United States Department of the Interior

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Environmental Assessment

Belle Ayr Mine

Campbell County, Wyoming

Mining Plan Modification

for

Federal Coal Lease WYW161248

October 2017

Prepared by:

U.S. 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
Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Background.....................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2.1 Site History...........................................................................................................................1-1

1.2.2 Project Background.............................................................................................................1-5

1.2.3 Statutory and Regulatory Background............................................................................1-6

1.3 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................1-9

1.3.1 Purpose..................................................................................................................................1-9

1.3.2 Need.......................................................................................................................................1-9

1.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Other Agency Plans.........................................1-9

1.4.1 Statutes and Regulations....................................................................................................1-9

1.4.2 Other Agency Plans..........................................................................................................1-11

1.5 Authorizing Actions....................................................................................................................1-11

1.6 Outreach and Issues...................................................................................................................1-12

1.7 Crosswalk of Resource Areas..................................................................................................1-12

1.8 Public Involvement......................................................................................................................1-12

2.0 Proposed Action & Alternatives .........................................................................2-1

2.1 Belle Ayr Mine WDEQ-LQD Permit........................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Area ...................................................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Description of Existing Mining and Reclamation Operations..............................................2-1

2.3.1 Current Bonding and Bond Release Status ...................................................................2-2

2.3.2 BAM Support Facilities.......................................................................................................2-4

2.3.3 Power Plants Supplied by the BAM.................................................................................2-5

2.4 Description of Alternatives.........................................................................................................2-6

2.4.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................................................2-6

2.4.2 No Action Alternative........................................................................................................2-6

2.4.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ........................................................................2-7

2.4.3.1 Underground Mining Alternative .................................................................................2-7

2.4.3.2 Air Quality Mitigation Alternatives..............................................................................2-8

2.4.3.3 Mining Plan with Reduced Disturbance Alternatives...............................................2-9

2.4.4 Project Environmental Protection and Mitigation Features.......................................2-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 ii

2.4.4.1 Topography .......................................................................................................................2-9

2.4.4.2 Air Quality.........................................................................................................................2-9

2.4.4.3 Water Resources...........................................................................................................2-10

2.4.4.4 Vegetation........................................................................................................................2-10

2.4.4.5 Terrestrial Wildlife........................................................................................................2-11

2.4.4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species.........................................................................2-11

2.4.4.7 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................2-11

2.4.4.8 Visual Resources............................................................................................................2-12

2.4.4.9 Soils...................................................................................................................................2-12

2.4.4.10 Post-mining Land Use ...................................................................................................2-12

3.0 Affected Environment..........................................................................................3-1

3.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................3-3

3.1.2 Attainment/Non-Attainment Area Designations.........................................................3-3

3.1.3 Background...........................................................................................................................3-4

3.1.4 Existing Belle Ayr Mine Air Quality Summary ..............................................................3-6

3.1.4.1 Air Quality-Monitoring Values......................................................................................3-7

3.1.4.2 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) ........................................................................3-12

3.1.4.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)...............................................................................3-12

3.1.4.4 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change..................................................3-14

3.2 Water Resources........................................................................................................................3-15

3.2.1 Groundwater......................................................................................................................3-15

3.2.2 Surface Water....................................................................................................................3-22

3.2.3 Water Rights......................................................................................................................3-24

3.3 Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................................3-26

3.3.1 Raptors................................................................................................................................3-27

3.3.2 Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG)........................................................................................3-27

3.3.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species, and Special Status Species.....3-29

3.3.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species...................................................3-29

3.3.3.2 Vertebrate Sensitive Species.......................................................................................3-30

3.3.3.2.1 BLM Sensitive Species............................................................................................3-30
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 iii

3.3.3.2.2 USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern...........................................................3-33

3.4 Transportation.............................................................................................................................3-34

3.5 Socioeconomics...........................................................................................................................3-35

3.5.1 Local Economy...................................................................................................................3-35

3.5.2 Population ...........................................................................................................................3-37

3.5.3 Employment........................................................................................................................3-37

3.5.4 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................3-37

3.5.5 Housing................................................................................................................................3-38

3.5.6 Local Government Facilities and Services....................................................................3-38

4.0 Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts.........................................4-1

4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts...................4-3

4.2 Topography and Physiography....................................................................................................4-3

4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................................4-3

4.2.1.1 Proposed Action ..............................................................................................................4-3

4.2.1.2 No Action Alternative....................................................................................................4-6

4.2.2 Cumulative Effects...............................................................................................................4-6

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................4-6

4.3 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology......................................................................4-6

4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................................4-6

4.3.1.1 Proposed Action ..............................................................................................................4-6

4.3.1.2 No Action Alternative....................................................................................................4-7

4.3.2 Cumulative Effects...............................................................................................................4-7

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................4-8

4.4 Air Quality and Climate Change................................................................................................4-8

4.4.1 Particulate Matter................................................................................................................4-8

4.4.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................................4-8

4.4.1.1.1 Proposed Action.......................................................................................................4-8

4.4.1.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-10

4.4.1.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-13

4.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-14

4.4.2 Emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Mercury (Hg), 

and Lead (Pb)......................................................................................................................4-14
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 iv

4.4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-14

4.4.2.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-14

4.4.2.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-15

4.4.2.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-15

4.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-15

4.4.3 Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Ozone (O3) ...........................................4-15

4.4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-15

4.4.3.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-15

4.4.3.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-16

4.4.3.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-16

4.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-17

4.4.4 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs)............................................................................4-17

4.4.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-17

4.4.4.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-17

4.4.4.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-18

4.4.4.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-18

4.4.4.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-19

4.4.5 Air Quality Related to Coal Combustion....................................................................4-19

4.4.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-19

4.4.5.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-19

4.4.5.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-21

4.4.5.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-21

4.4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................4-21

4.4.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-21

4.4.6.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-21

4.4.6.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-23

4.4.6.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-23

4.4.7 Climate Change Cause and Effect..................................................................................4-23

4.4.7.1 Proposed Action/No Action Alternative..................................................................4-23

4.4.7.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-26

4.4.7.3 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Proposed Action/No Action Alternative...4-26

4.5 Water Resources........................................................................................................................4-27
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 v

4.5.1 Groundwater......................................................................................................................4-27

4.5.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-27

4.5.1.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-27

4.5.1.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-30

4.5.1.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-30

4.5.1.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-32

4.5.2 Surface Water....................................................................................................................4-33

4.5.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-33

4.5.2.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-33

4.5.2.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-33

4.5.2.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-34

4.5.2.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-34

4.5.3 Water Rights......................................................................................................................4-35

4.5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-35

4.5.3.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-35

4.5.3.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-36

4.5.3.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-36

4.5.3.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-37

4.6 Alluvial Valley Floors ..................................................................................................................4-38

4.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-38

4.6.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................4-38

4.6.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-38

4.6.2 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................4-38

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-38

4.7 Wetlands (Aquatic Resources) ................................................................................................4-38

4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-38

4.7.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................4-38

4.7.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-39

4.7.2 Cumulative Effects:............................................................................................................4-39

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-39

4.8 Soil ..................................................................................................................................................4-41

4.8.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-41
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 vi

4.8.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................4-41

4.8.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-41

4.8.2 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................4-41

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-42

4.9 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................4-42

4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-42

4.9.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................4-42

4.9.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-43

4.9.1.3 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-43

4.9.1.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-43

4.9.2 Vegetative Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species and Other 

Species of Special Interest...............................................................................................4-43

4.9.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-43

4.9.2.1.1 Proposed Action and No Action Alternative ..................................................4-43

4.9.2.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-44

4.9.2.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-44

4.10 Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................................4-44

4.10.1 Big Game .............................................................................................................................4-45

4.10.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-45

4.10.1.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-45

4.10.1.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-45

4.10.1.2 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................4-46

4.10.1.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-46

4.10.2 Raptors................................................................................................................................4-46

4.10.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-46

4.10.2.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-46

4.10.2.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-47

4.10.2.2 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................4-47

4.10.2.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-47

4.10.3 Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG)........................................................................................4-48

4.10.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-48

4.10.3.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-48

4.10.3.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-49
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 vii

4.10.3.2 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................4-49

4.10.3.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-50

4.10.4 Vertebrate Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species and Other 

Species of Special Interest...............................................................................................4-50

4.10.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-50

4.10.4.1.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................4-50

4.10.4.1.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................4-52

4.10.4.2 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................4-52

4.10.4.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................4-52

4.11 Land Use........................................................................................................................................4-52

4.11.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-52

4.11.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................4-52

4.11.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-53

4.11.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-53

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-54

4.12 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................4-54

4.12.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-54

4.12.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................4-54

4.12.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-54

4.12.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-54

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-54

4.13 Visual Resources..........................................................................................................................4-54

4.13.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-54

4.13.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................4-54

4.13.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-55

4.13.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-55

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-55

4.14 Noise..............................................................................................................................................4-55

4.14.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-55

4.14.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................4-55

4.14.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-56

4.14.2 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................4-56

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-57
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 viii

4.15 Transportation Facilities............................................................................................................4-57

4.15.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-57

4.15.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................4-57

4.15.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-58

4.15.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-58

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-59

4.16 Hazardous and Solid Waste......................................................................................................4-59

4.16.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-59

4.16.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................4-59

4.16.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-59

4.16.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-60

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-60

4.17 Socioeconomics...........................................................................................................................4-60

4.17.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-60

4.17.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................4-60

4.17.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-61

4.17.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-62

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-62

4.18 Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity ....................................................................4-62

4.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects.....................................................................................................4-62

5.0 Consultation and Coordination...........................................................................5-1

5.1 Public Comment Process............................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Preparers and Contributors.......................................................................................................5-1

5.3 Distribution of the EA..................................................................................................................5-2

6.0 References .............................................................................................................6-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Crosswalk of Resources Analyzed in the SGAC EIS and the BAN EA..................1-13

Table 2-1. Summary of Phased Bond Release Acreages1in the Project Area............................2-4

Table 2-2. Power Plants Supplied by Coal Recovered from the BAM. ......................................2-5

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

and Employees for the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action, as of 

January 1, 2017. ....................................................................................................................2-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 ix

Table 3-1. Federal and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards...............................................3-4

Table 3-2. Average Annual PM10 Concentrations1(μg/m3) for the BAM, 2010-2016 ..............3-9

Table 3-3. Maximum 24-hour PM10 Concentrations1(μg/m3) for the BAM, 2010-2016 .........3-9

Table 3-4. Measured PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3) at Site BA-4 (56-005-0892), 2009-

2016 (98th Percentile 24-hour Standard & Annual Average). ...................................3-9

Table 3-5. Measured NO2 Concentrations1in the PRB, 2009-2016..........................................3-10

Table 3-6. Measured O3 Concentrations1in the PRB, 2009-2016..............................................3-10

Table 3-7. Measured SO2 Concentrations in Campbell County, Wyoming, 2011-2016, 

99th Percentile 1-Hour Concentrations (μg/m3)........................................................3-11

Table 3-8. Measured Annual Hg Stack (Air) Emissions from Power Stations in 

Campbell County (Pounds)..............................................................................................3-11

Table 3-9. Measured Annual Pb Air Emissions from Three Campbell County Power 

Stations and One Campbell County Coal Mine1.........................................................3-11

Table 3-10. Measured 2015 Hg Air Emissions from Power Stations Receiving Coal 

From the BAM (Pounds) ..................................................................................................3-13

Table 3-11. Global Warming Potential (as CO2e) Conversion Factors for Selected 

GHGs....................................................................................................................................3-14

Table 3-12. Estimated 2009-2016 Direct and Indirect CO2e Emissions1at the Belle Ayr 

Mine from Coal Combustion...........................................................................................3-16

Table 3-13. Baseline and Recent (2014-2016) Water Quality for Selected Parameters 

at the Caballo Creek, BA-4, BA-6, and the Duck Nest Creek/Reservoir 

Sampling Sites......................................................................................................................3-25

Table 3-14. Potential Effects Evaluation of Federal T&E Species in the Area of the BAN 

Tract......................................................................................................................................3-29

Table 3-15. Campbell County and City of Gillette Population Change, 2000 and 2011 

to 2015 .................................................................................................................................3-37

Table 3-16. Wyoming and Campbell County Employment Rate Change, 2000 and 2011 

to 2015 .................................................................................................................................3-37

Table 4-1. Ownership, Permitted Acres, and Coal Production of Subregion 2 Mines............4-2

Table 4-2. Total Development-related Disturbance Acreages Associated with the 

BAN Study Area...................................................................................................................4-2

Table 4-3. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts....................4-4

Table 4-4. McVehil-Monnett and Redhorse Annual Particulate Matter PM10 and NO2

Dispersion Modeling Results...........................................................................................4-10

Table 4-5. PM10 Concentration Values (First Maximum Value - μg/m3) for 2009-2016 

Associated with the Middle Group2of Mines in the PRB. ........................................4-13
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 x

Table 4-6. Measured Hydrogen Ion (H+) Concentrations1at Monitoring Site WY99, 

2011–2015 ...........................................................................................................................4-18

Table 4-7. Average Annual Campbell County Air Quality Index Values, 2009-2016.............4-19

Table 4-8. Estimated Annual PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and Hg Contributions from 

Combustion of Coal Mined at the BAM for 2009-2016 and 2017-2027, 

Compared to Campbell County and U.S. Total Emissions.......................................4-20

Table 4-9. Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 (CO2e) Emissions1for the Proposed 

Action at the BAM (2009 through 2016, and 2017-2027 Average) .......................4-22

Table 4-10. LOM Federal and State Revenues from Federal Coal Recovery within the 

BAM.......................................................................................................................................4-60

Table 4-11. LOM Federal and State Revenues from Federal Coal Recovery within the 

BAN Tract ...........................................................................................................................4-61

Table 4-12. Unavoidable Adverse Effects of the Proposed Action...............................................4-63

Table 5-1. OSMRE Personnel................................................................................................................5-1

Table 5-2. Third Party Contractor Personnel...................................................................................5-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Wind Rose for the Cordero Rojo Mine (Representing the Middle Group of 

mines), 1995-2000................................................................................................................3-2

