Foidel Creek Mine

Federal Coal Lease COC54608 Modification

Determination of NEPA Adequacy

DOI-BLM-CO-N010-2014-0044-EA

Routt County, Colorado

May 2017

United States Department of the Interior

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Program Support Division 

1999 Broadway, Suite 3320 Denver, CO 80202 

PH: 303-293-5000 FAX: 303-293-5032
Determination of NEPA Adequacy Checklist

Resource Area Determination Rationale

Topography Less than Significant 

Effect

OSMRE concurs with BLM’s finding that there would be no adverse impact to topography and geology 

because the Proposed Action does not include any new surface disturbance activities and subsidence 

Geology impacts are expected to be minor (EA pages 48 through 49 and 60). (Paleontology) Less than Significant 

Effect

Water Resources/Hydrology (surface

water, groundwater, floodplains, wild 

and scenic rivers, and wetlands)

Less than Significant 

Effect

OSMRE concurs with BLM’s analysis and finding that the Proposed Action would not have any

adverse impacts on ground or surface water (EA pages 66 through 71).

Climate Change Less than Significant 

Effect

OSMRE concurs with BLM’s determination not to include a social cost of carbon analysis in the EA

because the EPA and other federal agencies use the social cost of carbon to estimate the climate 

benefits of rulemakings (EA pages 31 – 47). The EA discusses the direct emissions from mining (EA 

page 33 Table 5), and indirect downstream emissions from combustion (EA page 34). 

Air Quality Less than Significant 

Effect

OSMRE concurs with BLM’s analysis including indirect coal combustion emissions (EA 

pages 31 through 47).

Soils No Effect OSMRE concurs with BLM’s finding that no soils would be affected because the Proposed Action

does not include any new surface disturbance activities (EA Page 21).

Vegetation No Effect OSMRE concurs with BLM’s finding that there would be no adverse impact to vegetation because the

Proposed Action does not include any new surface disturbance activities (EA page 22).

Fish and Wildlife Less than Significant 

Effect

OSMRE concurs with BLM’s finding that no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife due to no new surface

disturbance and continuing existing operations including potential impacts from mercury (EA page 50

through 57). BLM completed formal Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act and 

received a Biological Opinion. A “may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination was found for the 

four Colorado River Fish. However, in the FWS’s BO, it is the Service’s conclusion that the Proposed 

Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the four endangered fish (EA page 50).

Land Use No Effect OSMRE concurs with BLM’s finding that there would be no adverse impact to land use because the

Proposed Action does not include any new surface disturbance activities (EA page 22).

Socioeconomics Less than Significant 

Effect

OSMRE concurs with BLM’s analysis and finding that the Proposed Action would not create any new

employment at the Mine (EA pages 62 through 66).

Environmental Justice No Effect OSMRE concurs with BLM’s finding that there would be no adverse impact to environmental justice 

communities because the minority and low- income populations are dispersed throughout the county 

therefore no minority or low-income population would suffer disproportionately high and adverse effects 

as a result the Proposed Action (EA page 22).

Transportation No Effect OSMRE concurs with BLM’s finding that there would be no adverse impact to area transportation 

because the Proposed Action does not include any new public roadways (EA page 23).
Resource Area Determination Rationale

Recreation No Effect OSMRE concurs with BLM’s finding that there would be no adverse impact to recreational resources 

because the Proposed Action does not include any public lands (EA page 23).

Noise and Vibration No Effect OSMRE notes that noise impacts were not addressed as part of the impact analyses sections or identified 

in Table 1 of the EA. OSMRE reviewed the Permit Application Package for Permit Revision 10, and 

found that there will be no substantial noise resulting from the Proposed Action. Additionally, any 

potential impacts to employees would be regulated by Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Visual No Effect OSMRE concurs with BLM’s finding that there would be no adverse impact to visual resources because 

the Proposed Action does not include any new surface disturbance activities (EA page 23).

