 1.0 dv “just noticeable

change” would be a reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impact,

although there are no applicable local, state, tribal, or federal regulatory

visibility standards. However, some FLMs are using 0.5 dv as a screening

threshold for significance.

• Mitigation measures are included in the emissions inventory and model that

may not be achievable in all circumstances. However, actual mitigation

decided by the developers and local and state authorities may be greater or
less than those assumed in the analysis. For example, maintaining a

construction road speed limit of 15 mph may be reasonable in a

construction zone but difficult to enforce elsewhere. Full (100 percent)

mitigation of fugitive dust from disturbed lands may not be achievable.

Further, 50 percent reduction in fugitive emissions is assumed based on

construction road wetting on the unimproved access road to the pad and at

the pad, but this level of effectiveness is characterized as the maximum

possible. Wetting was assumed for maintenance traffic, which is not likely

to occur, but this is considered to be a small effect because of limited traffic.

• Induced or secondary growth related to increases in vehicle miles traveled

(VMT) (believed to be on the order of 10 percent overall) is not included in

the emissions inventory and model. Not all fugitive dust emissions

(including county and other collector roads) have been included in the

emissions inventory and model. 

• Fugitive dust emissions from roads are treated as area sources rather than

line sources in the model, which may thereby reduce or increase the

predicted ambient concentrations at maximum concentration receptor

points near the source, depending on the inputs to the model (meteorology,

terrain, etc.) By not placing modeled receptors close to emission sources

(e.g., wells and roads), the model may not capture higher ambient

concentrations near these sources. A more refined, regulatory model may

yield higher concentrations at locations near fugitive dust sources.

• For comparisons to the PSD Class I and II increments, the emissions

inventory and model included only CBM and RFFD sources. Other existing

increment consuming sources such as Campbell County coal mines were

not included in this comparison, as the air quality analysis does not

represent a regulatory PSD increment consumption analysis. A regulatory

PSD increment consumption analysis needs to identify and consider all PSD

increment consuming sources to determine the level of PSD Class II

increment consumption. Monitoring data in Wyoming has indicated an

upward trend in PM concentrations in Campbell County since 1999, which

coincides with CBM development but is also exacerbated by prolonged

drought in the region.

It is important to note that before actual development could occur, the applicable

air quality regulatory agencies (including the state, tribe or EPA) would review

specific air pollutant emissions preconstruction permit applications that examine

potential project-specific air quality impacts. As part of these permit reviews

(depending on source size), the air quality regulatory agencies could require

additional air quality impact analyses or mitigation measures. Thus, before

development occurs, additional site-specific air quality analyses would be

performed to ensure protection of air quality.

Modeling Results
The following Tables (AQ-4 through AQ-17) present the detailed atmospheric

dispersion modeling results for the alternatives considered in the Wyoming PRB

Oil and Gas Project EIS. These results are summarized in Section 4.5.4. As

discussed in Section 4.5.4, the cumulative impacts predicted by the PRB air

quality impact assessment would be the same under the Proposed Action and all

of the Alternatives for leasing or not leasing federal coal considered in this EIS.

This is because the air quality impact analysis used market demand predictions

in order to estimate levels of coal production in the PRB for modeling purposes.

There is enough coal leased to the existing mines in the PRB to supply this market

demand during the time of maximum CBM development activity in the PRB, which

is the time when the maximum overlapping impacts to air quality would occur.

Table AQ-4. Predicted Hazardous Air Pollutant Impacts and Significance

Thresholds (in μg/m3

).

Pollutant

Averaging

Time

Direct

Modeled

Impact

Range of State 

Acceptable Ambient Concentration Levels

formaldehyde 8-hours 11.9 4.5 (FL07) - 71 (NV01)

n-hexane 8-hours 0.6 1,800 (FL07) - 36,000 (CT01)

benzene 8-hours 0.7 30 (FL04) - 714 (NV01)

toluene 8-hours 4.6 1,870 (IN03) - 8,930 (NV01)

ethyl benzene 8-hours < 0.1 4,340 (ND01) - 43,500 (VT01)

xylene 8-hours 0.2 2,170 (IN01) - 10,400 (NV01)
Source: Argonne (2002)

Agencies: 

CT01 - Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; Air Compliance Unit

FL04 - Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection (Florida)

FL07 - Pinellas County Air Pollution Control Board (Florida)

IN01 - Indiana Department of Environmental Management

IN03 - Indianapolis Air Pollution Control Division (Indiana)

ND01 - North Dakota Dept. of Health; Division of Environmental Engineering

NV01 - Nevada Division of Environmental Protection; Air Quality Control

VT01 - Vermont Dept of Environmental Conservation; Air Pollution Control Division
Table AQ-5. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 1 - Predicted Criteria Pollutant 

Applicable Significance Thresholds (in μg/m3).

Pollutant Avg Time a Location Increment Alt 1 Other Cum Background Total carbon monoxide 1-hour

8-hours

near-field

far-field 1

near-field

far-field 2

- - -- - -- - -- - -

223

5

156

19

142100124

70

224100156

78

3,5003,5001,5001,500

3,7243,6001,6561,578

nitrogen dioxide Annual near-field

far-field 3

far-field 2

2525

2.5

8.00.40.3

3.35.1

3.9 b

10.5

5.4

4.2 b

171717

272221

PM2.5 24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 3

near-field

far-field 3

- - -- - -- - -- - -

16.0

5.11.70.2

8.69.70.71.1

24.414.7

2.31.2

1919

88

433410

9

PM10 24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 4

far-field 2far-field 5

near-field

far-field 4

3030

88

1717

20.2

0.53.92.23.3

<0.1

9.3

29.7

9.4 b

7.00.92.7

30.8 b

29.7

12.8 b

9.2 b

4.12.7

424242421717

737255512120

sulfur dioxide 3-hours

24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 3

near-field

far-field 3

near-field

far-field 3

512512

91912020

3.30.71.70.30.5

<0.1

4.5

17.1

1.85.30.20.4

4.6

17.1

3.25.30.60.4

888833

13251113

43

Source: Argonne (2002)Notes: a Annual impacts are the first maximum value; short-term impacts are the second maximum value. b It is possible that Other and Cum emission sources could exceed the PSD Class I increment on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserva

sources could exceed the PSD Class I increment in the Washakie Wilderness Area, and the PSD Class II increment near the maximum pregulatory “PSD Increment Consumption Analysis” should be conducted during permitting by the appropriate Air Quality Regulatory Ag

Alt 1 - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas EIS Alternative 1 impacts.Other - Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from all air pollutant emission sources not include

surface coal mining in the Wyoming and Montana PRB and the Montana Statewide EIS Alternative B/C/E sources. Potential impacts fr

D would be less.Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum cumulative impact location, they may not be a simple 

1 and Other impacts, which can occur a different locations.

Total - The sum of the cumulative modeled impact and the assumed background concentration.

National - Applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Wyoming - Applicable Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Locations: 1 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area 2 Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 3 Crow Indian Reservation 4 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 5 Washakie Wilderness Area
Table AQ-6. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 1 - Predicted Atmospheric De

Applicable Significance Thresholds.

Total Sulfur Deposition

(kg/ha-yr)

Total Nitrogen Deposition

(kg/ha-yr)

Acid 

Location

PSD

Class Lake Alt 1 Other Cum Thld Alt 1 Other Cum Thld

Bkgd

(ìeq/l) Al

Bridger WA I Black Joe

DeepHobbsUpper Frozen

<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01

0.010.010.010.01

0.010.010.010.01

5555

0.010.010.010.01

0.020.020.010.02

0.030.030.020.03

3333

69.061.068.0

5.8a

000

0.

Fitzpatrick WA I Ross <0.01 0.01 0.01 5 0.01 0.02 0.02 3 61.4 0AbsarokaBeartooth WA II Stepping Stone Twin Island <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 55 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 33 27.0 36.0 0

0

Cloud Peak WA II Emerald

Florence

<0.01<0.01

0.030.03

0.030.03

55

0.040.04

0.070.07

0.100.11

33

53.332.7

13

Popo Agie WA II Lower Saddlebag <0.01 0.01 0.01 5 0.01 0.02 0.04 3 55.5 1Source: Argonne (2002)Notes: Alt 1 - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 1 impacts.

Other - Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from all air pollutant emission sou

including projected surface coal mining in the Wyoming and Montana PRB the Montana Statewide EIS Alternatimpacts from Montana Alternatives A and D would be less.

Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum cumulative impact at a specific locat

maximum direct Alt 1 and Other impacts.

Thld - Impact threshold. Total sulfur and nitrogen thresholds from Fox, et al. (1989); acid neutralizing capacity threshWA - Wilderness Area.

a Since the background acid neutralizing capacity at Upper Frozen Lake is less than 25 μeq/L, the applicable significan

1.0 μeq/L change. This threshold is exceeded by Other and Cum emission sources. However, the background conce

samples taken on four days between 1997 and 2001.

b Potential changes in acid neutralizing capacity is predicted to exceed the applicable significance level by less than one 

emission sources.
Table AQ-7. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 1 - Daily FLAG

Refined Method - Visibility Impact Analysis (number of days $1.0

dv per year).

Sensitive Location PSD Classification Alt 1 Other Cum

Badlands WA mandatory federal Class I 3 13 to 17 24 to 28

Bridger WA mandatory federal Class I 4 7 to 9 10 to 12

Fitzpatrick WA mandatory federal Class I 4 6 to 9 10 to 12

Gates of the Mountains WA mandatory federal Class I 0 3 to 4 4 to 4

Grand Teton NP mandatory federal Class I 1 3 to 5 6 to 8

North Absaroka WA mandatory federal Class I 4 9 to 13 12 to 15

Red Rock Lakes WA mandatory federal Class I 0 0 to 1 1 to 3

Scapegoat WA mandatory federal Class I 0 2 to 2 3 to 3

Teton WA mandatory federal Class I 3 6 to 9 10 to 11

Theodore Roosevelt NMP (N) mandatory federal Class I 0 0 to 1 2 to 3

Theodore Roosevelt NMP (S) mandatory federal Class I 1 1 to 3 4 to 7

U.L. Bend WA mandatory federal Class I 1 4 to 5 6 to 8

Washakie WA mandatory federal Class I 5 10 to 14 15 to 18

Wind Cave NP mandatory federal Class I 4 17 to 21 28 to 32

Yellowstone NP mandatory federal Class I 3 8 to 11 11 to 13

Fort Peck IR Tribal designated Class I 0 1 to 3 2 to 5

Northern Cheyenne IR Tribal designated Class I 17 27 to 82 42 to 92

Absaroka-Beartooth WA federal Class II 4 28 to 32 30 to 33

Agate Fossil Beds NM federal Class II 2 8 to 11 15 to 19

Bighorn Canyon NRA federal Class II 9 17 to 30 23 to 34

Black Elk WA federal Class II 4 17 to 20 26 to 31

Cloud Peak WA federal Class II 13 17 to 30 30 to 39

Crow IR federal Class II 20 59 to 108 69 to 116

Devils Tower NM federal Class II 9 17 to 25 39 to 47

Fort Belknap IR federal Class II 1 60 to 61 61 to 62

Fort Laramie NHS federal Class II 2 10 to 14 17 to 20

Jewel Cave NM federal Class II 4 19 to 23 32 to 36

Mount Rushmore NMem federal Class II 3 13 to 17 22 to 26

Popo Agie WA federal Class II 4 7 to 9 10 to 13

Soldier Creek WA federal Class II 2 10 to 13 18 to 21

Source: Argonne (2002)

Notes: Alt 1 - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 1 impacts.

Other - Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from

all air pollutant emission sources not included in Alt 1, including projected surface coal

mining operations in the Montana and Wyoming PRB and the Montana Statewide EIS

sources. The range of values corresponds to including Montana Alternative A (low) to

Montana Alternative B/C/E (high).

Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum visibility

impact anywhere within the sensitive location, they may not be a simple sum of the

maximum direct Alt 1 and Other impacts, which can occur at different locations.

Locations: IR - Indian Reservation. NHS - National Historic Site. NM - National Monument

NMP - National Memorial Park NMem - National Memorial. NP - National Park. 

NRA - National Recreation Area WA - Wilderness Area.
Table AQ-8. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 2

Criteria Pollutant Impacts and Applicable Significance Thresholds (in μg/m3)

Pollutant Avg Time a Location Increment Alt 2A Other Cum Background Total N

carbon monoxide 1-hour

8-hours

near-field

far-field 1

near-field

far-field 2

- - -- - -- - -- - -

158

4

9314

142100124

70

197100132

76

3,5003,5001,5001,500

3,6973,6001,6321,576

nitrogen dioxide Annual near-field

far-field 3

far-field 2

2525

2.5

7.20.40.2

3.35.1

3.9 b

9.65.4

4.1 b

171717

272221

PM2.5 24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 3

near-field

far-field 3

- - -- - -- - -- - -

13.0

4.51.50.2

8.69.70.71.1

21.314.0

2.11.2

1919

88

403310

9

PM10 24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 4

far-field 2far-field 5

near-field

far-field 4

3030

88

7

17

17.5

0.43.41.83.1

<0.1

9.3

29.7

9.4 b

7.00.92.7

27.729.7

12.4 b

8.8 b

3.92.7

424242421717

707254512120

sulfur dioxide 3-hours

24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 3

near-field

far-field 3

near-field

far-field 3

512512

91912020

3.30.71.70.30.5

<0.1

4.5

17.1

1.85.30.20.4

4.6

17.1

3.25.30.60.4

888833

13251113

43

Source: Argonne (2002)Notes: a Annual impacts are the first maximum value; short-term impacts are the second maximum value. b It is possible that Other and Cum emission sources could exceed the PSD Class I increment on the Northern Cheyenne Ind

Cum emission sources could exceed the PSD Class I increment in the Washakie Wilderness Area; a regulatory “PSD IncremeAnalysis” should be conducted during permitting by the appropriate Air Quality Regulatory Agency.Alt 2A - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 2A impacts. 

Other - Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from all air pollutant emission sources 

including projected surface coal mining operations in the Montana and Wyoming PRB and the Montana Statewide EIS AlternPotential impacts from Montana Alternatives A and D would be less.Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum cumulative impact location, they may not 

maximum direct Alt 2A and Other impacts, which can occur at different locations.

Total The sum of the cumulative modeled impact and the assumed background concentration.

National - Applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Wyoming - Applicable Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Locations: 1 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area 2 Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 3 Crow Indian Reservation 4 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 5 Washakie Wilderness Area
Table AQ-9. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 2A - Predicted Atmospheric D

and Applicable Significance Thresholds.

Total Sulfur Deposition

(kg/ha-yr)

Total Nitrogen Deposition

(kg/ha-yr)

Acid 

Location

PSD

Class Lake Alt 2A Other Cum Thld Alt 2A Other Cum Thld

Bkgd

(μeq/l)

A

2

Bridger WA I Black Joe

DeepHobbsUpper Frozen

<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01

0.010.010.010.01

0.010.010.010.01

5555

0.010.010.010.01

0.020.020.010.02

0.030.030.020.03

3333

69.061.068.0

 5.8a

000

0.

Fitzpatrick WA I Ross <0.01 0.01 0.01 5 0.01 0.02 0.02 3 61.4 0AbsarokaBeartooth WA II Stepping Stone Twin Island <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

55

<0.01<0.01

0.030.03

0.030.03

33

27.036.0

00

Cloud Peak WA II Emerald

Florence

<0.01<0.01

0.030.03

0.030.03

55

0.030.03

0.070.07

0.100.10

33

53.332.7

12

Popo Agie WA II Lower

Saddlebag

<0.01 0.01 0.01 5 0.01 0.02 0.03 3 55.5 0

Source: Argonne (2002)Notes: Alt 2A - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 2A impacts.

Other - Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from all air pollutant emission sources not inclu

projected surface coal mining operations in the Wyoming and Montana PRB and the Montana Statewide EIS Alternative B/C/E sourcMontana Alternatives A and D would be less.Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum cumulative impact at a specific location, they are thAlt 2A and Other impacts.Thld - Impact threshold. Total sulfur and nitrogen thresholds from Fox, et al. (1989); acid neutralizing capacity thresholds from USFWA - Wilderness Area. a Since the background acid neutralizing capacity at Upper Frozen Lake is less than 25 μeq/l, the applicable significance threshold i

This threshold is exceeded by Other and Cum emission sources. However, the background concentration is based on only six sampl

1997 and 2001.
Table AQ-10. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas EIS Alternative 2A - Daily FLAG Refined Method -

Visibility Impact Analysis (number of days $1.0 dv per year)

Sensitive Location PSD Classification Alt 2A Other Cum

Badlands WA mandatory federal Class I 3 13 to 17 24 to 27

Bridger WA mandatory federal Class I 4 7 to 9 10 to 12

Fitzpatrick WA mandatory federal Class I 3 6 to 9 9 to 12

Gates of the Mountains WA mandatory federal Class I 0 3 to 4 4 to 4

Grand Teton NP mandatory federal Class I 1 3 to 5 6 to 7

North Absaroka WA mandatory federal Class I 3 9 to 13 12 to 14

Red Rock Lakes WA mandatory federal Class I 0 0 to 1 1 to 3

Scapegoat WA mandatory federal Class I 0 2 to 2 2 to 3

Teton WA mandatory federal Class I 3 6 to 9 9 to 11

Theodore Roosevelt NMP (N) mandatory federal Class I 0 0 to 1 2 to 3

Theodore Roosevelt NMP (S) mandatory federal Class I 0 1 to 3 4 to 6

U.L. Bend WA mandatory federal Class I 1 4 to 5 5 to 8

Washakie WA mandatory federal Class I 4 10 to 14 14 to 18

Wind Cave NP mandatory federal Class I 3 17 to 21 27 to 30

Yellowstone NP mandatory federal Class I 2 8 to 11 11 to 13

Fort Peck IR Tribal designated Class I 0 1 to 3 2 to 5

Northern Cheyenne IR Tribal designated Class I 16 27 to 82 39 to 91

Absaroka-Beartooth WA federal Class II 3 28 to 32 29 to 33

Agate Fossil Beds NM federal Class II 1 8 to 11 14 to 17

Bighorn Canyon NRA federal Class II 8 17 to 30 22 to 34

Black Elk WA federal Class II 3 17 to 20 25 to 29

Cloud Peak WA federal Class II 12 17 to 30 28 to 38

Crow IR federal Class II 16 59 to 108 69 to 115

Devils Tower NM federal Class II 6 17 to 25 36 to 44

Fort Belknap IR federal Class II 1 60 to 61 61 to 61

Fort Laramie NHS federal Class II 2 10 to 14 17 to 19

Jewel Cave NM federal Class II 3 19 to 23 30 to 35

Mount Rushmore NMem federal Class II 2 13 to 17 21 to 25

Popo Agie WA federal Class II 3 7 to 9 10 to 12

Soldier Creek WA federal Class II 1 10 to 13 17 to 21

Source: Argonne (2002)

Notes: Alt 2A - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 2A impacts.

Other - Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from all air pollutant

emission sources not included in Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alt 2A, including projected surface

coal mining operations in the Wyoming and Montana PRB and the Montana Statewide EIS sources. The range

of values corresponds to including Montana Alternative A (low) to Montana Alternative B/C/E (high).

Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum visibility impact anywhere

within the sensitive location, they may not be a simple sum of the maximum direct Alt 2A and Other impacts,

which can occur at different locations.

Locations: IR - Indian Reservation NHS - National Historic Site NM - National Monument 

NMP - National Memorial Park NMem - National Memorial. NP - National Park.

NRA - National Recreation Area WA - Wilderness Area.
Table AQ-11. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 2B - Predicted Criteria Polluta

Applicable Significance Thresholds (in μg/m3).

Pollutant Avg Time a Location Increment Alt 2B Other Cum Background Total N

carbon monoxide 1-hour

8-hours

near-field

far-field 1

near-field

far-field 2

- - -- - -- - -- - -

157

3

77

9

142100124

70

170100124

74

3,5003,5001,5001,500

3,6703,6001,6241,574

nitrogen dioxide Annual near-field

far-field 3

far-field 2

2525

2.5

6.30.30.2

3.35.1

3.9 b

8.85.3

4.1 b

171717

262221

PM2.5 24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 3

near-field

far-field 3

- - -- - -- - -- - -

10.7

3.81.30.1

8.69.70.71.1

19.013.4

2.01.2

1919

88

383210

9

PM10 24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 4

far-field 2far-field 5

near-field

far-field 4

3030

8 b

8

1717

15.2

0.43.01.52.9

<0.1

9.3

29.7

9.4 b

7.00.92.7

25.529.7

12.1 b

8.5 b

3.72.7

424242421717

677254502120

sulfur dioxide 3-hours

24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 3

near-field

far-field 3

near-field

far-field 3

512512

91912020

3.30.71.70.30.5<0.1

4.5

17.1

1.85.30.20.4

4.6

17.1

3.25.30.60.4

888833

13251113

43

Source: Argonne (2002)Notes: a Annual impacts are the first maximum value; short-term impacts are the second maximum value. 

b It is possible that Other and Cum emission sources could exceed the PSD Class I increment on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserv

Cum emission sources could exceed the PSD Class I increment in the Washakie Wilderness Area; a regulatory “PSD Increment Consumconducted during permitting by the appropriate Air Quality Regulatory Agency.Alt 2B - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 2B impacts. Other - Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from all air pollutant emission sources not includ

projected surface coal mining operations in the Wyoming and Montana PRB and the Montana Statewide EIS Alternative B/C/E sourcesMontana Alternatives A and D would be less.Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum cumulative impact location, they may not be a simple 

Alt 2B and Other impacts, which can occur at different locations.

Total - The sum of the cumulative modeled impact and the assumed background concentration.

National - Applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Wyoming - Applicable Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Locations: 

1 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area 2 Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 3 Crow Indian Reservation 4 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 5 Washakie Wilderness Area
Table AQ-12. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 2B - Predicted Atmospheric Dep

Applicable Significance Thresholds.

Total Sulfur Deposition

(kg/ha-yr)

Total Nitrogen Deposition

(kg/ha-yr)

Aci

Location

PSD

Class Lake Alt 2B Other Cum Thld Alt 2B Other Cum Thld

Bkgd

(μeq/l)

Bridger WA I Black Joe

DeepHobbsUpper Frozen

<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01

0.010.010.010.01

0.010.010.010.01

5555

0.010.01

<0.01

0.01

0.020.020.010.02

0.030.030.020.03

3333

69.061.068.0

 5.8a

Fitzpatrick WA I Ross <0.01 0.01 0.01 5 0.01 0.02 0.02 3 61.4 AbsarokaBeartooth WA II Stepping Stone Twin Island <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

55

<0.01<0.01

0.030.03

0.030.03

33

27.036.0

Cloud Peak WA II Emerald

Florence

<0.01<0.01

0.030.03

0.030.03

55

0.030.03

0.070.07

0.100.10

33

53.332.7

Popo Agie WA II Lower

Saddlebag

<0.01 0.01 0.01 5 0.01 0.02 0.03 3 55.5 

Source: Argonne (2002)Notes: Alt 2B - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 2B impacts.

Other - Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from all air pollutant emission so

including projected surface coal mining operations in the Wyoming and Montana PRB and the Montana Statewide EIS Potential impacts from Montana Alternatives A and D would be less.Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum cumulative impact at a specific locamaximum direct Alt 2B and Other impacts.Thld - Impact threshold. Total sulfur and nitrogen thresholds from Fox, et al. (1989); acid neutralizing capacity thres

WA- Wilderness Area. a Since the background acid neutralizing capacity at Upper Frozen Lake is less than 25 μeq/l, the applicable significan

μeq/l change. This threshold is exceeded by Other sources alone, as well Cum sources. However, the background co

six samples taken on four days between 1997 and 2001.
Table AQ-13. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 2B - Daily FLAG Refined Me

Analysis (number of days 

$1.0 dv per year).

Sensitive Location PSD Classification Alt 2B OBadlands WA mandatory federal Class I 1 13 Bridger WA mandatory federal Class I 3 7 Fitzpatrick WA mandatory federal Class I 3 6 Gates of the Mountains WA mandatory federal Class I 0 3 Grand Teton NP mandatory federal Class I 0 3 North Absaroka WA mandatory federal Class I 2 9 tRed Rock Lakes WA mandatory federal Class I 0 0 Scapegoat WA mandatory federal Class I 0 2 Teton WA mandatory federal Class I 2 6 Theodore Roosevelt NMP (N) mandatory federal Class I 0 0 Theodore Roosevelt NMP (S) mandatory federal Class I 0 1 U.L. Bend WA mandatory federal Class I 1 4 Washakie WA mandatory federal Class I 4 10 Wind Cave NP mandatory federal Class I 2 17 Yellowstone NP mandatory federal Class I 1 8 tFort Peck IR Tribal designated Class I 0 1 Northern Cheyenne IR Tribal designated Class I 14 27 Absaroka-Beartooth WA federal Class II 3 28 Agate Fossil Beds NM federal Class II 0 8 tBighorn Canyon NRA federal Class II 7 17 Black Elk WA federal Class II 2 17 Cloud Peak WA federal Class II 9 17 Crow IR federal Class II 14 59 tDevils Tower NM federal Class II 5 17 Fort Belknap IR federal Class II 1 60 Fort Laramie NHS federal Class II 1 10 Jewel Cave NM federal Class II 2 19 Mount Rushmore NMem federal Class II 1 13 Popo Agie WA federal Class II 3 7 Soldier Creek WA federal Class II 1 10 Source: Argonne (2002)Notes: Alt 2B - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas EIS Alternative 2B impacts.

Other- Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from all air pollutant emission so

including projected surface coal mining operations in the Wyoming and Montana PRB and the Montana Statewide EIS corresponds to including Montana Alternative A (low) to Montana Alternative B/C/E (high).Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum visibility impact anywhere within th

not be a simple sum of the maximum direct Alt 2B and Other impacts, which can occur at different locations.

Locations: IR - Indian Reservation. NHS - National Historic Site. NM - National Monument 

NMP - National Memorial Park NMem - National Memorial. NP - National Park.NRA - National Recreation Area WA - Wilderness Area.
Table AQ-14. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 3 - Predicted Criteria Pollutant I

Significance Thresholds (in μg/m3

).

Pollutant Avg Time a Location Increment Alt 3 Other Cum Background Total 

carbon monoxide 1-hour

8-hours

near-field

far-field 1

near-field

far-field 2

- - -- - -- - -- - -

261

2

183

8

142100124

70

261100183

75

3,5003,5001,5001,500

3,7613,6001,6831,575

nitrogen dioxide Annual near-field

far-field 3

far-field 2

2525

2.5

3.00.30.1

3.35.1

3.9 b

5.85.3

4.1 b

171717

232221

PM2.5 24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 4

near-field

far-field 4

- - -- - -- - -- - -

5.70.20.70.0

8.6

12.7

0.71.2

13.512.7

1.31.2

1919

88

3232

99

PM10 24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 4

far-field 2far-field 5

near-field

far-field 4

3030

8

8

17

7

7.10.21.50.91.2

<0.1

9.3

29.7

9.4 b

7.00.92.7

15.629.7

10.7 b

7.81.92.7

424242421717

587253501920

sulfur dioxide 3-hours

24-hours

Annual

near-field

far-field 3

near-field

far-field 3

near-field

far-field 3

512512

91912020

1.20.30.60.10.2

<0.1

4.5

17.1

1.85.30.20.4

4.6

17.1

2.25.30.30.4

888833

13251013

33

Source: Argonne (2002)Notes: a Annual impacts are the first maximum value; short-term impacts are the second maximum value. b It is possible that Other and Cum emission sources could exceed the PSD Class I increment on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Rese

Increment Consumption Analysis” should be conducted during permitting by the appropriate Air Quality Regulatory Agency.Alt 3 - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 3 impacts. 

Other - Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from all air pollutant emission sources not inclu

surface coal mining operations in the Wyoming and Montana PRB and the Montana Statewide EIS Alternative B/C/E sources. Potent

Alternatives A and D would be less.Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum cumulative impact location, they may not be a simp3 and Other impacts, which can occur a different locations.

Total - The sum of the cumulative modeled impact and the assumed background concentration.

National - Applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Wyoming - Applicable Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Locations: 

1 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area 2 Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 3 Crow Indian Reservation 4 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 5 Washakie Wilderness Area
Table AQ-15. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 3 - Predicted Atmospheric Depos

Applicable Significance Thresholds.

Total Sulfur Deposition

(kg/ha-yr)

Total Nitrogen Deposition

(kg/ha-yr)

Acid 

Location

PSD

Class Lake Alt 3 Other Cum Thld Alt 3 Other Cum Thld

Bkgd

(μeq/l) Al

Bridger WA I Black Joe

DeepHobbsUpper Frozen

<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01

0.010.010.010.01

0.010.010.010.01

5555

<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01

0.020.020.010.02

0.030.020.020.02

3333

69.061.068.0

5.8 a

000

0

Fitzpatrick WA I Ross <0.01 0.01 0.01 5 <0.01 0.02 0.02 3 61.4 0AbsarokaBeartooth WA II Stepping Stone Twin Island <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

55

<0.01<0.01

0.030.03

0.030.03

33

27.036.0

00

Cloud Peak WA II Emerald

Florence

<0.01<0.01

0.030.03

0.030.03

55

0.010.02

0.070.07

0.080.08

33

53.332.7

01

Popo Agie WA II Lower

Saddlebag

<0.01 0.01 0.01 5 <0.01 0.02 0.03 3 55.5 0

Source: Argonne (2002)Notes: Alt 3 - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 3 impacts.

Other - Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from all air pollutant emission sources not include

surface coal mining operations in the Wyoming and Montana PRB and the Montana Statewide EIS Alternative B/C/E sources. 

Alternatives A and D would be less.

Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum cumulative impact at a specific location, they are the 

and Other impacts.

Thld - Impact threshold. Total sulfur and nitrogen thresholds from Fox, et al. (1989); acid neutralizing capacity thresholds from USFS 

WA - Wilderness Area.

a Since the background acid neutralizing capacity at Upper Frozen Lake is less than 25 μeq/L, the applicable significance thresh

This threshold is exceeded by Other sources alone, as well Cum sources. However, the background concentration is based on days between 1997 and 2001.
Table AQ-16. Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 3 - Daily FLAG

Refined Method - Visibility Impact Analysis (number of days $1.0

dv per year).

Sensitive Location PSD Classification Alt 3 Other Cum

Badlands WA mandatory federal Class I 0 13 to 17 18 to 21

Bridger WA mandatory federal Class I 1 7 to 9 8 to 10

Fitzpatrick WA mandatory federal Class I 1 6 to 9 8 to 10

Gates of the Mountains WA mandatory federal Class I 0 3 to 4 3 to 4

Grand Teton NP mandatory federal Class I 0 3 to 5 4 to 6

North Absaroka WA mandatory federal Class I 0 9 to 13 11 to 13

Red Rock Lakes WA mandatory federal Class I 0 0 to 1 0 to 2

Scapegoat WA mandatory federal Class I 0 2 to 2 2 to 3

Teton WA mandatory federal Class I 0 6 to 9 7 to 10

Theodore Roosevelt NMP (N) mandatory federal Class I 0 0 to 1 1 to 2

Theodore Roosevelt NMP (S) mandatory federal Class I 0 1 to 3 2 to 4

U.L. Bend WA mandatory federal Class I 0 4 to 5 5 to 6

Washakie WA mandatory federal Class I 1 10 to 14 12 to 16

Wind Cave NP mandatory federal Class I 0 17 to 21 22 to 25

Yellowstone NP mandatory federal Class I 0 8 to 11 9 to 12

Fort Peck IR Tribal designated Class I 0 1 to 3 2 to 4

Northern Cheyenne IR Tribal designated Class I 7 27 to 82 33 to 87

Absaroka-Beartooth WA federal Class II 0 28 to 32 28 to 32

Agate Fossil Beds NM federal Class II 0 8 to 11 10 to 14

Bighorn Canyon NRA federal Class II 3 17 to 30 19 to 32

Black Elk WA federal Class II 0 17 to 20 20 to 24

Cloud Peak WA federal Class II 3 17 to 30 23 to 35

Crow IR federal Class II 10 59 to 108 65 to 113

Devils Tower NM federal Class II 1 17 to 25 26 to 34

Fort Belknap IR federal Class II 0 60 to 61 61 to 61

Fort Laramie NHS federal Class II 0 10 to 14 13 to 16

Jewel Cave NM federal Class II 0 19 to 23 24 to 28

Mount Rushmore NMem federal Class II 0 13 to 17 17 to 20

Popo Agie WA federal Class II 1 7 to 9 8 to 11

Soldier Creek WA federal Class II 0 10 to 13 13 to 16

Source: Argonne (2002)

Notes: Alt 3 - Direct modeled Wyoming PRB Oil and Gas Project EIS Alternative 3 impacts.