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

Cretaceous, Lower Tertiary, and Recent Geologic Units, PRB, Wyoming. .........3-17

Figure 3-3. Estimated 2016 Wyoming and Federal Revenues from 2015 Coal 

Production in Campbell County.....................................................................................3-36

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases.........................................................1-3

Map 1-2. Belle Ayr Mine’s Federal Coal Leases..............................................................................1-4

Map 3-1. Regional Air Quality Monitoring Sites.............................................................................3-5

Map 3-2. Coal Mine Subregion 2 (Middle Group of Mines) Air Quality Monitoring 

Sites.........................................................................................................................................3-8

Map 3-3. Locations of Currently Active Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply 

Wells at the BAM...............................................................................................................3-19

Map 3-5. Raptor Nest Sites and Greater Sage-Grouse Leks within and Adjacent to 

the BAN Tract....................................................................................................................3-28

Map 4-1. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2 Concentrations at the South Gillette 

Area for the Years 2016 and 2017, McVehil-Monnett Modeling ............................4-11
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 xi

Map 4-2. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2 Concentrations at the South Gillette 

Area for the Years 2017 and 2023, Redhorse Modeling...........................................4-12

Map 4-3. Predicted Drawdowns for the Wyodak Coal Seam...................................................4-29

Map 4-4. Cumulative Impact Area for Potential Surface Water and Groundwater 

Impacts..................................................................................................................................4-31

Map 4-5. Wetlands Associated with the BAN Tract...................................................................4-40

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Legal Notices For Federal Lease Modification Approval WYW161248

APPENDIX B Public Scoping And Notice Of Availability Mailing Lists, Public Scoping And 

Ban EA Review Comments Summaries and BAN EA Review Comment 

Response Log (Individual Letters Received Have Not Been Included)

APPENDIX C Air Quality Modeling For BAM Permit P0014896 McVehil-Monnett 

Associates, Inc. Air Quality Modeling for Cordero Rojo Permit #MD-9943 

Redhorse Corporation

APPENDIX D BAM Special Status Species Summary Tables for Federal Lease Modification 

Approval - WYW161248

APPENDIX E Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, Hg, CO, 

and CO2 Contributions from Coal Combustion; Calculations Revenue 

Calculations (Completed by WWC Engineering)
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-1

1.0 Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Lease WYW161248 

Mining Plan Modification (Project) has been prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior 

(DOI) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), Western Region. 

OSMRE is the lead federal agency responsible for development of this EA because, under the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), 

OSMRE will prepare a mining plan decision document (MPDD) in support of its recommendation 

to the Assistant Secretary, Lands and Minerals Management (ASLM) regarding federal mining plans

or mining plan modifications to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed 

mine plan modifications (OSMRE 1999). The ASLM will decide whether the mining plan is 

approved, disapproved, or approved with conditions. Using criteria outlined in OSMRE’s 

Handbook for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (OSMRE 1989), the 

DOI’s Departmental Manual (DM) Part 516 (DOI 2004), and the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of 

federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), OSMRE determined that this EA could tier to and 

incorporate by reference analyses included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared 

by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the 2009 South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Applications EIS (hereafter 2009 SGAC EIS) because the EIS included the Belle Ayr Mine, North 

Tract as part of its analysis.

This EA describes the environmental impacts that are anticipated to result from the current and 

future mining operations at the Belle Ayr Mine (BAM) from January 1, 2016, through the life of 

the mine (2027) within a tract of land known as Belle Ayr North (BAN) that lies within the 

approved Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)-Land Quality Division

(LQD) permit area. 

This EA review has been conducted in accordance with the NEPA and the CEQ regulations for 

implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508); the DOI’s regulations 

for implementation of NEPA (43 CFR Part 46); the DOI’s Departmental Manual Part 516; and 

OSMRE’s Directive REG-1, Handbook on Procedures for Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (OSMRE 1989). Information gathered from federal, state, and 

local agencies, Contura Coal West LLC (CCW), publicly available literature, and in-house OSMRE 

sources, such as the BAM Permit Application Package (PAP), was used in the preparation of this 

EA.

NEPA requires federal agencies to disclose to the public the potential environmental impacts of 

projects they authorize and to make a determination as to whether the analyzed actions would 

“significantly” impact the environment. The term “significantly” is defined in 40 CFR 1508.27. If 

OSMRE determines that the Project would have significant impacts following the analysis in this 

EA, then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be prepared for the Project. If OSMRE 

determines that the potential impacts would not be “significant,” OSMRE would prepare a Finding 

of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to document this finding, and, accordingly, would not prepare 

an EIS.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Site History

CCW owns and operates the BAM, which is located in Campbell County, Wyoming, 

approximately 10 miles south-southeast of Gillette (map 1-1). The BAM was formerly owned 
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-2

by Foundation Coal West (FCW), and is currently a directly held subsidiary of Contura Energy, 

Inc. (CEI). WDEQ-LQD originally approved coal mining operations under Permit No. PT0214, 

issued in 1974. According to information provided by CCW (ACW 2016), the BAM is currently 

recovering coal under five distinct state or federal coal leases, as indicated below and shown on 

map 1-2:

1. State Coal Lease 0-26954A, 

2. Federal Coal Lease WYW78629, 

3. Federal Coal Lease WYW80954, 

4. Federal Coal Lease WYW0317682, and

5. Federal Coal Lease WYW161248.

The BAM is currently seeking approval from the ASLM to recover coal associated with Federal 

Coal Lease WYW161248, which was leased to BTU Western Resources Inc. on November 1, 

2011. The lease was subsequently transferred from BTU Western Resources to Alpha Wyoming 

Land Company. The lease was then transferred to CEI following the purchase of the BAM by CEI. 

The BAM is located in the middle of the Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB) region, a coal basin 

that spans from northeast Wyoming to southeast Montana. The PRB produces 80 percent of the 

coal mined from federal government owned coal leases in the U.S. The region has also been 

heavily developed for oil and gas recovery, most recently for coal bed natural gas (CBNG) 

recovery. All of the land surrounding the BAN tract is currently leased for coal mining. The BAM 

permit area has overlapping coal permit areas with two other approved mining operations 

(Cordero Rojo and Caballo), and abuts mine permit areas on three sides. The Bishop Road 

currently runs through a portion of the BAN tract (map 1-2).

Coal is mined using conventional surface-mining methods and shipped from an onsite railroad 

loading facility to electric utilities and industrial customers in the west, midwest, and southern 

United States. In 2016, 100 percent of coal from the BAM was shipped to U.S. markets. The 

ASLM initially approved the mining of the federal coal associated with WYW161248 in 2012 

(OSMRE 2012). As approved in the 2012 federal mining plan modification, BAM could continue 

mining operations (mining, processing, and shipping coal) through approximately 2018. Mining 

operations are described in detail in chapter 2.

CCW operates the BAM under WDEQ-LQD Permit No. PT0214, issued by WDEQ-LQD, in 

accordance with the approved Wyoming State Coal Regulatory Program (30 CFR Part 950). The 

currently approved permit boundary includes the entire BAN tract. WDEQ-LQD approved the 

most recent version of Permit No. PT0214 with the condition that the BAM may not mine coal 

from any federal coal lease prior to receiving approval from the ASLM. Although WDEQ-LQD 

permits are issued based on the life-of-mine (LOM) plans for the mining operation, under the 

Wyoming Environmental Quality Act of 1973 (WEQA), permits must be renewed every five 

years (Wyo. Stat. § 35-11-405 (c), Wyoming Revised Statutes [WRS] 1973 as amended). This EA 

considers potential effects from mining the BAN tract and does not reevaluate existing federal 

mining areas and operations, except in terms of cumulative effects.

The Resource Recovery and Protection Plan (R2P2) for the BAM is sequenced to concurrently 

operate two mining pits. The BLM Casper Field Office (CFO) approved the R2P2 for the BAM in 

December 2014. This sequencing is necessary to ensure proper blending of the coal to meet coal 

contract stipulations. It is also necessary to lessen the risk of interrupted coal delivery in case an 

emergency (i.e., pit flooding) disrupts operations in one of the pits. The mine also has specific 

bench lengths and bench orientations. These specific pit lengths, orientations, and other mine 

design factors are done to optimize the coal haul distances and to improve coal drying at the 

benches. This mine plan design has been approved by the BLM in the R2P2 and is needed to
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-3

Map 1-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-4

M

Map 1-2. Belle Ayr Mine’s Federal Coal Leases
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-5

ensure maximum recovery of the coal resource. As explained in the R2P2, interruptions to the 

mine plan sequence will disrupt these strategic decisions, resulting in illogical sequences, more 

overburden rehandle, longer haul distance, delayed reclamation, and lower coal recovery.

1.2.2 Project Background

On January 28, 2015, CCW submitted an application to amend Mine Permit No. PT0214-T8 to 

include the remainder (approximately 695.0 acres) of the BAN tract (TFN 5 3/160). WDEQLQD approved the permit amendment application on June 29, 2017. The approved permit 

contains the following conditions:

1. The BAM may not mine coal from any federal coal lease prior to receiving approval from 

the Secretary of the DOI. 

2. A new groundwater model will be developed for any future proposed amendment or 

revision that would require a Probable Hydrologic Consequences analysis.

3. If any cultural materials are discovered during construction, work in the area shall halt 

immediately, the federal agency must be contacted, and the materials evaluated by an 

archaeologist or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's professional 

Qualification Standards (48 CFR 22716, September 1983). The operator shall report any 

unanticipated discovery of cultural or paleontological resource to the LQD within five (5) 

days. Any unanticipated cultural or paleontological resource site(s) shall be protected 

from any disturbance until they have been evaluated and salvaged if necessary.

4. Within ninety (90) days of each Land Quality Division approval revision to Permit No. 

433 (Caballo Mine) or Permit No. 237 (Cordero-Rojo Mine) which affects the "Dual 

Permitted Area" between Permit Nos. 214 and 433 and between Permit Nos. 214 and 

237, Belle Ayr Mine shall submit a revision to Permit No. 214. This revision application 

shall update and revise all text and maps associated with the "Dual Permitted Area" in 

order to bring Permit No. 214 into accord with the revised Permit No. 433 or Permit 

No. 237.

Standard Conditions of WDEQ-LQD State Decision Document (SDD):

1. All operations shall be conducted in accordance with the approved mining and reclamation 

plan and any conditions of the permit or license;

2. The rights of entry shall be provided as described by the Act and any regulations 

promulgated pursuant thereto;

3. The operations shall be conducted in a manner which prevents violation of any other 

applicable State or federal law, and

4. All possible steps shall be taken to minimize any adverse impact to the environmental or 

public health and safety resulting in noncompliance with this approved mining and 

reclamation plan and other terms and conditions of any permit or license, including 

monitoring to define the nature of the noncompliance and warning of any potentially 

dangerous condition. 

5. All reclamation fee shall be paid as required by Title IV, P.L. 95087, for coal produced 

under the permit for sale, transfer or use. 
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-6

As seen on map 1-2, the BAN tract is within the current BAM permit boundary. Until the federal 

mining plan modification request to include mining the federal coal within the BAN tract is 

approved, the BAM is continuing to mine federal coal from the portions of federal coal leases 

WYW78629, WYW80954, and WYW0317682, approved in prior ASLM federal mining plan 

modifications in accordance with conditions to WDEQ-LQD Permit No. PT0214.

1.2.3 Statutory and Regulatory Background

For new mining plans, OSMRE prepares a mining plan decision document (MPDD) in support of 

its recommendation to the ASLM (30 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter D). For existing approved 

mining plans that are proposed to be modified, OSMRE prepares a MPDD for a mining plan 

modification request. The ASLM reviews the MPDD and decides whether or not to approve the 

mining plan modification, and, if approved, what, if any, conditions may be needed. Pursuant to 

30 CFR 746.13, OSMRE’s recommendation to the ASLM is based, at a minimum, upon

1. the PAP;

2. information prepared in compliance with NEPA, including this EA;

3. documentation illustrating compliance with the applicable requirements of federal laws, 

regulations and Executive Orders (EOs) other than NEPA;

4. comments and recommendations or concurrence from other federal agencies and the 

public;

5. findings and recommendations of the BLM with respect to the R2P2, federal lease 

requirements, and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA);

6. findings and recommendations of the WDEQ with respect to the mine permit application 

and the Wyoming State Coal Regulatory Program; and

7. the findings and recommendations of the OSMRE with respect to the additional 

requirements of 30 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter D.

In compliance with other federal laws, regulations and EOs, OSMRE also conducts consultation 

with other agencies before it makes its recommendation to the ASLM. This consultation includes 

the USFWS Section 7 consultation for threatened and endangered species potentially affected by 

the proposed mining plan under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Clean Air Act, 

as amended (CAA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) under the NHPA Section 106 consultation for the affected area. 

Although not specifically mentioned in the document, the 2009 SGAC EIS was also evaluated

under the authority of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) to ensure 

that traditional religious rights and cultural practices were protected.

The BAN portion of the 2009 SGAC EIS analyzed the potential impacts associated with leasing a 

tract of federal coal that would allow the BAM to continue producing coal at the current rate 

instead of ceasing production as recoverable coal reserves are exhausted. The 2009 SGAC EIS

evaluated the BAN tract under a Proposed Action, a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), and 

an Alternative 2. Under the Proposed Action, the federal coal within the 1,578.74-acre BAN tract 

would be been offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and 

special lease stipulations developed for the PRB. Under the No Action Alternative, current and 
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-7

future mining activities approved by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ) and OSMRE would have continued on private lands and appropriate mitigation 

measures would have been implemented to reduce or eliminate effects of mining on the 

environment. BLM selected Alternative 2, which reconfigured the tract to 1,671.0 acres of federal 

coal, and recommended holding a sealed-bid, competitive sale for the coal within the lease tract.

The Federal Coal Leasing Act (FCLAA) requires that lands considered for leasing be included in 

a comprehensive land use plan and that leasing decisions be compatible with that plan (U.S. 