Cultural Less than Significant 

Effect

OSMRE concurs with BLM’s finding that there would be no adverse impact to cultural resources 

including impacts related to subsidence (EA pages 57 through 59).

Human Health and Safety Less than Significant 

Effect

OSMRE notes that this topic is covered primarily under the Hazardous Materials section of the EA. 

OSMRE concurs with BLM’s findings that there would be no adverse impacts (EA pages 60 through

62).

Other No Effect OSMRE concurs with BLM’s finding that there would be no impact to livestock operations, wilderness 

study areas, wild and scenic rivers, realty, forest and fire management, and prime and unique farmlands 

resources because the Proposed Action does not include any new surface disturbance activities and is 

located on private lands (EA pages 21 through 23).
Conclusion: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s (OSMRE) Western Region 

has determined that the proposed lease modification to add 310 acres of un-leased federal coal under

privately owned surface land at the Twentymile Coal, LLC’s (TC) Foidel Creek Mine would not

constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the

meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. OSMRE is completing 

this Determination of NEPA Adequacy to support its adoption of BLM’s Environmental Assessment for 

the Peabody Twentymile Coal, LLC COC54608 Lease Modification (DOI-BLM-CO-N010-2014-0044-

EA) for the Foidel Creek Mine located in Routt County, Colorado. OSMRE determined that the proposed 

lease modification to add 310 acres of un-leased federal coal under privately owned surface land at the TC 

Foidel Creek Mine would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment within the meaning of the NEPA. OSMRE was also a cooperator on the EA and has 

reviewed BLM’s EA and determined that it adequately analyzed the impacts for the mining plan decision 

document as explained in detail below.

For purposes of the adoption, OSMRE’s Proposed Action would be to review the mining plan proposed in 

permit revision (PR) 10, which TC submitted to the Colorado Division of Reclamation and Mining Safety, 

to conduct coal mining and reclamation operations on lands containing leased federal coal. Pursuant to 30

CFR 746, OSMRE is responsible for making a recommendation to the Department of the Interior

Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management (ASLM) regarding a decision on proposed

mining plan modifications meeting those criteria. OSMRE must prepare and submit a mining plan 

decision document to the ASLM recommending approval, disapproval, or approval with condition(s) of 

the proposed mining plan modification. The ASLM is responsible for making the decision to approve,

disapprove, or approve with condition(s), as required under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.

PR-10 originally included state, private, and federal coal. However, due to processing time constraints, 

TC consequently submitted PR-11 to the Colorado Division of Reclamation and Mining Safety. PR-11 

removed all of the state and fee coal from PR-10, leaving PR-10 to only contain federal coal. The 

submission of PR-11 did not change the BLM’s EA analysis, and OSMRE’s Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) conclusions regarding the Federal coal contained in PR-10.
Worksheet

Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA)

OFFICE: Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

Western Region, Denver, CO

PROPOSED ACTION TITLE/TYPE: Mining Plan Decision Document and Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Adoption of the Bureau of Land Management’s

Environmental Assessment for the Peabody Energy Corporation’s, Twentymile Coal, LLC –

Foidel Creek Mine

LOCATION/LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Project location contains approximately 310 acres in

Routt County, Colorado.

APPLICANT (if any): Peabody Energy Corporation’s, Twentymile Coal, LLC

A. Description of the Proposed Action and any applicable mitigation measures

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to 

analyze the environmental effects of a coal lease modification application. Twentymile 

Coal, LLC (TC) has submitted a lease modification to the BLM seeking to modify an 

existing coal lease, COC54608. TC currently operates the Foidel Creek Mine which is an 

underground longwall coal mine located about 20 miles southwest of Steamboat Springs in 

Routt County, Colorado. TC has been mining at the Foidel Creek Mine by underground 

methods since 1983. The Foidel Creek Mine is made up of 6 Federal coal leases, private 

coal leases, and state coal leases and produces approximately 4 million tons of coal per

year.