Other - Direct modeled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development” impacts. The impact from all

air pollutant emission sources not included in Alt 3, including projected surface coal mining

operations in the Wyoming and Montana PRB and the Montana Statewide EIS sources. The

range of values corresponds to including Montana Alternative A (low) to Montana Alternative

B/C/E (high).

Cum - Cumulative modeled impacts. Since these values represent the maximum visibility

impact anywhere within the sensitive location, they may not be a simple sum of the maximum

direct Alt 3 and Other impacts, which can occur at different locations.

Locations: IR - Indian Reservation. NHS - National Historic Site. NM - National

Monument

 NMP - National Memorial Park NMem - National Memorial. NP - National Park.

 NRA - National Recreation Area WA - Wilderness Area.
Table AQ-17. Predicted Visibility Impacts in Class I Areas - Daily FLAG Refined

Method (Maximum cumulative deciview change).

Class I area Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2b Alt 3

Badlands Wilderness Area1 10.91 10.67 10.43 9.46

Bridger Wilderness Area 13.28 12.67 12.21 11.15

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 16.57 15.83 15.21 14.01

Gates of the Mtns Wilderness Area 14.99 14.61 14.22 13.17

Grand Teton National Park 6.95 6.67 6.44 5.8

North Absaroka Wilderness Area 14.89 14.12 13.51 12.21

Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Area 2.85 2.75 2.67 2.37

Scapegoat Wilderness Area 9.89 9.58 9.35 8.55

Teton Wilderness Area 14.59 13.97 13.46 12.38

Theodore Roosevelt NMP2 (North Unit) 3.65 3.46 3.29 2.75

Theodore Roosevelt NMP2 (South Unit) 4.62 4.37 4.14 3.51

U.L. Bend Wilderness Area 29.05 27.97 26.97 24.01

Washakie Wilderness Area 24.79 23.82 22.96 21.48

Wind Cave National Park 9.05 8.81 8.59 8.06

Yellowstone National Park 12.79 12.19 11.59 10.25

Northern Cheyenne Reservation3 54.75 52.8 50.71 45.02

Mitigation Options

Mitigation may be applied to fugitive dust and nitrogen oxide (NOx) impacts.

Fugitive dust refers to any particulate matter that is not deliberately emitted by

a well-defined source. Fugitive dust sources typically include windblown dust

from unvegetated lands and unpaved roads. Table AQ-18 shows several fugitive

dust mitigation options available. Other mitigation measures that are utilized by

surface coal mines in Wyoming to control fugitive dust emissions are listed in

Section 3.5.4

Nitrogen oxide emissions are associated with combustion. Table AQ-19 shows

several options available to mitigate NOx impacts related to production of oil and

gas, including CBM. Mitigation measures that the mines have instituted or that

WDEQ may require related to coal mining operations are listed in Section 3.5.5.
Table AQ-18. Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures (PM10), Effectiveness and

Cost.

Dust Sources

Disturbed

Areas

Unpaved Roads1

Mitigation

Options

Establish

plant cover

for all

disturbed

lands by

certain time 

(revegetation)

Water roads

to attain

certain

percent

moisture2

Apply soil

stabilizer

Set and

enforce

speed limit

Gravel

roads

Pave road

Effectiveness Level

proportional

to

percentage

of land

cover

0 - 50

percent

reduction in

uncontrolled

dust

emissions

33 to 100

percent

control

efficiency

80 percent

for 15

mph3

65 percent

for 20

mph3

25 percent

for 30

mph3

30 percent

reduction

90 percent

reduction

Estimated

Cost

$4000/mile $2,000 to

$4,000/mile

per year

Unknown $9,000/mil

e

$11,000 to

$60,000/mi

le

Notes: 1 Improved and County roads.

2 Wetting of construction roads during the construction period. Wetting of construction

roads not required for once a month maintenance trips to well pads.

3 Reductions assume 40 mile per hour base speed.

Table AQ-19. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Mitigation Measures Efficiency.

NOx Emissions Sources

Field

Compressors

Sales

Compressors

Temporary

Diesel

Generators1

Mitigation

Options/Efficiency

Implement Best

Available

Control

Technology

Typically

results in a NOx

emission rate of

about 1 g/bhphr

Implement Best

Available

Control

Technology

Typically

results in a NOx

emission rate of

about 1 g/bhphr

Register with

State; WDEQ

regulate as

appropriate

Voluntary use

of diesel

engines

Notes: 1 Wyoming is currently registering these generators to determine if NOx emissions are

significant.

2 BACT could include electric compression.
APPENDIX F

NON-MINE GROUNDWATER AND

SURFACE WATER RIGHTS WITHIN AND

ADJACENT TO THE NARO NORTH, NARO SOUTH

LITTLE THUNDER, WEST ROUNDUP AND WEST ANTELOPE

 LBA TRACTS
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P8998P 06/07/68 41 70 2 SWSE USFS TECKLA #T B 133 P25607P 01/14/74 41 70 6 NWSE PAUL & EDITH RUTH WILKINSON WILKINSON #3 P2314W 07/18/51 41 70 9 SWNW JOHN C. DILTS, JR. DILTS #21 P62724W 12/01/82 41 70 12 NWNE PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY ENL OF MORGAN RIKER #1 CAN P80718W 08/28/89 41 70 12 NWNE PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY MORGAN RIKER #1 CAN P61524W 07/29/82 41 70 12 NWNE PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY MORGAN RIKER #1 CAN P86949W 12/30/91 41 70 12 NWNE USFS MORGAN RIKER #TB 250 CAN P33290W 05/17/76 41 70 18 SENW USFS BELL #T B 199 (DEEPENED) P108419W 12/16/97 41 71 1 NWSW REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC FEDERAL 13AC-111 UNA STP71738W 01/14/86 41 71 1 SWNW USFS WILKINSON SPRING TB #55 UNA 

P57759W 07/07/81 41 71 2 NENE VALENTINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. THUNDER CREEK #1 CAN P95332W 02/12/86 41 71 2 NENE FRANCES PUTNAM JINX #3 UNA P95333W 07/30/81 41 71 2 NENE FRANCES PUTNAM JINX #2 UNA P57757W 07/30/81 41 71 2 SENE HARRY G. PUTNAM JINX #1 CAN P95331W 02/12/86 41 71 2 SENE HARRY G. PUTNAM JINX #1 CAN P12754P 12/30/51 41 71 3 NESW USFS MATHESON #TB 42 P44330W 07/20/78 41 71 3 NWSE USFS MARG #5 P108190W 12/04/97 41 71 8 SWNE JERRY DILTS** KEY PRODUCTION CO. INC. SAPELO #1 UNA P70729W 07/23/85 41 71 10 SESW JERRY DILTS BRIDLE BIT RANCH #3 ABA P58121W 05/18/81 41 71 11 NENE BIG HORN FRACTIONATION B H FRAC #1 P67807W 06/27/84 41 71 13 NWNW USFS WILKINSON SPRING #T B 39 P44331W 07/20/78 41 71 14 SESE USFS MARG #6 P129458W 09/18/00 41 71 2 NENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #41-2 UNA P129461W 09/18/00 41 71 2 NESE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #43-2 UNA P129452W 09/18/00 41 71 2 NWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #31-2 UNA P129447W 09/18/00 41 71 2 NWSE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #33-2 UNA P129460W 09/18/00 41 71 2 SENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #42-2 UNA P129455W 09/18/00 41 71 2 SESE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #44-2 UNA P129454W 09/18/00 41 71 2 SWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #32-2 UNA P129456W 09/18/00 41 71 2 SWSE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #34-2 UNA P129457W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #41-11 UNA P129449W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NENW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #21-11 UNA P129451W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #31-11 UNA P129453W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NWNW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #11-11 UNA P129459W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #42-11 UNA P129450W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SENW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #22-11 UNA P129462W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #32-11 UNA P129448W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SWNW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #12-11 UNA P123124W 02/07/00 41 71 15 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON 23-15-4171 UNA P109370W 03/25/98 41 71 17 NESW W.S.B.L.C.** YATES PETROLEUM CORP. SAPELO FEDERAL #1 A&C STP5865P 08/31/66 42 70 7 SENE RENO LIVESTOCK CORP.**NAN HENDERSON HEARTSPEAR 11 P69514W 03/04/85 42 70 8 SESE USFS SHELL #TB 259 CAN P78847W 01/03/89 42 70 8 SESE USFS TB 259 UNA P50557W 10/31/79 42 70 9 NWSE SHELL OIL COMPANY 9-10 P49894W 09/19/79 42 70 9 SWSE SHELL OIL COMPANY 9-15 A&C P49896W 09/19/79 42 70 10 NENW SHELL OIL COMPANY 10-3 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR NARO NORTH LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P50249W 10/04/79 42 70 10 NWSE SHELL OIL COMPANY 10-10 P49897W 09/19/79 42 70 10 NWSW SHELL OIL COMPANY 10-12 P49898W 09/19/79 42 70 10 NWSW SHELL OIL COMPANY 11-5 ABA & CAN P54783W 11/20/80 42 70 11 NWNW CABALLO ROJO INC. P50250W 10/04/79 42 70 11 NWNW SHELL OIL COMPANY 11-4 P49900W 09/19/79 42 70 11 SENW SHELL OIL COMPANY 11-6 A&C P49899W 09/19/79 42 70 11 SENW SHELL OIL COMPANY 11-6 A&C P8894W 04/23/71 42 70 11 SWNE RENO LIVESTOCK CORPORATION HEARTSPEAR 19 ADJ P49891W 09/19/79 42 70 14 NWNE SHELL OIL COMPANY 14-2 UNA P50251W 10/04/79 42 70 14 NWNW SHELL OIL COMPANY 14-4 P49895W 09/19/79 42 70 15 NENW SHELL OIL COMPANY 15-3 P50555W 10/31/79 42 70 15 SENE SHELL OIL COMPANY 15-8 P50556W 10/31/79 42 70 15 SWNW SHELL OIL COMPANY 15-5 P10798W 10/27/71 42 70 15 SWNW JOE D. BANKS CAN P8951P 03/20/61 42 70 15 SWSW USFS RENO #T B 52 P8981P 08/02/66 42 70 18 NWSE USFS WILKINSON #T B 107 P25605P 01/14/74 42 70 19 NESW PAUL & EDITH RUTH WILKINSON WILKINSON #1 P42620W 03/10/78 42 70 21 SESE USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #23 P40092W 08/22/77 42 70 21 SWSE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #1-D P40093W 08/22/77 42 70 21 SWSE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #1-F P42617W 03/10/78 42 70 21 SWSW USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #20 CAN P67797W 06/26/84 42 70 23 NESE USFS RENO SPRING #T B 17 P12746P 12/30/50 42 70 25 NESW USFS EDWARDS #TB 32 P8960P 07/31/64 42 70 26 SWSW USFS EDWARDS #T B 84 P39795W 07/29/77 42 70 27 NWNE USFS USFS MONITOR WELL #1 P42632W 03/10/78 42 70 27 SESE USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #35 P40097W 08/22/77 42 70 27 SESE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #2-J P40091W 08/22/77 42 70 27 SESE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #1-B P42628W 03/10/78 42 70 27 SWSE USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #31 P9561W 06/17/71 42 70 27 SWSE USFS EDWARDS #TB 154 CAN P42629W 03/10/78 42 70 27 SWSW USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #32 P60275W 03/12/82 42 70 32 NENW ENERCOR INC. ENERCOR #1 CAN P25766W 01/22/74 42 70 32 NWNW MEADOWLARK FARMS, INC.** MACKEY #44 ABA 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR NARO NORTH LBA TRACT

MACKEY #89 CAN 

P25769W 01/22/74 42 70 32 SWNE MEADOWLARK FARMS, INC.** 

ROBERT R. & DOROTHY YVONNE MACKEYMEADOWLARK FARMS, INC.** ROBERT R. & DOROTHY YVONNE MACKEY

P25765W 01/22/74 42 70 32 SESE MACKEY #43 CAN

MEADOWLARK FARMS, INC.** MACKEY #45 ABA ROBERT R. & DOROTHY YVONNE MACKEY

P25767W 01/22/74 42 70 32 NWSW

MACKEY #40 ABA 

CAN 

P25762W 01/22/74 42 70 28 SWSW MEADOWLARK FARMS, INC.** 

ROBERT R. & DOROTHY YVONNE MACKEY

P25768W 01/22/74 42 70 28 SWNE MEADOWLARK FARMS, INC.** 

ROBERT R. & DOROTHY YVONNE MACKEY

MACKEY #88

MEADOWLARK FARMS, INC.** ROBERT R. & DOROTHY YVONNE MACKEY

P25763W 01/22/74 42 70 28 SESE MACKEY #41 CAN

MEADOWLARK FARMS, INC.** MACKEY #42 CAN ROBERT R. & DOROTHY YVONNE MACKEY

P25764W 01/22/74 42 70 28 NENW
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P42623W 03/10/78 42 70 33 NESW USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #26 CAN P42618W 03/10/78 42 70 33 NWNW USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #21 CAN P40098W 08/22/77 42 70 33 SENE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #2-L P40102W 08/22/77 42 70 33 SENW USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #3-P P40101W 08/22/77 42 70 33 SENW USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #3 D P40099W 08/22/77 42 70 33 SESE USFS SEAM MONTORING WELL #3-M P40094W 08/22/77 42 70 33 SESW USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #1-H P42630W 03/10/78 42 70 33 SESW USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #33 P42626W 03/10/78 42 70 33 SESW USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #29 P42624W 03/10/78 42 70 33 SESW USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #27 P42622W 03/10/78 42 70 33 SESW USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #25 P42625W 03/10/78 42 70 33 SWNE USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #28 P40100W 08/22/77 42 70 33 SWNE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #3-N P40096W 08/22/77 42 70 33 SWNE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #2-J P42619W 03/10/78 42 70 33 SWNW USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #22 CAN P42627W 03/10/78 42 70 33 SWSE USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #30 P42621W 03/10/78 42 70 33 SWSW USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #24 CAN P40095W 08/22/77 42 70 34 NENE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #2-1 P42633W 03/10/78 42 70 34 SESE USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #37 CAN P42631W 03/10/78 42 70 34 SWSW USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #34 CAN P61483W 07/19/82 42 70 36 SESE J. C. DILTS WADE #1 CAN P63168W 01/27/83 42 70 36 SWSW W.S.B.L.C. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. JACK'S GAMBLE #1 CAN P129220W 07/03/00 42 70 36 SENW W.S.B.L.C.** YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION SCHOOL CREEK CS STATE #1 UNA P63972W 04/29/83 42 71 8 NENE BRIDLE BIT RANCH CO. BRIDLE BIT #2 CAN P98861W 04/21/95 42 71 10 NWNE JERRY DILTS BBRC BIRDSALL #1 UNA P25580W 01/09/74 42 71 11 NWNE USFS STUART #T B 174 CAN P32145W 02/10/76 42 71 11 SWNE USFS STUART #T.B. 174 P8987P 07/13/61 42 71 12 SESE USFS STUART #T B 115 P12755P 12/30/50 42 71 13 SWSW USFS STUART #TB 36 P12759P 12/30/50 42 71 22 NWSE USFS MATHESON #TB 34 CAN P61754W 08/11/82 42 71 24 NWSE USFS PCC WILKINSON RANCH #1 P25606P 01/14/74 42 71 26 NESE PAUL & EDITH RUTH WILKINSON WILKINSON #2 P25608P 01/14/74 42 71 26 SWNW PAUL & EDITH RUTH WILKINSON WILKINSON #4 P5848W 06/16/70 42 71 26 SWNW PAUL WILKINSON MIDDLE PASTURE #1 P29746W 05/07/75 42 71 27 NENW USFS WRIGHT #T B 195 P53195W 08/04/81 42 71 32 NWNW DILTS BROS. DILTS BROS. #1 P12758P 12/30/63 42 71 33 SENE USFS MATHESON #TB 72 P44329W 07/20/78 42 71 34 NWSE USFS MARG #4 P12756P 12/30/66 42 71 35 SWSE USFS WILKINSON #TB 129 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR NARO NORTH LBA TRACT

P102631W 06/06/96 42 70 36 SWSW W.S.B.L.C.** DANIEL/JOYCE TRACY** JACK'S GAMBLE #1 UNA 

MARC/TAMALA TRACY
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status U

P8998P 06/07/68 41 70 2 SWSE USFS TECKLA #T B 133 SP25607P 01/14/74 41 70 6 NWSE PAUL & EDITH RUTH WILKINSON WILKINSON #3 SP2314W 07/18/51 41 70 9 SWNW JOHN C. DILTS, JR. DILTS #21 SP62724W 12/01/82 41 70 12 NWNE PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY ENL OF MORGAN RIKER #1 CAN MP80718W 08/28/89 41 70 12 NWNE PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY MORGAN RIKER #1 CAN MP61524W 07/29/82 41 70 12 NWNE PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO MORGAN RIKER #1 CAN MP86949W 12/30/91 41 70 12 NWNE USFS MORGAN RIKER #TB 250 CAN SP112G 07/25/51 41 70 16 SESE JOHN C. DILTS, JR. JOHN DILTS #3 WELL UNA SP33290W 05/17/76 41 70 18 SENW USFS BELL #T B 199 (DEEPENED) SP41369W 06/17/77 41 70 20 NESE USFS DOW 108 ANTELOPE CAN MP41370W 06/17/77 41 70 20 NESE USFS SOW 107 ANTELOPE ABA MONP41367W 06/17/77 41 70 20 SWSW USFS DOW-110-ANTELOPE CAN MONP41368W 06/17/77 41 70 20 SWSW USFS SOW 109 ANTELOPE CAN MP8980P 08/16/66 41 70 25 SWSW USFS IRWIN #T B 106 SP25936W 02/19/74 41 70 27 NWNE JOHN C. DILTS, JR. DILTS #27-41-70 SP44496W 08/08/78 41 70 31 NESE INDUSTRIAL PIPELINES SOUTH CENTRAL INC. BN #2 CAN MP44497W 08/08/78 41 70 31 NESE INDUSTRIAL PIPELINES SOUTH CENTRAL INC. BN #3 CAN MP44499W 08/08/78 41 70 31 NESE INDUSTRIAL PIPELINES SOUTH CENTRAL INC. BN #5 CAN MP44498W 08/08/78 41 70 31 NESE INDUSTRIAL PIPELINES SOUTH CENTRAL INC. BN #4 CAN MP2301W 04/14/50 41 70 33 NESW JOHN C. DILTS, JR. DILTS #8 SP172G 11/17/52 41 70 35 NWSW JOHN C. DILTS, JR. JOHN DILTS #4 WELL UNA STOP108419W 12/16/97 41 71 1 NWSW REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC FEDERAL 13AC-111 UNA STO,MP71738W 01/14/86 41 71 1 SWNW USFS WILKINSON SPRING TB #55 UNA SP57759W 07/07/81 41 71 2 NENE VALENTINE CONSTRUCTION INC. THUNDER CREEK #1 CAN MP95332W 02/12/86 41 71 2 NENE FRANCES PUTNAM JINX #3 UNA DOMP95333W 07/30/81 41 71 2 NENE FRANCES PUTNAM JINX #2 UNA DOMP57757W 07/30/81 41 71 2 SENE HARRY G. PUTNAM JINX #1 CAN STOP95331W 02/12/86 41 71 2 SENE HARRY G. PUTNAM JINX #1 CAN DOMP12754P 12/30/51 41 71 3 NESW USFS MATHESON #TB 42 SP44330W 07/20/78 41 71 3 NWSE USFS MARG #5 SP70729W 07/23/85 41 71 10 SESW JERRY DILTS BRIDLE BIT RANCH #3 ABA SP58121W 05/18/81 41 71 11 NENE BIG HORN FRACTIONATION B H FRAC #1 MP67807W 06/27/84 41 71 13 NWNW USFS WILKINSON SPRING #T B 39 SP44331W 07/20/78 41 71 14 SESE USFS MARG #6 SP96882W 08/24/94 41 71 24 NENW WESCO, INC WESCO #1 UNA MP63112W 02/11/83 41 71 24 SWNE BRIDLE BIT RANCH BRIDLE BIT RANCH #1 SP129458W 09/18/00 41 71 2 NENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #41-2 UNA STOP129461W 09/18/00 41 71 2 NESE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #43-2 UNA STOP129452W 09/18/00 41 71 2 NWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #31-2 UNA STOP129447W 09/18/00 41 71 2 NWSE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #33-2 UNA STOP129460W 09/18/00 41 71 2 SENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #42-2 UNA STOP129455W 09/18/00 41 71 2 SESE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #44-2 UNA STOP129454W 09/18/00 41 71 2 SWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #32-2 UNA STO

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR NARO SOUTH LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status U

P129456W 09/18/00 41 71 2 SWSE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #34-2 UNA STOP129457W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #41-11 UNA STOP129449W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NENW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #21-11 UNA STOP129451W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #31-11 UNA STOP129453W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NWNW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #11-11 UNA STOP129459W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #42-11 UNA STOP129450W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SENW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #22-11 UNA STOP129462W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #32-11 UNA STOP129448W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SWNW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #12-11 UNA STOP123124W 02/07/00 41 71 15 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON 23-15-4171 UNA CP67899W 07/10/84 41 71 27 NESW USFS ISENBERGER SPRING #T B 63 SP23605P 07/25/73 41 71 27 SWSW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SPRING #10 SP23594W 07/25/73 41 71 34 SWNE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER ARTESIAN #3 SP23596P 07/25/73 41 71 35 NENE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER ARTESIAN #4 STOP11652W 08/01/54 41 71 35 SENE ROBERT E. ISENBERGER COAL MINE #1 SP4762W 06/12/69 41 71 35 SENE WAYNE P. BRANNAN** KANE RANCHES BRANNAN #1 CAN INP16602W 09/01/72 41 71 35 SWNW W.S.B.L.C.**H. R. MATHESON STATE-MATHESON #1 INP4763W 06/12/69 41 71 35 SWNW STATE OF WYOMING**WAYNE P. BRANNAN BRANNAN #2 CAN INP23597P 07/25/73 41 71 35 SWSE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SCHOOL HOUSE #1 STOP46168W 12/14/78 41 71 36 NESW W.S.B.L.C.**PATRICIA EISENBERGER EISENBERGER-STATE #1 SP60832W 05/13/82 40 70 6 NENW DAVIS OIL COMPANY DAVIS HERON #1 CAN MP44332W 07/20/78 40 70 6 NWSE USFS MARG #7 SP67800W 06/27/84 40 70 9 SENE USFS MORTON SPRING #T.B. 32 UNA SP40313W 10/05/77 40 70 11 NENE ADOBE OIL & GAS CORP. ADOBE FENTON #1 CAN MP50130W 11/17/78 40 70 11 NENE USFS MORTON #T B 211 SP8968P 07/20/65 40 70 11 NWSW USFS MORTON #T B 94 SP8967P 05/01/65 40 71 1 SESE USFS MORTON #T B 93 SP37364W 04/19/77 40 71 3 NESW USFS ISENBERGER # TB 206 S

GROUND WATER RIGHTS FOR NARO SOUTH LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P5857P 07/31/66 42 70 4 SWSW ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY HEARTSPEAR 3 CAN P97862W 11/07/94 42 70 4 SWSW ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ENL. HEARTSPEAR 3 STOP5865P 08/31/66 42 70 7 SENE RENO LIVESTOCK CORPORATION HEARTSPEAR 11 

**NAN HENDERSON

P69514W 03/04/85 42 70 8 SESE USFS SHELL #TB 259 CAN P78847W 01/03/89 42 70 8 SESE USFS TB 259 UNA P50557W 10/31/79 42 70 9 NWSE SHELL OIL COMPANY 9-10 MP49894W 09/19/79 42 70 9 SWSE SHELL OIL COMPANY 9-15 A&C MP12757P 12/30/50 42 70 2 NENW USFS REVLAND #TB 35 P44327W 07/20/78 42 70 2 NWSW USFS MARG #2 P101801W 03/20/96 42 70 3 NESW BRIDLE BIT RANCH CO. BBRC BLACK BUTTE #1 UNA P123478W 02/22/00 42 70 7 NESW PRIMA OIL/GAS COMPANY PORCUPINE-TUIT #7-31 UNA STP123475W 02/22/00 42 70 7 NWNW PRIMA OIL/GAS COMPANY PORCUPINE-TUIT #7-22 UNA STP123482W 02/22/00 42 70 7 NWSE PRIMA OIL/GAS COMPANY PORCUPINE-TUIT #7-42 UNA STP123479W 02/22/00 42 70 7 NWSW PRIMA OIL/GAS COMPANY PORCUPINE-TUIT #7-32 UNA STP123477W 02/22/00 42 70 7 SENW PRIMA OIL/GAS COMPANY PORCUPINE-TUIT #7-24 UNA STP123481W 02/22/00 42 70 7 SESW PRIMA OIL/GAS COMPANY PORCUPINE-TUIT #7-34 UNA STP123474W 02/22/00 42 70 7 SWNE PRIMA OIL/GAS COMPANY PORCUPINE-TUIT #7-13 UNA STP123476W 02/22/00 42 70 7 SWNW PRIMA OIL/GAS COMPANY PORCUPINE-TUIT #7-23 UNA STP123483W 02/22/00 42 70 7 SWSE PRIMA OIL/GAS COMPANY PORCUPINE-TUIT #7-43 UNA STP78879W 01/23/89 42 70 7 SWSW BRIDLE BIT RANCH CO. BRIDLE BIT RANCH #3H P123480W 02/22/00 42 70 7 SWSW PRIMA OIL/GAS COMPANY PORCUPINE-TUIT #7-33 UNA STP63972W 04/29/83 42 70 8 NENE BRIDLE BIT RANCH CO. BRIDLE BIT #2 CAN P98861W 04/21/95 42 70 10 NWNE JERRY DILTS BBRC BIRDSALL #1 UNA P25580W 01/09/74 42 70 11 NWNE USFS STUART #T.B. 174 CAN P32145W 02/10/76 42 70 11 SWNE USFS STUART #T.B. 174 P74933W 06/19/87 43 70 4 SENW JACOBS LAND & LIVESTOCK COMPANY JRM 4 1C UNA P74932W 06/19/87 43 70 4 SWSE JACOBS LAND & LIVESTOCK COMPANY JRM 4 1W UNA P120261W 11/01/99 43 70 4 NWSW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #13-04 UNA STP120260W 11/01/99 43 70 4 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #11-04 UNA STP120268W 11/01/99 43 70 5 SESE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #44-05 UNA STP120264W 11/01/99 43 70 5 SESW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #24-05 UNA STP120266W 11/01/99 43 70 5 NESE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #33-05 UNA STP120263W 11/01/99 43 70 5 NWSW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #13-05 UNA STP120267W 11/01/99 43 70 5 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #42-05 UNA STP120262W 11/01/99 43 70 5 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #11-05 UNA STP121849W 12/27/99 43 70 5 NENW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #22-05 UNA STP120265W 11/01/99 43 70 5 NWNE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #31-05 UNA STP120274W 11/01/99 43 70 6 NWSE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #33-06 UNA STP120269W 11/01/99 43 70 6 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #11-06 UNA STP120270W 11/01/99 43 70 6 NWSW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #13-06 UNA STP120271W 11/01/99 43 70 6 SENW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #22-06 UNA STP120272W 11/01/99 43 70 6 SESW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #24-06 UNA STP120276W 11/01/99 43 70 6 SESE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #44-06 UNA STP120273W 11/01/99 43 70 6 NWNE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #31-06 UNA ST