Government Publishing Office (GPO) 1976). The BLM Approved Resource Management Plan for 

Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office (BLM 2001), 

an update of the Buffalo Resource Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 1985), governs and 

addresses the leasing of federal coal in Campbell County. The major land use planning decision 

that BLM must make concerning federal coal resources is a determination of which federal coal 

lands are acceptable for further consideration for leasing. BLM uses four screening procedures 

to identify these coal lands. These screening procedures require BLM to

1. estimate the development potential of the coal lands,

2. apply the unsuitability criteria listed in the regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 3461,

3. make multiple land use decisions that eliminate federal coal deposits from 

consideration for leasing to protect other resource values, and

4. consult with surface owners who meet the criteria defined in the regulations at 43 

CFR 3400.0-5(gg)(1) and (2).

Based on a review of the 2009 SGAC EIS, BLM’s Wyoming High Plains District Office issued a 

Record of Decision (ROD) on July 22, 2010 for the BAN tract, recommending the lease sale be 

held for 1,671.0 acres including 221.7 million tons (Mt) of mineable federal coal associated with 

Alternative 2 (BLM 2010). It should be noted that the estimated amount of mineable coal within 

the tract included in the 2009 SGAC EIS (217.6 Mt) was revised upward to 221.7 Mt of mineable 

in the BAN ROD. The coal included in the BAN Lease by Application (LBA) (WYW161248) was 

offered for sale in a sealed-bid, competitive lease process on July 13, 2011. Following 

determination by BLM that the highest bid at the sale met or exceeded the fair market value 

(FMV) of the coal within the tract, the bid submitted by BTU Western Resources Inc. was 

accepted (BLM 2012). The lease was subsequently transferred from BTU Western Resources to 

Alpha Wyoming Land Company (now CEI) in July of 2012.

Prior to mining the leased coal, CCW must receive authorization from WDEQ-LQD and 

OSMRE. The authorization is granted when the amendment of the existing surface mining permit 

is approved by WDEQ-LQD and the mining plan to mine leased federal coal is approved by the 

Assistant Secretary of Land and Mineral Management (ASLM). 

On January 15, 2016, DOI announced that it will launch a comprehensive review to identify and 

evaluate potential reforms to the federal coal program to ensure that it is properly structured to 

provide a fair return to taxpayers and reflect its impacts on the environment, while continuing to 

help meet our energy needs (DOI 2016). DOI will also institute a pause on issuing new coal leases 

while the review is underway. However, pending leases that have already completed an 

environmental analysis under NEPA and have received a final ROD or Decision Order by a federal 

agency under the existing regulations will be allowed to complete the final procedural steps to 
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-8

secure a lease or lease modification (DOI 2016). Since BLM issued a ROD approving the sale of 

the federal coal associated with WYW161248 and since the coal has been sold through the 

competitive lease sale process, this DOI action will not affect OSMRE’s authority to make a 

recommendation to the ASLM regarding the proposed mining plan modification. Secretarial 

Order 3338 was repealed by Secretarial Order 3348 issued in 2017, lifting the moratorium on 

coal leasing on federal lands.

The BAN tract and associated federal coal as approved for lease by the BLM in relation to the 

BAM are shown on map 1-2. As approved, this tract consists of a single block of federal coal 

and includes 1,671.0 surface acres. Not all of the coal included in the BAN tract is considered 

mineable at this time. Campbell County Road 12, the Bishop Road, overlies a portion of the coal 

included in the tract. SMCRA prohibits mining within 100 feet on either side of the right-of-way 

(ROW) of any public road unless the appropriate public authority allows the road to be relocated 

or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests 

of the affected public and landowners will be protected [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. CCW estimated that 

the BAN tract contains approximately 221.7 Mt of mineable coal reserves if the Bishop Road is 

moved. CCW estimated that if the Bishop Road is not relocated, approximately 58 Mt of coal 

would be bypassed. The potential impacts related to this EA are evaluated assuming that the 

Bishop Road is moved to recover coal under the existing 200-foot buffer (100 feet on either side 

of the ROW) as well as coal that would be isolated east of the Bishop Road. For purposes of this 

EA, Bishop Road is assumed to be relocated to land within the existing BAM or the existing

Caballo Mine permit boundaries, and potential impacts from the road relocation in the BAN tract

are captured in the total disturbance acreage.

OSMRE is the lead federal agency responsible for development of this EA because, under the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), 

OSMRE will prepare a mining plan decision document (MPDD) in support of its recommendation 

to the Assistant Secretary, Lands and Minerals Management (ASLM) regarding federal mining plans

or mining plan modifications to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed 

mine plan(OSMRE 1999). The ASLM will decide whether the mining plan is approved, 

disapproved, or approved with conditions. Using criteria outlined in OSMRE’s NEPA Handbook 

and the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (OSMRE 1989 and CEQ 2005), OSMRE determined 

that an EA that tiers to and incorporates by reference analysis conducted for the 2009 SGAC EIS

whenever possible would fulfill OSMRE’s responsibilities under NEPA for evaluating potential 

impacts resulting from mining the BAN tract. As such, this EA follows guidance in DOI 516 

Departmental Manual (516 DM) (DOI 2004), which is the DOI manual guiding the implementation 

of the NEPA process.

OSMRE will not reevaluate all potential impacts previously analyzed as part of the 2009 SGAC 

EIS, which included analysis of all federal coal lands identified in the proposed mining plan 

modification. Rather, this EA considers potential changes to the extent or nature of those impacts 

based on information included in WDEQ-LQD Mine Permit No. PT0214-T8 and new information 

specific to this action. Because the 2009 SGAC EIS thoroughly described the environmental 

setting of the Belle Ayr Mine operations, it tiers to and is incorporated by reference in this EA. 

The 2009 SGAC EIS can be accessed on line at:

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/eplanning/legacyProjectSite.do?methodName=renderLegacyProjectSite&projectId=67025.
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-9

In the 2010 ROD for the BAN portion of the 2009 SGAC EIS, BLM determined that maximum 

economic recovery of the federal coal would be achieved by mining as described in accordance 

with BLM’s preferred alternative and stipulated that the R2P2 must be approved prior to the 

approval of the MLA mining plan (BLM 2012).

On June 11, 2014, WDEQ-LQD approved CCW’s application to amend the Mine Permit No. 

PT0214-T8 to include approximately 976 acres of the federal coal lease area within the existing 

and approved Belle Ayr Mine permit boundary (Temporary Filing Number [TFN] 6 1/057). On 

January 28, 2015, CCW submitted an application to amend Mine Permit No. PT0214-T8 to 

include the remainder (approximately 695.0 acres) of the BAN tract (TFN 5 3/160). WDEQLQD has not yet approved the permit amendment application so coal recovery associated with 

this federal mining plan modification will not be allowed within the tract until the permit 

amendment is approved.

Following review of OSMRE’s recommendation and supporting documentation, including this EA, 

the ASLM will issue a decision document approving, approving with conditions, or denying the 

mining plan modification request. An approval would supplement the prior federal mining plan 

document for the BAM. 

1.3 Purpose and Need

As described at 40 CFR 1502.13, the purpose and need statement will briefly specify the 

underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposed the alternatives 

including the proposed action. 

1.3.1 Purpose

The purpose of the action is established by the MLA and the SMCRA, which requires the 

evaluation of CCW’s PAP before CCW may conduct underground mining and reclamation 

operations to develop the Belle Ayr North Tract Federal Coal Lease WYW161248. OSMRE is 

the agency responsible for making a recommendation to the ASLM to approve, disapprove, or 

approve with conditions the proposed mining plan modification. The ASLM will decide whether 

the mining plan modification is approved, disapproved, or approved with conditions.

1.3.2 Need 

The need for this action is to provide CCW the opportunity to exercise its valid existing rights 

(VER) granted by the BLM under Federal Coal Lease WYW161248 to access and mine these 

federal coal reserves located in the tract. ASLM approval of the federal mining plan modification 

is necessary to mine the reserves. 

As discussed in more detail in chapter 2, mine operations at the BAM will not be solely dedicated 

to the BAN tract. CCW estimates that mining in East Pit will first recover a portion of the coal 

from the BAN tract beginning in 2017, with mining associated with the BAN tract continuing 

through 2027. 

1.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Other Agency Plans

1.4.1 Statutes and Regulations

The following key laws, as amended, relate to the primary authorities, responsibilities, and 

requirements for developing federal coal resources:
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-10

1. MLA,

2. NEPA,

3. Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (MMPA),

4. Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment, 1976 (FCLAA),

5. Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA),

6. SMCRA, 

7. Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960,

8. ESA,

9. CAA,

10. Clean Water Act (CWA),

11. SDWA,

12. NHPA,

13. AIRFA, 

14. Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (PRPA), and

15. MBTA.

In addition, this EA follows guidance in DOI 516 DM (DOI 2004), which, as outlined in 43 CFR 

Part 46 (U.S. Government Publishing Office [GPO] 2011), is the DOI manual guiding the 

implementation of the NEPA process. An MPDD will be prepared and submitted to the ASLM 

for the considered federal mining plan modification request.

The MLA and FCLAA provide the legal foundation for the leasing and development of federal 

coal resources. BLM is the federal agency delegated the authority to offer federal coal resources 

for leasing and to issue leases. The MMPA declares that it is the continuing policy of the federal 

government to foster and encourage the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral 

resources. In that context, BLM complies with FLPMA to plan for multiple uses of public lands 

and determine those lands suitable and available for coal leasing and development. Through 

preparation of land use plans and/or in response to coal industry proposals to lease federal coal, 

BLM complies with NEPA to disclose to the public the potential impacts from coal leasing and 

development, and also complies with the NHPA, CAA, CWA, ESA, and other applicable 

environmental laws to ensure appropriate protection of other resources. BLM then makes the 

federal coal that is determined suitable for coal development available for leasing. BLM also is 

responsible for ensuring that the public receives fair market value for the leasing of federal coal. 

Once a lease is issued, BLM ensures that the maximum economic recovery of coal is achieved 

during the mining of those federal leases and ensures that waste of federal coal resources is 

minimized through review and approval of a mine’s R2P2 as required under the MLA. BLM 

implements its responsibilities for leasing and oversight of coal exploration and development 

under its regulations at Public Lands, Subtitle B, Chapter II, BLM, DOI, Subchapter C – Minerals 

Management (43 CFR Parts 3400-3480).
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-11

SMCRA provides the legal framework for the federal government to regulate coal mining by 

balancing the need for continued domestic coal production with protection of the environment and 

ensuring the mined land is returned to beneficial use when mining is finished. OSMRE was created 

in 1977 under SMCRA to carry out and oversee those federal responsibilities. OSMRE implements 

its MLA and SMCRA responsibilities under regulations at Mineral Resources, Chapter VII – OSMRE, 

DOI (30 CFR Parts 700-End).

As provided for under SMCRA, OSMRE works with coal producing states and tribes to develop 

their own regulatory programs to permit coal mining. Once a regulatory program is approved 

for a state or tribe, OSMRE steps into an oversight role. OSMRE approved the State of 

Wyoming’s coal regulatory program on November 26, 1980 (30 CFR 950.10). As a result, the 

WDEQ-LQD manages its own program under the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act (Sections 

35-11-101 through 35-11-1104, Wyoming Statutes, 1977, as amended). LQD has the authority 

and responsibility to make decisions to approve surface coal mining permits and regulate coal 

mining in Wyoming under Regulations of the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) and the 

Administrator of the WDEQ-LQD with oversight from OSMRE. The Cooperative Agreement 

between OSMRE and LQD allows the LQD to regulate surface coal mining on federal lands or 

leases while OSMRE continues to carry out its obligations under the MLA, NEPA and other public 

laws (30 CFR 950.30) which includes the recommendations related to mining plans and mining 

plan modifications.

1.4.2 Other Agency Plans

The Project is within the BLM Buffalo Field Office (BFO), which manages 780,291 acres of public 

lands and 4,731,140 acres of mineral estate within Campbell, Johnson and Sheridan counties in 

north-central Wyoming, including BLM-managed mineral estate in the project area. As required 

by FLPMA, BLM periodically prepares and revises land use plans to determine those uses that are 

suitable and compatible on specific portions of public lands, and under what conditions those uses 

would be authorized to mitigate potential impacts on other resource values and protect human 

health and safety. The BLM Casper Field Office (CFO) approved the R2P2 for the BAM in 

December 2014. The 2014 R2P2 approval did not include mining all the reserves in the BAN 

tract. 

1.5 Authorizing Actions

A state permit approved by the WDEQ-LQD and a federal mining plan or mining plan 

modification approved by the ASLM are needed for a coal mine operator to conduct mining 

operations on lands containing leased federal coal in Wyoming. Conditions of mining within the 

tract are described in section 1.2.2. The WDEQ-LQD approval must include the requirement 

that the ASLM approve the mining plan modification before mining of federally leased coal within 

the tract can begin, as shown in the June 29, 2017 WDEQ-LQD approval letter

In accordance with 30 CFR 746.13, OSMRE will prepare and submit an MPDD to the ASLM 

recommending approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the federal mining plan 

modification. The MPDD will include this EA, which includes consultation with federal and state 

agencies, Native American tribes, local governments, and the public; the consideration of 

alternatives and the potential effect of the Project on the environment and the public; the 

determination of whether the potential effects of the Project and alternatives considered are 
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-12

significant; and the determination that the proposed action complies with other applicable federal 

laws and executive orders.

1.6 Outreach and Issues

During review of the mining plan modification application and the prior environmental analyses 

including the 2009 SGAC EIS, OSMRE determined that further analysis was necessary to satisfy 

NEPA requirements to include new information and changes that have occurred since the 2009 

analysis. A scoping process was conducted during which public comments were solicited. OSMRE 

published legal notices in the Gillette News Record on September 10 and 24, 2015 (appendix 

A). The notices described the Project in summary form and informed the public that scoping 

comments would be accepted until October 10, 2015. Public outreach letters describing the EA 

and soliciting scoping comments were mailed on September 10, 2015 to city governments, 

adjacent landowners, and other interested parties. The legal notices and letters invited the public 

to comment on issues of concern related to the EA. OSMRE also sent letters of notification to 

tribes/tribal representatives. These tribal notification letters were mailed on September 10, 2015. 