The modification to lease COC54608 proposes to add 310 acres of un-leased federal coal

under privately owned surface at the TC Foidel Creek Mine. Lease COC54608 was 

originally issued in February 1996 for 2,600 acres. Recovery of the Wadge coal seam 

within this 2,600-acre lease boundary occurred from June 1996 to September 2001. In

August 2002, mining of the Wadge seam coal in COC54608 was completed; therefore, TC 

relinquished 2,280 acres of lease COC54608. TC retained 320 acres of lease COC54608

for access to their continued mining operations. TC completed mining operations of 

authorized private and State coal within the Wadge seam in June 2016. TC is currently 

mining authorized private and State coal within the State permit boundary of the Wolf 

Creek seam.

The lease modification application is for the Wolf Creek seam, a coal seam below the 

Wadge seam. It is estimated that the federal coal reserves included in this lease modification 

would total approximately 340,000 recoverable tons of high volatile, group B, bituminous 

coal and would extend the life of the mine by approximately one to two years. There would 

be no new or additional surface disturbance; BLM’s unsuitability criteria apply only to 

surface coal mining, and therefore are not applicable for this proposed lease modification.
B. Identify applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and

other related documents that cover the proposed action.

The EA tiers to the 1980 Green River – Hams Fork EIS and the 1995 EA for the leasing and

development of the original 2,600 acres COC54608 lease issued in February 1996 located at

the Foidel Creek Mine.

On December 14, 2015, the BLM submitted a biological assessment (BA) for the BLM EA

for the Peabody Twentymile Coal, LLC COC54608 Lease Modification (DOI-BLM-CON010-2014-0044-EA) to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). BLM made the following 

determinations:

Species Determination

Colorado pikeminnow 

(Ptychocheilus lucius)

May Affect, is Likely to Adversely Affect

Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen 

texanus)

May Affect, is Likely to Adversely Affect

Bony-tail chub (Gila elegans) May Affect, is Likely to Adversely Affect

Humpback chub (Gila cypha) May Affect, is Likely to Adversely Affect

Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Coccyzus americanus)

May Affect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect

Greenback cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki stomias)

May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Black-footed ferret (Mustela 

nigripes)

no effect

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) no effect

On February 23, 2016, the BLM submitted a supplement to the BA to include water 

depletions at the mine. The BLM concluded that the proposed coal lease modification would 

not result in any water depletions and that no water depletions are expected from 

underground mining of the federal coal from this lease modification. The supplement 

occurred before the TC submitted Permit Revision (PR) 11 which is why it is mentioned that 

PR-10 includes state, fee, and federal coal however, as discussed above, PR-10 now only 

contains federal coal.

A biological opinion (BO) (TAILS 06E24100-2016-F-0107) was issued to the BLM on 

February 29, 2016, for the BLM EA for the Peabody Twentymile Coal, LLC COC54608 

Lease Modification (DOI-BLM-CO-N010-2014-0044-EA). The FWS BO found that mining 

within the Federal Coal Lease modification COC54608 is not likely to jeopardize the four 

endangered fish, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify their critical habitats. The 

FWS also concurred with BLM’s determinations for the greenback cutthroat trout and 

western yellow-billed cuckoo, and its proposed critical habitat. FWS acknowledge BLM’s 

determination of no effect for the black-footed ferret and Canada lynx, but neither 7(a)(3) of 

the Act, nor implementing regulations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act require FWS to 
review or concur with this determination. However, FWS did appreciate the analysis for 

those species. Both the BA and BO can be viewed within attachment A to the EA (DOIBLM-CO-N010-2014-0044-EA).

C. NEPA Adequacy Criteria

1. Is the new proposed action a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative

analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? Is the project within the same analysis

area, or if the project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions

sufficiently similar to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? If there are 

differences, can you explain why they are not substantial?

Yes, the Proposed Action and alternatives analyzed cover the same geographic extent as the 

lease modification analyzed in BLM’s EA (DOI-BLM-CO-N010-2014-0044-EA) in which 

OSMRE was a cooperating agency.