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P120275W 11/01/99 43 70 6 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #42-06 UNA STP128063W 08/04/00 43 70 7 SESW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H 24-07 UNA STP126215W 06/09/00 43 70 7 NWNE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #31-07 UNA STP120279W 11/01/99 43 70 7 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #42-07 UNA STP120278W 11/01/99 43 70 7 SENW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #22-07 UNA STP120277W 11/01/99 43 70 7 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM H #11-07 UNA STP20495W 04/09/73 43 70 20 SESE ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTW-WW #6 A&C P20494W 04/09/73 43 70 20 SESE ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTR-WW #8 A&C P20491W 04/09/73 43 70 21 NENE ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTR-WW #6 A&C P32382W 03/04/76 43 70 21 NWNW ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTR-WW-#5 A&C RP37606W 02/18/77 43 70 21 NWNW ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ENL BTR-WW #5 A&C RP20488W 04/09/73 43 70 21 NWNW ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTR-WW #5 A&C P20501W 04/09/73 43 70 28 SWSW ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTW-WW #8 A&C P20500W 04/09/73 43 70 28 SWSW ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTR-WW #11 A&C P25125W 12/10/73 43 70 33 SWSE ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTW-WW #10A A&C P128064W 08/04/00 43 71 1 NWSE USFS** RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D 33-01R UNA STP125923W 05/25/00 43 71 1 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #11-01 UNA STP123659W 02/28/00 43 71 1 NWNE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #31-01 UNA STP121847W 12/27/99 43 71 1 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #42-01 UNA STP121848W 12/27/99 43 71 1 SENW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #22-01 UNA STP120248W 11/01/99 43 71 1 SESE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #44-01 UNA STP120247W 11/01/99 43 71 1 NWSE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #33-01 UNA STP120246W 11/01/99 43 71 1 SESW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #24-01 UNA STP120245W 11/01/99 43 71 1 NWSW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #13-01 UNA STP128467W 08/17/00 43 71 3 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 12-3-4371 UNA P128468W 08/17/00 43 71 3 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 14-3-4371 UNA P128469W 08/17/00 43 71 3 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 23-3-4371 UNA P128470W 08/17/00 43 71 3 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 34-3-4371 UNA P128473W 08/17/00 43 71 4 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 32-4-4371 UNA P128472W 08/17/00 43 71 4 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 21-4-4371 UNA P128474W 08/17/00 43 71 4 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 41-4-4371 UNA P128471W 08/17/00 43 71 4 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 12-4-4371 UNA P118160W 08/06/99 43 71 4 NWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 13-4 UNA P118161W 08/06/99 43 71 4 SESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 24-4 UNA P118162W 08/06/99 43 71 4 NWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 33-4 UNA P118163W 08/06/99 43 71 4 SESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 44-4 UNA P118166W 08/06/99 43 71 5 NWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 33-5 UNA P118168W 08/06/99 43 71 5 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 44-5 UNA P118167W 08/06/99 43 71 5 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 42-5 UNA P118165W 08/06/99 43 71 5 SESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 24-5 UNA P121878W 12/29/99 43 71 5 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 11-5 UNA P121879W 12/29/99 43 71 5 NWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 13-5-4371 UNA P121880W 12/29/99 43 71 5 NWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 31-5-4371 UNA P118164W 08/06/99 43 71 5 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 22-5 UNA P128477W 08/17/00 43 71 8 SWSW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 14-8-4371 UNA 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P128478W 08/17/00 43 71 8 NENW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 21-8-4371 UNA P128479W 08/17/00 43 71 8 NESW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 23-8-4371 UNA P128480W 08/17/00 43 71 8 SWNE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 32-8-4371 UNA P128481W 08/15/00 43 71 8 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 41-8-4371 UNA P128476W 08/17/00 43 71 8 SWNW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 12-8-4371 UNA P128484W 08/17/00 43 71 9 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 32-9-4371 UNA P128483W 08/17/00 43 71 9 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH FEDERAL 21-9-4371 UNA P128485W 08/17/00 43 71 9 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 43-9-4371 UNA P128482W 08/17/00 43 71 9 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH FEDERAL 12-9-4371 UNA P107568W 07/28/97 43 71 9 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 1-41-9 UNA MP110773W 06/22/98 43 71 9 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 42-9 UNA P115199W 04/16/99 43 71 9 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL STUART FED. 1-41-9 UNA P128486W 08/17/00 43 71 10 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 14-10-4371 UNA P128487W 08/17/00 43 71 10 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 12-10-4371 UNA P128488W 08/17/00 43 71 10 SWNE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 32-10-4371 UNA P128489W 08/17/00 43 71 10 SWSE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 34-10-4371 UNA P128490W 08/17/00 43 71 10 NENE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 41-10-4371 UNA P118169W 08/06/99 43 71 10 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 23-10 UNA P128491W 08/17/00 43 71 11 NESW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 23-11-4371 UNA P121917W 12/30/99 43 71 11 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ZIMMER 43-11 UNA P121916W 12/30/99 43 71 11 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ZIMMER 34-11 UNA P120249W 11/01/99 43 71 12 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #11-12 UNA STP120254W 11/01/99 43 71 12 NWSE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #33-12 UNA STP120250W 11/01/99 43 71 12 NWSW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #13-12 UNA STP120253W 11/01/99 43 71 12 NWNE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #31-12 UNA STP120256W 11/01/99 43 71 12 SESE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #44-12 UNA STP120251W 11/01/99 43 71 12 SENW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #22-12 UNA STP120255W 11/01/99 43 71 12 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #42-12 UNA STP120252W 11/01/99 43 71 12 SESW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D #24-12 UNA STP112580W 10/30/98 43 71 13 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. YOUNG 11-13 UNA P123115W 02/07/00 43 71 13 SESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. HOPKINS TRUST 44-13-4371 UNA P123116W 02/07/00 43 71 13 NWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 33-13-4371 UNA P121919W 12/30/99 43 71 13 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 22-13 UNA P121920W 12/30/99 43 71 13 SESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 22-13 UNA P121989W 12/31/99 43 71 13 NWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 13-13 UNA P128492W 08/17/00 43 71 14 SWNE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 32-14-4371 UNA P128493W 08/17/00 43 71 14 SWSE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 34-14-4371 UNA P123114W 02/07/00 43 71 14 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. REVLAND TRUST 12-14-4371 UNA P123112W 02/07/00 43 71 14 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. REVLAND TRUST 21-14-4371 UNA P123111W 02/07/00 43 71 14 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. REVLAND TRUST 23-14-4371 UNA P123113W 02/07/00 43 71 14 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. REVLAND TRUST 14-14-4371 UNA P121921W 12/30/99 43 71 14 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 42-14 UNA P121922W 12/30/99 43 71 14 SESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 44-14 UNA P128141W 08/08/00 43 71 16 NENE W.S.B.L.C.** M & K OIL COMPANY, INC. MILLS STATE 16-1 UNA P128142W 08/08/00 43 71 16 SWNE W.S.B.L.C.** M & K OIL COMPANY, INC. MILLS STATE 16-2 UNA 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P129244W 09/05/00 43 71 16 NESE W.S.B.L.C.** COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC. EDWARDS STATE #3-16 UNA STP123110W 02/07/00 43 71 16 SWNW W.S.B.L.C.** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STATE 12-16-4371 UNA P123109W 02/07/00 43 71 16 SWSW W.S.B.L.C.** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STATE 14-16-4371 UNA P123108W 02/07/00 43 71 16 NENW W.S.B.L.C.** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STATE 21-16-4371 UNA P123107W 02/07/00 43 71 16 NESW W.S.B.L.C.** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STATE 23-16-4371 UNA P123106W 02/07/00 43 71 16 SWSE W.S.B.L.C.** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STATE 34-16-4371 UNA P123019W 01/19/00 43 71 17 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARKLAND 23-17-4371 UNA P123020W 01/19/00 43 71 17 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARKLAND 34-17-4371 UNA P123018W 01/19/00 43 71 17 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARKLAND 21-17-4371 UNA P123021W 01/19/00 43 71 17 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARKLAND 43-17-4371 UNA P123104W 02/07/00 43 71 20 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH STATE 11-20-4371 UNA P124922W 04/19/00 43 71 21 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS FEDERAL 34-21 UNA P124923W 04/19/00 43 71 21 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS FEDERAL 43-21 UNA P128526W 08/17/00 43 71 22 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 14-22R-4371 UNA P128498W 08/17/00 43 71 22 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 11-22-4371 UNA P128499W 08/17/00 43 71 22 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 22-22-4371 UNA P128500W 08/17/00 43 71 22 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 23-22r-4371 UNA P124924W 04/19/00 43 71 22 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS FEDERAL 23-22 UNA P121924W 12/30/99 43 71 22 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 34-22 UNA P121925W 12/30/99 43 71 22 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 41-22 UNA P121926W 12/30/99 43 71 22 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 43-22 UNA P121923W 12/30/99 43 71 22 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 32-22 UNA P128502W 08/17/00 43 71 23 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 21-23-4371 UNA P128504W 08/17/00 43 71 23 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 32-23-4371 UNA P128501W 08/17/00 43 71 23 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 14-23 UNA P128505W 08/17/00 43 71 23 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 34-23 UNA P128506W 08/17/00 43 71 23 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 41-23-4371 UNA P128507W 08/17/00 43 71 23 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 43-23-4371 UNA P128525W 08/17/00 43 71 23 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 12-23-4371 UNA P128503W 08/17/00 43 71 23 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 23-23-4371 UNA P124926W 04/19/00 43 71 23 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS FEDERAL 34-23 UNA P124925W 04/19/00 43 71 23 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS FEDERAL 14-23 UNA P128509W 08/17/00 43 71 24 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 14-24 UNA P128510W 08/17/00 43 71 24 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 23-24-4371 UNA P128508W 08/17/00 43 71 24 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 12-24-4371 UNA P128511W 08/17/00 43 71 24 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS BRC FEDERAL 34-24-4371 UNA P124927W 04/19/00 43 71 24 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** USFS FEDERAL 14-24 UNA P121927W 12/30/99 43 71 24 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 22-24 UNA P121928W 12/30/99 43 71 24 NWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 31-24 UNA P112564W 10/30/98 43 71 25 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 11-25 UNA P112565W 10/30/98 43 71 25 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 12-25 UNA P112566W 10/30/98 43 71 25 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 22-25 UNA P112569W 10/30/98 43 71 26 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 34-26 UNA P113855W 02/01/99 43 71 26 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 22-26 UNA STP112567W 10/30/98 43 71 26 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 32-26 UNA 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P112572W 10/30/98 43 71 26 SESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 44-26 UNA P112571W 10/30/98 43 71 26 NESE ENERNET OF WYOMING LLC FEDERAL 43-26 UNA P112570W 10/30/98 43 71 26 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 42-26 UNA P113320W 12/14/98 43 71 26 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 14-26 UNA P113321W 12/14/98 43 71 26 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 12-26 UNA P113322W 12/14/98 43 71 26 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 23-26 UNA P112568W 10/30/98 43 71 26 NWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 33-26 UNA P128514W 08/17/00 43 71 27 NESW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BTP 23-27 FEDERAL UNA P128513W 08/17/00 43 71 27 SWSW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BTP 14-27 FEDERAL UNA P128512W 08/17/00 43 71 27 SWNW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BTP 12-27 FEDERAL UNA P112579W 10/30/98 43 71 27 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 21-27 UNA P113676W 12/30/98 43 71 27 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 42-27 UNA P113678W 12/30/98 43 71 27 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 34-27 UNA CBP113677W 12/30/98 43 71 27 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 32-27 UNA CBP113675W 12/30/98 43 71 27 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 43-27 UNA CBP116994W 06/28/99 43 71 27 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL ARCH 42-27 UNA P116993W 06/28/99 43 71 27 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL ARCH 34-27 UNA P116992W 06/28/99 43 71 27 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL ARCH 32-27 UNA P116995W 06/28/99 43 71 27 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL ARCH 43-27 UNA P124262W 03/23/00 43 71 28 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. SMITH 14-28-4371 UNA P128515W 08/17/00 43 71 33 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON FEDERAL 32-33-4371 UNA 

P128517W 08/17/00 43 71 33 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON FEDERAL 41-33-4371 UNA P128518W 08/17/00 43 71 33 NESE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON FEDERAL 43-33-4371 UNA P128516W 08/17/00 43 71 33 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON FEDERAL 34-33-4371 UNA P124257W 03/23/00 43 71 33 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON 12-33-4371 UNA P124256W 03/23/00 43 71 33 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON 21-33-4371 UNA P128520W 08/17/00 43 71 34 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH FEDERAL 43-34-4371 UNA P128519W 08/17/00 43 71 34 SWSE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH FEDERAL 34-34-4371 UNA P113785W 01/25/99 43 71 34 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DILTS 23-34 UNA STP113674W 12/30/98 43 71 34 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DILTS 11-34 UNA CBP113784W 01/25/99 43 71 34 NWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DILTS 13-34 UNA STP114640W 03/18/99 43 71 34 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DILTS 21-34 UNA P116996W 06/28/99 43 71 34 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL DILTS 11-34 UNA P116997W 06/28/99 43 71 34 NWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL DILTS 13-34 UNA P116998W 06/28/99 43 71 34 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL DILTS 21-34 UNA P116999W 06/28/99 43 71 34 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL DILTS 23-34 UNA P116808W 06/28/99 43 71 34 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 32-34 UNA STP116809W 06/28/99 43 71 34 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 41-34 UNA STP128521W 08/17/00 43 71 35 SWSW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 14-35-4371 UNA P128522W 08/17/00 43 71 35 NESW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 23-35-4371 UNA P128523W 08/17/00 43 71 35 SWSE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 34-35-4371 UNA P128524W 08/17/00 43 71 35 NESE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 43-35 UNA P112578W 10/30/98 43 71 35 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 32-35 UNA P112563W 10/30/98 43 71 35 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 41-25 UNA P112577W 10/30/98 43 71 35 NWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 31-35 UNA 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P112576W 10/30/98 43 71 35 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 22-35 UNA P124928W 04/19/00 43 71 35 NESE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 43-35 UNA P112575W 10/30/98 43 71 35 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 21-35 UNA P112574W 10/30/98 43 71 35 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 12-35 UNA P112573W 10/30/98 43 71 35 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 11-35 UNA P112562W 10/30/98 43 71 35 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 42-35 UNA P113671W 12/30/98 43 71 35 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 41-35 UNA P111368W 08/07/98 43 71 36 SENW W.S.B.L.C.** YATES PETROLEUM CORP. RENO CS STATE #1 UNA STOP112081W 09/30/98 43 71 36 SENW W.S.B.L.C.** YATES PETROLEUM CORP. ENL RENO CS STATE #1 UNA STOP117264W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #14 UNA STP117263W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #12 UNA STP117267W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SWNW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #4 UNA STP115174W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NENW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #2 UNA STP117266W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SESE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #11 UNA STP117265W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #13 UNA STP115180W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NESE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #10 UNA STP115179W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SENE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #9 UNA STP115178W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NWNE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #8 UNA STP115177W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NENE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #7 UNA STP115176W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SWSE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #6 UNA STP115175W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NWNW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #3 UNA STP117268W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. RENO CS STATE #5 UNA STP59111W 12/29/81 44 70 29 SENE JACOBS LAND & LIVESTOCK JACOBS #1 STP28611P 12/03/74 44 70 29 SENE JACOBS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO. JACOBS 29 1 STP2974P 06/21/35 44 70 30 SWNE MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #23 P2974P 06/21/35 44 70 30 NESW MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #23 P2974P 06/21/35 44 70 30 NWSE MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #23 P2974P 06/21/35 44 70 30 SENW MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #23 P2975P 12/21/34 44 70 31 SWNW MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #24 P28617P 12/03/74 44 70 32 SESE JACOBS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO. JACOBS 32 1 P44616W 08/22/78 44 70 32 SWSW ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTR-29 CAN MP50924W 11/28/79 44 70 32 SWSW ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTR 29 ABA MP89324W 09/01/92 44 70 32 SESE JACOBS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO. REYNOLD'S #1 UNA P28616P 12/03/74 44 70 33 NESW JACOBS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO. JACOBS 33 1 P107775W 10/06/1997 44 71 13 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #42-13 UNA MP107770W 10/06/1997 44 71 13 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #11-13 UNA MCU2/171A 10/27/1971 44 71 13 NWNW INEXCO OIL CO. CENTRAL-WSW #5-1 WELL PU CU2/294A 10/27/1971 44 71 13 NWNW INEXCO OIL CO. CENTRAL WSW #5-2 WELL PU P107771W 10/06/1997 44 71 13 SENW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #22-13 UNA MP2970P 12/21/1939 44 71 13 NESW MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #19 PUW P107774W 10/06/1997 44 71 13 NWSE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #33-13 UNA MP6348W 08/17/1970 44 71 14 SWNW CARL J. SPRINGEN SPRINGEN #1 PUW P106972W 08/01/1997 44 71 14 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DURHAM RANCH FED. 43-14A UNA P122968W 01/19/2000 44 71 15 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MILLS 41-15-4471 UNA P122967W 01/19/2000 44 71 15 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MILLS 32-15-4471 UNA 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P122965W 01/19/2000 44 71 15 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MILLS 11-15-4471 UNA P122966W 01/19/2000 44 71 15 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MILLS 22-15-4471 UNA P128535W 8/17/2000 44 71 15 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MILLS FEDERAL 23-15-4471 UNA P128534W 8/17/2000 44 71 15 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MILLS FEDERAL 14-15-4471 UNA P46040W 12/04/1978 44 71 15 SESW AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY**DALE MILLS ROCKY HILLS FEDERAL #1 PUW P122972W 01/19/2000 44 71 16 NENE W.S.B.L.C.** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STATE 41-16-4471 UNA P41842W 02/16/1978 44 71 16 NENE EARL A. BOLLER PRAIRIE DOG #1 PU P52364W 03/28/1980 44 71 16 NENE W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL W 2 PUW MP52365W 03/28/1980 44 71 16 NENE W.S.B.L.C.** THUNDER BASIN COAL COMPANY RH W1 PUW MP41842W 02/16/1978 44 71 16 NWNE EARL A. BOLLER PRAIRIE DOG #1 PU P41844W 02/16/1978 44 71 16 NWNE W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY RH 1 MCA 6 PUW MP52579W 06/23/1980 44 71 16 NWNE W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL W 8 PUW MP52580W 06/23/1980 44 71 16 NWNE W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL W 9 PUW MP52581W 06/23/1980 44 71 16 NWNE W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL W 10 PUW MP52582W 06/23/1980 44 71 16 NWNE W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL W-11 PUW MP52583W 06/23/1980 44 71 16 NWNE W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL S 3 PUW MP52584W 06/23/1980 44 71 16 NWNE W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL S 4 PUW MP122971W 01/19/2000 44 71 16 SWNE W.S.B.L.C.** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STATE 32-16-4471 UNA P41842W 02/16/1978 44 71 16 SWNE EARL A. BOLLER PRAIRIE DOG #1 PU P122970W 01/19/2000 44 71 16 NENW W.S.B.L.C.** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STATE 21-16-4471 UNA P52363W 03/28/1980 44 71 16 NWNW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL W 1 PUW MP53545W 09/07/1980 44 71 16 NWNW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL WA-7 PUW MP122969W 01/19/2000 44 71 16 SWNW W.S.B.L.C.** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STATE 12-16-4471 UNA P53542W 08/07/1981 44 71 16 SWNW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL SA-1 PUW MP53543W 09/07/1980 44 71 16 SWNW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL SA-2 PUW MP53545W 09/07/1980 44 71 16 SWNW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ROCKY HILL WA-7 PU MP40773W 11/07/1977 44 71 16 SENW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY WCH 2G PUW MP41842W 02/16/1978 44 71 16 SENW EARL A. BOLLER PRAIRIE DOG #1 PU P41861W 02/16/1978 44 71 16 SENW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY RH 1-MCA-3 PUW MP42325W 03/10/1978 44 71 16 SENW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY RH1 IW 9 PUW MP42326W 03/10/1978 44 71 16 SENW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY RH1 IW 10 PUW MP42327W 03/10/1978 44 71 16 SENW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY RH1 IW 11 PUW MP49662W 08/17/1979 44 71 16 SENW W.S.B.L.C. RH1-P-2-B PUW MP121863W 12/29/1999 44 71 16 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. STATE 23-16-4471 UNA P41859W 02/16/1978 44 71 16 NESW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY RH 1-MUA-5 PU MP121862W 12/29/1999 44 71 16 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. STATE 14-16-4471 UNA P52366W 03/28/1980 44 71 16 SWSW W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY RH-W2 PUW MP122973W 01/19/2000 44 71 16 NESE W.S.B.L.C.** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STATE 43-16-4471 UNA P122973W 01/19/2000 44 71 16 NESE W.S.B.L.C.** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STATE 43-16-4471 UNA P54646W 11/20/1980 44 71 16 NESE W.S.B.L.C.**EARL BOLLER JUMPOFF #1 PUW MONP46040W 12/04/1978 44 71 16 NWSE AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY**DALE MILLS ROCKY HILLS FEDERAL #1 PU P121864W 12/29/1999 44 71 16 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP.** W.S.B.L.C. STATE 34-16-4471 UNA P40361W 08/26/1977 44 71 16 SWSE W.S.B.L.C.**ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY WCH-2C PUW MP123996W 3/13/2000 44 71 17 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DURHAM RANCH 12-17-4471 UNA P128536W 8/17/2000 44 71 17 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BOLLER MILLS FED 23-17-4471 UNA 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P128537W 8/17/2000 44 71 17 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BOLLER MILLS FED 43-17-4471 UNA P122974W 01/19/2000 44 71 17 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BOLLER MILLS 34-17-4471 UNA P121867W 12/29/1999 44 71 20 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BOLLER-MILLS 32-20-4471 UNA P121865W 12/29/1999 44 71 20 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BOLLER-MILLS 21-20-4471 UNA P121866W 12/29/1999 44 71 20 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BOLLER-MILLS 23-20-4471 UNA P13289P 12/31/1943 44 71 20 NWSW DURHAM MEAT CO. DURHAM MEAT #36 PUW P121868W 12/29/1999 44 71 20 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BOLLER-MILLS 34-20-4471 UNA P123995W 3/13/2000 44 71 20 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DURHAM RANCH 14-20-4471 UNA P121869W 12/29/1999 44 71 20 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BOLLER-MILLS 43-20-4471 UNA P121876W 12/29/1999 44 71 21 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DOROUGH TRUST 41-21-4471 UNA P46040W 12/04/1978 44 71 21 NWNE AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY**DALE MILLS ROCKY HILLS FEDERAL #1 PU P121874W 12/29/1999 44 71 21 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DOROUGH TRUST 32-21-4471 UNA P121872W 12/29/1999 44 71 21 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DOROUGH TRUST 21-21-4471 UNA P121870W 12/29/1999 44 71 21 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DOROUGH TRUST 12-21-4471 UNA P121873W 12/29/1999 44 71 21 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DOROUGH TRUST 23-21-4471 UNA P121871W 12/29/1999 44 71 21 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DOROUGH TRUST 14-21-4471 UNA P121877W 12/29/1999 44 71 21 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DOROUGH TRUST 43-21-4471 UNA P121875W 12/29/1999 44 71 21 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DOROUGH TRUST 34-21-4471 UNA P33051W 05/03/1976 44 71 21 SWSE EARL A. BOLLER BOLLER #2 PUW DP128463W 8/17/2000 44 71 22 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MILLS FEDERAL 21-22-4471 UNA P128464W 8/17/2000 44 71 22 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MILLS FEDERAL 12-22-4471 UNA P3214P 08/24/1928 44 71 22 SESE FERIBA F. FERGUSON FERGUSON #1 PUW DP121842W 12/27/1999 44 71 23 NWNE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #31-23 UNA STP2971P 12/21/1938 44 71 23 NWNE MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #20 PUW P2972P 09/03/1963 44 71 23 SWNE MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #21 PUW P123655W 2/28/2000 44 71 23 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #42-23 UNA STP2972P 09/03/1963 44 71 23 SENW MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #21 PUW P2972P 09/03/1963 44 71 23 NESW MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #21 PUW P121841W 12/27/1999 44 71 23 NWSE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #33-23 UNA STP2972P 09/03/1963 44 71 23 NWSE MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #21 PUW P123654W 2/28/2000 44 71 23 SESE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #44-23 UNA STP123653W 2/28/2000 44 71 24 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #11-24 UNA STP128297W 8/14/2000 44 71 24 SENW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #22-24 UNA STP132543W 02/08/2001 44 71 24 NESW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C # 23-24 UNA STP19252P 12/31/1920 44 71 24 NESW ARK LAND COMPANY REVLAND #4 UNA P123656W 2/28/2000 44 71 24 NWSW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #13-24 UNA STP123892W 3/6/2000 44 71 24 SESW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #24-24 UNA STP128289W 8/14/2000 44 71 24 NWSE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #33-24 UNA STP128290W 8/14/2000 44 71 24 SESE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #44-24 UNA STP121840W 12/27/1999 44 71 25 NWNE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #31-25 UNA STP128291W 8/14/2000 44 71 25 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #42-25 UNA STP128291W 8/14/2000 44 71 25 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #42-25 UNA STP2973P 12/31/1946 44 71 25 SENE MILLS LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC. MILLS #22 PUW P123657W 2/28/2000 44 71 25 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #11-25 UNA STP123893W 3/6/2000 44 71 25 SENW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #22-25 UNA ST

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P123658W 2/28/2000 44 71 25 NWSW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #13-25 UNA STP123891W 3/6/2000 44 71 25 SESW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #24-25 UNA STP121839W 12/27/1999 44 71 25 NWSE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #33-25 UNA STP128292W 8/14/2000 44 71 25 SESE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #44-25 UNA STP121838W 12/27/1999 44 71 26 NWNE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #31-26 UNA STP128069W 8/4/2000 44 71 26 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C 42-26 UNA STP128293W 8/14/2000 44 71 26 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #11-26 GST STP135823W 06/15/2001 44 71 26 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC ENL CBM C # 11-26 GST STP128295W 8/14/2000 44 71 26 SENW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #22-26 UNA STP128294W 8/14/2000 44 71 26 NWSW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #13-26 GST STP135822W 06/15/2001 44 71 26 NWSW RIM OPERATING, INC ENL CBM C # 13-26 GST STP4046W 12/18/1969 44 71 26 NWSW AXEL R. OSTLUND**F. F. FERGUSON OSTLUND #1 PUW P128296W 8/14/2000 44 71 26 SESW RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #24-26 GST STP135821W 06/15/2001 44 71 26 SESW RIM OPERATING, INC ENL CBM C # 24-26 GST STP128070W 8/4/2000 44 71 26 NWSE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C 33-26 UNA STP128068W 8/4/2000 44 71 26 SESE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C 44-26 UNA STP3215P 07/16/1930 44 71 27 SENE W. L. FERGUSON FERGUSON #1 PUW P3216P 10/17/1944 44 71 27 SENE W. L. FERGUSON FERGUSON #2 PUW DP131376W 12/04/2000 44 71 27 NENW DAVID D. FERGUSON, ET AL. FERGUSON #21-27 UNA ST

** COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.

P131375W 12/04/2000 44 71 27 SWNW DAVID D. FERGUSON, ET AL. FERGUSON #12-27 UNA ST

** COLEMAN OIL & GAS, INC.

P118864W 09/01/1999 44 71 27 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. CHITTENDEN 23-27 UNA P118863W 09/01/1999 44 71 27 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. CHITTENDEN 14-27 UNA P128585W 8/22/2000 44 71 27 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FERGUSON 43-27-4471 UNA P128584W 8/22/2000 44 71 27 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FERGUSON 34-27-4471 UNA P121905W 12/29/1999 44 71 28 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. SNODGRASS 41-28-4471 UNA P46040W 12/04/1978 44 71 28 NENE AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY**DALE MILLS ROCKY HILLS FEDERAL #1 PU P118170W 08/06/1999 44 71 28 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 14-28 UNA P118171W 08/06/1999 44 71 28 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 21-28 UNA P121904W 12/29/1999 44 71 28 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. SNODGRASS 32-28-4471 UNA P121903W 12/29/1999 44 71 28 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. SNODGRASS 21-28-4471 UNA P121902W 12/29/1999 44 71 28 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. SNODGRASS 12-28-4471 UNA P118171W 08/06/1999 44 71 28 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 21-28 UNA P118170W 08/06/1999 44 71 28 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 14-28 UNA C27/359A 11/30/1906 44 71 28 SESW JOHN MORTON SHEEP CO. THUNDER BASIN #1 RES PUO P118866W 09/01/1999 44 71 28 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. CHITTENDEN 43-28 UNA P118865W 09/01/1999 44 71 28 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. CHITTENDEN 34-28 UNA P118866W 09/01/1999 44 71 28 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. CHITTENDEN 43-28 UNA P121911W 12/29/1999 44 71 29 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 41-29-4471 UNA P121910W 12/29/1999 44 71 29 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 32-29-4471 UNA P121908W 12/29/1999 44 71 29 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 21-29-4471 UNA P121906W 12/29/1999 44 71 29 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 12-29-4471 UNA P121909W 12/29/1999 44 71 29 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 23-29-4471 UNA P121907W 12/29/1999 44 71 29 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 14-29-4471 UNA 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P118173W 08/06/1999 44 71 29 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 43-29 UNA P118172W 08/06/1999 44 71 29 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 34-29 UNA P92738W 09/03/1993 44 71 29 SESE JAMES R. AND IRENE STUART ALICE #2 UNA P118175W 08/06/1999 44 71 32 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 41-32 UNA P118174W 08/06/1999 44 71 32 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 32-32 UNA P118869W 09/01/1999 44 71 32 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 21-32 UNA P118868W 09/01/1999 44 71 32 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 12-32 UNA P118185W 08/06/1999 44 71 32 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FLOCCHINI 23-32 UNA P118184W 08/06/1999 44 71 32 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FLOCCHINI 14-32 UNA P118186W 08/06/1999 44 71 32 SESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FLOCCHINI 34-32 UNA P118187W 08/06/1999 44 71 32 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FLOCCHINI 43-32 UNA P118186W 08/06/1999 44 71 32 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FLOCCHINI 34-32 UNA P118174W 08/06/1999 44 71 32 SESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 32-32 UNA P118187W 08/06/1999 44 71 32 SESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FLOCCHINI 43-32 UNA P118182W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 41-33 UNA P118180W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 32-33 UNA P118183W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 43-33 UNA P118178W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 21-33 UNA P118172W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 34-29 UNA P118175W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 41-32 UNA P118176W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 12-33 UNA P118178W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 21-33 UNA P118179W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 23-33 UNA P118180W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 32-33 UNA P118182W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 41-33 UNA P118177W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 14-33 UNA P118179W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 SESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 23-33 UNA P118181W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 SESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 34-33 UNA P118183W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 43-33 UNA P118181W 08/06/1999 44 71 33 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART 34-33 UNA P128454W 8/17/2000 44 71 34 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 21-34-4471 UNA P128456W 8/17/2000 44 71 34 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 12-34-4471 UNA P128453W 08/17/2000 44 71 34 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 23-34-4471 UNA P128455W 8/17/2000 44 71 34 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. STUART FEDERAL 14-34-4471 UNA P5971W 05/29/1970 44 71 34 NESE STUART BROTHERS INC. SWP #1 PUW P5972W 05/29/1970 44 71 34 NESE STUART BROTHERS INC. SWP #2 PUW P92345W 07/20/1993 44 71 34 SWSE JAMES R. AND IRENE STUART ALICE #1 UNA P30419W 07/16/1975 44 71 35 NENE ARK LAND COMPANY REVLAND #1 UNA DP128067W 8/4/2000 44 71 35 NWNE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C 31-35 UNA STP128066W 8/4/2000 44 71 35 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C 42-35 UNA STP19250P 12/31/1961 44 71 35 SENE ARK LAND COMPANY REVLAND #5 UNA DP33644W 06/02/1976 44 71 36 NENE W.S.B.L.C.** THUNDER BASIN COAL CO., LLC ECH 6 UNA MP121835W 12/27/1999 44 71 36 NWNE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C #31-36 UNA STP125924W 5/25/2000 44 71 36 SENE RIM OPERATING, INC** W.S.B.L.C. CBM C #42-36 UNA STP121846W 12/27/1999 44 71 36 NWNW RIM OPERATING, INC** W.S.B.L.C. CBM C #11-36 UNA ST

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status 

P125925W 5/25/2000 44 71 36 SENW RIM OPERATING, INC** W.S.B.L.C. CBM C #22-36 UNA STP121845W 12/27/1999 44 71 36 NWSW RIM OPERATING, INC** W.S.B.L.C. CBM C #13-36 UNA STP125926W 5/25/2000 44 71 36 SESW RIM OPERATING, INC** W.S.B.L.C. CBM C #24-36 UNA STP121844W 12/27/1999 44 71 36 NWSE RIM OPERATING, INC** W.S.B.L.C. CBM C #33-36 UNA STP128065W 8/4/2000 44 71 36 SESE W.S.B.L.C.** RIM OPERATING, INC CBM C 44-36 UNA ST

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status U

P111943W 04/01/98 42 69 6 NESW TWO ELK GENERATION PARTNERS, GRASS 5 UNA I

NESW TWO ELK GENERATION PARTNERS, UNA

NESW LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

P111942W 04/01/98 42 69 7 SESW NORTH AMERICAN LAND & LIVESTOCK RENO SPRING #T B 13 UNA S

SESW TWO ELK GENERATION PARTNERS,SESW LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 

P5855P 12/31/30 42 69 7 NWNW RENO LIVESTOCK CORPORATION GW42R11 UNA MONP67794W 06/26/84 42 69 7 NENE USFS NORTH TECKLA SPRING #T B 48 S

P111939W 04/01/98 42 70 1 SWSW TWO ELK GENERATION PARTNERS GRASS 1 UNA I

TWO ELK GENERATION PARTNERS,LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

P5858P 06/08/62 42 70 2 SWSW RENO LIVESTOCK CORPORATION HEARTSPEAR 4 SP49892W 09/19/79 42 70 3 SESE SHELL OIL COMPANY 3-16 MONP50558W 10/31/79 42 70 3 SWSE SHELL OIL COMPANY 3-15 MONP50559W 10/31/79 42 70 3 SESW SHELL OIL COMPANY 3-14 MONP5857P 07/31/66 42 70 4 SWSW ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY HEARTSPEAR 3 UNA SP5859P 12/31/70 42 70 6 SWSW RENO LIVESTOCK CORPORATION HEARTSPEAR 5 SP5865P 08/31/66 42 70 7 SENE RENO LIVESTOCK CORPORATION**NAN HENDERSON HEARTSPEAR 11 SP78847W 01/03/89 42 70 8 SESE USFS TB 259 UNA S