OSMRE made a project website available that provided project information and comment 

opportunities. 

Substantive issues identified during the public scoping period (September 10, 2015 through 

October 10, 2015) were considered when determining the resources to be included in this NEPA 

analysis. The public scoping comment letters are summarized in appendix B, and the issues 

(with number of comments per issue) included: 

Level of NEPA/ NEPA Process (3,323*),

Air Quality (3,221*),

Wildlife (3,220*),

Climate Change/Global Warming (3,320*),

Water Quality (3,218*),

Pro Mining (9), 

Negative Effects on Economy (6), 

Reclamation/Self Bonding (4),

Bankruptcy (3), and

Noise (1), 

An asterisk indicates the number of comments includes the form comment

1.7 Crosswalk of Resource Areas

Table 1-1 identifies the location of resource discussions presented in the 2009 SGAC EIS and 

lists their location in this EA, where present. While all of the resources have been considered, 

not all of the resources have been brought forward for analysis in this EA. OSMRE determined 

that those resources and potential impacts not brought forward for analysis were sufficiently 

documented in the 2009 SGAC EIS and ROD and that new information would not affect the 

decision-making process. Information presented in the 2009 SGAC EIS that adequately described 

the affected environment for specific resources are incorporated by reference into this EA in 

their entirety and are not reiterated.

1.8 Public Involvement

Public involvement for the original 2009 SGAC EIS, which forms the foundation for this NEPA 

analysis, was extensive and is described below.
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-13

SGAC EIS Mining Plan Modification EA

Resource Affected 

Environment

Environmental 

Consequences

Affected 

Environment 

Environmental 

Consequences

General Setting 3.1 3.1 Not carried forward Not carried forward

Topography and 

Physiography 3.2.1 3.2.2 Not carried forward 4.1.14.2.1

Geology, Minerals, and 

Paleontology

3.3.1.1

3.3.2.1

3.3.3.1

3.3.1.2

3.3.2.2

3.3.3.2

Not carried forward 4.1.2

4.2.2

Air Quality

(This section includes 

greenhouse gas 

discussions)

3.4.1

3.4.2.1

3.4.3.1

3.4.4.1

3.4.2.2

3.4.3.2

3.4.4.2

3.1 4.1.3

4.2.3

Water Resources

3.5.1.1

3.5.2.1

3.5.3.1

3.5.1.2

3.5.2.2

3.5.3.2

3.2

3.2

4.1.4

4.2.4

Alluvial Valley Floors 3.6.1 3.6.2 Not carried forward 4.1.5

4.2.5

Aquatic Resources

(Wetlands) 3.7.1 3.7.2 Not carried forward 4.1.64.2.6

Soils 3.8.1 3.8.2 Not carried forward 4.1.7

4.2.7

Vegetation 3.9.1

Appendix E

3.9.2

Appendix E Not carried forward 4.1.84.2.8

Wildlife (Including 

Threatened and Endangered 

and Special Status Species)

3.10.1.1

3.10.2.1

3.10.3.1

3.10.4.1

3.10.5.1

3.10.6.1

3.10.7.1

3.10.8.1

Appendix E

3.10.1.2

3.10.2.2

3.10.3.2

3.10.4.2

3.10.5.2

3.10.6.2

3.10.7.2

Appendix E

3.3.1

3.3.2

3.3.3

4.1.9

4.2.9

Land Use and Recreation 3.11.1 3.11.2 Not carried forward 4.1.10

4.2.10

Cultural Resources

3.12.1

3.12.1.1

3.12.3

3.12.2

3.12.3 Not carried forward 4.1.114.2.11

Visual Resources 3.13.1 3.13.2 Not carried forward 4.1.12

4.2.12

Noise 3.14.1 3.14.2 Not carried forward 4.1.13

4.2.13

Transportation 3.15.1 3.15.2 3.4.1

3.4.2

4.1.14

4.2.14

Hazardous and Solid Waste 3.16.1 3.16.2 Not carried forward 4.1.15

4.2.15

Socio-Economics

3.17.1.1

3.17.2.1

3.17.3.1

3.17.4.1

3.17.5.1

3.17.6.1

3.17.7.1

3.17.1.2

3.17.2.2

3.17.3.2

3.17.4.2

3.17.5.2

3.17.6.2

3.17.7.2

3.5.1

3.5.2

3.5.3

3.5.4

3.5.6

4.1.16

4.2.16

The Relationship Between 

Local Short-Term Uses of 

Man’s Environment and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term 

Productivity 

3.18.1

3.18.2

3.18.1

3.18.2 Not carried forward 4.1.174.2.17

1

SGAC– South Gillette Coal EIS (BLM 2009a)

Table 1-1. Crosswalk of Resources Analyzed in the SGAC EIS and the BAN EA.
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-14

BLM received the Belle Ayr North coal lease application on July 6, 2004. A notice announcing the 

receipt of the Belle Ayr North coal lease application was published in the Federal Register on 

March 8, 2005 (GPO 2005). The Powder River Regional Coal Team (PRRCT) was notified that 

ACW (now CCW) had filed an application for the Belle Ayr North coal lease and presented with

the Belle Ayr North LBA for review on April 27, 2005. At the April 27, 2005 public meeting, the 

PRRCT reviewed the Belle Ayr North coal lease application and the PRRCT recommended at 

that time that BLM process the application. On March 14, 2007, BLM notified the Governor of 

Wyoming that FCW (now CCW) had filed a lease application with BLM for the BAN tract.

BLM published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS and the notice of a public scoping 

meeting in the Federal Register on March 29, 2007 (GPO 2007) and in the Gillette News Record 

on April 4, 2007. The publications announced the time and location of a public scoping meeting 

and requested public comment on all four of the applications, including the Belle Ayr North lease 

by application. Letters requesting public comment and announcing the time and location of the 

public scoping meeting were also mailed to all parties on the distribution list on March 26, 2007. 

A public scoping meeting was held on April 11, 2007 in Gillette, Wyoming. The scoping period 

extended from March 29 through June 10, 2007, during which time BLM received written, 

emailed, and telephoned comments from six entities.

A notice announcing the availability of the SGAC Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register 

by the EPA on October 24, 2008 (GPO 2008a). Parties on the distribution list were sent copies 

of the Draft EIS at that time and the Draft EIS became available on the Wyoming BLM webpage. 

A 60-day comment period on the Draft EIS commenced with publication of the EPA’s NOA and 

ended on December 24, 2008. BLM published a NOA/Notice of Public Hearing in the Federal 

Register on October 17, 2008 (GPO 2008b). BLM’s Federal Register notice announced the date 

and time of the formal public hearing, which was held on November 19, 2008 in Gillette, 

Wyoming. The purpose of the public hearing was to solicit public comment on the Draft EIS, fair 

market value, maximum economic recovery, and the proposed competitive sale of federal coal 

from the LBA tract. One individual presented statements on the Draft EIS during the hearing and 

written comments were received from 18 individuals, agencies, or organizations during the 

comment period.

The comments received were included in Appendix I of the 2009 SGAC Final EIS. The issues of 

greatest concern included

1. power plant greenhouse gas emissions from Powder River Basin coal combustion,

2. Powder River Basin air quality and wanting greater emphasis on renewable energy 

development from the BLM,

3. concern about the success of the mining reclamation process,

4. concern about water resources in the Powder River Basin, and

5. concern for adequate protection of plant and animal species.

Comments that BLM received on the Draft EIS were reviewed and evaluated and all comments 

that were received were considered in the preparation of the Final EIS and the ROD. During 

WDEQ-LQD review of the Belle Ayr Mine permit amendment TFN 6 1/57, public notice of the 

proposed amendment was published from April 18 through May 9, 2014 in the Gillette News 

Record, with a 30-day comment period. No comments or objections were received (King 2016).

On September 10 and 24, 2015 OSMRE published in the Gillette News Record an NOI to prepare 

a NEPA evaluation in the form of an EA and solicited public comments on the Project to help 
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 1-15

determine the issues and alternatives to be evaluated in the environmental analysis. A 30-day 

comment period on the NOI to prepare the EA extended from September 10 through October 

10, 2015, during which time OSMRE received written and e-mailed comments from 3,232 entities. 

A form letter comment generated by WildEarth Guardians accounted for 3,217 comments. Public 

comments were reviewed and new substantive concerns were considered during the issues 

identification process.

OSMRE announced the availability of the EA on their Initiatives webpage and published a notice 

of availability (NOA) for the EA and unsigned FONSI in Gillette News Record on June 9, 2017. 

Public outreach and Tribal consultation letters were also sent out to interested parties, 

stakeholders and tribes that could be affected by the project. The EA and unsigned FONSI were 

being provided to the public for review and comment for a 30-day period, ending on July 10, 

2017. The comments were evaluated and considered before the EA was finalized and the FONSI 

was signed. OSMRE prepared responses to substantive comments in appendix B of this EA. 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-1

2.0 Proposed Action & Alternatives

Under the requirements of NEPA, an EA must evaluate the environmental impacts of a reasonable 

range of alternatives that meet the project’s purpose and need. The DOI’s NEPA implementing 

regulations define reasonable alternatives as those that are “technically and economically practical

or feasible and meet the purpose and need of the proposed action” 43 CFR 46.420).

Therefore, this chapter describes the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative considered 

and analyzed in detail in this EA. In addition, it identifies alternatives considered but eliminated 

from detailed analysis.

2.1 Belle Ayr Mine WDEQ-LQD Permit

A more complete description of BAM’s existing mining and reclamation methods can be found in 

the PAP. On June 11, 2014, WDEQ-LQD approved CCW’s application to amend the Mine Permit 

No. PT0214-T8 to include approximately 976 acres of the federal coal lease area within the 

existing and approved Belle Ayr Mine permit boundary (Temporary Filing Number [TFN] 6 

1/057). On January 28, 2015, CCW submitted an application to amend Mine Permit No. PT0214-

T8 to include the remainder (approximately 695.0 acres) of the BAN tract (TFN 5 3/160). On 

June 29, 2017 WDEQ-LQD approved the permit amendment application. The state permit 

renewal documents are available at the BAM Office at 2273 Bishop Rd, Gillette, WY 82718; 

WDEQ-LQD at 200 West 17th Street, Suite 10, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82002; and the OSMRE 

Western Region Office located at 1999 Broadway, Suite 3320, Denver, Colorado, 80202.

2.2 Project Area

The project area for this EA is identified as the BAN tract and is located within federal coal leases 

WYW161248 that lies within the north/central portion of the BAM permit boundary (map 1-

2). As determined from the 2010 ROD for the BAN portion of the SGAC EIS, the project area 

is approximately 1,671.0 acres (BLM 2010). The affected area with the tract is estimated to be 

1,481.8, of which, approximated 786.8 acres have been approved for disturbance from mining 

activities unrelated to the Proposed Action (recovery of coal from adjacent lands). Effects

evaluations in this EA will be based on the remaining 695.0 acres of disturbance within the tract.

This EA includes OSMRE’s assessment of the environmental impacts of CCW’s request to modify 

the BAM federal mining plan to include mining the federal coal in the BAN tract. The analysis 

considers the full extent of disturbance contemplated over the LOM. Chapter 1 provides a 

detailed discussion regarding the status of current coal leases associated with the BAM permit 

area, including the status of leases within the project area. 

Prior to ownership by CCW, the project area was homesteaded and was leased at various times 

for oil and gas recovery and associated pipelines and power lines. There are no active oil or gas 

wells on the property. There is one livestock pond. Further, some of the fields were dryland 

farmed and inter-seeded with cropland species. As presented on map 1-2, the Bishop Road 

(County Road 12) bisects the BAN tract.

2.3 Description of Existing Mining and Reclamation Operations

The 2009 SGAC EIS presented a thorough description of the existing condition to support the 

analysis presented therein. The following summary of updated existing condition, including 

ongoing permitted mining operations, are the most notable changes since the 2009 SGAC EIS 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-2

was prepared. This update is provided to support the evaluation of potential impacts contained 

in chapter 4 of this EA.

Mining and reclamation activities have continued as approved by BAM Permit PT0214-T8 since 

the 2009 SGAC EIS was prepared and Federal Coal Lease WYW161248 was issued. The federal 

mining plan approval associated with coal lease WYW161248 would allow mining of 1,671.0 acres 

containing approximately 221.7 Mt of mineable federal coal. Operations at the BAM are 

conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations including SMCRA, the Wyoming 

Environmental Quality Act (WEQA), WDEQ-LQD rules and regulations, and the WDEQ-LQD 

approved PAP. The PAP, including approved revisions, provides the most complete descriptions 

of mining, environmental protection measures, and reclamation activities within the project area 

for the LOM and, as such, is used and referenced for the purpose of this EA. 

CCW currently employs 259 people at the BAM (CCW 2016a) and between 2009 and 2016 the 

mine produced an average of 21.3 Mt of coal per year (WDWS 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 

2014, 2015, 2016). In future years, CCW anticipates mining up to 20 Mt annually, which is under 

the 35 Mt of coal per year permitted by Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ)/Air Quality Division (AQD) air quality permit P0014896 and is consistent with the 2009 

through 2016 average annual production. Approximately 43.0 Mt remain to be recovered in the 

federal mining plan area after January 1, 2017, excluding the federal coal identified in Proposed 

Action. CCW continues to use conventional surface-coal mining techniques described in section 

2.1.1 of the 2009 SGAC EIS. CCW estimates that the BAM currently recovers approximately 94 

percent of mineable coal. Coal is shipped from an onsite railroad loading facility to electric utilities 

and industrial customers in the United States (CCW 2016a).