2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate 

with respect to the new proposed action, given current environmental concerns, 

interests, and resource values?

Yes, the range of alternatives analyzed is consistent with the Proposed Action and purpose 

and need for the mining plan modification. The range of alternatives adequately analyzed 

current environmental concerns, interests, and resource values associated with the mining 

plan modification.

3. Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances (such 

as, rangeland health standard assessment, recent endangered species listings, updated 

lists of sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that new information and new 

circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed action?

OSMRE is not aware of any new information or circumstances that would require 

modification of the analysis. OSMRE notes that potential noise impacts were not addressed 

as part of the impact analyses sections or identified in Table 1 of the EA. OSMRE reviewed 

the Permit Application Package for PR-10, and found that there will be no substantial noise 

resulting from the Proposed Action. Additionally, any potential impacts to employees would 

be regulated by Mine Safety and Health Administration.

4. Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from 

implementation of the new proposed action similar (both quantitatively and 

qualitatively) to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document?

Yes, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analyzed cover a similar Proposed Action 

and do not require additional analysis.
The EA overestimated potential GHG emissions from the proposed action, originally 

estimating projected emissions to be around 19,000,000 metric tons (EA page 39). However, 

the projected total emissions from the proposed action will be closer to 867,000 metric tons. 

This error was due to estimating total mine emissions, instead of just the 340,000 tons of 

additional coal covered by this decision. This technical correction is reflected in an errata to 

the EA. The analysis overestimated direct emissions, thus environmental impacts from GHGs 

are less than described in the EA. The original estimate provides context of the entire mining 

operation, which is helpful in considering the cumulative effects and the scale of this action 

in the larger scope of the mine. Although GHG emissions were overestimated, the direct and 

indirect impacts of the proposed action do not substantially change from those identified in 

the EA. Other aspects and disclosures were also reevaluated and remain substantially 

unchanged.

5. Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA 

document(s) adequate for the current proposed action?

Yes, the BLM’s and OSMRE’s public involvement and interagency review is sufficient for 

NEPA. BLM conducted external scoping by posting information about this project on the 

Little Snake Field Office’s online NEPA register web site on June 30, 2014. The EA public 

comment March 2 - April 1, 2015. Two comments were received within the comment period; 

two comments were received after the close of the public comment period on April 2, 2015. 

The timely comments were from Sam Baker and from Peabody; late comments were from 

Leslie Glustrom and Wild Earth Guardians (EA page 12). The BLM considered all 

comments received. These comments and responses to the comments were tabulated in 

Attachment B of DOI-BLM-C0-2014-0044-EA.

OSMRE will release an unsigned Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the adoption 

of DOI-BLM-C0-2014-0044-EA for a 15-day public comment period on OSMRE’s Western 

Region website as well as providing public noticing in the Steamboat Pilot & Today and 

Craig Daily Press newspapers. Letters will be mailed to stakeholders and tribes on the same 

day as the press release. Once the comment period closes, OSMRE will review and consider 

any public comments received for the FONSI.

D. Persons/Agencies /OSMRE Staff Consulted

Identified below are those team members that conducted or participated in the preparation of 

this document.

Name Title Resource/Agency Represented

Gretchen Pinkham Natural Resource Specialist NEPA Compliance, OSMRE

Nicole Caveny Environmental Protection Specialist NEPA Compliance, OSMRE

Michelle Fishburne Program Analyst NEPA Compliance, OSMRE

Based on the review documented above, I conclude that this proposal conforms to the 

applicable land use plan and that the NEPA documentation fully covers the proposed action 
and constitute the OSMRE’s compliance with the requirements of NEPA.

/s/ Nicole Caveny 2/13/17

Project Lead Date

/s/ Gretchen Pinkham 2/13/17

NEPA Coordinator Date

/s/ Marcelo Calle 2/13/17

Responsible Official Date

Note: The signed Conclusion on this Worksheet is part of an interim step in the OSMRE’s

internal decision process and does not constitute an appealable decision.