P50557W 10/31/79 42 70 9 NWSE SHELL OIL COMPANY 9-10 MONP49896W 09/19/79 42 70 10 NENW SHELL OIL COMPANY 10-3 MONP49897W 09/19/79 42 70 10 NWSW SHELL OIL COMPANY 10-12 MONP50249W 10/04/79 42 70 10 NWSE SHELL OIL COMPANY 10-10 MONP50250W 10/04/79 42 70 11 NWNW SHELL OIL COMPANY 11-4 MONP54783W 11/20/80 42 70 11 NWNW CABALLO ROJO INC. MONP8894W 04/23/71 42 70 11 SWNE RENO LIVESTOCK CORPORATION HEARTSPEAR 19 ADJ SP49891W 09/19/79 42 70 14 NWNE SHELL OIL COMPANY 14-2 UNA MONP50251W 10/04/79 42 70 14 NWNW SHELL OIL COMPANY 14-4 MONP49895W 09/19/79 42 70 15 NENW SHELL OIL COMPANY 15-3 MONP50555W 10/31/79 42 70 15 SENE SHELL OIL COMPANY 15-8 MONP50556W 10/31/79 42 70 15 SWNW SHELL OIL COMPANY 15-5 MONP8951P 03/20/61 42 70 15 SWSW USFS RENO #T B 52 S

P116248W 06/04/99 42 70 16 SENE MANX OIL CORPORATION** W.S.L.B.C. BRADLEY CBM #16-1-2 UNA STOP116249W 06/04/99 42 70 16 NWNE MANX OIL CORPORATION** W.S.L.B.C. BRADLEY CBM #16-2-1 UNA STOP116821W 07/08/99 42 70 16 NENE MANX OIL CORPORATION** W.S.L.B.C. BRADLEY CBM #16-1-1 UNA STOP116822W 07/08/99 42 70 16 SWNE MANX OIL CORPORATION** W.S.L.B.C. BRADLEY CBM #16-2-2 UNA STOP8981P 08/02/66 42 70 18 NWSE USFS WILKINSON #T B 107 S

P25605P 01/14/74 42 70 19 NESW PAUL & EDITH RUTH WILKINSON WILKINSON #1 STOP40092W 08/22/77 42 70 21 SWSE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #1-D MON

P40093W 08/22/77 42 70 21 SWSE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #1-F MON

P42620W 03/10/78 42 70 21 SESE USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #23 MON

P67797W 06/26/84 42 70 23 NESE USFS RENO SPRING #T B 17 S

P12746P 12/30/50 42 70 25 NESW USFS EDWARDS #TB 32 S

P8960P 07/31/64 42 70 26 SWSW USFS EDWARDS #T B 84 S

P39795W 07/29/77 42 70 27 NWNE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #1 MON

P40091W 08/22/77 42 70 27 SESE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #1-B MON

P40097W 08/22/77 42 70 27 SESE USFS SEAM MONITORING WELL #2-J MON

P42628W 03/10/78 42 70 27 SWSE USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #31 MON

P42629W 03/10/78 42 70 27 SWSW USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #32 MON

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR WEST ROUNDUP LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status U

P42632W 03/10/78 42 70 27 SESE USFS SEAM MONITOR WELL #35 MON

P12757P 12/30/50 42 71 2 NENW USFS REVLAND #TB 35 S

P44327W 07/20/78 42 71 2 NWSW USFS MARG #2 S

P101801W 03/20/96 42 71 3 NESW BRIDLE BIT RANCH CO. BBRC BLACK BUTTE #1 UNA SP98861W 04/21/95 42 71 10 NWNE JERRY DILTS BBRC BIRDSALL #1 UNA SP32145W 02/10/76 42 71 11 SWNE USFS STUART #T.B. 174 S

P8987P 07/13/61 42 71 12 SESE USFS STUART #T.B. 115 S

P12755P 12/30/50 42 71 13 SWSW USFS STUART #T.B. 36 S

P61754W 08/11/82 42 71 24 NWSE USFS PCC WILKINSON RANCH #1 S

P25606P 01/14/74 42 71 26 NESE PAUL & EDITH RUTH WILKINSON WILKINSON #2 STOP25608P 01/14/74 42 71 26 SWNW PAUL & EDITH RUTH WILKINSON WILKINSON #4 SP5848W 06/16/70 42 71 26 SWNW PAUL WILKINSON MIDDLE PASTURE #1 SP29746W 05/07/75 42 71 27 NENW USFS WRIGHT #T.B.195 S

P34482W 08/12/76 43 70 15 NWSW WRRI LTB-5A MONP34486W 08/12/76 43 70 15 NWSW WRRI LTB-5B MONP34490W 08/12/76 43 70 15 NWSW WRRI LTB-5C MONP67506W 05/31/84 43 70 15 NESW JACOBS LAND & LIVESTOCK COMPANY JRM 15 2R UNA MP34493W 08/12/76 43 70 16 NESE WRRI LTB-5D UNA MONP34495W 08/12/76 43 70 16 NESE WRRI LTB-5E MONP4393W 01/20/70 43 70 19 NESE USFS RENO LIVESTOCK #T B 146 S

P25120W 12/10/73 43 70 22 SWSE ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTR-WW #10A MONP34503W 08/12/76 43 70 22 SESE WRRI LTB-12 MONP5864P 12/31/24 43 70 22 NENE WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. HEARTSPEAR 10 SP34481W 08/12/76 43 70 26 SENW WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. LTB-4A UNA MONP34485W 08/12/76 43 70 26 NENW WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. LTB-4B UNA MONP34489W 08/12/76 43 70 26 SENW WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. LTB-4C UNA MONP34492W 08/12/76 43 70 26 SENW WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. LTB-4D UNA MONP34494W 08/12/76 43 70 26 SENW WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. LTB-4E UNA MONP34496W 08/12/76 43 70 26 SENW WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. LTB 4F UNA MONP34497W 08/12/76 43 70 26 NENW WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. LTB-6 UNA MONP34498W 08/12/76 43 70 26 SENW WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. LTB-7 UNA MONP34499W 08/12/76 43 70 26 SWNW WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. LTB-8 UNA MONP34500W 08/12/76 43 70 26 NWNE WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. LTB-9 UNA MONP34501W 08/12/76 43 70 26 NWNW WRRI** W.S.B.L.C. LTB-10 UNA MONP26431W 04/08/74 43 70 27 SENE ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY BTR WW-24 MONP34502W 08/12/76 43 70 27 NENE WRRI LTB-11 MONP34480W 08/12/76 43 70 29 SENW WRRI LTB-3A MONP34484W 08/12/76 43 70 29 SENW WRRI LTB-3B MONP34488W 08/12/76 43 70 29 SENW WRRI LTB-3C MONP5861P 08/31/66 43 70 32 NWSE RENO LIVESTOCK CORPORATION HEARTSPEAR 7 SP7408W 12/15/70 43 70 32 SWNE RENO LIVESTOCK CORPORATION HEARTSPEAR 17 SP132395W 01/29/01 43 70 36 NESE SPECTRUM EXPLORATION, INC** W.S.B.L.C. TB 1 UNA M

P132396W 01/29/01 43 70 36 NWNE SPECTRUM EXPLORATION, INC** W.S.B.L.C. TB 2 UNA M

P132397W 01/29/01 43 70 36 SENW SPECTRUM EXPLORATION, INC** W.S.B.L.C. TB 3 UNA M

P111940W 04/01/98 43 70 36 SWNW W.S.B.L.C.** GRASS 2 UNA IN

NORTH AMERICAN LAND & LIVESTOCK LLC**TWO ELK GENERATION PARTNERS, 

P132625W 02/20/01 43 70 36 NESE O'KEEFE DRILLING CO., INC.** W.S.B.L.C. MW 2 UNA M

P132626W 02/20/01 43 70 36 NESE O'KEEFE DRILLING CO., INC.** W.S.B.L.C. MW 3 UNA M

P132624W 02/20/01 43 70 36 NESE O'KEEFE DRILLING CO., INC.** W.S.B.L.C. MW 1 UNA M

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR WEST ROUNDUP LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status U

P132648W 02/26/01 43 70 36 SWNW O'KEEFE DRILLING CO., INC.** W.S.B.L.C. MW4 UNA M

P132545W 02/08/01 43 71 13 NENE RIM OPERATING, INC CBM D # 41-13 UNA STOP112580W 10/30/98 43 71 13 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. YOUNG 11-13 UNA CP121919W 12/30/99 43 71 13 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 22-13 UNA CP121920W 12/30/99 43 71 13 SESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 22-13 UNA CP121989W 12/31/99 43 71 13 NWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 13-13 UNA CP123115W 02/07/00 43 71 13 SESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. HOPKINS TRUST 44-13-4371 UNA CP123116W 02/07/00 43 71 13 NWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 33-13-4371 UNA CP5862P 08/31/68 43 71 13 NESW RENO LIVESTOCK CORPORATION HEARTSPEAR 8 SP121921W 12/30/99 43 71 14 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 42-14 UNA CP121922W 12/30/99 43 71 14 SESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 44-14 UNA CP123111W 02/07/00 43 71 14 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. REVLAND TRUST 23-14-4371 UNA CP123112W 02/07/00 43 71 14 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. REVLAND TRUST 21-14-4371 UNA CP123113W 02/07/00 43 71 14 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. REVLAND TRUST 14-14-4371 UNA CP123114W 02/07/00 43 71 14 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. REVLAND TRUST 12-14-4371 UNA CP19253P 12/31/50 43 71 14 SENW KENNETH & SYLVIA REVLAND REVLAND #3 SP128492W 08/17/00 43 71 14 SWNE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 32-14-4371 UNA CP128493W 08/17/00 43 71 14 SWSE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 34-14-4371 UNA CP124922W 04/19/00 43 71 21 SWSE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 34-21 UNA CP124923W 04/19/00 43 71 21 NESE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 43-21 UNA CP32088W 01/16/76 43 71 21 SENE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING WRRI LTB 2A MONP32089W 01/16/76 43 71 21 SENE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING WRRI LTB 2B MONP32090W 01/16/76 43 71 21 SENE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING WRRI LTB 2C MONP84348W 02/05/91 43 71 21 SENE USFS EDWARDS #T.B. 266 UNA S

P124924W 04/19/00 43 71 22 NESW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 23-22 UNA CP121923W 12/30/99 43 71 22 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 32-22 UNA CP121924W 12/30/99 43 71 22 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 34-22 UNA CP121925W 12/30/99 43 71 22 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 41-22 UNA CP121926W 12/30/99 43 71 22 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 43-22 UNA CP8912W 05/04/71 43 71 22 NWNW USFS RENO #T.B. 152 S

P8913W 05/24/71 43 71 22 SWNW USFS RENO #T.B. 153 S

P128498W 08/17/00 43 71 22 NWNW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 11-22-4371 UNA CP128499W 08/17/00 43 71 22 SENW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 22-22-4371 UNA CP128499W 08/17/00 43 71 22 SENW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 22-22-4371 UNA CP128500W 08/17/00 43 71 22 NESW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 23-22r-4371 UNA CP128526W 08/17/00 43 71 22 SWSW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 14-22R-4371 UNA CP124926W 04/19/00 43 71 23 SWSE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 34-23 UNA CP124925W 04/19/00 43 71 23 SWSW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 14-23 UNA CP44326W 07/20/78 43 71 23 SWSW USFS MARG #1 S

P128501W 08/17/00 43 71 23 SWSW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 14-23 UNA CP128502W 08/17/00 43 71 23 NENW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 21-23-4371 UNA CP128503W 08/17/00 43 71 23 NESW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 23-23-4371 UNA CP128504W 08/17/00 43 71 23 SWNE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 32-23-4371 UNA CP128505W 08/17/00 43 71 23 SWSE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 34-23 UNA CP128506W 08/17/00 43 71 23 NENE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 41-23-4371 UNA CP128507W 08/17/00 43 71 23 NESE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 43-23-4371 UNA CP128525W 08/17/00 43 71 23 SWNW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 12-23-4371 UNA CP124927W 04/19/00 43 71 24 SWSW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 14-24 UNA CP121927W 12/30/99 43 71 24 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 22-24 UNA CP121928W 12/30/99 43 71 24 NWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 31-24 UNA C

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR WEST ROUNDUP LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status U

P128508W 08/17/00 43 71 24 SWNW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 12-24-4371 UNA CP128509W 08/17/00 43 71 24 SWSW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 14-24 UNA CP128510W 08/17/00 43 71 24 NESW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 23-24-4371 UNA CP128511W 08/17/00 43 71 24 SWSE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 34-24-4371 UNA CP112564W 10/30/98 43 71 25 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 11-25 UNA CP112565W 10/30/98 43 71 25 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 12-25 UNA CP112566W 10/30/98 43 71 25 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 22-25 UNA CP5860P 12/31/30 43 71 25 SESE RENO LIVESTOCK CORPORATION HEARTSPEAR 6 SP112567W 10/30/98 43 71 26 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 32-26 UNA CP112568W 10/30/98 43 71 26 NWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 33-26 UNA CP112569W 10/30/98 43 71 26 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 34-26 UNA CP112570W 10/30/98 43 71 26 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 42-26 UNA CP112571W 10/30/98 43 71 26 NESE ENERNET OF WYOMING LLC FEDERAL 43-26 UNA CP112572W 10/30/98 43 71 26 SESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 44-26 UNA CP113320W 12/14/98 43 71 26 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 14-26 UNA CP113321W 12/14/98 43 71 26 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 12-26 UNA CP113322W 12/14/98 43 71 26 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 23-26 UNA CP113855W 02/01/99 43 71 26 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 22-26 UNA STOP112579W 10/30/98 43 71 27 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 21-27 UNA CP113675W 12/30/98 43 71 27 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 43-27 UNA CBMP113676W 12/30/98 43 71 27 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 42-27 UNA CP113677W 12/30/98 43 71 27 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 32-27 UNA CBMP113678W 12/30/98 43 71 27 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH 34-27 UNA CBMP116992W 06/28/99 43 71 27 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL ARCH 32-27 UNA CP116993W 06/28/99 43 71 27 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL ARCH 34-27 UNA CP116994W 06/28/99 43 71 27 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL ARCH 42-27 UNA CP116995W 06/28/99 43 71 27 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL ARCH 43-27 UNA CP128512W 08/17/00 43 71 27 SWNW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BTP 12-27 FEDERAL UNA CP128513W 08/17/00 43 71 27 SWSW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BTP 14-27 FEDERAL UNA CP128514W 08/17/00 43 71 27 NESW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BTP 23-27 FEDERAL UNA CP124262W 03/23/00 43 71 28 SWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. SMITH 14-28-4371 UNA CP101905W 03/26/96 43 71 28 SWNW BRIDLE BIT RANCH CO. BBRC BLACK BUTTE #2 UNA SP124256W 03/23/00 43 71 33 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON 21-33-4371 UNA CP124257W 03/23/00 43 71 33 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON 12-33-4371 UNA CP128515W 08/17/00 43 71 33 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON FEDERAL 32-33-4371 UNA C

P128516W 08/17/00 43 71 33 SWSE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON FEDERAL 34-33-4371 UNA CP128517W 08/17/00 43 71 33 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON FEDERAL 41-33-4371 UNA CP128518W 08/17/00 43 71 33 NESE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON FEDERAL 43-33-4371 UNA CP113674W 12/30/98 43 71 34 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DILTS 11-34 UNA CBMP113784W 01/25/99 43 71 34 NWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DILTS 13-34 UNA STOP113785W 01/25/99 43 71 34 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DILTS 23-34 UNA STOP114640W 03/18/99 43 71 34 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. DILTS 21-34 UNA CP116808W 06/28/99 43 71 34 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 32-34 UNA STOP116809W 06/28/99 43 71 34 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 41-34 UNA STOP116996W 06/28/99 43 71 34 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL DILTS 11-34 UNA CP116997W 06/28/99 43 71 34 NWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL DILTS 13-34 UNA CP116998W 06/28/99 43 71 34 NENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL DILTS 21-34 UNA CP116999W 06/28/99 43 71 34 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ENL DILTS 23-34 UNA CP44328W 07/20/78 43 71 34 NWSE USFS MARG #3 S

P128519W 08/17/00 43 71 34 SWSE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH FEDERAL 34-34-4371 UNA C

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR WEST ROUNDUP LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status U

P128520W 08/17/00 43 71 34 NESE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. ARCH FEDERAL 43-34-4371 UNA CP124928W 04/19/00 43 71 35 NESE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 43-35 UNA CP112562W 10/30/98 43 71 35 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 42-35 UNA CP112563W 10/30/98 43 71 35 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 41-25 UNA CP112573W 10/30/98 43 71 35 NWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 11-35 UNA CP112574W 10/30/98 43 71 35 SWNW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 12-35 UNA CP112575W 10/30/98 43 71 35 SENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 21-35 UNA CP112576W 10/30/98 43 71 35 SENW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 22-35 UNA CP112577W 10/30/98 43 71 35 NWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 31-35 UNA CP112578W 10/30/98 43 71 35 SWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 32-35 UNA CP113671W 12/30/98 43 71 35 NENE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 41-35 UNA CP14237W 06/14/72 43 71 35 SWNW USFS STUART #T.B. 165 S

P128521

W 08/17/00 43 71 35 SWSW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 14-35-4371 UNA C

P128522W 08/17/00 43 71 35 NESW USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 23-35-4371 UNA CP128523W 08/17/00 43 71 35 SWSE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. FEDERAL 34-35-4371 UNA CP128524W 08/17/00 43 71 35 NESE USFS** BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. BRC FEDERAL 43-35 UNA CP111368W 08/07/98 43 71 36 SENW W.S.B.L.C** YATES PETROLEUM CORP. RENO CS STATE #1 UNA STO,MP112081W 09/30/98 43 71 36 SENW W.S.B.L.C** YATES PETROLEUM CORP. ENL RENO CS STATE #1 UNA STO,M

P115174W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NENW W.S.B.L.C** YATES PETROLEUM CORP. RENO CS STATE #2 UNA STO

P115175W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NWNW W.S.B.L.C** YATES PETROLEUM CORP. RENO CS STATE #3 UNA STO

P115176W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SWSE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C RENO CS STATE #6 UNA STOP115177W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NENE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C RENO CS STATE #7 UNA STOP115178W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NWNE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C RENO CS STATE #8 UNA STOP115179W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SENE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C RENO CS STATE #9 UNA STOP115180W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NESE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C RENO CS STATE #10 UNA STOP117263W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C RENO CS STATE #12 UNA STOP117264W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C RENO CS STATE #14 UNA STOP117265W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SWSW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C RENO CS STATE #13 UNA STOP117266W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SESE YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C RENO CS STATE #11 UNA STOP117267W 04/12/99 43 71 36 SWNW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C RENO CS STATE #4 UNA STOP117268W 04/12/99 43 71 36 NESW YATES PETROLEUM CORP.** W.S.B.L.C RENO CS STATE #5 UNA STO

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR WEST ROUNDUP LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status U

P44332W 07/20/78 40 70 6 NWSE USFS MARG #7 P8967P 05/01/65 40 71 1 SESE USFS MORTON #T B 93 P37364W 04/19/77 40 71 3 NESW USFS ISENBERGER # TB 206 P59883W 03/22/82 40 71 7 NENW DONALD B. JACOBS HOUSE #2 DP44333W 07/20/78 40 71 13 NESE USFS MARG #8 P62923W 12/28/82 40 71 15 NWSW USGS WATER RESOURCES DIV. USGS BR-10 MOP62924W 12/28/82 40 71 17 NENE USGS WATER RESOURCES DIV. USGS BR-11 MOP12753P 12/30/63 40 71 17 NESE USFS JACOBS #TB 92 P4524P 12/31/59 40 71 19 NWNE USFS HAEFELE #T B 47 P132640W 02/16/01 40 71 23 NESW WY DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION ENL. AMES NO. 1 UNA STP18839P 05/31/51 40 72 10 NWNW INC. FLOYD C. RENO & SON'S STEVICK WELL #3 P59882W 03/22/82 40 72 12 NWNE DONALD B. JACOBS ILES #1 P12477P 12/31/30 40 72 13 SESW DUANE & CHLOE HAEFELE HAEFELE #1 1930 DOP12478P 12/31/33 40 72 14 NESE DUANE & CHLOE HAEFELE HAEFELE #2 1933 DOP12479P 12/31/52 40 72 23 NESW DUANE & CHLOE HAEFELE HAEFELE #3 1952 UNA P25607P 14-Jan-74 41 70 6 NWSE PAUL & EDITH RUTH WILKINSON WILKINSON #3 P33290W 17-May-76 41 70 18 SENW USFS BELL #T B 199 (DEEPENED) P108419W 16-Dec-97 41 71 1 NWSW REDSTONE RESOURCES, INC FEDERAL 13AC-111 UNA STO,P71738W 14-Jan-86 41 71 1 SWNW USFS WILKINSON SPRING TB #55 UNA P95333W 30-Jul-81 41 71 2 NENE FRANCES PUTNAM JINX #2 UNA DOP95332W 12-Feb-86 41 71 2 NENE FRANCES PUTNAM JINX #3 UNA DOP129458W 18-Sep-00 41 71 2 NENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #41-2 UNA STP129461W 18-Sep-00 41 71 2 NESE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #43-2 UNA STP129452W 18-Sep-00 41 71 2 NWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #31-2 UNA STP129447W 18-Sep-00 41 71 2 NWSE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #33-2 UNA STP129460W 18-Sep-00 41 71 2 SENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #42-2 UNA STP129455W 18-Sep-00 41 71 2 SESE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #44-2 UNA STP129454W 18-Sep-00 41 71 2 SWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #32-2 UNA STP129456W 18-Sep-00 41 71 2 SWSE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #34-2 UNA STP12754P 30-Dec-51 41 71 3 NESW USFS MATHESON #TB 42 P44330W 20-Jul-78 41 71 3 NWSE USFS MARG #5 P23598W 07/25/73 41 71 7 NWSE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #3 P23603P 07/25/73 41 71 7 NWSW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SPRING #8 P108190W 12/04/97 41 71 8 SWNE JERRY DILTS** KEY PROD. CO. INC. SAPELO #1 UNA STP58121W 05/18/81 41 71 11 NENE BIG HORN FRACTIONATION B H FRAC #1 P129457W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #41-11 UNA STP129449W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NENW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #21-11 UNA STP129451W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #31-11 UNA STP129453W 09/18/00 41 71 11 NWNW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #11-11 UNA STP129459W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SENE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #42-11 UNA STP129450W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SENW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #22-11 UNA STP129462W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SWNE INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #32-11 UNA STP129448W 09/18/00 41 71 11 SWNW INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO., INC. SEARCHLIGHT #12-11 UNA STP67807W 06/27/84 41 71 13 NWNW USFS WILKINSON SPRING #T B 39 P44331W 07/20/78 41 71 14 SESE USFS MARG #6 P123124W 02/07/00 41 71 15 NESW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. MATHESON 23-15-4171 UNA 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR WEST ANTELOPE LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status U

P122938W 01/19/00 41 71 18 NWSW BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. KILMER 13-18-4171 UNA P125697W 05/16/00 41 71 18 SENE NORTH FINN, LLC FEDERAL #42-18 UNA P131960W 01/05/01 41 71 19 NENW NORTH FINN, LLC ISENBERGER #21-19 UNA P109953W 05/01/98 41 71 19 NWNE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON ENL LY #2 UNA P5612P 02/09/69 41 71 19 NWNE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON LY #2 (DEEPENED) UNA P23604P 07/25/73 41 71 21 SESW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SPRING #9 P96882W 08/24/94 41 71 24 NENW WESCO, INC WESCO #1 UNA P63112W 02/11/83 41 71 24 SWNE BRIDLE BIT RANCH BRIDLE BIT RANCH #1 P67899W 07/10/84 41 71 27 NESW USFS ISENBERGER SPRING #T B 63 P23605P 07/25/73 41 71 27 SWSW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SPRING #10 P23601P 07/25/73 41 71 29 SWNW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #6 P11718W 12/24/71 41 71 31 SESE ROBERT E. ISENBERGER ARTESIAN #2 P23606P 07/25/73 41 71 31 SWSW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SPRING #11 P23602P 07/25/73 41 71 33 NWNW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #7 P9571W 06/30/71 41 71 33 SWSE USFS JACOBS #T.B. 161 P23594W 07/25/73 41 71 34 SWNE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER ARTESIAN #3 P23596P 07/25/73 41 71 35 NENE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER ARTESIAN #4 DOP11652W 08/01/54 41 71 35 SENE ROBERT E. ISENBERGER COAL MINE #1 P23597P 07/25/73 41 71 35 SWSE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER SCHOOL HOUSE #1 DOP16602W 09/01/72 41 71 35 SWNW W.S.B.L.C.** H.R. MATHESON STATE-MATHESON #1 P46168W 12/14/78 41 71 36 NESW W.S.B.L.C. ISENBERGER-STATE #1 P123117W 02/07/00 41 72 11 NWNE BARRETT RESOURCES CORP. RENO 31-11-4172 UNA P23599P 07/25/73 41 72 13 NENW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #4 UNA DOP52637W 06/17/80 41 72 13 NENW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON LY #10 DOP50639W 11/13/79 41 72 13 NWNE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #9 REP23600P 07/25/73 41 72 13 SWSE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #5 P50638W 11/13/79 41 72 23 SWNE PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LY #8 P76179W 12/07/87 41 72 24 NESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPT. ROBINSON #9 MOP76178W 12/07/87 41 72 24 NESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPT. ROBINSON #7 MOP76180W 12/07/87 41 72 24 SESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPT. ROBINSON #10 MOP76181W 12/07/87 41 72 24 SESE WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY DEPT. ROBINSON #11 MOP69891W 04/08/85 41 72 24 SWSE W.S.B.L.C.**PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER ARTESIAN #1 ADJ 

Abbreviation Key from the Wyoming SEO Water Right Database

Abbreviations for uses: DEW=Dewatering; DOM=Domestic; DSP=Domestic Supply; FIS=Fish Propagation; FLO=Flood Control; IND=Industrial; IRR=Irrigation; MAN=Manufacturi

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS FOR WEST ANTELOPE LBA TRACT

MIS=Miscellaneous; MON=Monitoring; MUN=Municipal; POW=Power Development; REC=Recreation; RES=Reservoir Supply; STO=Stock; TEM=Temporary Use (normally construcUTI=Utility; WET=Wetlands; WIL=Wildlife; CBM=Coal Bed Methane.Abbreviations for status: ABA=Abandoned; ADJ=Adjudicated; CAN=Canceled; EXP=Expired; GST=Good standing pending receipt of legally required notices; PU=Point of outlet for diversion for a ditch or pipeline; PUO=Point of outlet for a reservoir; UNA=Unadjudicated.permit.Record Suffixes are denoted as follows: "A" indicates adjudicated or finalized water rights and unless the right is a territorial appropriation, there will be a match in the reference permit types for the unadjudicated portion of the water right. "C" permits are well statements of claim, filed from 1947 to 1957 for wells completed prior to April 1, 1947. "G" perwells completed after April 1, 1947. "P" permits are for stock and domestic use wells completed prior to May 24, 1969 and registered with the SEO prior to December 31, 1972. priority date for the date of filing with the SEO. "D" signifies a ditch or pipeline permit. "E" signifies an enlargement of a ditch or pipeline permit. "S" signifies a stock reservoir p
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status Uses 

P9853S 01/14/1986 42 70 20 NENW USFS MACKEY #9 223 4 GST STO CR4/302A 03/20/1967 42 70 20 NESE USFS MACKEY #F.S. 9-223-2 STOCK RES PUO STO CR4/252A 03/20/1967 42 70 21 NENW USFS MACKEY #F.S. 9-223-3 STOCK RES PUO STO TP9854S 01/14/1986 42 70 21 SESE USFS MACKEY #9 223 5 GST STO CR2/472A 07/30/1938 42 70 29 SWNE USFS THUNDER BASIN #28 RES PU STO CR2/472A 07/30/1938 42 70 29 NESW USFS THUNDER BASIN #28 RES PUO STO CR2/472A 07/30/1938 42 70 29 NWSE USFS THUNDER BASIN #28 RES PU STO CR6/370A 04/29/1969 42 70 31 NWNE USFS WILKINSON #F S 9 264 7 STOCK RES PUO STO CR3/307A 12/28/1964 42 70 34 NENE USFS TECKLA #F.S.9-298-2 STOCK RES PUO STO CR2/471A 02/17/1939 42 70 34 NWNW USFS THUNDER BASIN #29 RES PUO STO CR3/304A 01/31/1964 41 70 8 NESW USFS WILKINSON #F S 9 264 4 STOCK RES ADJ STO P2379S 08/29/1958 41 70 8 SESW PAUL WILKINSON ROGERS #1 UNA STO CR4/301A 02/27/1967 41 70 9 NESE USFS DILTS #F.S. 9-205-8 STOCK RES PUO STO P7065S 09/20/1971 42 71 23 NESW USFS MATHESON #F S 9 228 12 PUO STO CR9/373A 09/20/1971 42 71 23 NESW USFS MATHESON #F S 9 228 12 STOCK RES PU STO CR9/373A 09/20/1971 42 71 23 NESW USFS MATHESON #F S 9 228 12 STOCK RES PUO STO P3915S 08/08/1962 42 71 26 NENE USFS WILKINSON #264 2 PUO STO WCR3/308A 08/08/1962 42 71 26 NENE USFS WILKINSON #264-2 STOCK RES PU STO WCR3/308A 08/08/1962 42 71 26 NENE USFS WILKINSON #264-2 STOCK RES PUO STO WP4943R 09/12/1938 42 71 26 NWSW STEVE NIEMCYK PORCUPINE RES. ADJ STO P2378S 09/10/1958 42 71 26 SESW PAUL WILKINSON HORSEPASTURE #1 UNA STO 

SURFACE WATER RIGHTS FOR NARO NORTH LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status Uses 

P19382D 05/08/1940 41 70 27 FRED DILTS WATER SPREADING DITCH PU STO,IRR PORCR1/297A 05/08/1940 41 70 27 SWNE EST. FRED DILTS PORCUPINE RES PU STO PORCR5/136A 06/11/1951 41 70 27 SWNE JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PU IRR PORCR8/549A 09/08/1952 41 70 27 SWNE JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PU IRR PORCR1/297A 05/08/1940 41 70 27 SENW EST. FRED DILTS PORCUPINE RES PU STO PORCR5/136A 06/11/1951 41 70 27 SENW JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PU IRR PORCR8/549A 09/08/1952 41 70 27 SENW JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PU IRR PORCR1/297A 05/08/1940 41 70 27 NESW EST. FRED DILTS PORCUPINE RES PU STO PORCR5/136A 06/11/1951 41 70 27 NESW JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PU IRR PORCR8/549A 09/08/1952 41 70 27 NESW JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PU IRR PORCR1/297A 05/08/1940 41 70 27 SESW EST. FRED DILTS PORCUPINE RES PU STO PORCR5/136A 06/11/1951 41 70 27 SESW JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PU IRR PORCR8/549A 09/08/1952 41 70 27 SESW JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PU IRR PORCR1/297A 05/08/1940 41 70 27 NWSE EST. FRED DILTS PORCUPINE RES PU STO PORCR5/136A 06/11/1951 41 70 27 NWSE JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PU IRR PORCR8/549A 09/08/1952 41 70 27 NWSE JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PU IRR PORCR1/297A 05/08/1940 41 70 27 SWSE EST. FRED DILTS PORCUPINE RES PUO STO PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 27 SWSE FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 27 SWSE FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH PUD STO,IRR PORCR5/136A 06/11/1951 41 70 27 SWSE JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PUO IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 27 SWSE JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 27 SWSE JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH PUD IRR PORCR8/549A 09/08/1952 41 70 27 SWSE JOHN C. DILTS ENL PORCUPINE RES PUO IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 27 SESE FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 27 SESE JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORCR14/246A 10/04/1983 41 70 31 SWSE USFS WETLAND MITIGATION POND ADJ WET ALLC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 34 NENE FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 34 NENE JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 34 NWNE FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 34 NWNE JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 34 SWNE FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 34 SWNE JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 34 SENE FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 34 SENE JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 34 SENW FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 34 SENW JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 34 NESW FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 34 NESW JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 34 SESW FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 34 SESW JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 34 NESE FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR POR