In 1975, in response to the requirements set forth in SMCRA and in the 1973 Wyoming 

Environmental Quality Act, WDEQ-LQD published a set of rules and regulations that required 

coal mine permittees to restore the land to a condition equal to or greater than its highest 

previous use and required permittees to restore wildlife habitat commensurate with or superior 

to premining habitat (WDEQ-LQD 2012). Reclamation activities under the Proposed Action 

would be consistent with those currently in use at the BAM. Mined-out areas would be reclaimed 

according to an approved postmine plan and would be reclaimed to follow premine drainage 

patterns. In-channel stockponds and playas (shallow topographic depressions that are internally 

drained) would be replaced to provide livestock and wildlife watering sources. All postmining 

topography, including reconstructed drainages, must be approved by the WDEQ-LQD. After 

mining, the land is reclaimed to support the premining uses. 

2.3.1 Current Bonding and Bond Release Status

SMCRA provides that, as a prerequisite for obtaining a coal mining permit, permittees must post 

a reclamation bond to ensure that the regulatory authority will have sufficient funds to reclaim 

the site if the permittee fails to complete the reclamation plan approved in the permit. There are 

three major types of reclamation bonds: corporate surety bonds, collateral bonds (cash; 

certificates of deposit; first-lien interests in real estate; letters of credit; federal, state, or municipal 

bonds; and investment-grade securities), and self bonds (legally binding corporate promises 

without separate surety or collateral, available only to permittees who meet certain financial 

tests) (OSMRE 2015). Wyoming rules and regulations currently include provisions for self-bond 

(WDEQ-LQD 2015). 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-3

Under WDEQ-LQD Mine Permit 214-T8, the BAM reclamation was bonded through Self-Bond 

No. SBC 128. As a result of April 2015 correspondence from ACW (now CCW) to WDEQ-LQD 

that suggested that corporate guarantor regulatory requirements for self-bonding may not be 

met, WDEQ-LQD determined ACW no longer qualified under the self-bonding program, and 

that the self-bonds failed to provide the protection consistent with the objectives and purposes 

of the WDEQ-LQD Rules and Regulations for Coal. WDEQ-LQD ordered ACW to obtain a 

replacement bond of approximately $411 million to cover reclamation costs at the Eagle Butte 

and Belle Ayr mines (WDEQ-LQD 2015). ACW filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 

Federal Bankruptcy Court on August 3, 2015. WDEQ-LQD and ACW subsequently entered into 

a voluntary agreement where WDEQ-LQD would gain a $61 million "Superpriority" claim in case 

of liquidation in exchange for WDEQ-LQD's promise to stay any enforcement action regarding 

self-bonding until reorganization of ACW's debts could be finalized (Office of the Governor

2015). On January 21, 2016, OSMRE issued a ten-day notice (TDN) to WDEQ-LQD regarding a 

possible violation of ACW’s self-bonding Wyoming approved state program (OSMRE 2016). The 

TDN required that WDEQ-LQD take appropriate action within 10 business days of receipt to 

cause the possible violation to be corrected or to show good cause for such failure. WDEQLQD responded to the TDN on February 12 and again on July 15, 2015, requesting that OSMRE 

reverse its decision. 

On July 7, 2016, a bankruptcy judge in Virginia approved an agreement between the DOI and 

other U.S. regulatory agencies and Alpha Natural Resources to replace its self-bonds with surety 

bonds (guaranteed by a corporation licensed to do business as a surety) for the company’s Eagle 

Butte and Belle Ayr mines in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming (U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia 2016). CEI acquired the Eagle Butte and Belle Ayr mines on July 26, 

2016 and the current BAM bond amount is set at $119.0 million, which is supported by corporate 

surety bonds and collateral bonds secured by a first lien interest in real estate.

There are four types of bond release for areas disturbed and coal removed after May 1978 that 

mine operators may apply for to reduce their reclamation bond. As outlined in WDEQ-LQD 

Guideline 20 (Bond Release Categories and Submittal Procedures for Coal Mines [WDEQ-LQD 

2014]), the four bond release types for lands disturbed and coal mined since 1978 are:

1. Area Bond Release – backfilling and rough grading;

2. Phase 1 – partial incremental, which involves finishing of grading;

3. Phase 2 – partial incremental, which addresses species composition of vegetation, 

sediment control, and soil productivity; and

4. Phase 3 - full incremental or final release, which means that reclamation meets the 

postmining land use and has passed verifications for surface and ground water, wetlands, 

vegetation, trees, shrubs, wildlife, and final surface stability.

All reclaimed areas are monitored for a minimum of 10 years to evaluate the success of vegetation 

growth and the establishment of a variety of native plant species prior to the Phase 3 final bond 

release of the reclamation bond. It is important not to equate contemporaneous reclamation 

with final bond release. There is a difference between lands that are in various stages of 

reclamation and those that have been reclaimed and released from final bonding requirements. 

Final bond release on reclaimed lands indicates that the reclamation meeting permit standards 

has been in place in accordance with permit standards for at least 10 years and that an application 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-4

for final bond release was submitted to the WDEQ. In 2014, the OSMRE Denver Field Division 

(DFD) evaluated reclamation plans of six approved permits in Wyoming during oversight 

inspections and determined that all permits evaluated were in compliance with contemporaneous 

reclamation requirements, as defined within the approved permits (OSMRE 2014). According to 

BAM’s 2016 Annual Report, the mine had disturbed approximately 7,304 acres, of which 

approximately 2,750 acres (37.7 percent) are needed for long-term mining activities and, as such, 

are considered land not available for reclamation. The areas listed as needed for long-term mining 

activities include areas need for main facilities (buildings, coal handling facilities, and ancillary 

facilities) and mining operations (train loadout, railroad loop, explosives storage area, scoria pits, 

landfarm, sediment control ponds and diversions, the access road and miscellaneous haul roads 

and light use roads). As of January 2016, the mine had backfilled and graded approximately 3,575 

acres of the remaining 4,554 acres. Thus, the mine had backfilled and graded approximately 49.0 

percent of the total disturbance and approximately 78.5 percent of land available for reclamation.

A summary of phased bond release acreages in the project area is included in table 2-1.

Phased Bond Releases Status Mine Wide Percent

Total Areas Disturbed 7,304 --

Acres of Long-term Mining or Facilities and Percent of Total Disturbance 2,750 37.7%

Acres Available for Backfilling or Reclamation and Percent of Total Disturbance 4,554 62.4%

Acres of Active Mining and Percent of Available Acres 979 21.5%

Acres Backfilled and Graded and Percent of Available Acres 3,575 78.5%

Total Areas Reclaimed (Soiled and Seeded/Planted) and Percent of Backfilled and Graded 3,040 85.0%

Areas Which Have Achieved Phase 1 Bond Release and Percent of Reclaimed Acres 2,176 71.6%

Areas Which Have Achieved Phase 2 Bond Release and Percent of Reclaimed Acres 921 30.3%

Areas Which Have Achieved Phase 3 Bond Release and Percent of Reclaimed Acres 921 30.3%

1 As of January 7, 2016

Source: ACW 2016

It should be noted that both state and federal regulations do not require that a permittee file for 

bond release at any prescribed time. Therefore, only using bond release statistics to evaluate 

reclamation success can be misleading (OSMRE 2015). Typically, permittees do not file for Phase 

II or Phase III bond release until completion of the entire mining operation. As a result, the 

number of acres released from Phase 2 and Phase 3 bond in Wyoming is relatively small compared 

to the number of acres actually regraded, topsoiled and seeded. The standard for determining if 

mines are meeting their reclamation obligations is related to compliance with contemporaneous 

reclamation permit commitments. Contemporaneous reclamation specifically refers to the 

timeliness in which reclamation is occurring (OSMRE 2015). An evaluation is conducted annually 

by OSMRE and, according to the 2015 Annual Evaluation Report for the WDEQ Regulatory 

Program, all coal mines evaluated, including Belle Ayr Mine, were found to be in compliance that

evaluation year (OSMRE 2015).

2.3.2 BAM Support Facilities

Mining activities are supported by existing, permitted facilities located within the BAM permit 

boundary and include facilities buildings, coal handling facilities, and ancillary facilities. Other 

facilities not considered as the main facilities described above include the train loadout, railroad 

Table 2-1. Summary of Phased Bond Release Acreages1in the Project Area
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-5

loop, explosives storage area, scoria pits, landfarm, sediment control ponds and diversions, the 

access road and miscellaneous haul roads and light use roads. 

2.3.3 Power Plants Supplied by the BAM

The power plants previously supplied by the BAM are listed in table 2-2. Not all power plants 

utilized BAM-produced coal each year, between 2009 and 2016.

Table 2-2. Power Plants Supplied by Coal Recovered from the BAM.

Power Plant Location Rail Distance 

(miles) Carrier Type

Allen S King Generating Plant Stillwater, MN 1,028 UP Cyclone

Baldwin Energy Complex Baldwin, IL 1,255 BNSF Cyclone

Boardman Plant Boardman, OR 1,428 BNSF Wall Fired

Coffeen Power Station Coffeen, IL 1,135 BNSF Cyclone

Columbia Richland, WA 1,452 BNSF Tangential

Comanche Station Pueblo, CO 501 BNSF Tangential

Dan E Karn Essexville, MI 1,528 BNSF Tangential

Edgewater Generating Station Sheboygan, WI 1,263 BNSF Cyclone

Flint Creek Plant Gentry, AR 1,009 UP Wall Fired

George Neal North Sergeant Bluff, IA 726 UP Cyclone

George Neal South Salix, IA 719 UP Cyclone

Gerald Gentleman Station Sutherland, NE 375 UP Dry Bottom

Havana Power Station Havana, IL 1,216 BNSF Wall Fired

Hawthorn Generating Facility Kansas City, MO 812 BNSF Wall Fired

Western Farmers Electric Coop 

(Hugo)

Hugo, OK 1,249 BNSF Wall Fired

Iatan Generating Station Weston, MO 776 BNSF Tangential

J H Campbell Generating Plant West Olive, MI 1,292 BNSF Tangential

James H Miller Steam Plant Quinton, AL 1,629 BNSF Wall Fired

John W Turk Jr Plant Fulton, AR 1,400 UP Spiral Wound

Joppa Joppa, IL 1,257 UP Tangential

La Cygne Generating Station La Cygne, KS 875 BNSF Wall Fired

Louisa Generating Station Muscatine, IA 1,068 BNSF Wall Fired

Montrose Generating Station Clinton, MO 940 UP Tangential

Nelson Mossville, LA 1,654 UP

Muscatine Power & Water Generation Muscatine, IA 1,071 BNSF Wall Fired

Oologah Oologah, OK 1,028 UP Tangential

Ottumwa Generating Station Ottumwa, IA 887 BNSF Tangential

Platte Generating Station Grand Island, NE 528 UP Tangential

Prairie Creek Generating Station Cedar Rapids, IA 917 BNSF Wall Fired

Shady Point LLC Panama, OK 1,334 BNSF Fluidized Bed

Sheldon Station Hallam, NE 909 UP Cyclone

Sherburne County Generating Plant Becker, MN 1,066 BNSF Cyclone

Walter Scott Jr Energy Center Council Bluffs, IA 662 BNSF Wall Fired

Welsh Plant Pittsburg, TX 1,420 UP Wall Fired

White Bluff Generating Plant Redfield, AR 1,295 UP Tangential

Source: CCW 2017a
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-6

2.4 Description of Alternatives

A description of the alternatives analyzed by this EA are included in this section and summarized 

in table 2-3. The description of environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action 

assumes that the Bishop Road would be relocated within the BAM or the existing Caballo Mine 

permit boundaries and the coal under the road and potentially isolated coal north of the current 

road location would be recovered. All alternatives reflect the BLM-approved modification to 

CCW’s WYW161248 coal lease. Therefore, quantities (acres and tonnages) incorporated into 

table 2-3 include those added to WYW161248 by the approved BAN federal coal lease.

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

Life, and Employees for the No Action Alternative and Proposed 

Action, as of January 1, 2017.

No Action

(Existing 

Mine)

Added to the Federal 

Mine Plan Resulting from 

Approval of the Proposed 

Action

Mineable Federal Coal (Mt) 45.6 221.7

Recoverable Federal Coal (Mt)143.0 208.4

Coal Lease Area - Federal Leases Only (acres) 6,616.521,671.03

Total Affected Area (acres) 11,776.141,481.85

Approved Permit Area (acres) 12,090.641,457.75

Average Annual Post-2016 Coal Production (Mt) 20.0 No change in production

Life of Mine from Federal Coal 2.2 yrs. 10.4 yrs.

Average Number of Employees 259 No change in employee number

1 Assumes a 94 percent recovery factor of mineable coal.

2 This number includes federal coal lease acres associate with BLM’s approval of the modification to WYW161248.

3 These acres are included in the adjacent column because the federal coal within the tract has been leased.

4 This number is from the currently approved WDEQ-LQD Permit No. PT0214-T8.

5 The affected area increase is larger than the permit area increase because there is additional disturbance within the current permit 

boundary.

2.4.1 Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, OSMRE would recommend and ASLM would approve 

CCW’s federal mining plan modification to conduct coal mining on 1,481.8 acres of federal coal 

lands within the 1,671.0 acre tract to recover an estimated 208.4 Mt of federal coal related to 

WYW161248. CCW estimates that at the projected average annual coal production rate of 20 

Mt, mining this coal would extend the mine’s life by about 10.4 years.

The BAN tract would be mined as an integral part of the BAM under the Proposed Action (map 

1-2). Because the BAN tract would be an extension of the existing BAM, the facilities and 

infrastructure would be the same as those identified in the proposed WDEQ-LQD Mine Permit 

214-T8 amendment, which was approved by WDEQ-LQD on June 29, 2017, and the BLM 

Resource Recovery and Protection Plan (R2P2), which was approved in December of 2014.

2.4.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, OSMRE would not recommend, and the ASLM would not 

approve CCW’s proposed mining plan modification and 208.4 Mt of federal coal related to 

WYW161248 would not be recovered. Under this alternative, the BAM would mine its remaining 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-7

43.0 Mt of recoverable coal reserves on the existing Belle Ayr leases in approximately 2 years, at 

an average annual production rate of approximately 20 Mt.

To compare the environmental and economic consequences of mining these lands versus not 

mining them, this EA has been prepared under the assumption that the coal within Federal Coal 

Lease WYW161248 tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if the No Action 

alternative was selected. However, selection of the No Action alternative would not preclude 

approval of a mining plan modification to include this tract in the future. 

2.4.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 

If an alternative is considered during the NEPA process, but the agency decides not to analyze 

the alternative in detail, the agency must identify those alternatives and briefly explain why those 

alternatives were eliminated from detailed study (40 CFR 1502.14). An action alternative may be 

eliminated from detailed study for the following of reasons:

1. It is ineffective (does not respond to the purpose and need).

2. It is technically or economically infeasible (consider whether implementation of the 

alternative is likely given past and current practice and technology).

3. It is inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area (such as, 

not in conformance with the land use plan (LUP).

4. Its implementation is remote or speculative.

5. It is substantially similar in design to an alternative that is analyzed.

6. It would have substantially similar effects to an alternative that is analyzed.

OSMRE considered public and agency comments when selecting alternative scenarios for this EA 

to evaluate the consequences of the approval or denial of the mining plan modification request. 

However, OSMRE's decision is limited to recommending approval, approval with conditions, or 

denial of the requested mining plan modification.

2.4.3.1 Underground Mining Alternative

An alternative to require BAM to use underground mining methods to extract the coal was 

identified in public comments received during the outreach period, considered by OSMRE and 

eliminated from detailed study because WDEQ-LQD has approved a surface mining permit for 

this project using surface mining techniques and underground mining is inconsistent with the 

approved permit. The Purpose and Need for this EA is predicated upon review of a surface mining 

plan included as part of the approved surface mining permit. An Underground Mining alternative 

would, thus, be inconsistent with the purpose and need for this action.

Also, Federal Coal Lease WYW161248 is a surface reserve lease only. The lease was sold by the 

federal government and is currently held by CCW, with the clear understanding by all parties 

concerned that the lease would be mined by surface mining methods only.

This alternative is also economically infeasible at current permitted production rates, and the 

economics of initiating an underground longwall mining operation in the BAM are not cost 

effective. The facilities and equipment needed for underground mining are different from surface 

mining. Because the infrastructure for underground mining is not in place at the BAM, new 

infrastructure for underground mining would need to be constructed. The capital expenditure to 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-8

develop an underground mine would be prohibitive. In addition, all new surface facilities would 

need to be constructed, including, but not limited to, conveyors, coal stock piles, a wash plant, 

and maintenance and support facilities. In addition, all new underground mining equipment would 

need to be purchased such as, but not limited to, a long wall mining system, conveyor 

systems/drives/power stations, vehicles for transporting men and supplies, several continuous 

miners, shuttle cars, large and small ventilation fans, and roof bolters.

In addition, approval by WDEQ-LQD of an application for a permit revision would be required 

to authorize underground mining. The process for BAM to design and engineer a new 

underground mine and for WDEQ-LQD to process a new permit application would take a 

number of years. These factors would also result in this being an economically unreasonable 

alternative to consider.

In summary, this alternative was not brought forward for analysis because underground mining 

does not respond to the purpose and need for this action and in addition, the economic burden 

to shift to underground mining would be prohibitive.

2.4.3.2 Air Quality Mitigation Alternatives

Some public comments suggested that OSMRE consider alternatives that mitigate air quality 

impacts, specifically by imposing more stringent emission limits at power plants fueled by the 

BAM and by requiring oil and gas operators in the region to reduce their emissions. These 

proposals are not alternatives to the mining plan being considered. The effects of coal combustion 

are analyzed in the Proposed Action as well as in the No Action alternative because they are 

considered to be indirect effects. CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508 (b) define “indirect effects” 

as those which are caused by the proposed action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (CEQ 2005). These indirect effects would occur as 

a result of burning the coal that is mined. Any mitigation measure proposed by OSMRE imposing 

more stringent emission limits at generating stations and upon oil and gas operators is beyond 

OSMRE’s authority and its implementation would be highly remote and speculative.

Public comments also suggested considering an alternative that required reduced air emissions at 

the mine by changing or modifying mining related equipment to equipment that would produce 

lower air emissions. The BAM is a relatively small contributor of the emissions related to engine 

combustion (primarily carbon dioxide [CO2] and oxides of nitrogen [NOX]) in the region. 

Currently, there are five coal-fired power plants in the Wyoming PRB study area. Black Hills 

Power Corporation owns and operates the Neal Simpson Unit 2 (120-megawatts [MW]), Wygen 

I, II, III and (88-MW, 90-MW, and 100-MW, respectively), and Wyodak (335-MW) power plants, 

all of which are located approximately five miles east of Gillette, Wyoming. Pacific Power and 

Light’s Dave Johnston Power Plant is located near Glenrock, Wyoming, outside of the study area. 

There are also three separate interconnected gas-fired power plants (Hartzog, Arvada, and 

Barber Creek) located near Gillette, Wyoming. Each contains three separate 5-MW-rated 

turbines that provide electric power to Basin Electric and its customers. In winter, the maximum 

capacity can reach 22.5-MW from each site. Black Hills Power Corporation also owns and 

operates the 40 KW Neil Simpson Gas Turbine #2 power plant. All electricity generation units 

discussed above are in operating condition, although they do not operate at maximum capacity.

The cost to make the switch to equipment powered by a different fuel (such as natural gas or 

solar powered equipment) for approximately 1,671 acres of federal coal would be cost prohibitive 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-9

for the minimal benefit to the regional air quality. In addition, the use of natural gas powered 

engines in mining equipment is relatively new and some types of equipment would not be available 

for replacement with natural gas powered engines. The use of solar power to run large equipment 

has not been tested and is not considered technologically feasible at this time. Similarly, 

retrofitting existing equipment with additional emissions control devices would be expensive with 

limited effect on regional air emissions. 

OSMRE has not brought forward this alternative for full analysis because requiring natural gas 

and solar powered engine technology and retrofitting existing equipment is not economically or 

technically feasible for all equipment at the BAM, and would likely have substantially similar effects 

to alternatives that are analyzed.

2.4.3.3 Mining Plan with Reduced Disturbance Alternatives

Alternatives that would reduce the disturbance area were considered; however, OSMRE did not 

carry these forward for analysis because these alternatives were thoroughly analyzed in the 2009 

SGAC EIS. In issuing its ROD for the BAN portion of the 2009 SGAC EIS, BLM determined that 

the selected alternative provided for maximum economic recovery of the coal resource and was 

in conformance with BLM’s land use plan decisions covering the BAN area. In addition, 

alternatives reducing disturbance area were substantially similar in design to the Proposed Action 

and would have substantially similar effects and therefore were not carried forward for analysis.

2.4.4 Project Environmental Protection and Mitigation Features

The surface mining permitting process under WDEQ-LQD coal regulatory program requires 

applicants to obtain approvals from various agencies, including the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD), SHPO, and the USFWS. The applicant is then required to incorporate 

agency approved design features into their mining proposals that are intended to protect or 

minimize impacts to environmental resources. Each PAP submitted to WDEQ-LQD for review 

and approval contains resource-specific plans, design features, and associated performance 

standards. The resource-specific plans describe the design features for reducing or eliminating 

the potential impacts to various resources or how those resources would be restored to 

approved post-mining conditions after mining is complete. WDEQ-LQD approval commits the 

applicant to implementing the design features contained in the PAP. It is important to note that 

the design features of the original permit also apply to a newly revised permit, unless WDEQLQD approves changes.

The following is a summary of the environmental commitments for environmental protection and 

mitigation, by resource, included in the PAP. More detailed descriptions of these environmental 

commitments are included in the PAP (CCW 2016b).

2.4.4.1 Topography

• Reclaim the area to the WDEQ-LQD approved post-mining topography.

• Grade backfilled mining areas to establish a stable post-mine topography that blends 

into the undisturbed areas outside the mining limits.

2.4.4.2 Air Quality 

• Water roads and apply chemical dust suppressants as necessary to control fugitive

dust emissions.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-10

• Operate in compliance with the WDEQ-AQD Permit No. P0014896. 

• Revegetate long-term topsoil stockpiles.

2.4.4.3 Water Resources

• Route all runoff from disturbed areas through one or more sediment ponds or 

approved alternative sediment control measures (ASCMs). 

• Construct new sedimentation structures and diversion ditches prior to topsoil 

removal to control runoff, avoid erosion and an increased contribution of sediment 

load to runoff, and protect surface water and groundwater quality.

• Give new-hire training to employees regarding sediment control requirements and 

construction techniques.

• Maintain temporary sediment ponds and ASCMs until vegetative establishment is 

complete and acceptable runoff water quality is achieved.

• Monitor performance of diversion ditches and sediment control structures and 

maintain or upgrade as needed.

• Control and monitor the quantity and quality of any discharges from the permit area 

in compliance with the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) 

Permit Number WY-0032964 issued by the WDEQ-WQD under the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.

• Revegetate permanent drainage ditches unless approved by WDEQ-LQD and install 

other erosion control measures where necessary based on the approved design. 

• Seed disturbance related to sediment pond construction, including embankments and 

surrounding areas, after the pond construction is completed.

• Design sediment ponds to contain the water and settleable sediment load from a 10-

year, 24-hour storm event.

• Construct ASCMs in small drainage basins, where sediment ponds are inappropriate, 

to provide secondary sediment controls for precipitation and snowmelt events in 

disturbed areas of the mine site. ASCMs are typically dozer sumps and ditches to the 

dozer sumps or a series of straw wattles (permeable barriers used to detain surface 

runoff long enough to reduce flow velocity). 

• Size haul road culverts to maintain proper drainage during high snowmelt or other 

exceptional runoff events. 

2.4.4.4 Vegetation

• Revegetate to achieve the approved post-mining land uses.

• Reclaim the postmine disturbed land with shrubs in accordance with approved permit 

commitments.

• Eliminate livestock grazing during vegetation establishment.

• Once vegetation is established, manage livestock usage to protect the established 

vegetative cover.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-11

• Evaluate revegetation success in accordance with the standards approved by the 

WDEQ-LQD.

2.4.4.5 Terrestrial Wildlife

• Re-establish appropriate and suitable forage, shrubs, and trees on reclaimed areas in 

accordance with approved permit commitments.

• Construct permanent stock and wildlife watering ponds.

• Leave undisturbed islands throughout the disturbed area to provide habitat for 

wildlife.

• Provide training to employees on WGFD topics for protecting wildlife, and inform 

them of wildlife prone locations.

• Set and post the maximum speed of 45 mph on the mine access road to limit collisions 

with wildlife. 

• Manage livestock grazing to ensure that adequate forage is left for wildlife use and 

that the range is not over used.

• Control pesticide and herbicide use to protect livestock and wildlife.

• Provide rock piles and varying topographic design in the reclamation to provide 

habitat diversity for wildlife habitat.

• Limit soil salvage activities near active Greater sage-grouse (GRSG - Centrocercus 

urophasianus) leks during the breeding and rearing season, mid-March – mid-July.

• Install fencing in accordance with PAP requirements for wildlife protection.

2.4.4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species

• Construct power lines to Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power lines 

- The State of the Art in 2006. 

• Conduct annual wildlife surveys of raptors and migratory birds of high federal interest 

(MBHFI), and prepare/submit annual reports. 

• If a nest develops within 0.25 mile (or line of sight) of the active mining area, consult 

with USFWS before continuing activities near the nest. Implement site specific 

protections and mitigation measures as required.

• Prepare raptor mitigation plans as required by USFWS and comply with the 

requirements in the plans, such as installing raptor platforms.

• Conduct surveys and develop mitigation plans for newly listed T&E species that are 

present in the mine area as they are newly listed.

2.4.4.7 Cultural Resources

• Perform pre-disturbance field surveys.

• If an unidentified cultural or historical resource is discovered within or adjacent to 

the project area, halt activities that may damage the resource and report the findings 

to the responsible regulatory agency.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 2-12

• Complete required mitigation for cultural and historic resources.

2.4.4.8 Visual Resources

• Reclaim disturbed areas to the approved post-mining topography.

2.4.4.9 Soils

• Live-handle topsoil where possible.

• Locate topsoil stockpiles to avoid erosion from wind and water and additional 

compaction or contamination.

• Regrade topsoil stockpiles with outside slopes no steeper than 3H:1V and protect 

topsoil stockpiles by revegetating as soon as conditions allow.

• Clearly label topsoil stockpiles.

• Reserve adequate topsoil for reclamation of wetlands, bottomlands and croplands.

• Periodically recalculate the mine-wide soil balance and adjust the replacement depth 

as necessary. 

• Sample the regraded spoil in accordance with the PAP before applying topsoil to 

ensure it is not toxic to vegetation.

• Control weeds on topsoil stockpiles by monitoring and treating with an herbicide as 

needed.

• If soil compaction occurs after topsoil replacement, rip the soil to minimize 

compaction, promote stability and assist in revegetation. 

• Leave reapplied topsoil in a rough condition to help control wind and water erosion 

prior to seeding.

• Monitor topsoil removal and maintain replacement balances to ensure adequate 

topsoil is available for reclamation.

2.4.4.10 Post-mining Land Use

• Reclaim affected areas to land uses as high as or higher than those in effect prior to 

mining.

• Establish vegetation to support livestock grazing.

• Establish adequate forage and cover to support year-round wildlife usage.

• Establish permanent stock and wildlife watering ponds.

• Establish the post-mining hydrologic conditions in accordance with the approved 

hydrologic reclamation plan.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-1

3.0 Affected Environment

This chapter discusses the existing conditions of the physical, biological, cultural, and human 

resources that could be affected by implementation of the alternatives described in chapter 2,

as they relate to the mine plan decision document for the federal mining plan modification for 

the BAM. For the purpose of this analysis, the project area is considered the BAN tract and, 

where appropriate, a surrounding buffer. Buffers vary by resource and are described below. 

Elements of the environment specified by statute, regulation, executive order, or the standards 

for public land health are described and analyzed in this section except where the 2009 SGAC 

EIS evaluation and conclusions have been deemed adequate for effects determinations related to 

this EA. 