SURFACE WATER RIGHTS FOR NARO SOUTH LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status Uses 

C72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 34 NESE JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 34 NWSE FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 34 NWSE JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 34 SWSE FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 34 SWSE JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 34 SESE FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 34 SESE JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 35 SWNW FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 35 SWNW JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 35 SENW FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 35 SENW JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 35 NWSW FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 35 NWSW JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC60/057A 05/08/1940 41 70 35 SWSW FRED DILTS ESTATE WATER SPREADING DITCH ADJ STO,IRR PORC72/193A 06/11/1951 41 70 35 SWSW JOHN C. DILTS WATER-SPREADING DITCH ADJ IRR PORC75/026A 08/04/1980 41 70 36 NWNE WY.B L COMM. SUNNY #1 SPREADER DAM PUD IRR SUNC75/026A 08/04/1980 41 70 36 SWNE WY.B L COMM. SUNNY #1 SPREADER DAM ADJ IRR SUNC75/026A 08/04/1980 41 70 36 SENE WY.B L COMM. SUNNY #1 SPREADER DAM ADJ IRR SUNC75/026A 08/04/1980 41 70 36 NESE WY.B L COMM. SUNNY #1 SPREADER DAM ADJ IRR SUNCR3/305A 01/31/1964 41 71 13 NENE USFS WILKINSON #F S 9 264 5 STOCK RES PUO STO INN

SURFACE WATER RIGHTS FOR NARO SOUTH LBA TRACT
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status Uses 

CR1/387A 03/01/1943 43 71 3 SWNW E. E. STUART STUART RES PU STO DRY FORK P948R 11/30/1906 43 71 3 SENW JOHN MORTON SHEEP CO. THUNDER BASIN NO. 2 RES. PUO STO DRY CREECR1/387A 03/01/1943 43 71 3 SENW E. E. STUART STUART RES PU STO DRY FORK CR1/387A 03/01/1943 43 71 3 NESW E. E. STUART STUART RES PUO STO DRY FORK CR1/387A 03/01/1943 43 71 3 SESW E. E. STUART STUART RES PU STO DRY FORK CR4/254A 02/27/1967 43 71 10 SENE USFS STUART #F.S. 9-256-3 STOCK RES PUO STO ERICKSON P2343S 08/04/1958 43 71 10 SWSW PAUL AND RUBY H. STUART SCHROYER PUO STO SCHROYER P5724S 10/10/1966 43 71 11 SESE HAROLD E. ZIMMER ZIMMER PUO STO ZIMMER DCR2/455A 03/31/1938 43 71 22 NWNW USFS THUNDER BASIN #10 RES PUO STO LITTLE THUCR2/455A 03/31/1938 43 71 22 SWNW USFS THUNDER BASIN #10 RES PU STO LITTLE THUCR2/455A 03/31/1938 43 71 22 SENW USFS THUNDER BASIN #10 RES PU STO LITTLE THUCR2/455A 03/31/1938 43 71 22 NESW USFS THUNDER BASIN #10 RES PU STO LITTLE THUCR2/455A 03/31/1938 43 71 22 NWSW USFS THUNDER BASIN #10 RES PU STO LITTLE THUCR2/455A 03/31/1938 43 71 22 SWSW USFS THUNDER BASIN #10 RES PU STO LITTLE THUCR2/455A 03/31/1938 43 71 22 SESW USFS THUNDER BASIN #10 RES PU STO LITTLE THUP950R 11/30/1906 43 71 24 NWSW JOHN MORTON SHEEP CO. THUNDER BASIN NO. 4 RES. PUO STO S. PRONG P950R 11/30/1906 43 71 24 SWSW JOHN MORTON SHEEP CO. THUNDER BASIN NO. 4 RES. PU STO S. PRONG P10087S 02/09/1987 43 71 25 USFS RENO #9 240 13 GST STO PETTERS D

SURFACE WATER RIGHTS FOR LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT
Permit No Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status Uses 

CR4/308A 01/31/1964 40 71 1 SESE USFS MORTON #F S 9-231-9 STOCK RES PUO STO CR2/477A 01/30/1958 40 71 3 NWNW USFS TOM #1 STOCK RES PUO STO P3349S 07/13/1960 40 71 5 SWNW J. R. LLOYD MARY #1 PUO STO P3350S 07/13/1960 40 71 6 SWSW J. R. LLOYD SALLY #1 PUO STO P5520S 08/26/1960 40 71 8 NESW BASS JACOBS & SON MARKER #1 PUO STO P1384S 02/06/1956 40 71 10 SENW BASS JACOBS DONNER #1 PUO STO P1384S 02/06/1956 40 71 10 NESW BASS JACOBS DONNER #1 PUO STO CR14/246A 10/04/1983 41 70 31 SWSE USFS WETLAND MITIGATION POND ADJ WET P10357S 02/29/1988 41 71 30 SENW PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON SPRING CREEK SPRING #12 GST STO Abbreviation Key from the Wyoming SEO Water Right DatabaseAbbreviation for uses: DEW=Dewatering; DOM=Domestic; DSP=Domestic Supply; FIS=Fish Propagation; FLO=Flood Control; IND-Industrial; IRR=Irrigation; MAN=ManufacturingMIS=Miscellaneous; MON=Monitoring; MUN=Municipal; POW=Powder Development; REC=Recreation; RES=Reservoir Supply; STO=Stock; TEM=Temporary Use (normally constru

SURFACE WATER RIGHTS FOR WEST ANTELOPE LBA TRACT

diversion for a ditch or pipeline; PUO=Point of outlet for a reservoir; UNA=Unadjudicated.Record Suffixes are denoted as follows: "A" indicates adjudicated or finalized water rights and unless the right is a territorial appropriation, there will be a match in the reference drilling); UTI=Utility; WET=Wetlands; WIL=Wildlife; CBM=Coal Bed Methane.Abbreviations for status: ABA=Abandoned; ADJ=Adjudication; CAN=Canceled; EXP=Expired; GST=Good standing pending receipt of legally required notices; PU=Point of outlet for permits are for wells with a priority date for the date of filing with the SEO. "D" signifies a ditch or pipeline permit. "E" signifies an enlargement of a ditch or pipeline permit. "S" reservoir permit. "R" signifies a reservoir permit.following permit types for the unadjudicated portion of the water right. "C" permits are well statements of claim, filed from 1947 to 1957 for wells completed prior to April 1, 1947registrations, filed for wells completed after April 1, 1947. "P" permits are for stock and domestic use wells completed prior to May 24, 1969 and registered with the SEO prior to 
Permit No. Priority Tns Rng Sec qq Applicant Facility Name Status Uses 

P3931S 03/18/1963 42 70 7 NWSE USDA FOREST SERVICE RENO LIVESTOCK #9-240-2 STOCK RES PUO STO O

P4904R 07/30/1938 42 70 9 SWNW USDA FOREST SERVICE THUNDER BASIN #52 RES PUO STO TR

P4904R 07/30/1938 42 70 9 SENW USDA FOREST SERVICE THUNDER BASIN #52 RES PU STO TRP4904R 07/30/1938 42 70 9 NESW USDA FOREST SERVICE THUNDER BASIN #52 RES PU STO TRP4904R 07/30/1938 42 70 9 NWSW USDA FOREST SERVICE THUNDER BASIN #52 RES PU STO TRP5561S 05/06/1966 42 70 17 NESW USDA FOREST SERVICE WILKINSON #F S 9 264 6 STOCK RES PUO STO O

P4991R 02/17/1939 42 71 12 NENE USDA FOREST SERVICE THUNDER BASIN #54 RES PUO STO TA

P4991R 02/17/1939 42 71 12 NWNE USDA FOREST SERVICE THUNDER BASIN #54 RES PU STO TAP7102D 02/13/1906 42 71 12 NWNE EDITH M. SIMPSON LITTLE PORCUPINE PUD IRR,DOM LI

P7102D 02/13/1906 42 71 12 NWNE EDITH M. SIMPSON LITTLE PORCUPINE ADJ IRR,DOM LI

P7102D 02/13/1906 42 71 12 SWNE EDITH M. SIMPSON LITTLE PORCUPINE ADJ IRR,DOM LI

P7102D 02/13/1906 42 71 12 NWSE EDITH M. SIMPSON LITTLE PORCUPINE ADJ IRR,DOM LI

P7104D 02/13/1906 42 71 12 SENE EDITH M. SIMPSON SHEEP DITCH ADJ IRR SH

SURFACE WATER RIGHTS FOR WEST ROUNDUP LBA TRACT
APPENDIX G

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED,

AND CANDIDATE SPECIES

USFS REGION 2 SENSITIVE SPECIES AND

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-1

Operators of four coal mines in Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming have

applied to lease five tracts of federal coal as maintenance leases under the Leasing

on Application regulations at 43 CFR 3425, as discussed in Chapter 1 of this

environmental impact statement (EIS). The five tracts being considered for leasing

are the NARO North, NARO South, Little Thunder, West Roundup and West

Antelope Lease by Application (LBA) Tracts. The purpose of this Appendix is to

provide information about the potential environmental effects that leasing these

tracts would have on federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate

Species, and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Region 2 Sensitive wildlife and vegetative

species (terrestrial and aquatic), USFS Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG)

Forest Plan Management Indicator Species (MIS), and Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) designated Sensitive Species. 

GENERAL ANALYSIS AREA DESCRIPTION

The General Analysis Area is shown in Figure 3-1 of this EIS. It includes all or

part of Townships 40 through 44 North, Ranges 69 through 71 West, and includes

portions of southern Campbell County and northern Converse County, Wyoming.

Within the General Analysis Area are five active surface coal mines. Four of those

mines, Black Thunder, North Rochelle, North Antelope/Rochelle Complex, and

Antelope, have applied to lease the federal coal included in five tracts located

adjacent to their existing mines. The five tracts and applicant mines are:

• NARO North LBA Tract adjacent to and north of the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex;

• NARO South LBA Tract adjacent to and south of the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex;

• Little Thunder LBA Tract adjacent to and west of the Black Thunder

Mine;

• West Roundup LBA Tract adjacent to and southwest of the North

Rochelle Mine; and

• West Antelope LBA Tract adjacent to and west of the Antelope Mine.

A study area has been identified for each tract, which includes the tract as applied

for and the adjacent lands BLM is considering adding to each tract. The

anticipated permit amendment area for each applicant mine is also included in

the study area. The anticipated permit amendment study area includes lands

adjacent to and outside of an applicant mine’s current permit area which the

applicant anticipates would be included within an amended mine permit area if

they acquire a lease for the maintenance tract they have applied for. The study

areas for each tract are shown in Figure 3-1.

The General Analysis Area is located in the eastern portion of the Powder River

Basin (PRB), a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes most of

northeastern Wyoming. Vegetation is primarily sagebrush and mixed grass
Appendix G

G-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

prairie. The climate is semi-arid, with an average annual precipitation at Wright,

located approximately six miles east of the Little Thunder LBA Tract (see Figure

1-1 of this EIS) of just over 11 inches (Martner 1986). In the General Analysis

Area the regional wind speeds average from nine to 13 miles per hour with local

variations in speed and direction due to differences in topography. The General

Analysis Area is drained by tributaries to the Cheyenne River, the major surface

drainages in this portion of the PRB are shown in Figure 3-5 of this EIS.

Elevations range from about 4,500 feet (ft) to 5,000 ft above sea level. Land

ownership within the LBA tracts and the General Analysis Area consists of private

lands intermingled with federal lands. Federally owned lands included in three

of the tracts (NARO North, Little Thunder, and West Antelope) are part of the

TBNG and are administered by the USFS. More detailed information about the

General Analysis Area is included in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

CONSULTATION HISTORY

The LBA tracts as applied for and the existing federal coal leases and existing

approved mine permit boundaries for the adjacent applicant mines are shown in

Figures 1-2 through 1-5 of this EIS. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) has previously occurred for all lands that are within the existing

approved mine permit area for each mine. 

The location of the existing North Antelope/Rochelle Complex coal leases, the

existing approved mine permit area, and the NARO North and NARO South LBA

Tracts are shown in Figure 1-2 in this EIS. Consultation with USFWS has

previously been conducted for the area included within the existing approved mine

permit area. In the most recent mine permit State Decision Document for the

Powder River Coal Company’s (PRCC’s) North Antelope/Rochelle Complex, dated

December, 1999, is a letter dated August 19, 1999, from Michael Long, USFWS

Cheyenne, Wyoming to Georgia Cash, Wyoming Department of Environmental

Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD), Cheyenne, Wyoming documenting

approval of the Raptor and Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest (MBHFI) plans

for the North Antelope/Rochelle Complex. Also included as Condition No. 2 of the

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex State Decision Document, is a requirement for

completion of conferencing and consultation with USFWS by the Office of Surface

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) by February 1, 2000. The

incorporation of species-specific protective measures drafted by the Wyoming Field

Office of the USFWS and commitment to report/tabulate dead or impaired listed

species into the mining permit satisfied the permit condition for completion of

conferencing and consultation with USFWS. These items were reviewed with

WDEQ/LQD and PRCC in a meeting on January 6, 2000 and documented in a

letter dated January 28, 2000, from Michael Long, USFWS to Georgia Cash,

WDEQ/LQD.

The location of the existing Black Thunder Mine coal leases, the existing approved

mine permit area, and the Little Thunder LBA Tract are shown in Figure 1-3 in
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-3

this EIS. Consultation with USFWS has previously been conducted for the area

included within the existing approved mine permit area. In the September 1995

mine permit State Decision Document for the Black Thunder Mine is a letter dated

November 29, 1995, from Charles P. Davis, USFWS, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to

Gregory Reed, OSM, Denver, Colorado, stating concurrence with the Thunder

Basin Coal Company (TBCC) permit renewal and amendment project assessment

relating to black-footed ferret, bald eagle, and Ute ladies’-tresses. The December

2000 mine plan State Decision Document for the Black Thunder Mine references

a USFWS letter dated August 21, 2000, from Michael M. Long, USFWS, Field

Supervisor, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Doug Emme, WDEQ/LQD, Sheridan,

Wyoming, which indicated that the agency reviews were completed and the

Thundercloud amendment application and commitments were acceptable and that

as long as the operation is conducted as proposed all wildlife issues of Federal

interest will be adequately addressed.

The location of the existing North Rochelle Mine coal leases, the existing approved

mine permit area, and the Little Thunder LBA Tract are shown in Figure 1-4 in

this EIS. Consultation with USFWS has previously been conducted for the area

included within the existing approved mine permit area. A letter dated October

8, 2002, from Michael M. Long, USFWS, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Stacy Page,

WDEQ/LQD, Sheridan, Wyoming, states USFWS concurrence with Triton Coal

Company’s (TCC’s) plan to protect threatened and endangered (T&E) species listed

under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

The location of the existing Antelope Mine coal leases, the existing approved mine

permit area, and the West Antelope LBA Tract are shown in Figure 1-5 in this EIS.

Consultation with USFWS was previously conducted for the area included within

the existing approved mine permit area. In the December 2001 mining plan State

Decision Document for the Antelope Mine is a letter dated December 17, 2001,

from Michael M. Long, USFWS, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Larry Kline, OSM,

Denver, Colorado, verifying that the USFWS “is satisfied with the species-specific

protective measures required to satisfy the consultation requirements of Section

7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ACT), for the Horse Creek

Amendment permit”. Furthermore, the USFWS reviewed the MBHFI protection

plan in the mine permit and, as stated in the December 2001 State Decision

Document, has not given concurrence to the plan, stating the plan does not

contain adequate commitment for the amount of mountain plover habitat that will

be reclaimed and reestablished and does not contain adequate bond release

criteria. Therefore, a condition was attached to Antelope Coal Company’s (ACC’s)

permit stating that when the plan is approved by the USFWS, the approval letter

will be inserted into the mine permit document.

THE PROPOSED ACTION
Appendix G

G-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

This EIS considers five Proposed Actions, one for each LBA tract listed above in

the description of the General Analysis Area. Under the Proposed Action for each

tract, a separate competitive lease sale would be held for the federal coal included

in each tract as applied for. If there is a successful bidder at that sale, a lease

would be issued for the tract of federal coal as applied for. Each tract offered for

lease would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the

Wyoming PRB. The stipulations that would be attached to each tract are listed in

Appendix D of this EIS. 

Under each Proposed Action, it is assumed that each LBA tract would be

developed as a maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent existing

surface coal mine. As a result, under each Proposed Action, existing facilities,

roads and employees would be used to mine the coal included in each tract. 

There are five No Action Alternatives, one for each tract. Under the No Action

Alternative (Alternative 1) for each tract, the BLM would reject the lease

application for that tract and not offer it for competitive sale at this time.

Selection of Alternative 1 would not affect permitted mining activities on the

existing leases at any of the adjacent mines. 

In reviewing these lease applications, the BLM identified alternate tract

configurations for consideration for leasing. These alternate tract configurations

are analyzed as alternatives in this EIS. The alternate tract configurations are

described in Chapter 2 of this EIS and shown in Figures 2-1 through 2-4. No

alternate tract configurations were identified for the NARO North LBA Tract.

Alternative 2 for the NARO South LBA Tract considers adding additional lands

west of the LBA tract, while Alternative 3 considers removing some of the lands

applied for in the western portion of the LBA tract. Alternative 2 for the Little

Thunder LBA Tract considers adding additional lands west of the LBA tract and

Alternative 3 considers dividing the Alternative 2 tract into a north and a south

tract. Alternatives 2 and 3 for the West Roundup LBA Tract consider increasing

the size of the LBA tract. Alternative 2 for the West Antelope LBA Tract considers

adding additional land northeast of the LBA tract and Alternative 3 considers

decreasing the size of the tract.
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-5

FEDERALLY ENDANGERED, THREATENED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE

SPECIES BIOLOGY AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

The following discussion evaluates the potential environmental effects of the

Proposed Actions and Action Alternatives on federally endangered, threatened,

proposed, and candidate species. 

Endangered: An animal or plant in danger of extinction within the foreseeable

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range is classified as

endangered.

Threatened: Threatened status applies to an animal or plant species likely to

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.

Proposed: A proposed species is any species of animal or plant that is

proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under Section 4 of the Endangered

Species Act (ESA).

Candidate: Species considered by the USFWS as candidates for possible

addition to the lists of T&E wildlife and plants. 

The following is a list of species that was provided by USFWS (June 2002),

representing all federally listed T&E species, species proposed for listing , and

candidate species that may occur in the General Analysis Area. 

Bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus): Federally listed as Threatened

Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis): Federally listed as Threatened

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes): Federally listed as Endangered

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus): Federally designated as Proposed

Threatened

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus): Candidate

Listed Species

Bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus)

The bald eagle is a federally-listed threatened species (USFWS 1995). Bald eagles

occur throughout North America from Alaska to Newfoundland, and from the

southern tip of Florida to southern California. In Wyoming, this species builds

large nests in the crowns of large mature trees such as cottonwoods or pines.

Food availability is probably the single most important determining factor for bald
Appendix G

G-6 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

eagle distribution and abundance. Fish and waterfowl are the primary sources

of food where eagles occur along rivers and lakes. Big game and livestock carrion,

as well as larger rodents (e.g., prairie dogs) also can be important dietary

components where these resources are available (Ehrlich et al. 1988). This

species is an uncommon breeding resident in Wyoming utilizing mixed coniferous

and mature cottonwood-riparian areas near large lakes or rivers as nesting habitat

(Luce et al. 1999).

Bald eagles are closely associated with water, with nest sites commonly less than

one mile from a lakeshore or riverbank. Large trees are necessary to support eagle

nests, typically cottonwoods or several conifer species. Nest trees are often the

largest trees in the stand. Typically, there are alternate nests within or in close

proximity to the nest stand. Snags and open-canopied trees near the nest site

and foraging areas provide favorable perch sites. Old-growth stands with their

structural diversity and open canopies are an important habitat for bald eagles.

Bald eagles that have open water or alternate food sources near their nesting

territories may stay for the winter, other eagles migrate southward to areas with

available prey.

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, and hydrological modifications of existing and potential habitat

areas. 

Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial herb with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12

to 50 centimeters tall arising from tuberous-thickened roots. This species flowers

from late July to September. Plants probably do not flower every year and may

remain dormant below ground during drought years.

Rangewide, Ute ladies’-tresses occurs primarily on moist, subirrigated or

seasonally flooded soils in valley bottoms, gravel bars, old oxbows or floodplains

bordering springs, lakes, rivers or perennial streams at elevations between 1,780

and 6,800 ft (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Suitable soils vary from sandy or coarse

cobbley alluvium to calcareous, histic or fine-textured clays and loams.

Populations have been documented from alkaline sedge meadows, riverine

floodplains, flooded alkaline meadows adjacent to ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir

woodlands, sagebrush steppe, and streamside floodplains. Typical suitable

habitat for the orchid is found along perennial or ephemeral streams with

subirrigation into late July or August. Until recent coal bed methane (CBM)

development in the PRB, ephemeral streams with subirrigation into late July and

August did not exist. Some occurrences are also found on agricultural lands

managed for winter or early season grazing or hay production. Known sites often

have low vegetative cover and may be subjected to periodic disturbances such as

flooding or grazing. Populations are often dynamic and “move” within a watershed
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-7

as disturbances create new habitat or succession eliminates old habitat (Fertig

and Beauvais 1999).

The total known population of this species is approximately 25,000 to 30,000

individuals. Occurrences range in size from one plant to a few hundred

individuals. At the time of listing, Ute ladies’-tresses was only known from

Colorado, Utah, and extreme eastern Nevada. It is currently known from western

Nebraska, southeastern Wyoming, north-central Colorado, northeastern and

southern Utah, east-central Idaho, southwestern Montana, and central

Washington. In Wyoming, Ute ladies’-tresses is known from four occurrences in

the western Great Plains in Converse, Goshen, Laramie, and Niobrara Counties,

all discovered between 1993-1997 (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). One of these

occurrences was recorded from the Antelope Creek watershed in northwestern

Converse County.

Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)

The black-footed ferret is a federally-listed endangered species. The black-footed

ferret historically occurred throughout Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona,

Utah, Kansas, North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and

Colorado. The black-footed ferret is closely associated with prairie dogs,

depending almost entirely upon the prairie dog for its survival. The decline in

ferret populations has been attributed to the reduction in the extensive prairie dog

colonies that historically existed in the western United States. Ferrets may occur

within colonies of white-tailed or black-tailed prairie dogs. The USFWS has

determined that, at a minimum, potential habitat for the black-footed ferret must

include a single white-tailed prairie dog colony of greater than 200 acres, or a

complex of smaller colonies within a 4.3 mile (7 km) radius circle totaling 200

acres (USFWS 1989). Minimum colony size for black-tailed prairie dog is 80 acres

(USFWS 1989). The last known wild population was discovered in Meeteetse,

Wyoming. Individuals from this population were captured and have been raised

in protective captive breeding facilities in an effort to prevent the species’

extinction (Clark and Stromberg 1987).

Recent survey efforts in the Shirley Basin have identified a population at this

former re-introduction site. This is the only known population in Wyoming.

Proposed Species

Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus)

The mountain plover is proposed for federal listing (USFWS 1999a). The USFWS

has 60 days to seek input from three species experts, the public, scientific

community, and Federal and State agencies. The USFWS published a 60-day

extension to the comment period on April 19, 1999 (USFWS 1999b). In October

2001, the USFWS designated the mountain plover as a proposed threatened

species (USFWS 2001).
Appendix G

G-8 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

This species utilizes high, dry, shortgrass prairie with vegetation typically shorter

than four inches tall. Within this habitat, areas of blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)

and buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) are most often utilized, as well as areas of

mixed-grass associations dominated by needle-and-thread (Stipa comata) and blue

grama (Dinsmore 1983).

Nests consist of a small scrape on flat ground in open areas. Most nests are

placed on slopes of less than five degrees in areas where vegetation is less than

three inches tall in April. More than half of identified nests occurred within 12

inches of old cow manure piles and almost 20 percent were found against old

manure piles in similar habitats in Colorado. Nests in similar habitats in

Montana (Dinsmore 1983) and other areas (Ehrlich et al. 1988) were nearly always

associated with the heavily grazed shortgrass vegetation of prairie dog colonies.

Mountain plovers arrive on their breeding grounds in late March with egg-laying

beginning in late April. Clutches are hatched by late June and chicks fledge by

late July. The fall migration begins in late August and most birds are gone from

the breeding grounds by late September.

Candidate Species

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

The black-tailed prairie dog was added to the list of candidate species for federal

listing on February 4, 2000 (USFWS 2000a). At that time, the USFWS concluded

that listing the black-tailed prairie dog was warranted but precluded by other

higher priority actions to amend the lists of threatened and endangered species.

No specific date for proposal for listing was given, but the USFWS has committed

to reviewing the status of the species one year after publication of the abovementioned notice (i.e., on February 4, 2001) (USFWS 2000b). As of June 2002,

the USFWS was listing the black-tailed prairie dog as a candidate (USFWS June

2002).

The black-tailed prairie dog is a highly social, diurnally active, burrowing

mammal. Aggregations of individual burrows, known as colonies, form the basic

unit of prairie dog populations. Found throughout the Great Plains in shortgrass

and mixed-grass prairie areas (Fitzgerald et al. 1994), the black-tailed prairie dog

has declined in population numbers and extent of colonies in recent years due to

habitat destruction or disturbance and pest control activities. In Wyoming, this

species is primarily found in isolated populations in the eastern half of the state

(Clark and Stromberg 1987). Many other wildlife species, such as the black-footed

ferret, swift fox, mountain plover, ferruginous hawk and burrowing owl are

dependant on the black-tailed prairie dog for some portion of their life cycle

(USFWS 2000b).
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-9

This species is considered a common resident, utilizing shortgrass and mid-grass

habitats in eastern Wyoming (Luce et al. 1999).

NARO NORTH AND SOUTH LBA TRACTS

Listed Species

Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Suitable habitat within respective survey areas was traversed during the time of

actual flowering of the known population of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid on

Antelope Creek in northern Converse County. Prefield work involved a visit to a

known population of the orchid to verify the correct phenological state (flowering)

of the orchid. Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the study area

were reviewed to identify all significant drainages that may contain the orchid.

Suitable habitat factors included less steep stream banks, light soil texture and

well drained soils, close lateral or vertical distance to perennial water source

during the flowering period, lack of plant competition, lack of general soil

alkalinity/salinity, and current or historical management practices that did not

promote overgrazing and extensive use of riparian areas.

Areas within the NARO North and NARO South LBA Tracts that are inside the

currently approved North Antelope/Rochelle Complex permit area were surveyed

by BKS Environmental Associates (Paige Wolken) August 28 and September 2,

1997. No individuals of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid were located during those

surveys. Areas within the LBA tracts that are outside the currently approved

North Antelope/Rochelle Complex permit area were surveyed by BKS

Environmental Associates (Paige Wolken, Heidi Smith, and Brenda Schladweiler)

in August of 1999 and August of 2000. No individuals of the Ute ladies’-tresses

orchid were located during those surveys.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Leasing the NARO North and South LBA Tracts under the Proposed Actions or

Action Alternatives is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’-tresses. No

individuals have been located during surveys of potentially suitable habitat on the

two tracts in 1997, 1999, and 2000. Because of the ability of this species to

persist below ground or above ground without flowering, single season surveys

that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect populations.

Undetected populations could be lost to surface disturbing activities. If these two

tracts are leased, mining operations could not be initiated until the Mineral

Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) mining plan and the state mining and reclamation
Appendix G

G-10 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

permit are approved. Prior to permit approval, additional surveys and USFWS

consultation would be required. 

Bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in northeastern

Wyoming’s PRB. Historically, this species has infrequently been seen foraging in

the general vicinity of North Antelope/Rochelle Complex and perched in

cottonwood trees along Antelope Creek, south of the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex. No unique or concentrated sources of carrion or prey occur in the study

area for the NARO North and NARO South LBA Tracts, so foraging bald eagles

would not be attracted to the area in great numbers. A few isolated bald eagle

nesting attempts have been recorded in the region, but none have been near the

NARO North and South LBA Tracts.

The NARO North and South LBA Tracts, the anticipated permit amendment study

area and a two- mile perimeter were searched for bald eagles and roosting habitat

on February 28, 2001 by Thunderbird Wildlife Consulting, Inc. (TWC), Gillette,

Wyoming. During the survey, three adult bald eagles were seen perching in a

small cottonwood tree along Horse Creek in the NE1⁄4 of Section 22, T.41N.,

R.71W., about one mile west of the NARO South anticipated permit amendment

area under the Proposed Action. Because of the small stature of the tree and the

small number of eagles, this was not classified as a bald eagle roost. Bald eagles

were also observed on four occasions during baseline wildlife surveys conducted

in 2000 by TWC. On February 23 and March 23, 2000, adult bald eagles were

observed in the SE1⁄4 of Section 35, T.42N., R.71W., within the NARO North LBA

Tract. Two sub-adult bald eagles were observed on April 18, 2000 perched on a

rock in Porcupine Reservoir in Section 27, T.41N., R.70W. One adult was seen on

December 11, 2000 perched on a fence post in the NE1⁄4 of Section 11, T.41N.,

R.71W. Both of these observations were within the anticipated permit amendment

area for the North Antelope/Rochelle Complex under the Proposed Action and

Action Alternatives.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Leasing and mining the NARO North and South LBA Tracts under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to adversely effect bald eagles. Bald

eagle foraging habitat would be lost on the tracts during mining and before final

reclamation. The loss of any potential prey habitat would be short-term. Foraging

habitat that is lost during mining would be replaced as reclamation continues on

already mined out areas. Eagles may alter foraging patterns as they fly around

areas of active mining activity. Potential for bald eagles to collide with or be

electrocuted by electric power lines on the mine site is minimal due to use of

raptor-safe power lines. An increase in the volume and frequency of traffic on the
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-11

roads accessing North Antelope/Rochelle Complex may result in an increase in

vehicular collisions and roadside carcasses. This could result in an increase of

bald eagle foraging along roads in this area. If a lease is issued for these two

tracts, mining operations could not be initiated until the MLA mining plan and the

state mining and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to permit approval,

additional surveys and consultation with USFWS would be required. 

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Black-footed ferrets are rare and very unlikely to occur in the vicinity of the NARO

North and South LBA Tracts. The black-footed ferret is closely associated with

prairie dogs, depending almost entirely upon the prairie dog for its survival. A

baseline prairie dog town survey conducted in 2000 found no colonies on the

NARO North LBA Tract and three colonies on the NARO South LBA Tract (see

prairie dog discussion below). The prairie dog towns located on the NARO South

LBA Tract are less than 80 acres in size. An additional three colonies were found

within a half-mile of the two LBA tracts. In ferret surveys of the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex and surrounding areas, qualified biologists have not

observed any evidence of ferret habitat or activity. For example, no black-footed

ferret sign was detected during surveys conducted by TWC (formerly Powder River

Eagle Studies) in three black-tailed prairie dog colonies near the mine complex in

winter/spring 1999.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing federal coal leases for the NARO North and South LBA Tracts under the

Proposed Actions or Action Alternatives is not likely to adversely affect blackfooted ferrets. Prairie dog towns of more than 80 acres in area, the typical

suitable habitat for this species, are not currently located on either tract. In

wildlife surveys conducted for more than the last 20 years by the mines in this

area, none of the prairie dog towns in the General Analysis Area have harbored

any black-footed ferrets. If leases are issued for these two tracts, mining

operations could not be initiated until the MLA mining plan and the state mining

and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to permit approval, additional surveys

would be required and USFWS consultation would be required.

Proposed Species

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences
Appendix G

G-12 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Mountain plovers have regularly nested at the Antelope Mine, located south of and

adjacent to the NARO South LBA Tract, but few have been sighted in the NARO

North and South LBA study area. Each year from 1994 through 1996, adult

plovers were seen in a black-tailed prairie dog colony in the SE1⁄4 NW1⁄4 of Section

17, T.41N., R.70W., which is on an existing North Antelope/Rochelle Complex

federal coal lease. All of those sightings were made in the spring by qualified

biologists with Powder River Eagle Studies. Numerous searches of the colony and

surrounding area have failed to locate any plover nests and no young have ever

been seen. No plovers have been observed in any prairie dog colonies or

elsewhere during baseline surveys of the NARO North and South LBA Tracts

wildlife study area.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing federal coal leases for the NARO North and South LBA Tracts under the

Proposed Actions or Action Alternatives is not likely to jeopardize mountain

plovers. The typical suitable habitat for this species is not currently located on

either of the tracts, and no plovers have been observed. If leases are issued for

these LBA tracts, mining operations could not be initiated until the MLA mining

plan and the state mining and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to permit

approval, additional surveys and USFWS consultation would be required.

Candidate Species

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Prairie dog towns were surveyed on the NARO North and South LBA wildlife

baseline study area and the North Antelope/Rochelle Complex’s current permit

area in 2000 by TWC. Twenty-seven black-tailed prairie dog colonies totaling

1,148 acres were inventoried on the study area. Six prairie dog towns were

inventoried on or within one half-mile of the two LBA tracts. No colonies were

observed on the NARO North LBA Tract and one colony (located in the SW1⁄4 of

Section 26, T.42N., R.71W.) is located within a half-mile radius of that proposed

lease boundary. Three colonies were observed on the NARO South LBA Tract and

two others (located in the W1⁄2 of Section 17 and the NE1⁄4 of Section 28, T.41N.,

R.71W.) are within a half-mile radius of that proposed lease boundary. No

additional prairie dog towns were observed on the area that would be added under

Alternative 2 for the NARO South LBA Tract. 

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the NARO North LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-13

prairie dogs because no prairie dog towns are currently located on the tract.

Issuing a federal coal lease for the NARO South LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

prairie dogs. There are three small (less than 80 acres) prairie dog colonies

located on the NARO South LBA Tract. Those colonies and individuals in those

colonies would be likely to be adversely affected if a federal coal lease is issued for

the NARO South LBA Tract under the Proposed Action or Action Alternatives,

however, there are other colonies in this area which would not be affected by

mining operations at the North Antelope/Rochelle Complex or other nearby mines.

Habitat where prairie dogs could establish towns would be lost during mining but

would be replaced as reclamation occurs on already mined areas. If leases are

issued for these LBA tracts, mining operations could not be initiated until the MLA

mining plan and state mining and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to

permit approval, additional surveys and USFWS consultation would be required.

LITTLE THUNDER LBA TRACT

Listed Species

Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

A Ute ladies’-tresses orchid survey was completed by Intermountain Resources

(Jim Orpet and Russel Tait) on the Little Thunder LBA Tract in August of 2001.

The area surveyed was within the LBA tract as applied for, the areas added under

Alternative 2, and the anticipated permit amendment study area.

In preparation for Ute ladies’-tresses surveys, Mr. Orpet visited the Rocky

Mountain Herbarium in Laramie, Wyoming and reviewed herbaria specimens. The

herbarium provided valuable information on sites this species was known to

inhabit in Wyoming. Wyoming Wildlife Magazine published an article on this

species in August 1995. Several color photographs from that article were used as

field references and were carried with the investigators during field surveys.

Based on discussions with persons familiar with flowering dates of this species in

Wyoming and the 2001 growing season conditions, field surveys were conducted

on August 16–18, 20, 24, and 25. During a first site inventory, the entire study

area was surveyed for potentially suitable habitats where the orchid may occur.

These surveys were completed on foot, including walking the entire lengths of

ephemeral drainages documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for

this species. The additional surveys concentrated on thorough searches of the

potential habitats identified during the first survey. Survey conditions were

generally good except for some areas being heavily grazed by livestock. No Ute

ladies’-tresses orchid were found within the study area during these surveys.
Appendix G

G-14 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Potential habitats based on hydrological criteria were rare and artificially created

by CBM production discharge water. The potential for the Ute ladies’-tresses

orchid to occur within this study area would be low since the potential habitat

created by CBM production discharge water has existed for less than one year.

Most of this area was also surveyed in 1996 and prior years, during which time

no orchids or other species of concern were identified.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the Little Thunder LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’-tresses.

Typical suitable habitat for this species is rare and that which does occur in the

study area has just recently been artificially created by CBM production discharge

water. Surveys of the existing suitable habitat have not found any Ute ladies’-

tresses. Because of the ability of this species to persist below ground or above

ground without flowering, single season surveys that meet the current USFWS

survey guidelines may not detect populations. If undetected populations are

present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. If a lease is issued for

this tract, mining operations could not be initiated until the MLA mining plan and

the state mining and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to permit approval,

additional surveys and consultation with USFWS would be required. 

Bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in northeastern

Wyoming’s PRB. Historically, this species has infrequently been seen foraging in

the general vicinity of Black Thunder Mine. However, no suitable roosting habitat

or concentrated prey or carrion sources for bald eagles exist in the Little Thunder

study area. No bald eagles were observed in Black Thunder Mine’s wildlife survey

area in 2001. Qualified biologists with TWC watched for all listed species,

including the bald eagle and habitats that could support them, while conducting

all other wildlife species surveys. In addition, surveys for all MBHFI, including the

bald eagle, were conducted by the same consultant during four days in both

spring (May and June) and summer (July 2001).

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the Little Thunder LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles. Bald

eagle foraging habitat would be lost on the tract during mining and before final

reclamation. The loss of any potential prey habitat would be short-term. Foraging

habitat that is lost during mining would be replaced as reclamation continues on

already mined out areas. Eagles may alter foraging patterns as they fly around

areas of active mining activity. Potential for bald eagles to collide with or be
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-15

electrocuted by electric power lines on the mine site would be minimal due to use

of raptor-safe power lines. An increase in the volume and frequency of traffic on

the roads accessing Black Thunder Mine may result in an increase in vehicular

collisions and roadside carcasses. This could result in an increase of bald eagle

foraging along roads in this area. If a lease is issued for this tract, mining

operations could not be initiated until the MLA mining plan and the state mining

and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to permit approval, additional surveys

and consultation with USFWS would be required. 

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Black-footed ferrets are rare and very unlikely to occur in the vicinity of the Little

Thunder LBA Tract. The black-footed ferret is closely associated with prairie dogs,

depending almost entirely upon the prairie dog for its survival. Recent surveys

have found no prairie dog colonies on the Little Thunder LBA Tract (see prairie dog

discussion below). One colony was found within one mile west of the LBA tract,

which is within the anticipated permit amendment study area for the Black

Thunder Mine, if the Little Thunder LBA Tract is leased. No evidence of ferrets

have ever been recorded by qualified biologists during general or specific surveys

in the Black Thunder Mine area. TWC watched for all listed species, including the

black-footed ferret and habitats that could support them, while conducting all

other wildlife species surveys in the area in 2001.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the Little Thunder LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to adversely affect black-footed ferrets.

No prairie dog towns are currently located on the tract. In wildlife surveys

conducted for more than the last 20 years by the mines in this area, none of the

prairie dog towns in the General Analysis Area have harbored any black-footed

ferrets. If a lease is issued for the tract, mining operations could not be initiated

until the MLA mining plan and the state mining and reclamation permit are

approved. Prior to permit approval, additional surveys and USFWS consultation

would be required.

Proposed Species

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Mountain plover preferred habitat consists of level, open and exceedingly grazed

sites (Knopf 1996) that are generally lacking in the Little Thunder LBA study area.

Even the prairie dog colonies are surrounded by rolling terrain that detracts from
Appendix G

G-16 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

the “openness” of those sites (Powder River Eagle Studies 2000). Historically,

there have been a few sightings in the vicinity of the LBA tract and anticipated

permit study area, but no plovers were observed during Black Thunder Mine’s

wildlife survey in 2001. No surveys specifically targeting these species were

conducted in 2001 by TWC, although qualified biologists watched for all listed

species and habitats that could support them while conducting all other wildlife

species surveys.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the Little Thunder LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to jeopardize mountain plovers.

Although there have been a few sightings in the vicinity of the LBA tract, the

typical suitable habitat for this species is not currently located on the tract. If a

lease is issued for this LBA tract, mining operations could not be initiated until

the MLA mining plan and the state mining and reclamation permit are approved.

Prior to permit approval, additional surveys and USFWS consultation would be

required.

Candidate Species

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

No prairie dog colonies exist within the Little Thunder LBA Tract or the area added

under Alternative 2, but one colony does exist approximately one mile west of the

tract configured under Alternative 2, which is within Black Thunder Mine’s

anticipated permit amendment study area. No surveys specifically targeting these

species were conducted in 2001 by qualified biologists with TWC, although

habitats that could support federally listed species were observed and noted while

conducting all other wildlife species surveys.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the Little Thunder LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

prairie dogs. No prairie dog towns are currently located on the tract. If a lease is

issued for this LBA tract, mining operations could not be initiated until the MLA

mining plan and the state mining and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to

permit approval, additional surveys and USFWS consultation would be required.

Habitat where prairie dogs could establish towns would be lost during mining but

would be replaced as reclamation occurs on already mined areas.
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-17

WEST ROUNDUP LBA TRACT

Listed Species 

Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

A Ute ladies’-tresses orchid survey was completed by Intermountain Resources

(Jim Orpet) on the West Roundup LBA Tract in July and August of 2001 for sites

not previously surveyed. The area surveyed included the lands contained within

the LBA tract as applied for and the anticipated permit amendment study area.

In preparation for Ute ladies’-tresses surveys, Mr. Orpet visited the Rocky

Mountain Herbarium in Laramie, Wyoming and reviewed herbaria specimens. The

herbarium provided valuable information on sites this species was known to

inhabit in Wyoming. Wyoming Wildlife Magazine published an article on this

species in August 1995. Several color photographs from that article were used as

field references and were carried with the investigators during field surveys.

Based on discussions with persons familiar with flowering dates of this species in

Wyoming and the 2001 growing season conditions, initial field surveys were

conducted on July 20. Additional site surveys were completed on August 14, 17,

and 24. During the first site inventory, the entire study area was surveyed for

potentially suitable habitats where the orchid may occur. These surveys were

completed on foot, including walking the entire lengths of ephemeral drainages

documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species.

Potential habitats based on hydrological criteria are rare and artificially created

by CBM production discharge water. Several stock reservoirs on ephemeral

drainages occur in the study area and all are constructed earthen berms or dams.

These ponds generally contain water in early spring, then dry up in the summer,

although one pond in the northern part of the study area currently contains water

all year due to CBM production discharge water. The additional surveys

concentrated on thorough searches of the potential habitats identified during the

first survey. Survey conditions were generally good except for some areas being

heavily grazed by livestock. No Ute ladies’-tresses orchids were found within the

study area during these surveys. The potential for the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid

to occur within this study area would be rare since potential habitat created by

CBM production discharge water has existed for less than one year.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the West Roundup LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’-tresses.

Typical suitable habitat for this species is rare and that which does occur in the
Appendix G

G-18 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

study area has recently been artificially created by CBM production discharge

water. Surveys of the existing suitable habitat have not found any Ute ladies’-

tresses. Because of the ability of this species to persist below ground or above

ground without flowering, single season surveys that meet the current USFWS

survey guidelines may not detect populations. If undetected populations are

present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. If a lease is issued for

this tract, mining operations could not be initiated until the MLA mining plan and

the state mining and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to permit approval,

additional surveys and USFWS consultation would be required. 

Bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in northeastern

Wyoming’s PRB. Historically, this species has infrequently been seen foraging in

the general vicinity of North Rochelle Mine and the West Roundup LBA Tract.

However, no suitable roosting habitat or concentrated prey or carrion sources for

bald eagles exist in the West Roundup study area. Qualified biologists with TWC

watched for all listed species, including the bald eagle and habitats that could

support them, while conducting all other wildlife species surveys. In addition,

surveys for all MBHFI, including the bald eagle, were conducted by the same

consultant during four days in both spring (May) and summer (June and July).

No bald eagles were observed in the North Rochelle Mine’s wildlife survey area in

2001.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the West Roundup LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles. Bald

eagle foraging habitat would be lost on the tract during mining and before final

reclamation. The loss of any potential prey habitat would be short-term. Foraging

habitat that is lost during mining would be replaced as reclamation continues on

already mined out areas. Eagles may alter foraging patterns as they fly around

areas of active mining activity. Potential for bald eagles to collide with or be

electrocuted by electric power lines on the mine site would be minimal due to use

of raptor-safe power lines. An increase in the volume and frequency of traffic on

the roads accessing North Rochelle Mine may result in an increase in vehicular

collisions and roadside carcasses. This could result in an increase of bald eagle

foraging along roads in this area. If a lease is issued for this tract, mining

operations could not be initiated until the MLA mining plan and the state mining

and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to permit approval, additional surveys

and consultation with USFWS would be required. 

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-19

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Black-footed ferrets are rare and very unlikely to occur in the vicinity of the West

Roundup LBA Tract. The black-footed ferret is closely associated with prairie

dogs, depending almost entirely upon the prairie dog for its survival. Recent

surveys indicate no prairie dog colonies are located within the West Roundup LBA

Tract (see prairie dog discussion below). One small (less than three acres in area)

colony is located within the area added under Alternatives 2 and 3, in the SE1⁄4 of

Section 5, T.42N., R.70W. One other colony is located just over a half mile south

of the LBA tract, in the NE1⁄4 of Section 18, T.42N., R.70W. No evidence of ferrets

have ever been recorded by qualified biologists during general or specific surveys

in the West Roundup Mine area. TWC watched for all listed species, including the

black-footed ferret and habitats that could support them, while conducting all

other wildlife species surveys in the area in 2001.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the West Roundup LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to adversely affect black-footed ferrets.

There are no prairie dog towns of adequate size currently located on the tract as

proposed or the alternative tract configurations. In wildlife surveys conducted for

more than the last 20 years by the mines in this area, none of the prairie dog

towns in the General Analysis Area have harbored any black-footed ferrets. If a

lease is issued for the tract, mining operations could not be initiated until the MLA

mining plan and the state mining and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to

permit approval, additional surveys and USFWS consultation would be required.

Proposed Species

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Mountain plover preferred habitat consists of level, open and exceedingly grazed

sites (Knopf 1996) that are generally lacking in the West Roundup LBA study area.

There have been no sightings of mountain plover in the vicinity of the LBA tract

and anticipated permit amendment study area. No plovers were observed in the

North Rochelle Mine wildlife survey area during the 2001 annual wildlife

monitoring report period. No surveys specifically targeting these species were

conducted in 2001 by TWC, although qualified biologists watched for all listed
Appendix G

G-20 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

species and habitats that could support them while conducting all other wildlife

species surveys.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the West Roundup LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Action Alternatives is not likely to jeopardize mountain plovers. There

have been no sightings in the vicinity of the LBA tract, and the typical suitable

habitat for this species is not currently located on the tract. If a lease is issued

for this LBA tract, mining operations could not be initiated until the MLA mining

plan and the state mining and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to permit

approval, additional surveys and USFWS consultation would be required.

Candidate Species

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Recent wildlife surveys by TWC indicate that no prairie dog colonies exist within

the West Roundup LBA Tract as applied for, although one small (less than three

acres) colony is located within the area added under Alternatives 2 and 3, and one

other colony is located just over a half mile south of the LBA tract. No surveys

specifically targeting these species were conducted in 2001 by qualified biologists

with TWC, although habitats that could support federally listed species were

observed and noted while conducting all other wildlife species surveys.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the West Roundup LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of prairie dogs because

no prairie dog towns are located on the tract as proposed. One small colony (less

than three acres in area) is currently located within the area added under

Alternatives 2 and 3, in the SE1⁄4 of Section 5, T.42N., R.70W. This colony, which

could be adversely affected if that area is leased, is located within the existing

mine permit area for the North Rochelle Mine. Habitat where prairie dogs could

establish towns would be lost during mining but would be replaced as reclamation

occurs on already mined areas. If a lease is issued for this LBA tract, mining

operations could not be initiated until the MLA mining plan and the state mining

and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to permit approval, additional surveys

and USFWS consultation would be required.

WEST ANTELOPE LBA TRACT
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-21

Listed Species

Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Suitable habitat within the West Antelope LBA study areas was traversed during

the time of actual flowering of the known population of the Ute ladies’-tresses

orchid on Antelope Creek in Northern Converse County. Prefield work involved a

visit to a known population of the orchid to verify the correct phenological state

(flowering) of the orchid. The existing orchid population is located near the Ross

Road on Antelope Creek approximately 25 miles upstream of Antelope Mine.

Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the study area were reviewed to

identify all significant drainages that may contain the orchid. Suitable habitat

factors included less steep stream banks, light soil texture and well drained soils,

close lateral or vertical distance to perennial water source during the flowering

period, lack of plant competition, lack of general soil alkalinity/salinity, and

current or historical management practices that did not promote overgrazing and

extensive use of riparian areas.

Areas of suitable habitat, the majority of which are found along the Antelope

Creek drainage, were surveyed by BKS Environmental (Brenda Schladweiler) in

August 2001. No individuals of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid were located during

those surveys.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the West Antelope LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Alternatives 2 or 3 is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’-tresses.

Typical suitable habitat for this species does not exist on the tract outside of the

Antelope Creek valley. ACC would not disturb Antelope Creek and an adjacent

buffer zone in the process of mining the West Antelope tract or their existing coal

leases. If a lease is issued for this tract, mining operations could not be initiated

until the MLA mining plan and the state mining and reclamation permit are

approved. Prior to permit approval, additional surveys and consultation with

USFWS would be required. 

Bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in northeastern

Wyoming’s PRB. Historically, this species has infrequently been seen foraging in

the general vicinity of the West Antelope LBA Tract and perched in cottonwood

trees along Antelope Creek, which passes through the LBA tract and adjacent

Antelope Mine. ACC would not disturb Antelope Creek and an adjacent buffer
Appendix G

G-22 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

zone in the process of mining the West Antelope LBA Tract or their existing coal

leases. No bald eagle roosts have been documented in the vicinity of the proposed

lease area. The nearest known communal bald eagle roosts are over six miles to

the east and southwest of the LBA tract. No unique or concentrated sources of

carrion or prey occur in the study area, so foraging bald eagles would not be

attracted to the area in great numbers. A few isolated bald eagle nesting attempts

have been recorded in the region, but none have been near the West Antelope LBA

Tract.

During a February 28, 2001 survey conducted for the North Antelope/Rochelle

Complex by TWC, three adult bald eagles were seen perching in a small

cottonwood tree along Horse Creek in the NE1⁄4 of Section 22, T.41N., R.71W.

Because of the small stature of the tree and the small number of eagles, this was

not classified as a bald eagle roost. TWC also reported the following bald eagle

observations within the Wildlife Section of Antelope Mine’s 2001 WDEQ/LQD

Report:

• Two adult eagles were seen feeding on a mule deer carcass on reclaimed

lands in Section 14, T.40N., R.71W. in the month of January.

• On February 19, two adult eagles were seen perched in the Antelope Creek

riparian corridor in Section 31, T.41N., R.70W. The same day, an immature

eagle was seen perched on a power pole along Antelope Creek in Section 32,

T.41N., R.70W, an adult bird was seen perched on the ground near a mule

deer carcass in Section 12, T.40N., R.71W., and an immature eagle was

observed flying over the rough breaks in Section 24, T.40N., R.71W.

• On March 7, two adults and one immature bird were recorded perched on

a ridge along the extreme east edge of the mine’s two-mile monitoring

perimeter.

• On March 17, an immature eagle was seen perched in a cottonwood tree in

the Antelope Creek riparian corridor in Section 31, T.41N., R.70W., an adult

eagle was observed perched in a cottonwood tree in the Antelope Creek

riparian corridor in Section 32, T.41N., R.70W., three adults were seen

perched in trees in Section 33, T.41N., R.70W., and an adult bird was seen

perched on a hilltop in Section 12, T.40N., R.71W.

• The last bird recorded by TWC in 2001 was observed on April 1, which was

an adult bird perched on a power pole in Section 12, T.40N., R.71W.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the West Antelope LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Alternatives 2 or 3 is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles. Bald eagle

foraging habitat would be lost on the tract during mining and before final

reclamation. The loss of any potential prey habitat would be short-term. The

Antelope Mine and West Antelope LBA Tract areas do not provide any reliable or

concentrated food sources for eagles, and the loss of any potential foraging habitat

would be short-term. Foraging habitat that is lost during mining would be
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-23

replaced as reclamation continues on already mined out areas. Eagles may alter

foraging patterns as they fly around areas of active mining activity. Bald eagles

could potentially nest or roost in the LBA study area, but neither activity has been

documented on the undisturbed tract. ACC would not disturb Antelope Creek and

an adjacent buffer zone in the process of mining the West Antelope LBA Tract or

their existing coal leases. Cottonwood trees located within the Antelope Creek

buffer zone would not be affected and would be available as perching and nesting

sites. Cottonwood trees outside of the buffer zone along Antelope Creek would be

replaced with plantings along Antelope Creek, Spring Creek, and other reclaimed

drainages, eventually restoring perching and nesting sites. Potential for bald

eagles to collide with or be electrocuted by electric power lines on the mine site

would be minimal due to use of raptor-safe power lines. An increase in the

volume and frequency of traffic on the roads accessing Antelope Mine may result

in an increase in vehicular collisions and roadside carcasses. This could result

in an increase of bald eagle foraging along roads in this area. If a lease is issued

for this tract, mining operations could not be initiated until the MLA mining plan

and the state mining and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to permit

approval, additional surveys and consultation with USFWS would be required. 

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Black-footed ferrets are rare and very unlikely to occur in the vicinity of the West

Antelope LBA Tract. Prairie dogs are the main food source of black-footed ferrets,

and few ferrets have been collected away from prairie dog colonies. Although the

proposed lease area and its perimeter harbor some small prairie dog colonies, no

evidence of ferrets has been recorded in that vicinity during general of specific

ferret surveys conducted over the last 23 years (1978–2001) by the USFS and

wildlife consultants (Powder River Eagle Studies and TWC). The USFS conducted

surveys on all prairie dog colonies in the TBNG throughout the 1980s. The only

evidence of black-footed ferret presence resulting from any survey in the region

was a single skull collected during baseline studies for Antelope Mine in 1979 in

a prairie dog colony roughly three miles east of the LBA tract. That colony was

poisoned in 1982, but has since been recolonized. The lack of black-footed ferret

observations or sign in the vicinity of the West Antelope LBA Tract in the last 20

years suggests they are not likely to occur there.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the West Antelope LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Alternatives 2 or 3 is not likely to adversely affect black-footed ferrets.

Ferrets inhabit prairie dog colonies, so mining of lands in the study area could

potentially impact these predators. However, in wildlife surveys conducted for

more than the last 20 years by the mines in this area, none of the prairie dog

towns in the General Analysis Area have harbored any black-footed ferrets. If a
Appendix G

G-24 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

lease is issued for the tract, mining operations could not be initiated until the MLA

mining plan and the state mining and reclamation permit are approved. Prior to

permit approval and to ensure that no ferrets are adversely affected, appropriate

surveys and consultation with USFWS would be required prior to disturbing any

prairie dog colonies on the tract.

Proposed Species

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

Annual surveys for mountain plovers have been conducted at the Antelope Mine

from 1982 through 2000. Additional intensive studies were conducted from 1985

through 1988 (Parrish 1988, Oelklaus 1989). Antelope Coal Company’s staff

biologist conducted the annual surveys from 1982 through 1993 and TWC

(formerly Powder River Eagle Studies) has conducted all surveys after 1993. Each

year, the survey area includes the Antelope Mine permit area and a half-mile

perimeter, with special emphasis in areas where birds have been seen in the past

(including areas beyond that survey area). The eastern three-quarters of the West

Antelope LBA Tract has been surveyed in most years since 1982. Surveys for

migrant and nesting mountain plovers occurred from early spring through late

summer each year. Personnel have conducted vehicular and pedestrian surveys

and searches of all known former use areas and potential new use areas each

year. Data collected during surveys included number of birds, age (when

possible), location, activity and habitat.

Results of those studies have demonstrated that the mountain plover is a regular

migrant and summer resident in the vicinity of Antelope Mine and portions of the

LBA tract. Over time, the birds tended to be observed foraging and nesting in

roughly the same areas from year to year. In recent years (1994 to 2001), two to

three pairs have nested in a small (approximately 88 acres) black-tailed prairie dog

colony that straddles the southern boundary of the LBA tract. That colony also

appears to be a regular late summer staging area for migrating mountain plovers.

Although the entire 88-acre prairie dog colony appears to provide suitable foraging

and nesting habitat, mountain plovers have regularly been seen in only about 15

of the 88 total acres of colony; five acres of which overlap the southern edge of the

LBA tract. Other sightings of mountain plovers on the proposed lease area were

made in a small (approximately 14 acres) prairie dog colony near the north-central

boundary of the tract. A single adult was seen foraging within that colony one

time during each of the last two spring surveys. Historically, mountain plovers

have been observed along the northeastern edge of the LBA tract as proposed,

where it meets the southwest corner of the area added under Alternative 2.

However, plovers were observed in that area only two of the last 19 years, nesting

there only one year. The last sighting of mountain plovers in the Alternative 2
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-25

area occurred in 1990. The area has since become largely overgrown with

sagebrush and is no longer suitable plover habitat.

One or two pairs of mountain plovers have occasionally nested in a small

(approximately 126 acres) prairie dog colony just beyond the east-central edge of

the LBA tract. The majority of that prairie dog colony was impacted by mining

operations after the 2000 breeding season, but approximately three acres

remained intact and active following that disturbance. In May 2001, Antelope

Mine and USFWS agreed upon a mitigation plan for the portion of the colony that

had been used by mountain plovers over time, and that plan will be finalized in

the near future. A comprehensive review of nearly 20 years’ of data on mountain

plover use in the vicinity of the Antelope Mine also led to the reclassification of

some long-term inactive areas as “Former Use Areas.” However, ACC will continue

to include those areas and the West Antelope LBA Tract study area in annual

monitoring for the Antelope Mine. Any former or new use areas within the final

configuration of the West Antelope LBA Tract will be included in a USFWSapproved mitigation plan that will be incorporated into Antelope Mine’s

WDEQ/LQD mine permit.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Issuing a federal coal lease for the West Antelope LBA Tract under the Proposed

Action or Alternatives 2 or 3 would impact typical suitable habitat for mountain

plover that is currently located on the tract, but would not be likely to jeopardize

the species in this area. Mountain plovers regularly nest and stage in a blacktailed prairie dog colony that straddles the southern boundary of the tract.

Potential impacts to mountain plovers would include loss of habitat and

displacement to suitable habitat nearby. However, depending on the timing of the

disturbance, such impacts may be mitigated to some extent by natural

circumstances.

The mountain plovers that frequent the LBA tract are almost exclusively found in

a small prairie dog colony that straddles the southern boundary of the tract. The

birds typically use a 15-acre portion of the colony of which about five acres occur

on the LBA tract. It is possible that during the interim between applying for the

lease and mining the LBA, the prairie dog colony may naturally expand. If the

expansion was to the south, it could increase the quantity of plover habitat

beyond the LBA boundary prior to any losses. If prairie dogs do not voluntarily

expand to the south prior to mining the LBA tract, those animals that survive may

do so after the initial development activities begin. Mountain plovers may also

choose to move from this prairie dog colony to a similar colony approximately one

mile to the southeast. However, such a move could result in conflicts and

competition for resources with the mountain plovers that already inhabit that

colony. Alternatively, mountain plovers may move from the prairie dog colony

near the south boundary of the LBA tract to a similar area of naturally sparse
Appendix G

G-26 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

vegetation roughly one mile due south of the current colony. Adult and young

mountain plovers have infrequently been seen in that area in recent years.

TWC states the following within Antelope Mine’s 2001 Annual Wildlife Monitoring

Report to the WDEQ/LQD: “Given the species’ willingness to return to areas

disturbed by mining, the long-term stability of the number of breeding pairs in the

area, and the quantity of apparently suitable but unoccupied habitat in the area,

it seems that mining operations at Antelope are not adversely impacting mountain

plovers”.

If a lease is issued for this LBA tract, mining operations could not be initiated

until the MLA mining plan and the state mining and reclamation permit are

approved. Prior to permit approval, additional surveys and consultation with

USFWS would be required. Antelope Mine’s currently approved mining and

reclamation plan and migratory bird mitigation plan both include measures

designed to reduce potential impacts to this species and guide the reclamation of

its habitat. Antelope Mine has worked with USFWS to revise and refine the

specific measures to be used during protection and reclamation efforts, as well as

the acreage to be reclaimed. A new plan was recently developed and is awaiting

final approval by the USFWS prior to being incorporated into Antelope Mine’s

permit document. That plan would be updated and submitted to the USFWS and

WDEQ/LQD for approval if the West Antelope LBA Tract is leased and approved

for mining.

Candidate Species

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

Habitat and/or Occurrences

In 2000, TWC mapped the current acreage of prairie dog colonies in the vicinity

of the Antelope Mine by walking the perimeters of colonies and delineating them

on topographic maps. Approximately 110 acres of black-tailed prairie dog

colonies, in four small colonies, are currently present on and within a half mile of

the West Antelope LBA Tract as proposed and the area added by Alternative 2.

Two colonies are included in, or overlap the LBA tract under the Proposed Action;

one in the north-central part and one in the south-central part. Both areas were

described in the discussion of mountain plovers above. A third colony covers

roughly 2.5 acres in the southwest corner of the area added by Alternative 2. That

colony was established in 2000, presumably by survivors of the poisoning efforts

that apparently took place in the northern-most colony within the LBA tract in the

fall/winter of 1999. The fourth colony consists of the remains of a colony that was

disturbed by mining just beyond the east-central boundary of the LBA tract. In
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-27

addition to these four colonies in the immediate vicinity of the West Antelope LBA

Tract, at least four more small colonies are known to exist within the same

complex (4.7-mile radius) in that area.

Effects of the Proposed Project

If a federal coal lease is issued for the West Antelope LBA Tract under the

Proposed Action or Alternative 2, there would likely be direct and indirect effects

on individuals and colonies of the black-tailed prairie dog because all or portions

of three small colonies are currently located on the tract and lands added under

Alternative 2: two on the tract as proposed and one on the Alternative 2 area, but

would not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of this species in this

area. Much of the largest colony lies outside of the proposed lease area. The

majority of the prairie dog colony acreage on the tract would be lost during the

mining process. It may be possible to preserve some portions in the largest colony

at the southern edge of the tract. Any surviving animals could then serve as a

source of prairie dogs for re-colonization of the mine area during and after

reclamation.