Table 1-1 in chapter 1 is a crosswalk table that indicates resource discussions presented in the 

2009 SGAC EIS and those carried forward for this EA. The determination of adequacy of the 

baseline conditions described in the 2009 SGAC EIS as related to the BAN tract was based on 

the fact that conditions have not substantively changed, no new data are available, or the resource 

conditions have only been minimally affected as a result of current mining operations and further 

presentation of information would not affect the decision-making process. Baseline information 

presented in the 2009 SGAC EIS that has not substantively changed is incorporated by reference. 

Resource discussions for general sitting; topography and physiography; geology, minerals, and 

paleontology; alluvial valley floors; aquatic resources; soils; vegetation; land use and recreation, 

cultural resources; noise; hazardous and solid waste; and the relationship between local shortterm uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity 

are incorporated by reference. The 2009 SGAC EIS can be accessed online here:

https://www.blm.gov/publish/content/wy/en/info/NEPA/documents/hpd/SouthGillette.html. 

Updated information pertaining to the baseline data is presented in this chapter when applicable.

Figure 3-1 presents a wind rose from the neighboring Cordero Rojo Mine (the site used for air 

quality modeling for the Middle Group mines) (McVehil-Monnett 2014). The wind directions are 

predominately from the west through north-northwest and from the southeast through south.

3.1 Air Quality

Air quality regulations applicable to surface coal mining include the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS), Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD), National Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and the Federal 

Operating Permit Program (Title V). These regulatory programs are described in detail in 

appendix H of the 2009 SGAC EIS. 

Air quality information specific to the BAM is included in CCW’s P0014896 (WDEQ-AQD 2015). 

Section 3.4 and appendix H of the 2009 SGAC EIS include detailed discussions of air quality 

issues related to the leasing and mining of coal within the BAN tract. The analysis presented 

herein includes discussion of attainment/non-attainment areas; updates to recent air quality 

monitoring findings; revises air quality modeling results; and updates discussions on fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), air quality related values (AQRVs), 

and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-2

Figure 3-1. Wind Rose for the Cordero Rojo Mine (Representing the Middle 

Group of mines), 1995-2000
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-3

Since the completion of the 2009 SGAC EIS, the BAM permit has been revised to reduce the 

boundary of the Lands Necessary to Conduct Mining (LNCM) and to reduce the maximum 

permitted production level from 45 Mt to 35 Mt per year. Both of these changes required new 

air quality modeling. The results of this modeling are presented in section 4.3.1. According to 

EPA (EPA 2017a), the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, deforestation, land-use changes, 

and other sources have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping GHGs to increase significantly 

in the atmosphere. GHGs are not currently regulated pollutants (not subject to NAAQS or 

WAAQS regulations). GHG discussions are included in sections 3.1.4.4 and 4.3.1.

3.1.1 National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The CAA requires the EPA to establish NAAQS to protect public health and welfare. These 

standards define the maximum level of air pollution allowed in the ambient air. The CAA 

established NAAQS for six pollutants, known as “criteria” pollutants, which “... cause or 

contribute to air pollution which may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare and the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile 

or stationary sources.” The six, present-day criteria pollutants are lead (Pb); nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2); sulfur dioxide (SO2); carbon monoxide (CO); ozone (O3); and particulate matter (PM10

and PM2.5), where PM10 is coarse particulate with mean aerodynamic diameters less than 10 

microns and PM2.5 is fine particulate with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less. 

The CAA and its amendments allow states to promulgate additional ambient air standards that 

are at least as stringent, or more stringent, than the NAAQS. The NAAQS and WAAQS, 

established by the WDEQ-AQD, are listed in table 3-1. WAAQS values also include hydrogen 

sulfide (H2S).

3.1.2 Attainment/Non-Attainment Area Designations

Pursuant to the CAA, EPA developed a method for classifying existing air quality in distinct 

geographic regions, known as air basins, air quality control regions, and/or metropolitan statistical 

areas. For each federal criteria pollutant, each air basin (or portion of a basin or statistical area) 

is classified as in “attainment” if the area has complied with the adopted NAAQS for that 

pollutant, as “non-attainment” if the levels of ambient air pollution exceed the NAAQS for that 

pollutant, or as “unclassifiable” if the area cannot be classified on the basis of available information 

as meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the 

pollutant.

Through the State Implementation Plan (SIP) process, which is approved by EPA, states use the 

EPA method to designate areas within their borders as being in “attainment”, “non-attainment”, 

or “unclassifiable” with the NAAQS. The BAN tract is in an area that is designated an attainment 

area for all pollutants (EPA 2017b). However, the town of Sheridan, Wyoming, located 

approximately 87 miles northwest of the project area (map 3-1), is a non-attainment area for 

PM10.

It should be noted that WDEQ/AQD has requested that the Wyoming Air Quality Advisory 

Board consider a request to review the State of Wyoming’s Request for Redesignation and 

Limited Maintenance Plan for the Attainment in the Particulate Matter (PM10) Moderate 

Nonattainment Area in Sheridan (WDEQ-AQD 2016b). The request is based on the fact that 

WDEQ-AQD has submitted over 25 years of monitoring data demonstrating that the Sheridan 

nonattainment area has attained the PM10 NAAQS for over 25 years. Upon review and
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-4

Emissions

Averaging

Period

Wyoming

Standard

(WAAQS)

Federal

Standard

(NAAQS)

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour

8-hour

35 ppma

9 ppma

35 ppma

9 ppma

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

1 1-Hour

3-hour

75 ppbd

0.50 ppma

75 ppbd

0.50 ppma

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

2 1-Hour

annual

100 ppba

53 ppbb

100 ppbi

53 ppbf

Ozone (O3)

3

8-hour 0.075 ppme0.070 ppme

PM10

24-hour

annual

150 μg/m3a

50 μg/m3f

150 μg/m3c

--

PM2.5

24-hour

annual

35 μg/m3g

15 μg/m3f

35 μg/m3g

12 μg/m3h

Lead (Pb)

4

90-Day 0.15 μg/m3h

0.15 μg/m3b

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1-Hour 70/40 μg/m3j--

a Not to exceeded more than once per calendar year

b Not to be exceeded

c Not to exceed more than once per calendar year on averaged over 3 years

d 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years

e Annual 4th-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years

f Annual mean

g 98th percentile of 24-hour daily average concentration, averaged over 3 years 

h Annual mean, averaged over 3 years

i 98th percentile 1-hour daily maximum, averaged over 3 years

j 1⁄2-hour average not to be exceeded more than 2 times per year/1⁄2-hour average not to be exceeded more than 2 times in any five 

consecutive days

1 The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area for which

it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2)any area for which an implementation 

plan providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard has not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment 

under the previous SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a SIP call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)). A 

SIP call is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment of the required 

NAAQS.

2 The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of ppb for the purposes of clearer comparison to the 1-hour 

standard level.

3

Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards additionally remain in effect in some 

areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) O3 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the 

implementation rule for the current standards.

4

In areas designated nonattainment for the Pb standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for which 

implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 

μg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect.

-- Values not included in NAAQS and were not calculated.

Source: EPA 2016a and WDEQ-AQD 2016a

completion of a finalized draft, the request will be submitted to EPA. The final determination has 

not been made at this time.

3.1.3 Background

The most recent WDEQ-AQD air quality permit (P0014896) for the BAM was issued on June 3, 

2015. This air quality permit was approved based on an analysis using emission factors, estimation 

methods, and model selection consistent with WDEQ-AQD policy and limits annual production 

to 35 Mt (WDEQ-AQD 2015). 

An inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for air quality permit P0014896 showed 

a maximum potential to emit 37.9 tons per year (tpy); therefore, as determined by a comparison 

Table 3-1. Federal and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-5

Map 3-1. Regional Air Quality Monitoring Sites
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-6

with values presented in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations (WAQSR), a PSD increment consumption analysis was not necessary. Also, as 

determined by a comparison with values presented in WAQSR, the BAM is not subject to the 

Title V Operating Permit program due to the low (below 100 tpy) potential to emit 

(WDEQ-AQD 2015). Regulated air pollutants associated with coal extraction and processing 

activities and coal combustion include:

1. Particulates (fugitive dust) generated from mining activities such as blasting, excavating, 

loading and hauling of overburden and coal, and wind erosion of disturbed and 

unreclaimed mining areas;

2. NO2 produced from overburden and coal blasting; 

3. CO, NOX, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), SO2, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

from gasoline and diesel vehicle tailpipe emissions;

4. CO, SO2, VOCs, NO2 and PM10 emissions from diesel railroad locomotives used to 

haul coal; and

5. SO2, NOX, CO, and VOCs produced from power plants. The closest coal-fired power 

plants to the BAN tract are the Wyodak/Wygen/Neil Simpson complex located 

approximately 12 miles north-northeast of the BAN tract, the Dry Fork Station plant 

located approximately 17 miles north of the BAN tract, and the Dave Johnston plant 

located approximately 90 miles south-southwest of the BAN tract; however, they are 

not supplied by BAM produced coal. The closest BAM-supplied power plant is the 

Gerald Gentleman Station, located in Sutherland, Nebraska, approximately 375 miles 

from the mine. Power plants supplied by the BAM are listed in table 2-2.

3.1.4 Existing Belle Ayr Mine Air Quality Summary

Baseline air quality data for the surface facilities area at the BAM are found in the section 3.4 of 

the 2009 SGAC EIS. 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 U.S., 

topography is particularly important in channeling pollutants along valleys, creating upslope and 

downslope circulations that may entrain airborne pollutants, and blocking the flow of pollutants 

toward certain areas. In general, local effects are superimposed on the general weather regime 

and are most important when the large-scale wind flow is weak.

The BAM is located in the east-central portion of the PRB, a part of the Northern Great Plains 

that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. The topography is primarily rolling plains and 

tablelands of moderate relief (with occasional valleys and buttes). Elevations range from about 

4,520 ft to 4,885 ft above sea level. The climate in the general area is semiarid with relatively 

short warm summers and longer cold winters. Evaporation exceeds annual precipitation.

The following discussions include updated (2009-2016) air quality monitoring results. Observed 

24-hour PM10 concentrations as maximum high values were selected to compare to applicable 

NAAQS/WAAQS. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-7

3.1.4.1 Air Quality-Monitoring Values

Particulate matter levels have been monitored around the mine throughout the life of the 

operation. The mine expressed particulate matter utilizing total suspended particles (TSP)

concentrations until 1987. This measurement included all particulates generally less than 100 

microns in diameter. In 1987, the form of the standard was changed from TSP to PM10 to better 

reflect human health effects. While PM2.5 monitoring at the BAM is not required by WDEQ-LQD, 

it is conducted at this time. Currently, air monitoring consists of four samplers that monitor 

concentrations of PM10 and a meteorological site (map 3-2). In 1997, EPA set separate standards 

for fine particles (PM2.5) based on their link to health problems. EPA adopted an interim PM2.5

standard in April 2005, and that standard was later modified in September 2006. 

That year, EPA again revised the air quality standards for particulate matter by tightening the 

24-hour PM2.5 standard from the previous level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35 

μg/m3and vacating the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3. The current PM10 standard is 150 μg/m3. 

In 2012, EPA lowered the primary annual PM2.5 standard to 12 μg/m3.

Tables 3-2 and 3-3 respectively list the BAM current annual mean and annual high PM10

concentrations. The average annual PM10 concentrations for the 2009 through 2016-time period

ranged between 7.6 and 21.2 μg/m3. These concentrations ranged from about 15 to 42 percent 

of the annual standard of 50 μg/m3. During the same time period, the 24-hour high PM10 values 

ranged between 23 and 69 μg/m3. Thus, these maximum concentrations have ranged from 

approximately 15 to 46 percent of federal and WDEQ-AQD 24-hour standards of 150 μg/m3.

While PM2.5 monitoring is not required by WDEQ-AQD, data were gathered at the BAM. PM2.5

data from BA-4 (#56-005-0892) gathered between 2009 and 2016 are shown in table 3-4. 

Exceptional events (if observed) are noted in the data acquired from the EPA database. 

Exceptional events are defined as occasional instances where a natural and exceptional occurring

event impacts monitoring, causing a reading that is in exceedance with the NAAQS (GPO 1998). 

In the case that this occurs, the Final “Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events” Rule 

(40 CFR §50.14) allows the state to request a data flag and justify the flag by submitting 

documentation showing that NAAQS exceedance would not have occurred in the absence of a 

natural/exceptional event. According to WDEQ-AQD, on July 4, 2012, smoke from the 

Fontenelle Fire, Ask Creek Fire, Arapahoe Fire, and several smaller eastern Wyoming wildfires 

converged on monitors in eastern Wyoming, including BA-4 at the Belle Ayr Mine (WDEQ-AQD 

2012b). The maximum PM2.5 reading of 55 μg/m3recorded at BA-4 on that day was flagged as an 

exceptional event. While WDEQ-AQD elected not to certify the 2012 data from the Belle Ayr 

Mine BA-4 because of difficulties with the monitor, WDEQ-AQD does believe that data from 

July 4, 2012 are valid and it was an exceptional event (WDEQ-AQD 2012b). Regardless of the 

exceptional event that exceeded the threshold of 35 μg/m3, the 3-year PM2.5 average was still 

below the standard, which kept the monitor in attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Excluding the exceptional event that occurred on July 4, 2012, monitoring during the period of 

2009-2016 demonstrated that ambient concentrations of PM2.5, as determined by the 98th 

Percentile 24-hour standard and annual weighted average values, were within established 

short-term (24-hour) and long-term (annual) NAAQS and WAAQS values indicated in table 3-1.