If a lease is issued for the tract, mining operations could not be initiated until the

MLA mining plan and the state mining and reclamation permit are approved.

Prior to permit approval, additional surveys would be required. The results of

such surveys would be reviewed by USFWS before mining could proceed. Habitat

where prairie dogs could establish towns would be lost during mining but would

be replaced as reclamation occurs on already mined areas.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION

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

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

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

operations. No operations can occur on the leased lands until the approval of

both the MLA mining plan and the state mining and reclamation permit under the

applicable Wyoming state regulations (Section 1.2). If the NARO North, NARO

South, Little Thunder, West Roundup, and West Antelope LBA Tracts are leased,

they would be maintenance leases for existing mines with currently approved MLA

mining plans and state mining and reclamation permits. In the case of

maintenance leases, the existing MLA mining plans and state mining and

reclamation plans must be modified to include the newly leased areas before they

can be mined. 

As part of the application and approval process for MLA mining plans and state

mining and reclamation permits, coal lessees are required to conduct additional

surveys and other evaluations as needed to ensure compliance with the ESA. The

USFWS will again be consulted during the permit application review process.
Appendix G

G-28 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Permit applications are based on an actual detailed site-specific mining and

reclamation proposal and the most current survey information.

The following is a partial list of measures that are required as part of the mining

and reclamation permits:

• avoiding bald eagle disturbance;

• restoring bald eagle foraging areas disturbed by mining;

• restoring mountain plover habitat;

• using raptor safe power lines;

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

• surveying for mountain plover if habitat is present; and

• surveying for black-footed ferrets in prairie dog towns potentially affected

by mining.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Existing activities in the PRB that are contributing to cumulative effects to T&E

plant and wildlife species include surface coal mining; conventional and CBM oil

and gas development; uranium mining; sand, gravel, and scoria mining; ranching;

agriculture; road, railroad, and power plant construction; recreational activities;

and rural and urban housing development. Mining and construction activities

and urban development tend to have more intense impacts on fairly localized

areas, while ranching, recreational activities, and oil and gas development tend

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

mining activities have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as

resources are depleted. The net area of energy disturbance in the Wyoming PRB

is increasing overall; however, as new areas of disturbance are added, mined-out

areas are restored and reclaimed, and oil and gas well sites are reclaimed when

depleted oil and gas wells are abandoned.

The total acreage affected by coal mining and oil and gas development would not

be disturbed simultaneously, because development would occur over the life of the

operations. Some of the disturbed acreage would be reclaimed or would be in the

process of being reclaimed when new disturbances are initiated. In the near

future, the amount of disturbed T&E plant and wildlife habitats is likely to

increase, although reclamation would eventually overtake new development.

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

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

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

native vegetation and hinder reclamation efforts. If weed mitigation and

preventative procedures are applied to all construction and reclamation practices,

the impact of noxious weeds on T&E plants and wildlife would be minimized. 
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-29

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/LQD). The majority of the approved species are native to the area;

however, reclaimed areas may not serve ecosystem functions presently served by

undisturbed vegetation communities and habitats, particularly in the short-term,

when species composition, shrub cover, and other environmental factors are likely

to be different. Establishment of noxious weeds and alteration of vegetation in

reclaimed areas has the potential to alter T&E plant and wildlife habitat

composition and distribution. As a result, shifts in habitat composition or

distribution may affect T&E plant and wildlife species in the PRB.
Appendix G

G-30 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

USFS REGION 2 SENSITIVE AND MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

Species that have been identified by the Regional Forester as sensitive species and

management indicator species (MIS) must be considered for the three LBA tracts

that include USFS lands (NARO North, Little Thunder, and West Roundup).

USFS REGION 2 SENSITIVE SPECIES

The USFS classifies species as “Sensitive” when they meet one or more of the

following three criteria: 1) the species is declining in numbers or occurrences, and

evidence indicates it could be proposed for federal listing as threatened or

endangered if action is not taken to reverse or stop the downward trend; 2) the

species’ habitat is declining, and continued loss could result in population

declines that lead to federal listing as threatened or endangered if action is not

taken to reverse or stop the decline; and 3) the species’ population or habitat is

stable but limited. In addition to these criteria, a ranking system is used to

identify species for Sensitive status, which is outlined in USFS Manual 2670-

2671. Table 1 lists species that have been identified as “Sensitive” for USFS

Region 2.

The USFS Douglas Ranger District has reviewed the entire list of animal and plant

sensitive species for USFS Region 2 and eliminated those species that occur on

the TBNG, but are outside of any effects of the proposal (geographically or

biologically), from further review. The species listed in Table 2 will be evaluated

for potential effects from the proposed actions and alternatives. These species

have been identified as potentially inhabiting the project planning area or

potentially affected by the proposed action.

HABITAT AND OCCURRENCES ON AND NEAR THE NARO NORTH, LITTLE

THUNDER, AND WEST ROUNDUP LBA TRACTS

Site-specific data on the occurrence of USFS sensitive species on the NARO North,

Little Thunder, and West Roundup LBA Tracts were obtained from WDEQ/LQD

permit applications and annual reports for the North Antelope/Rochelle Complex,

Black Thunder Mine, North Rochelle Mine, and other mines in this area. Wildlife

surveys have been conducted on the LBA tracts during baseline and annual

monitoring surveys for the existing mines, which include each mine’s current

permit area and a two-mile surrounding area. In addition, PRCC conducted

wildlife baseline investigations in 2000 on the NARO North LBA Tract. Only

limited fisheries and aquatics studies have been conducted for the NARO North,

Little Thunder, and West Roundup LBA Tracts. Fish sampling was conducted

during baseline studies for the North Antelope and Rochelle Mines in the late

1970s, the North Rochelle Mine in 1980-81, and the Little Thunder LBA Tract in
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-31

Table 1. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species List (provided by USFS June 2002).

Latin Name Common Name

Status on

TBNG

PLANTS

Pyrrocoma carthamoides var.

subsquarqrrosus

Absaroka goldenweed

Malaxis brachypoda Adder's-mouth

Parthenium alpinum Alpine feverfew

Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum Altai cottongrass

Adenocaulon bicolor American trail plant

Corallorhiza odontorhiza Autumn coralroot

Salix serissima Autumn willow

Austragalus proximus Aztec milk-vetch

Gilia penstemonoides Beardtongue gilia

Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot

Eriogonum brandegie Brandegee wild-buckwheat

Penstemon caryi Cary beardtongue

Cypripedium fasciculatum Clustered lady’s-slipper

Aletes humilis Colorado aletes

Gaura neomexicana coloradoensis Colorado butterfly plant

Ptilagrostis mongholica porteri Colorado false needle grass

Frasera coloradensis Colorado gentian

Machaeranthera coloradoensis Colorado tansy-aster

Scirpus cyperinus Cottongrass bulrush

Townsendia condensate var. anomela Cushion townsend-daisy

Eriogonum visheri Dakota wild-buckwheat

Phacelia scopulina var. submutica Debeque scorpion-weed

Penstemon degeneri Degener’s penstemon

Asclepias unicalis Dwarf milkweed

Equisetum scirpoides Dwarf scouring-rush

Carex alopecoidea Fox-tail sedge

Lesquerella fremontii Fremont's bladderpod

Potentilla effusa var. rupincola Front Range cinquefoil

Epipactis gigantea Giant helleborine

Ipomopsis globularis Globe gilia

Carex intumescens Greater bladder sedge

Viola selkirkii Great-spurred violet

Primula egaliksensis Greenland primrose

Austragalus anisus Gunnison milk-vetch

Festuca hallii Hall's fescue

Sullivantia hapemanii var. purpusii Hapeman's coolwort (Colorado)

Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii Hapeman's coolwort (Wyoming)

Penstemon harringtonii Harrington’s beardtongue

Salix lanata calcicola Hulten wooly willow

Ipomopsis spicata robruthii Kirkpatrick ipomopsis

Aquilegia laramiensis Laramie columbine

Sphaeromeria simplex Laramie false sagebrush

Platanthera orbiculata Large round-leaf orchid

Table 1. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species List (provided by USFS June 2002)

(Continued).
Appendix G

G-32 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Latin Name Common Name

Status on

TBNG

Carex livida Livid sedge

Carex pedunculata Long-stalk sedge

Muhlenbergia glomerata March muhly

Astragalus molybdenus Molybdenum milk-vetch

Salix myrtillifolia var. myrtillifolia Myrtle-leaf willow

Parrya nudicaulis Naked-stem wallflower

Botrychium lineare Narrow-leaved moonwort

Arnica lonchophylla Northern arnica

Rubus arcticus acaulis Northern blackberry

Ipomopsis polyantha var. polyantha Pagosa skyrockets

Lesquerella pruinosa Pagosa Springs bladderpod

Botrychium campestre Pale moonwort

Agoseris lackschewitzii Pink agoseris

Botrychium campestre Prairie moonwort

Arctostaphylos rebra Red manzanita

Botrychium echo Reflected moonwort

Astragalus ripleyi Ripley’s milk-vetch

Neoparrya lithophila Rock-loving aletes

Scirpus rollandii Rolland’s bulrush

Drosera rotundifolia Round-leaf sundew

Amerorchis rotundifolia Round-leaved orchid

Chenopodium cycloides Sandhill goosefoot

Armeria maritime var. siberica Sea pink

Shoshonea pulvinata Shoshonea

Draba smithii Smith's whitlow-grass

Braya glabella Smooth rockcress

Aster mollis Soft aster

Adiantum capillus-veneris Southern maidenhair fern

Ambrosia linearis Streaked ragweed

Lycopodium complanatum Trailing clubmoss

Lycopodium dendroideum Treelike clubmoss

Botrychium ascendens Upward-lobe moonwort

Mimulus gemmiparus Weber's monkey-flower

Ipomopsis aggregata Weber's scarlet-gilia

Descurainia torulosa Wind River tansy-mustard

Erigeron lanatus Wooly fleabane

FISH

Hybopsis aestivalis tetranemus Chub, Arkansas River speckled

Platygobio gracilis Chub, flathead K

Hybopsis meeki Chub, sicklefin

Phoxinus erythrogaster Dace, southern red belly 

Etheostoma cragini Darter, Arkansas

Fundulus diaphanus Killfish, banded

Notropis girardi Shiner, Arkansas River

Cyleptus elongatus Sucker, blue

Fundulus sciadicus Topminnow, plains K

Table 1. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species List (provided by USFS June 2002)

(Continued).

Latin Name Common Name

Status on

TBNG
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-33

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) clarki pleuriticus Trout, Colorado River cutthroat

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) clarki virginalis Trout, Rio Grande cutthroat

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) clarki bouveri Trout, Yellowstone cutthroat

INVERTEBRATES

Speyenia idalia Butterfly, regal fritillary

Phyciodes batesii Butterfly, tawny crescent S

Acronicta albarufa Moth, albarufan dagger

Ethmia monachella Moth, lost ethmiid

Decodes stevensi Moth, Stevens' tortricid

Discus shimeki cockerellii Snail, Cockerell's striate disc

Oreohelix strigosa cooperi Snail, Cooper’s Rocky Mountain

Acroloxus coloradensis Snail, Rocky Mountain capshell

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Rana pipiens Frog, northern leopard K

Rana pretiosa Frog, spotted

Rana sylvatica Frog, wood

Phrynosoma cornutum Lizard, Texas horned

Ambystoma tigrinum Salamander, tiger K

Storeria occipitomeoculatae pahasapae Snake, Black Hills redbellied

Arizona elegans blanchardi Snake, Kansas glossy

Tropidoclonion lineatum Snake, lined

Lampropeltis triangulum multistrata Snake, pale milk S

Diadophis punctatus arnyi Snake, prairie ringneck

Leptotyphlops dulcis Snake, Texas blind

Rhinocheilus lecontei tessellatus Snake, Texas longnosed

Bufo boreas boreas Toad, boreal western

Kinosternon flavescens flavescens Turtle, yellow mud

MAMMALS

Euderma maculatum Bat, spotted

Plecotus townsendii Bat, Townsend's big-eared K

Martes pennanti Fisher

Vulpes velox Fox, swift K

Thomonys fuscus Gopher, Wyoming pocket

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus alleni Ground squirrel, Allen’s thirteenlined

Felis lynx canadensis Lynx, North American

Marmota flaviventris notioros Marmot, Wet Mountains yellowbellied

Martes americana Marten

Zapus hudsonicus preblei Mouse, Prebles’ meadow jumping

Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis Myotis, fringe-tailed S

Cynomys ludovicianus Prairie dog, black-tailed K

Bassariscus astutus Ringtail

Sorex nanus Shrew, dwarf

Microsorex hoyi montanus Shrew, pygmy

Conepatus mesoleucus figginsi Skunk, Colorado hognosed

Table 1. USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species List (provided by USFS June 2002)

(Continued).

Latin Name Common Name

Status on

TBNG

Microtus richardsoni Vole, water

Mustela rixosa Weasel, least
Appendix G

G-34 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine, North American

BIRDS

Botaurus lentiginosus Bittern, American U

Grus canadensis Crane, greater sandhill

Coccyzus americanus Cuckoo, western yellow-billed K

Numenius americanus Curlew, long-billed K

Histrionicus histrionicus Duck, harlequin

Contopus borealis Flycatcher, olive-sided flycatcher

Epidonax trailii extimus Flycatcher, southwestern willow

Accipiter gentilis apache Goshawk, Apache northern

Accipiter gentilis Goshawk, northern K

Tympanachus phasianellus columbianus Grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed

Buteo regalis Hawk, ferruginous K

Plegadis chihi Ibis, white-faced K

Regulus satrapa Kinglet, golden-crowned

Gavia immer Loon, common K

Progne subis Martin, purple

Falco columbarius Merlin K

Sitta pygmaea Nuthatch, pygmy

Pandion haliaetus Osprey U

Aegolius funereus Owl, boreal

Otus flammeolus Owl, Flammulated

Athene cunicularia Owl, western burrowing K

Tympanachus pallidicinctus Prairie chicken, lesser

Charadrius montanus Plover, mountain K

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Plover, western snowy

Tympanachus cupido Prairie chicken, greater

Bartramia longicauda Sandpiper, upland K

Lanius ludovicianus Shrike, loggerhead K

Ammodramus bairdii Sparrow, Baird's K

Passerella iliaca Sparrow, fox K

Cygnus buccinator Swan, trumpeter

Cypseloides niger Swift, black

Chlidonias niger Tern, black K

Picoides tridactylus Woodpecker, three-toed

Picoides arcticus Woodpecker, black-backed

Melanerpes lewis Woodpecker, Lewis' K

Status Codes:

K = Known occurrence in vicinity. Date of last observation indicates that species still occurs in area.

N = No recent observations; surveys recently completed; may be historic records; potential habitat

possible.

S = Suspected occurrence. May be historic records but no recent observations. Suitable habitat

likely.

U = Unknown occurrence, more surveys may be needed, may be historic records, potential habitat

possible.
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-35

Table 2. USFS Region 2 Listed Sensitive Species That May Occur in the

TBNG or be Impacted by Leasing the NARO North, Little Thunder,

and West Roundup LBA Tracts (provided by USFS Douglas Ranger

District, September 2002).

Name

Status in

TBNG Habitat and Occurrence in TBNG 

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES

Northern leopard frog

Rana pipens

K Shallow, permanent, or semi-permanent standing

water with at least some emergent vegetation

(Wagner 1997). Deeper lakes or ponds with welloxygenated water that does not freeze at bottom

required for over wintering (Wagner 1997). Found

throughout Wyoming (Baxter and Stone 1980, Luce

et al. 1999).

Tiger salamander 

Ambystoma tigrinum

K Sagebrush plains, forests, and meadows near water

including riparian areas, streams, wetlands, ponds.

Relatively common throughout Wyoming (Baxter and

Stone 1980, Luce et al. 1999), documented during

annual wildlife surveys for the Antelope Mine, Black

Thunder Mine, and North Rochelle Mine.

FISH

Flathead chub

Hybopsis gracilis

S Documented in Antelope Creek and other tributary

drainages during late 1970’s water resource surveys.

Plains topminnow

Fundulus sciadicus

U Species known from northeast Colorado and eastern

Wyoming.

Banded killifish

Fundulus diaphanus

U Species known from northeast Nebraska.

MAMMALS

Black tailed prairie dog

Cynomys ludovicianus

K Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands. Relatively abundant

in Campbell County. The TBNG harbors one of the

seven major colony complexes remaining in North

America.

Swift fox

Vulpes velox

K Flat to gently rolling, short or mixed grass prairies,

generally lacking in shrubs or woody vegetation

(Cotterill 1997). Swift foxes use multiple den sites

year-round for shelter, protection from predators,

and rearing young.

BIRDS

Burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia

K Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub. Requires burrows,

primarily of badgers and prairie dogs, for nesting and

roosting (Haug et al. 1993). Summer resident of

open rangeland habitats throughout Wyoming,

including the TBNG (Luce et al. 1999). Most

burrowing owl nests in the TBNG are found in prairie

dog colonies.

Ferruginous hawk

Buteo regalis

K Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, rock outcrops.

Construct platform stick nest in trees, on cliff ledges,

or on ground. Summer TBNG resident.

Loggerhead shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

K Relatively open, heterogeneous habitats with perches

for hunting and thorns, sharp twigs, or barbed wire

for impaling prey (Yosef 1996). Common summer

resident throughout Wyoming (Luce et al. 1999).
Appendix G

G-36 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-37

Table 2. USFS Region 2 Listed Sensitive Species That May Occur in the

TBNG or be Impacted by Leasing the NARO North, Little Thunder,

and West Roundup LBA Tracts (provided by USFS Douglas Ranger

District, September 2002) (Continued).

Name

Status in

TBNG Habitat and Occurrence in TBNG 

Long-billed curlew

Numenius americanus

K Grasslands, plains foothills, wet meadows, prefers to

nest in areas with large open expanses of grassland,

with relatively low vegetation, bare ground, and few

shrubs (Hill 1998). Relatively uncommon summer

resident of grasslands and sagebrush-grasslands in

Wyoming (Luce et al. 1999).

Upland sandpiper

Bartramia longicauda

K Prairies and meadows. Uncommon summer resident

of the eastern plains of Wyoming, including the

TBNG (Luce et al. 1999). 

Status Codes:

K = Known occurrence in vicinity. Date of last observation indicates that species still

occurs in area.

S = Suspected occurrence. May be historic records but no recent observations. Suitable

habitat likely.

U = Unknown occurrence, more surveys may be needed, may be historic records, potential

habitat possible.

2002. The West Antelope LBA Tract does not include and TBNG lands

administered by USFS, but more extensive fisheries and aquatics studies have

been conducted along Antelope Creek and its tributaries for the Antelope Mine.

The following discussion summarizes the results of these studies. Commonwealth

Associates, Inc. conducted baseline aquatic studies for ACC in late September

1978 and mid-June 1979. The surveys included four sites on Antelope Creek (one

upstream of the mine, one downstream, and two within the mine area) and one

site on Horse Creek, a tributary of Antelope Creek, near its confluence with

Antelope Creek. Of the three fish species listed in Table 2, the flathead chub

(Platygobio gracilis), plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus), and the banded

killifish (Fundulus diaphanus), only the flathead chub was recorded in Antelope

Creek during these baseline surveys (Commonwealth Associates, Inc. 1980). This

species was described as “relatively common”, but it constituted less than five

percent of the stream catch relative abundance during either survey period. It

was not collected at the station upstream from the mine, where water was nearly

absent during both sampling periods. No fish were found in Horse Creek but

Commonwealth Associates Inc. speculated that many of the fishes that inhabit

Antelope Creek probably could also be found in Horse Creek during periods of

stream flow. In 1998, minnow traps were placed in two pools in Horse Creek as

part of baseline studies for the Horse Creek LBA Tract. The only species captured

in the traps was the green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). 

The flathead chub was also collected in Antelope Creek during studies by Wesche

et al. (1978). Those studies occurred from 1975 through 1977 and included the

stretch of Antelope Creek from its mouth upstream to about the middle of the
Appendix G

G-38 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Antelope Mine permit area (about the uppermost extent of where this species was

detected during the Antelope Mine baseline studies). None of the three species

were collected in Porcupine Reservoir, a 40 to 50 acre impoundment near the

mouth of Porcupine Creek, a small tributary to Antelope Creek, during studies

conducted by Ecology Consultants, Inc. in 1977.

According to the baseline report for Antelope Mine, Baxter and Simon (1970)

reported the presence of plains topminnows in Cheyenne River headwater

streams, and suggest they were probably introduced (Antelope Creek is a

headwater stream of the Cheyenne River). The baseline report does not name the

specific headwater streams where Baxter and Simon found this species.

NARO North LBA Tract

Stretches of two tributaries to Porcupine Creek (Boss Draw and Corder Creek)

cross USFS land in the NARO North LBA Tract, and the Porcupine Creek valley

passes between USFS land in Sections 26 and 35, T.42N., R.71W. Porcupine

Creek is a tributary of Antelope Creek, which is located approximately seven miles

south of the NARO North LBA Tract. Porcupine Creek is an ephemeral to

intermittent stream, which includes isolated deeper pools that tend to go dry

during drought periods. Boss Draw and Corder Creek are small ephemeral

drainages, which do not support fisheries under natural conditions. The addition

of produced water from CBM wells in the area could increase aquatic habitat for

fish species in this area if sufficient water is produced to create a perennial flow

in Antelope Creek and any of its tributaries. TWC does not have complete

aquatics baseline reports from the North Antelope and Rochelle Mines’ permit

document, although portions they do have indicate no records of USFS sensitive

fish species.

Wetland habitats suitable for the northern leopard frog and tiger salamander are

very limited in the vicinity of the NARO North LBA Tract. Livestock grazing and

annual desiccation further limit the suitability of wetlands for the leopard frog.

However, both species have been documented in the area. Leopard frogs were

documented during original baseline surveys for the North Antelope and Rochelle

Mines in the late 1970s. In April 1996, one leopard frog was seen in a pool along

an ephemeral drainage just southeast of the North Antelope/Rochelle Complex

permit area. Tiger salamander larvae were observed in a pool along Porcupine

Creek during 2001.

No prairie dog colonies are located on the NARO North LBA Tract. One colony is

located in SW1⁄4 of Section 26, T.42N., R.71W., approximately one half-mile from

USFS lands included in the tract.

Habitats in the vicinity of the NARO North LBA tract are marginal (relatively dense

sagebrush stands) for the swift fox. Sightings are rare in southern Campbell

County. The species has only been documented once by TWC biologists during
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-39

22 years of wildlife studies at coal mines in the PRB. On the night of March 27,

2002, one swift fox was observed trotting beside the relocated Reno county road

in SW1⁄4 SE1⁄4 of Section 15, T.42N., R.70W.

Burrowing owls have nested in the area but no nests have been documented on

the NARO North LBA tract. Although no prairie dog colonies exist on the tract,

owls could potentially nest in badger burrows.

There are three active ferruginous hawk nests located on USFS lands on the tract,

and others are located within two miles. There are not abundant nesting sites for

the loggerhead shrike on the NARO North LBA Tract, but they have been

documented to nest on and adjacent to the tract. Upland sandpipers are relatively

uncommon in the North Antelope/Rochelle Complex area but suitable habitat is

abundant. Long-billed curlews have only been documented a few times in the

area and suitable habitat is quite limited.

Little Thunder LBA Tract

A portion of the Little Thunder Creek drainage between Little Thunder Reservoir

and Reno Reservoir crosses USFS land in Section 24, T.43N., R.71W. Little

Thunder Creek is an ephemeral tributary to Black Thunder Creek, which is a

tributary to the South Fork of the Cheyenne River. Little Thunder Creek does not

support fisheries under natural conditions, however, CBM development could

increase habitat for fish species if sufficient water is produced to create a

perennial flow in Little Thunder Creek or its tributaries. No USFS sensitive fish

species have been documented in the vicinity of the Little Thunder LBA Tract.

Wetland habitats suitable for the northern leopard frog and tiger salamander are

limited in the vicinity of the Little Thunder LBA Tract. Livestock grazing and

annual desiccation further limit the suitability of wetlands for the leopard frog.

However, both species have been documented in the area. Leopard frogs were

apparently relatively abundant along Little Thunder Creek during original baseline

surveys for the Black Thunder Mine in 1974. The species has only been recorded

once since that time. Both adult and larval tiger salamanders were observed

southeast of the Little Thunder LBA Tract in 2001 and 2002. Larvae were also

found along North Prong Little Thunder Creek about two miles northwest of the

LBA tract in 2002.

No prairie dog colonies are located on the Little Thunder LBA Tract. The nearest

colonies are more than one mile away.

Habitats in the vicinity of the Little Thunder LBA Tract are marginal (relatively

dense sagebrush stands) for the swift fox. Sightings are rare in southern

Campbell County. The species has only been documented once by TWC biologists

during 22 years of wildlife studies at coal mines in the PRB. On the night of
Appendix G

G-40 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

March 27, 2002, one swift fox was observed approximately five miles southeast of

the proposed lease area.

Burrowing owls have nested in the area but no nests have been documented on

the Little Thunder LBA Tract. Although no prairie dog colonies exist on the tract,

owls could potentially nest in badger burrows.

Five active ferruginous hawk nests are located on or in close proximity to USFS

lands within the Little Thunder LBA Tract. The loggerhead shrike has been

documented in the area but nesting habitat on the LBA tract is very limited.

Upland sandpipers are relatively uncommon in the Black Thunder Mine area but

suitable habitat is abundant. Long-billed curlews have only been documented a

few times in the area and suitable habitat is quite limited.

West Roundup LBA Tract

A portion of the Trussler Creek drainage crosses USFS land in Sections 8 and 9,

T.42N., R.70W., and a small portion of Olson Draw, a tributary to Trussler Creek

crosses USFS land in Section 7, T.42N., R.70W. Trussler Creek is a tributary of

Little Thunder Creek. Little Thunder Creek is a tributary of Black Thunder Creek,

which is a tributary of the South Fork of the Cheyenne River. Olson Draw and

Trussler Creek are ephemeral streams, which do not support fisheries under

natural conditions, however, CBM development could increase habitat for fish

species if sufficient water is produced to create a perennial flow in Little Thunder

Creek or its tributaries. No USFS sensitive fish species have been documented in

the vicinity of the West Roundup LBA Tract.

Wetland habitats suitable for the northern leopard frog and tiger salamander are

very limited in the vicinity of the West Roundup LBA Tract. Livestock grazing and

annual desiccation further limit the suitability of wetlands for the leopard frog.

That species has not been documented in the North Rochelle Mine area. Many

tiger salamander larvae were seen in several dugouts along Trussler Creek in the

SE1⁄4 of Section 5, T.42N., R.70W. during July 2001. During a light rain storm on

the night of August 9, 2001, at least 10 adult salamanders were seen crossing the

Reno road (paved county road) adjacent to the North Rochelle Mine railroad spur.

In May 2002, two desiccated salamanders were found at a burrowing owl nest

north of the Reno road in Section 5, T.42N., R.70W.

No prairie dog colonies are located on USFS lands included in the West Roundup

LBA Tract. One small colony (less than three acres) is located just north of the

USFS Special Use Permit area for the North Rochelle Mine in the SE1⁄4 of Section

5, T.42N., R.70W.

Habitats in the vicinity of the West Roundup LBA Tract are marginal (relatively

dense sagebrush stands) for the swift fox. Sightings are rare in southern

Campbell County. The species has only been documented once by TWC biologists
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-41

during 22 years of wildlife studies at coal mines in the PRB. On the night of

March 27, 2002, one swift fox was observed approximately two miles southeast

of the proposed lease area.

Burrowing owls have nested in the area but no nests have been documented on

the West Roundup LBA Tract. Although no prairie dog colonies exist on the tract,

owls could potentially nest in badger burrows. There are two active ferruginous

hawk nests located on the LBA tract and a third is within a half mile of the tract.

The loggerhead shrike has been documented in the area but nesting habitat on

the LBA tract is very limited. Upland sandpipers are relatively uncommon in the

North Rochelle Mine area but suitable habitat is abundant. Long-billed curlews

have only been documented a few times in the area and suitable habitat is quite

limited.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ON SENSITIVE SPECIES

The following discussion is a preliminary evaluation of the potential direct and

indirect environmental effects on USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species identified as

potentially inhabiting the USFS lands on the NARO North, Little Thunder, and

West Roundup LBA Tracts. A more detailed Biological Assessment and Biological

Evaluation Report, and Appraisal of Management Indicator Species is in

preparation for these LBA tracts, and will be available upon request prior to a

USFS decision to consent or not consent to leasing the USFS lands included in the

three tracts. In that report, USFS will make a determination regarding the

significance of any potential adverse impacts to USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species

if the three LBA tracts that include USFS lands are leased.

NARO North LBA Tract

Leasing and mining the NARO North LBA Tract is not expected to impact any of

the Region 2 sensitive fish species. The USFS lands included in this tract that

would be disturbed include short stretches of Boss Draw and Corder Creek, which

are ephemeral tributaries to Porcupine Creek, an ephemeral to intermittent

tributary to Antelope Creek. Boss Draw and Corder Creek do not support fisheries

under natural conditions. Produced water from CBM wells could temporarily

increase aquatic habitat for fish in this area. Antelope Creek and an adjacent

buffer zone would not be disturbed as a result of this leasing action or any of the

leasing actions included in this EIS. Surface runoff sediment from the mined

lands, which could affect water quality in Antelope Creek, would be deposited in

ponds or other sediment control devices located inside the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex permit area.

Leasing and mining are not expected to impact either the black-tailed prairie dog

or swift fox. There are no black-tailed prairie dog colonies located on the NARO

North LBA Tract, and swift fox do not appear to inhabit the lease area.
Appendix G

G-42 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Mining and associated activities have the potential to destroy nests and impact the

reproductive success of ferruginous hawks and other raptors nesting in the area.

However, PRCC has been diligent about avoiding and mitigating such impacts in

the past through a variety of means. PRCC has monitored nesting raptor

populations, maintained and implemented current USFWS approved Raptor

Mitigation Plans, adjusted operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers

around raptor nests, and ensured that new power transmission lines at the mine

conform to the Avian Powerline Interaction Commission guidelines (EEI/RRF

1996). Provided that those practices are continued, direct impacts on ferruginous

hawks are unlikely. Indirect impacts, such as the temporary loss of foraging

habitat during active mining, are not expected to negatively affect the survival or

reproductive success of any hawks.

Disturbance of habitats during mining could impact individual burrowing owls,

loggerhead shrikes, and upland sandpipers, but is not likely to cause a trend to

federal listing or loss of viability. PRCC can avoid direct impacts to burrowing

owls by continuing to monitor nesting raptor populations, maintaining and

implementing current USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plans, and taking

precautions to provide adequate temporal and spatial buffers around nests.

Assuming active shrike nests are not removed during the breeding season, direct

impacts on that species should be minimal. Suitable sandpiper habitat exists on

the LBA tract that could be eliminated by mining but direct impacts to individuals

are unlikely. Given the paucity of past observations and the marginal habitats

available in the area, impacts to the long-billed curlew are unlikely. 

Little Thunder LBA Tract

Leasing and mining the Little Thunder LBA Tract is not expected to impact any of

the Region 2 sensitive fish species. The USFS lands included in this tract that

would be disturbed includes a portion of the Little Thunder Creek drainage, which

is an ephemeral tributary of Black Thunder Creek, a tributary of the South Fork

of the Cheyenne River. Little Thunder Creek does not support fisheries under

natural conditions. Produced water from CBM wells could temporarily increase

aquatic habitat for fish in this area. Surface runoff sediment from the mined

lands, which could affect water quality downstream in Black Thunder Creek,

would be deposited in ponds or other sediment control devices located inside the

Black Thunder Mine permit area.

Leasing and mining are not expected to impact either the black-tailed prairie dog

or swift fox. There are no black-tailed prairie dog colonies located on the Little

Thunder LBA Tract, and swift fox do not appear to inhabit the lease area.

Mining and associated activities have the potential to destroy nests and impact the

reproductive success of ferruginous hawks and other raptors nesting in the area.

However, TBCC has been diligent about avoiding and mitigating such impacts in

the past through a variety of means. TBCC has monitored nesting raptor
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-43

populations, maintained and implemented current USFWS approved Raptor

Mitigation Plans, adjusted operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers

around raptor nests, and ensured that new power transmission lines at the mine

conform to the Avian Powerline Interaction Commission guidelines (EEI/RRF

1996). Provided that those practices are continued, direct impacts on ferruginous

hawks are unlikely. Indirect impacts, such as the temporary loss of foraging

habitat during active mining, are not expected to negatively affect the survival or

reproductive success of any hawks. 

Disturbance of habitats during mining could impact individual burrowing owls,

loggerhead shrikes, and upland sandpipers, but is not likely to cause a trend to

federal listing or loss of viability. TBCC can avoid direct impacts to burrowing

owls by continuing to monitor nesting raptor populations, maintaining and

implementing current USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plans, and taking

precautions to provide adequate temporal and spatial buffers around nests.

Assuming active shrike nests are not removed during the breeding season, direct

impacts on that species should be minimal. Suitable sandpiper habitat exists on

the LBA tract that could be eliminated by mining but direct impacts to individuals

are unlikely. Given the paucity of past observations and the marginal habitats

available in the area, impacts to the long-billed curlew are unlikely. 

West Roundup LBA Tract

Leasing and mining the West Roundup LBA Tract is not expected to impact any

of the Region 2 sensitive fish species. The USFS lands included in this tract that

would be disturbed includes portions of the Trussler Creek drainage. Trussler

Creek is an ephemeral tributary of Little Thunder Creek. Little Thunder Creek is

an ephemeral tributary of Black Thunder Creek, a tributary to the South Fork of

the Cheyenne River. Trussler Creek does not support fisheries under natural

conditions. Produced water from CBM wells could temporarily increase aquatic

habitat for fish in this area. Surface runoff sediment from the mined lands, which

could affect water quality downstream in Black Thunder Creek, would be

deposited in ponds or other sediment control devices located inside the North

Rochelle Mine permit area.

Leasing and mining are not expected to impact either the black-tailed prairie dog

or swift fox. There are no black-tailed prairie dog colonies located on the West

Roundup LBA Tract, and swift fox do not appear to inhabit the lease area.

Mining and associated activities have the potential to destroy nests and impact the

reproductive success of ferruginous hawks and other raptors nesting in the area.

However, TCC has been diligent about avoiding and mitigating such impacts in

the past through a variety of means. TCC has monitored nesting raptor

populations, maintained and implemented current USFWS approved Raptor

Mitigation Plans, adjusted operations to provide temporal and spatial buffers

around raptor nests, and ensured that new power transmission lines at the mine
Appendix G

G-44 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

conform to the Avian Powerline Interaction Commission guidelines (EEI/RRF

1996). Provided that those practices are continued, direct impacts on ferruginous

hawks are unlikely. Indirect impacts, such as the temporary loss of foraging

habitat during active mining, are not expected to negatively affect the survival or

reproductive success of any hawks.

Disturbance of habitats during mining could impact individual burrowing owls,

loggerhead shrikes, and upland sandpipers, but is not likely to cause a trend to

federal listing or loss of viability. TCC can avoid direct impacts to burrowing owls

by continuing to monitor nesting raptor populations, maintaining and

implementing current USFWS approved Raptor Mitigation Plans, and taking

precautions to provide adequate temporal and spatial buffers around nests.

Assuming active shrike nests are not removed during the breeding season, direct

impacts on that species should be minimal. Suitable sandpiper habitat exists on

the LBA tract that could be eliminated by mining but direct impacts to individuals

are unlikely. Given the paucity of past observations and the marginal habitats

available in the area, impacts to the long-billed curlew are unlikely.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS REGARDING SENSITIVE SPECIES

Through early 2002, the lands included in the NARO North, Little Thunder, and

West Roundup LBA Tracts have been used for agricultural livestock grazing and

hunting. In addition to the proposed project, future activities are likely to include:

coal bed methane gas exploration and development; hunting (possibly); livestock

grazing; and eventual surface coal mining and reclamation with native plant

species. 

No critical habitat for any USFS Sensitive Species has been delineated in the LBA

tracts. Except for surface coal mining, habitat disturbance associated with the

future activities likely to occur in the area will be minimal in extent and duration.

Any losses that do occur will eventually be mitigated by reclamation with native

seed mixes, which may improve habitat quality by reducing the presence of nonnative plants (e.g., crested wheatgrass) in the LBA tracts. Leasing the NARO

North, Little Thunder, and West Roundup LBA Tracts will not conflict with the

current Forest Plan, or any future objectives to manage the area and provide

habitat for Sensitive Species.

MITIGATION

Mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts to wildlife that are required by

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and state law are included in

Table 4-16 of this EIS. They include:
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-45

C using raptor-safe power lines;

C designing fences to permit wildlife passage;

C creating artificial raptor nest sites;

• relocating raptor nests and taking other actions to maintain active nesting

pairs;

C restoring premining topography to the maximum extent possible;

C planting a diverse mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs in configurations

beneficial to wildlife; and

C building and maintaining sediment control ponds or other sediment control

devices during mining.

MONITORING

Wildlife monitoring has been and will be conducted annually by the North

Antelope/Rochelle Complex, Black Thunder Mine, and North Rochelle Mine as

part of the requirements of their existing mining and reclamation permits. These

permits will be amended to include the NARO North, Little Thunder, and West

Roundup LBA Tracts, respectively, if the tracts are leased as proposed under the

Proposed Action or Action Alternatives.
Appendix G

G-46 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

USFS MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

As part of the development of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the

TBNG (USFS 2002a), the USFS identified Management Indicator Species (MIS)

using seven criteria, which are listed in Appendix B of the Final EIS for the

Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision (USFS 2001). MIS are “plant

or animal species selected because their population changes are believed to

indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major

biological communities or on water quality”. Currently, no plants, fish, or

invertebrates are listed as MIS for the TBNG.

Table 3-128 of the Final EIS for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans

Revision for the TBNG (USFS 2001) lists three MIS species that were selected by

the USFS for the TBNG. These three species are sage grouse, black-tailed prairie

dog, and plains sharp-tailed grouse.

Appropriate year-round habitat for the plains sharp-tailed grouse is not available

in the vicinity of the NARO North, Little Thunder, or West Roundup LBA Tracts.

Sharp-tailed grouse have occasionally been observed in the General Analysis Area,

but not on any of the LBA tracts.

Sage grouse monitoring has occurred within the area since 1967. The overall

indication is a decreasing population trend. Sage grouse generally do not respond

positively to human activities and disturbances. The decline in sage grouse across

its range has been attributed, in part, to loss in habitat and increased human

disturbances during critical periods of its life cycle. These periods include

breeding, nesting, and in some cases during stressful periods due to winter

conditions.

There are currently no active sage grouse leks on the NARO North, Little Thunder,

or West Roundup LBA Tracts. The nearest lek to the Little Thunder and West

Roundup tracts is the Black Thunder lek (NE1⁄4 NW1⁄4 of Section 31, T.31N.,

R.70W.). That lek has not been attended by grouse since 1993. The four known

sage grouse leks that comprise the Rochelle lek complex are located near the

NARO North LBA Tract. Two of those leks are active (Payne and Kort) and two

have not been attended since at least 1999 (Wilson and Rochelle). The Payne and

Kort leks are located in NE1⁄4 NW1⁄4 of Section 26, T.42N., R.70W. and SE1⁄4 SW1⁄4

of Section 31, T.42N., R.69W., respectively. Surveys in 2002 yielded peak counts

of 18 and five males on the Payne and Kort leks, respectively.

Because of its proximity to two active leks, development of the NARO North LBA

Tract has the most potential to directly affect sage grouse. Potential impacts

include: the destruction of active nests during topsoil removal, mortalities caused

by additional vehicle traffic, and displacement of grouse from their core home

range. Collectively, those factors could diminish the survival and reproductive

success of grouse, resulting in a decline of the Rochelle sage grouse population.
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-47

If precautions are taken to avoid direct mortalities and disturbances to nests and

leks during the breeding season, grouse will have the opportunity to disperse away

from mine activities. 

The range of sagebrush density and height on all three LBA tracts represents

potential year-round habitat for sage grouse. Consequently, development of those

tracts could potentially affect grouse through habitat disturbance and

degradation. Mining could potentially eliminate all suitable habitat within the

lease areas. Although sagebrush is seeded on reclaimed lands, the low

recruitment and slow growth rate of sagebrush will render those areas unsuitable

for grouse for at least several decades. The construction of new powerlines could

diminish the value of otherwise suitable habitats by providing additional perching

opportunities for golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) and thus increasing the

predation risk to grouse in those areas.

The black-tailed prairie dog is a “candidate” for possible federal listing. According

to the Northern Great Plains Management Plan Revision Final EIS (USFS 2001),

long-term population trends for black-tailed prairie dogs on the national

grasslands are down. Primary threats include habitat loss and deterioration as

a result of cultivation, urban sprawl and fragmentation. However, as indicated in

the previous discussion of USFS Region 2 Sensitive Species, the TBNG harbors

one of the seven major black-tailed prairie dog colony complexes remaining in

North America.

The occurrence of black-tailed prairie dogs on the NARO North, Little Thunder,

and West Roundup LBA Tracts was discussed in the previous section on USFS

Region 2 Sensitive Species.
Appendix G

G-48 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION

BLM Wyoming has prepared a list of sensitive species to focus species

management efforts towards maintaining habitats under a multiple use mandate.

The authority for this policy and guidance comes from the ESA, as amended; Title

II of the Sikes Act, as amended; the FLPMA; and the Department Manual

235.1.1A., General Program Delegation, Director, BLM.

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.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Under the Proposed Action, BLM will hold separate leases for the federal coal

lands in the NARO North and NARO South LBA Tracts as applied for by PRCC, the

Little Thunder LBA Tract as applied for by Ark Land Company (ALC), the West

Roundup LBA Tract as applied for by TCC, and the West Antelope LBA Tract as

applied for by ACC (see Figures 2-1 through 2-4 and the land descriptions in

Section 2.1). There are actually five Proposed Actions, one for each of the LBA

tracts. For each tract, the Proposed Action assumes that the applicant for a tract

would be the successful bidder on that tract and that each tract would be mined

as a maintenance lease for an existing mine.

SPECIES OCCURRENCE AND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

Sensitive species were listed for the BLM Buffalo Field Office within its range.

Numerous sensitive species do or could occur within the five LBA tracts.

Specialized habitat requirements (i.e., caves, cliffs, calcareous rock outcrops)

make occupation for other sensitive species unlikely. Table 3 lists BLM sensitive

species and summarizes their habitat requirements.
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-49

Table 3. BLM Sensitive Species, Habitat Requirements, and Occurrence for the

Buffalo Field Office.

Common Name

(scientific name) Habitat

Amphibians

Northern leopard frog

(Rana pipiens)

Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills

Spotted frog

(Ranus pretiosa)

Ponds, sloughs, small streams

Birds

Baird’s sparrow

(Ammodramus bairdii)

Grasslands, weedy fields

Brewer’s sparrow

(Spizella breweri)

Basin-prairie shrub

Burrowing owl

(Athene cunicularia)

Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub

Ferruginous hawk

(Buteo regalis)

Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, rock outcrops

Greater sage-grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus)

Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub

Loggerhead shrike

(Lanius ludovicianus)

Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub

Long-billed curlew

(Numenius americanus)

Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows

Northern goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis)

Conifer and deciduous forests

Peregrine falcon

(Falco peregrinus)

Cliffs

Sage sparrow

(Amphispiza billneata)

Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub

Sage thrasher

(Oreoscoptes montanus)

Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub

Trumpeter swan

(Cygnus buccinator)

Lakes, ponds, rivers

White-faced ibis

(Plegadis chihi)

Marshes, wet meadows

Yellow-billed cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus)

Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves

Mammals

Dwarf Shrew

(Sorex nanus)

Mountain foothill shrub, grasslands

Fringed myotis

(Myotis thysanodes)

Conifer forests, woodland chaparral, caves and mines

Long-eared myotis

(Myotis evotis)

Conifer and deciduous forest, caves and mines
Appendix G

G-50 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Table 3. BLM Sensitive Species, Habitat Requirements, and Occurrence for

the Buffalo Field Office (Continued).

Common Name

(scientific name) Habitat

Spotted bat

(Euderma maculatum)

Cliffs over perennial water, basin-prairie shrub

Swift fox

(Vulpes velox)

Grasslands

Townsend’s big-eared bat

(Corynorhinus townsendii)

Forests, basin-prairie shrub, caves and mines

Plants

Cary beardtongue

(Penstemon caryi)

Calcareous rock outcrops and rocky soil in sage, juniper,

Douglas-fir and limber pine communities; 5,200 to 8,500

ft

Porter’s sagebrush

(Artemisia porteri)

Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous

mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300 to 6,500 ft

William’s wafer parsnip

(Cymopterus williamsii)

Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone

outcrops or rockslides; 6,000 to 8,300 ft
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-51

CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL

BKS Environmental, Inc. of Gillette, Wyoming

Brenda K. Schladweiler

Ms. Schladweiler is the Senior Plant Ecologist and Reclamation Specialist for BKS

Environmental, Inc. Ms. Schladweiler obtained a Master of Science degree in Soil

Science and is currently pursuing a Doctorate Degree in Soil Science from the

University of Wyoming. Ms. Schladweiler has skills in baseline soils and

vegetation assessments in Wyoming and other western states. She has conducted

soil assessments for NPDES discharge and land disposal of CBM production

water, compiled reclamation plans for various coal, uranium, and bentonite

projects and has coordinated management and monitoring for various mining and

oil and gas reclamation projects.

Paige Wolken

Ms. Wolken obtained a Master of Science degree in Plant and Soil Sciences from

the University of Wyoming. Ms. Wolken has accumulated eight years of field

experience in identifying and mapping of sensitive (T&E) species, the collection

and analysis of vegetation data for reclamation monitoring, and has conducted

wetland delineation for state and private project permitting.

Heidi Smith

Ms. Smith is pursuing a Master of Science degree in Agronomy and Plant

Pathology from the University of Wyoming. Ms. Smith has performed baseline

studies and monitoring of reclaimed areas on open pit coal mines in the PRB for

BKS since 1999.

Intermountain Resources of Laramie, Wyoming

Jim Orpet

Mr. Orpet obtained a Master of Science degree in Range Management from the

University of Wyoming and has accumulated 23 years of field experience in

vegetation and plant surveys. This experience includes preparation of plant

species lists for over 100 projects throughout Wyoming. Mr. Orpet was qualified

in 1987 by the WDEQ/LQD to conduct T&E and other plant and animal surveys

on AML projects within the state. Qualification at that time was based on review

and approval of Mr. Orpet’s credentials by the WGFD and the USFWS. Mr. Orpet

has also completed numerous wetland surveys that have been approved by the

COE.

Russel Tait
Appendix G

G-52 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Mr. Tait obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife Management from the

University of Wyoming and has accumulated 10 years of field experience in

vegetation and plant surveys in Wyoming. Mr. Tait has assisted Mr. Orpet in

conduction Ute ladies’-tresses orchid surveys for over five years on coal mines and

other resource development projects in Wyoming.

Thunderbird Wildlife Consulting, Inc. of Gillette, Wyoming

Gwyn McKee

Ms. McKee obtained a Master of Science degree in Wildlife Ecology form the

University of Missouri-Columbia. She has accumulated more than 15 years of

professional experience, with the last eight in Wyoming. Ms. McKee has skills that

include planning and conducting surveys for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic

species, summarizing data, and preparing technical reports for private, state, and

federal agencies. Ms. McKee is considered qualified by all state and federal

agencies to conduct T&E and other wildlife surveys within the region. Those

qualifications include surveys for mountain plovers and their habitat, and

certification by the USFWS to conduct black-footed ferret surveys.
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-53

REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED

Baxter, G.T. and M.D. Stone, 1980, Amphibians and reptiles of Wyoming.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY.

Clark, T.W., and M.R. Stromberg, 1987, Mammals in Wyoming. University of

Kansas, Museum of Natural History.

Commonwealth Associates, Inc., 1980, Aquatic Wildlife Environmental Baseline

Study: Antelope Coal Field, Converse County, Wyoming. Report R-2162 for

NERCO, Inc. Portland, Oregon

Cotterill, S.E., 1997, Status of the swift fox (Vulpes velox) in Alberta. Alberta

Environmental Protection, Wildlife Status Report No. 7, Edmonton, AB.

Dinsmore, J.J., 1983, Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus). Pages 185-196 in

J.S. Armbruster, editor. Impacts of Coal Surface Mining on 25 Migratory

Bird Species of High Federal Interest. USFWS FWS/OBS-83/35. 348

pages.

Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research Foundation (EEI/RRF), 1996, Avian

Powerline Interaction Commission, Suggested Practices for Raptor

Protection on Powerlines – The State of the Art in 1996. EEI/RRF,

Washington, D.C.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye, 1988, The Birder’s Handbook: A Field

Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and

Schuster, New York.

Fertig, W., and G. Beauvais, 1999, Wyoming Plant and Animal Species of Special

Concern. Unpublished report. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database,

Laramie, Wyoming.

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong, 1994, Mammals of Colorado.

Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado.

Haug, E.A, B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell, 1993, Burrowing owl (Speotyto

cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F. Gill,

Eds.) The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Hill, D.P., 1998, Status of the long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) in Alberta.

Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Status Report No. 16, Edmonton,

AB.
Appendix G

G-54 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

Knopf, F.L., 1996, Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus). In The Birds of North

America, No. 211 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.), The Academy of Natural

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, the American Ornithologists’ Union,

Washington, D.C.

Luce, B., A. Cerovski, B. Oakleaf, J. Priday, and L. Van Fleet, 1999, Atlas of birds,

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish

Department, Lander, WY.

Martner, B.E., 1986, Wyoming Climate Atlas. Prepared in cooperation with the

Wyoming Water Research Center, University of Wyoming.

Oelklaus, W.F., 1989, Mountain Plover Status on Their Current Breeding Range.

Unpublished report to NERCO Coal Corporation, Antelope Coal Company,

Douglas, Wyoming.

Parrish, T.L., 1988, Mountain Plover Habitat Selection in the Powder River Basin,

Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 60

pages.

Powder River Eagle Studies, 2000, Assessment of black-tailed prairie dog,

mountain plover, and sage grouse habitat on the Black Thunder Mine

permit area. Powder River Eagle Studies, Gillette, Wyoming.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989, Black-footed Ferret Survey Guidelines for

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act. USFWS, Denver, Colorado

and Albuquerque, New Mexico.

, 1995, Final Rule to Reclassify the Bald Eagle from Endangered to

Threatened in All of the Lower 48 States. Federal Register 60(133): 36000-

36010.

, 1999a, Proposed Threatened status for the mountain plover. Federal

Register 64(30): 7587-7601.

, 1999b, Extension of comment period and announcement of public

hearings on proposal to list the mountain plover as a threatened species.

Federal Register 64(74): 19108.

, 2000a, 12-month administrative findings for a petition to list the blacktailed prairie dog from the National Wildlife Federation dated July 30, 1998.

Web page on the internet at <http://www.r6.fws.gov/btprairiedog/>,

accessed August 22, 2000.

, 2000b, 12-month finding for a petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog

as threatened. Federal Register 65(24): 5476-5488.
Appendix G

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS G-55

, 2001, Annual notice of findings on recycled petitions. Federal Register

66(5): 1295-1300.

, June 2002, Memorandum from Wyoming Field Office Supervisor to BLM

Casper Field Office Manager, subject: Applications to lease 5 Federal Coal

Tracts. June 7, 2002.

U.S. Forest Service, 2001a, Land and Resource Management Plan for the Thunder

Basin National Grassland.

, 2001b, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Great

Plains Management Plans Revision for the Thunder Basin National

Grassland.

, 2002, Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement

and Land and Resource Management Plan Revision, Thunder Basin

National Grassland.

Wagner, G., 1997, Status of the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) in Alberta.

Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Status Report No. 9, Edmonton,

AB.

Wesche, T.A., B.L. Weand, G.W. Rosenlieb, and L.S. Johnson, 1978, Aquatic Biota

and Abiota of Selected Streams on Thunder Basin National Grassland.

Wyoming Water Resources Institute, University of Wyoming, Laramie,

Wyoming.

Yosef, R., 1996, Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North

America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) The Academy of Natural Sciences,

Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
APPENDIX H

CBM WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON OR IN SECTIONS

ADJACENT TO THE NARO NORTH, NARO SOUTH,

LITTLE THUNDER, WEST ROUNDUP, AND

WEST ANTELOPE LBA TRACTS
Appendix H

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS H-1

Api

No. Company Well Name Tns Rng Sec qq Status

542928 REDSTONE RESOURCES INC ISSENBERGER 21-19 41 71 19 NE NW SI

547038 PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO ANTELOPE CREEK 32-27-41-71 41 71 27 SW NE PS

535161 INDEPENDENT PRODUCTION CO BRADLEY CBM 16-1-2 42 70 16 SE NE SI

539506 YATES PETROLEUM CORP SCHOOL CREEK CS ST 1 42 70 36 SE NW SI

546529 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 44-36 42 71 36 SE SE PG

546530 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 43-36 42 71 36 NE SE PG

546531 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 42-36 42 71 36 SE NE PG

546532 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 41-36 42 71 36 NE NE PG

546533 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 34-36 42 71 36 SW SE PG

546534 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 33-36 42 71 36 NW SE PG

546535 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 32-36 42 71 36 SW NE PG

546536 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 31-36 42 71 36 NW NE PG

546537 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 24-36 42 71 36 SE SW PG

546538 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 23-36 42 71 36 NE SW PG

546539 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 22-36 42 71 36 SE NW PG

546540 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 21-36 42 71 36 NE NW PG

546541 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 14-36 42 71 36 SW SW PG

546542 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 13-36 42 71 36 NW SW PG

546543 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 12-36 42 71 36 SW NW PG

546544 CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES LC STATE 11-36 42 71 36 NW NW PG

537364 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 44-06 43 70 6 SE SE FL

537365 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 42-06 43 70 6 SE NE FL

537366 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 33-06 43 70 6 NW SE FL

537367 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 31-06 43 70 6 NW NE FL

537368 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 22-06 43 70 6 SE NW FL

537369 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 24-06 43 70 6 SE SW FL

537370 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 13-06 43 70 6 NW SW FL

537371 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 11-06 43 70 6 NW NW FL

537877 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 31-07 43 70 7 NW NE FL

537879 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 24-07 43 70 7 SE SW FL

537880 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 13-07 43 70 7 NW SW FL

537362 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 22-07 43 70 7 SE NW FL

537363 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 11-07 43 70 7 NW NW FL

537361 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 42-07 43 70 7 SE NE SI

542583 RIM OPERATING INC CBM 13-18 H 43 70 18 NW SW FL

537881 RIM OPERATING INC CBM H 11-18 43 70 18 NW NW FL
Appendix H

Api

No. Company Well Name Tns Rng Sec qq Status

H-2 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

542023 RIM OPERATING INC CBM 33-01R 43 71 1 NW SE FL

537856 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 31-01 43 71 1 NW NE FL

537857 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 11-01 43 71 1 NW NW FL

537911 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 42-01 43 71 1 SE NE FL

537912 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 22-01 43 71 1 SE NW FL

537379 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 44-01 43 71 1 SE SE FL

537381 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 24-01 43 71 1 SE SW FL

537382 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 13-01 43 71 1 NW SW FL

544739 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO REVLAND FED TRUST 43-2-4371 43 71 2 NE SE SI

544740 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO REVLAND FED TRUST 41-2-4371 43 71 2 NE NE SI

544741 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO REVLAND FED TRUST 34-2-4371 43 71 2 SW SE SI

544742 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO REVLAND FED TRUST 32-2-4371 43 71 2 SW NE SI

537858 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 42-11 43 71 11 SE NE FL

537859 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 31-11 43 71 11 NW NE FL

535155 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ZIMMER 43-11 43 71 11 NE SE PS

535156 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ZIMMER 34-11 43 71 11 SW SE PS

537347 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 11-12 43 71 12 NW NW FL

537349 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 13-12 43 71 12 NW SW FL

537350 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 22-12 43 71 12 SE NW FL

537351 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 24-12 43 71 12 SE SW FL

537352 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 31-12 43 71 12 NW NE FL

537353 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 33-12 43 71 12 NW SE FL

537354 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 42-12 43 71 12 SE NE FL

537355 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 44-12 43 71 12 SE SE FL

537860 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 31-13 43 71 13 NW NE FL

537876 RIM OPERATING INC CBM D 42-13 43 71 13 SE NE FL

539645 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO HOPKINS TRUST 44-13-4371 43 71 13 SE SE PS

539646 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 33-13-4371 43 71 13 NW SE PS

535152 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 22-13 43 71 13 SE NW PS

535153 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 24-13 43 71 13 SE SW PS

535154 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 13-13 43 71 13 NW SW PS

533164 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO YOUNG 11-13 43 71 13 NW NW PS

539641 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO REVLAND TRUST 12-14-4371 43 71 14 SW NW PS

539642 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO REVLAND TRUST 23-14-4371 43 71 14 NE SW PS

539643 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO REVLAND TRUST 21-14-4371 43 71 14 NE NW PS

539644 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO REVLAND TRUST 14-14-4371 43 71 14 SW SW PS
Appendix H

Api

No. Company Well Name Tns Rng Sec qq Status

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS H-3

535157 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 42-14 43 71 14 SE NE PS

535158 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 44-14 43 71 14 SE SE PS

531964 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 14-23 43 71 23 SW SW PS

531966 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 34-23 43 71 23 SW SE PS

540746 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 14-24 43 71 24 SW SW PS

536473 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 22-24 43 71 24 SE NW PS

536474 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 31-24 43 71 24 NW NE PS

533367 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 12-25 43 71 25 SW NW PS

532603 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 22-25 43 71 25 SE NW PS

532604 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 11-25 43 71 25 NW NW PS

532503 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 34-25-4371 43 71 25 SW SE PS

532505 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 14-25-4371 43 71 25 SW SW PS

532506 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 23-25-4371 43 71 25 NE SW PS

544917 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 43-25-4371 43 71 25 NE SE PS

533456 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 32-26 43 71 26 SW NE PS

533362 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 43-26 43 71 26 NE SE PS

533364 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 34-26 43 71 26 SW SE PS

532598 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 44-26 43 71 26 SE SE PS

532599 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 42-26 43 71 26 SE NE PS

532600 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 33-26 43 71 26 NW SE PS

532511 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 12-26 43 71 26 SW NW PS

532513 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 14-26 43 71 26 SW SW PS

532515 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 23-26 43 71 26 NE SW PS

532517 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 22-26 43 71 26 SE NW PS

532630 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO ARCH 32-27 43 71 27 SW NE PS

533363 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 41-35 43 71 35 NE NE PS

533368 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 32-35 43 71 35 SW NE PS

532593 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 31-35 43 71 35 NW NE PS

532594 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 22-35 43 71 35 SE NW PS

532595 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 21-35 43 71 35 NE NW PS

532596 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 12-35 43 71 35 SW NW PS

532597 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 11-35 43 71 35 NW NW PS

532605 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 43-35 43 71 35 NE SE PS

532606 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FEDERAL 42-35 43 71 35 SE NE PS

535087 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 5 43 71 36 NE SW FL

534540 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 14 43 71 36 SE SW FL
Appendix H

Api

No. Company Well Name Tns Rng Sec qq Status

H-4 South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS

534541 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 13 43 71 36 SW SW FL

534542 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 12 43 71 36 NW SW FL

534543 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 11 43 71 36 SE SE FL

534544 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 10 43 71 36 NE SE FL

534545 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 9 43 71 36 SE NE FL

534546 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 8 43 71 36 NW NE FL

534547 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 7 43 71 36 NE NE FL

534548 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 6 43 71 36 SW SE FL

534549 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 4 43 71 36 SW NW FL

534550 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 3 43 71 36 NW NW FL

534551 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 2 43 71 36 NE NW FL

533309 YATES PETROLEUM CORP RENO CS STATE 1 43 71 36 SE NW FL

540187 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 22-25 44 71 25 SE NW FL

540189 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 24-25 44 71 25 SE SW FL

539748 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 13-25 44 71 25 NW SW FL

539750 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 11-25 44 71 25 NW NW FL

537870 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 44-25 44 71 25 SE SE FL

537915 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 31-25 44 71 25 NW NE FL

537916 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 33-25 44 71 25 NW SE FL

537869 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 42-25 44 71 25 SE NE FL

540275 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 11-26 44 71 26 NW NW FL

540276 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 13-26 44 71 26 NW SW FL

540277 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 22-26 44 71 26 SE NW FL

540278 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 24-26 44 71 26 SE SW FL

540279 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 33-26 44 71 26 NW SE FL

540280 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 44-26 44 71 26 SE SE FL

537871 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 42-26 44 71 26 SE NE FL

537917 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 31-26 44 71 26 NW NE FL

534526 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO CHITTENDEN 14-27 44 71 27 SW SW FL

543423 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC FERGUSON 12-27 44 71 27 SW NW PS

543424 COLEMAN OIL & GAS INC FERGUSON 21-27 44 71 27 NE NW PS

542192 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FERGUSON 43-27-4471 44 71 27 NE SE PS

542193 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO FERGUSON 34-27-4471 44 71 27 SW SE PS

534527 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO CHITTENDEN 23-27 44 71 27 NE SW PS

544712 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO STUART FEDERAL 43-34-4471 44 71 34 NE SE PS

544713 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO STUART FEDERAL 34-34-4471 44 71 34 SW SE PS
Appendix H

Api

No. Company Well Name Tns Rng Sec qq Status

South Powder River Basin Coal Draft EIS H-5

544714 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO STUART FEDERAL 23-34-4471 44 71 34 NE SW PS

544715 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO STUART FEDERAL 21-34-4471 44 71 34 NE NW PS

544716 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO STUART FEDERAL 14-34-4471 44 71 34 SW SW PS

544717 WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT CO STUART FEDERAL 12-34-4471 44 71 34 SW NW PS

537983 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 31-35 44 71 35 NW NE FL

537984 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 42-35 44 71 35 SE NE FL

548448 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 22-35 44 71 35 SE NW SI

548447 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 11-35 44 71 35 NW NW SI

537872 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 44-36 44 71 36 SE SE FL

537873 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 42-36 44 71 36 SE NE FL

537874 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 24-36 44 71 36 SE SW FL

537875 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 22-36 44 71 36 SE NW FL

537919 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 11-36 44 71 36 NW NW FL

537920 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 13-36 44 71 36 NW SW FL

537921 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 31-36 44 71 36 NW NE FL

537922 RIM OPERATING INC CBM C 33-36 44 71 36 NW SE FL

Status Codes: PG = Producing Gas, FL = Flowing, PS = Pumping Submersible, SI = Shut In