Gases that contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts are referred to as nitrogen oxides, 

or NOX. One type of NOX is NO2, which is a highly reactive, reddish-brown gas that is heavier
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-8

Map 3-2. Coal Mine Subregion 2 (Middle Group of Mines) Air Quality 

Monitoring Sites
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-9

Table 3-2. Average Annual PM10 Concentrations1(μg/m3) for the BAM, 2010-2016

Site Name/AQS2 Site ID 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Belle Ayr Ranch House Monitor/56-005-

0898

--

3

-- -- -- 8.9 11.4 9.4 8.2

BA-1/56-005-0802 8.2 10.1 10.1 9.9 8.1 9.7 10.7 9.3

BA-3/56-005-0893 7.6 8.9 9.5 9.7 8.4 8.4 9.8 7.9

BA-4/56-005-0892 15.0 15.9 21.2 17.5 14.0 12.8 15.1 13.0

Coal Production (Mtpy) 28.7 25.8 24.6 24.2 18.3 15.8 18.3 14.8

Overburden Removed (Mbcy4) 97.1 88.6 90.3 91.7 81.6 67.9 79.3 53.9

1 Weighted mean

2 AQS - Air Quality System

3

Site activated in 2013

4 Mbcy = million bank cubic yards

Source: EPA 2017c

Table 3-3. Maximum 24-hour PM10 Concentrations1(μg/m3) for the BAM, 

2010-2016

Site Name/AQS2 Site ID 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Belle Ayr Ranch House Monitor/56-005-0898 --

3

-- -- -- 23.0 43.0 49.0 31.0

BA-1/56-005-0802 28.0 29.0 51.0 45.0 27.0 28.0 49.0 44.0

BA-3/56-005-0893 25.0 31.0 46.0 48.0 34.0 38.0 52.0 27.0

BA-4/56-005-0892 50.0 55.0 69.0 56.0 39.0 43.0 66.0 38.0

Coal Production (Mtpy) 28.7 25.8 24.6 24.2 18.3 15.8 18.3 14.8

Overburden Removed (Mbcy4) 97.1 88.6 90.3 91.7 81.6 67.9 79.3 53.9

1

First maximum value

2 AQS - Air Quality System

3

Site activated in 2013

4 Mbcy = million bank cubic yards

Source: EPA 2017c

Table 3-4. Measured PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3) at Site BA-4 (56-005-0892), 

2009-2016 (98th Percentile 24-hour Standard & Annual Average).

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

24-hour111.6 16.5 20.4 55.32/24.4 13.5 10.1 17.5 13.8

Annual15.1 6.6 5.3 7.9 6.4 5.2 5.0 4.63

1 The 24-hour standard is met when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined by Appendix N of 40 CFR Part 50 is less than 

or equal to 35 μg/m3. The annual standard is met when the arithmetic mean concentration, as determined by Appendix N of 40 CFR Part 

50, is less than or equal to 12 μg/m3.

2 An exceptional event (defined above) was flagged on July 4, 2012. The second number indicates the second highest reading for the year.

3

Indicates the mean does not satisfy minimum data completeness criteria.

Source: EPA 2017c

than air and has a pungent odor that is a product of incomplete combustion of gasoline or diesel 

fuel. NO2 is by far the most toxic of several species of NOX. NO2 can combine with atmospheric 

moisture to form nitric acid and nitric oxide. Because several NOX species can be chemically

converted to NO2 in the atmosphere, NO2 emissions control is focused on all NOX species, while 

the ambient standard is expressed in terms of NO2. Ozone (O3) has been included in discussions 

on emissions of NOX since NOX is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of 

ground-level O3. Ground-level O3 is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical 

reactions between NOX and VOCs in the presence of sunlight.

Annual mean NO2 concentrations have been measured periodically in the PRB since 1975 and 

short-term, 1-hour concentrations have been measured since the promulgation of the 1-hour 

NAAQS. WDEQ-AQD relies on monitoring data from a network of samplers set up by industry, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-10

in cooperation with the State of Wyoming, in lieu of modeling to establish compliance with the 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS. All data collected in the PRB (table 3-5) were well below the relevant

NAAQS (98th percentile concentration) of 100 ppb and, therefore, in compliance with the NO2

NAAQS and WAAQS.

AQS Site ID3 Site Name 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20164

56-005-0123 Thunder Basin 

Grassland 11 11 11 11 9 10 8 6

56-005-0800 Gillette No 

data2

No 

data 39 32 No data

No 

data

No 

data

No 

data

56-005-0892 Belle Ayr BA-4 24 34 36 34 35 35 32 26

56-005-0011 Hilight-Reno 

Junction Gas Plant

No 

data

No 

data

No 

data 46 52 55 41 No data

56-005-0456 South Campbell 

County 29 32 33 32 32 32 32 28

1 98th Percentile 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations (ppb)

2 No Data - Less than 75 percent data available for the year

3

See map 3-2 for site locations

4 Annual statistics for 2016 are not final until May 1, 2017

Source: EPA (2017b)

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has set protective health-based standards for O3. Prior to May 27, 

2008, the NAAQS 8-hour standard for O3 was 0.080 ppm. O3 monitoring is not required by 

WDEQ-AQD at the mines evaluated in the 2009 SGAC EIS, but levels have been monitored at 

WDEQ-AQD operated and maintained ambient air quality monitor sites in the PRB since 2001. 

An exceedance of the current O3 8-hour standard occurs if the 4th-highest daily maximum value 

is above the level of the current NAAQS and WAAQS standard (0.075 ppm prior to December 

2014, 0.070 ppm after December 2014).

Table 3-6 shows that no violations of the NAAQS or WAAQS 8-hour O3 standards at the 

Thunder Basin National Grassland (56-005-0123) site, north of I-90, or the South Campbell 

County monitoring site (56-005-0456) site, south of I-90, during the 2009-2016 monitoring 

period. These monitoring locations are shown on map 3-2.

Table 3-6. Measured O3 Concentrations1in the PRB, 2009-2016.

Monitor Site2 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Thunder Basin Grassland 56-005-0123 0.062 0.063 0.061 0.071 0.061 0.058 0.059 0.057

South Campbell County 56-005-0456 0.060 0.061 0.062 0.069 0.061 0.059 0.062 0.060

1 4th-highest daily maximum value. The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly 

average concentrations above 0.12 ppm (235 μg/m3) is equal to or less than 1, as determined by Appendix H of 40 CFR Part 50.

2

See map 3-2 for site locations

Source: EPA (2017b)

SO2 concentrations (99th percentile, 1-hour) are currently being monitored in Campbell County 

at one AQS monitoring site (table 3-7). This monitoring site is approximately 11 miles north 

the BAN tract (map 3-1). As shown in table 3-7, all monitored SO2 values are well below the 

NAAQS and WAAQS of 75 ppb.

Table 3-5. Measured NO2 Concentrations1in the PRB, 2009-2016
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-11

Table 3-7. Measured SO2 Concentrations in Campbell County, Wyoming, 2011-

2016, 99th Percentile 1-Hour Concentrations (μg/m3)

AQS1 Site ID2 Sampler ID 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

56-005-0857 Wyodak Site 4 37 39 37 32 16 14

1 AQS-Air Quality System

2

See map 3-1 for location

Source: EPA (2017b)

Annual mercury (Hg) (a HAP), Pb (a criteria pollutant), and CO (an indirect GHG) monitoring 

values are not collected specifically for the BAM. Table 3-8 shows the Hg emissions from three 

coal fired power plants in Campbell County.

Table 3-8. Measured Annual Hg Stack (Air) Emissions from Power Stations in 

Campbell County (Pounds)

Power Station 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Wyodak Plant

Total Emissions 197.9 426.0 338.3 347.2 319.0

Stack (Air) Emission’s 159.8 250.9 204.3 301.1 111.2

Percent of Total Emission Emitted to Air 81% 59% 60% 87% 35%

Dry Fork Station

Total Emissions 71.0 84.0 86.0 69.0 66.7

Stack (Air) Emission’s 63.0 67.0 67.0 50.0 38.3

Percent of Total Emission Emitted to Air 89% 80% 78% 72% 57%

Neil Simpson Complex

Total Emissions 578.0 681.0 13,086.01653.0 711.0

Stack (Air) Emission’s 379.0 357.0 378.0 354.0 351.0

Percent of Total Emission Emitted to Air 66% 52% 3%154% 49%

Total of Three Campbell County Power Stations

Total Emissions 846.9 1,191.0 13,510.311,069.2 1,096.7

Stack (Air) Emission’s 601.8 674.9 649.3 705.1 500.5

Percent of Total Emission Emitted to Air 71% 57% 5%166% 46%

1 2013 Neil Simpson total emissions value on the EPA website appears to be incorrect given the significantly lower values in 2011, 2012, 2014, 

and 2015, so the percent of stack emissions compared to total emissions for 2013 calculations appears to be invalid

Source: EPA 2016b

Table 3-9 shows the Pb emissions from three coal fired power plants, one mine, and one AQS 

monitoring site in Campbell County. As shown in table 3-9, the Pb values from the Thunder 

Basin site (the only station reporting in μg/m3) are well below the NAAQS and WAAQS of 0.15 

μg/m3.

Table 3-9. Measured Annual Pb Air Emissions from Three Campbell County 

Power Stations and One Campbell County Coal Mine1

Power Station 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Wyodak Plant (pounds) 20.5 42.6 43.1 35.3 33.2

Dry Fork Station (pounds) 32.0 9.0 9.0 21.0 8.6

Neil Simpson Complex (pounds) 63.0 62.0 60.0 31.0 24.0

Buckskin Mining Co (pounds) 18.0 15.9 8.1 9.2 6.6

Thunder Basin (560050123) (μg/m3)

2

0.005 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002

1 No other Campbell County Coal mines are monitoring for Pb

2 Pb monitoring at the Thunder Basin AQS site is presented as annual 1st maximum value 

Source: EPA 2017c
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-12

CO is created when carbon-containing fuels are burned incompletely. Through natural processes 

in the atmosphere, it is eventually oxidized to CO2. Carbon monoxide concentrations are both 

short-lived in the atmosphere and spatially variable (EPA 2017a). CO is not monitored in 

Campbell County.

3.1.4.2 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs)

AQRVs are evaluated by the land management agency responsible for a Class I area, according 

to the agency’s level of acceptable change (LAC). These AQRVs include potential air pollutant 

effects on visibility and the acidification of lakes and streams. The AQRVs, and the associated 

LAC, are applied to PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas and are the land management agency’s 

policy and are not legally enforceable standards. The AQRVs associated with this action include 

visibility and acidification of lakes. The environmental effects to BAN tract associated with AQRVs 

were thoroughly discussed in section 3.4.4 of the 2009 SGAC EIS. As determined by air quality 

modeling, the potential to emit (PTE) for the BAM for PM10 is 37.9 tons per year based on 

emissions from coal truck dumps and stationary emission units, while the PTE for NOX is 6.8 

tons per year. Because these values are each below the 100 ton per year major source threshold 

limit specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, the 

BAM is not subject to the Title V operating permit program, and it is a minor source for purposes 

of Chapter 6, Section 4 applicability (McVehil-Monnett 2014). The potential for impacts has 

decreased because the annual mining activity levels evaluated in the 2009 SGAC EIS (mining at a 

30 Mtpy rate) are now being evaluated at lower mining rate (20 Mtpy). The locations of activities 

described in chapter 2 remain the same as those described in the 2009 SGAC EIS. From 2009 

through 2016, the annual coal recovery at the BAM ranged from 28.7 Mt in 2009 to 14.9 Mt in 

2016, averaging 21.3 Mtpy over that time period (WDWS 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015, 2016). Therefore, the affected environment discussions for AQRVs are not carried 

forward.

3.1.4.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause 

cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects or adverse 

environmental effects. Hg is the most significant HAP emitted from coal-fueled power plants 

(Center for Climate and Energy Solutions 2017). Other common HAPs include xylene, n-hexane, 

acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde, Ethylbenzene, Toluene; however, 

these would likely be emitted in very small quantities and not exceed the 25 tpy threshold 

established by the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. Hg is a naturally occurring element that 

enters the environment as a result of natural sources and through human activities, such as 

industrial combustion and mining (EPA 2006). It is estimated that 50 percent of the Hg entering 

the atmosphere in the U.S. is emitted from coal-burning utility power plants (Kolker et al. 2012). 

Discussions of this subject are included in sections 4.1.17 and 4.2.17, as related to the 

environmental impacts from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.

Annual Hg monitoring values are not collected specifically for the BAM. No Campbell County or 

Wyoming power plants are supplied by the BAM. The closest BAM supplied power plant is the 

Gerald Gentleman Station, located in Sutherland, Nebraska, approximately 375 miles from the 

mine. In 2015, the mine supplied coal to 34 coal-fired power plants Table 3-10, which also shows 

the Hg emissions from these 34 coal fired power plants. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-13

Table 3-10. Measured 2015 Hg Air Emissions from Power Stations Receiving Coal 

From the BAM (Pounds)

FACILITY NAME CITY

ON-SITE 

RELEASE 

TOTAL

OFF-SITE 

RELEASE 

TOTAL

TOTAL 

RELEASES

% of Coal

From BAM

Releases 

Attributed 

to BAM

Allen S King Generating Plant Bayport, MN 20.6 210.3 230.9 9.2% 21.2

Baldwin Energy Complex Baldwin, IL 236.9 10.3 247.2 21.6% 53.4

Boardman Plant Boardman, OR 119.2 0.0 119.2 78.5% 93.6

Coffeen Power Station Coffeen, IL 186.8 0.0 186.8 27.6% 51.6

Columbia Energy Center Pardeeville, WI 254.6 0.0 254.6 13.1% 33.5

Comanche Station Pueblo, CO 459.0 0.0 459.0 2.6% 12.0

Dan E Karn Essexville, MI 213.2 0.0 213.2 43.7% 93.1

Edgewater Generating Station Sheboygan, WI 27.8 79.2 107.1 3.1% 3.3

Flint Creek Plant Gentry, AR 184.0 9.4 193.4 5.6% 10.8

George Neal North Sergeant Bluff, 

IA 122.0 0.0 122.0 13.8% 16.9

George Neal South Salix, IA 85.0 0.0 85.0 48.9% 41.5

Gerald Gentleman Station Sutherland, NE 630.0 0.0 630.0 41.7% 262.7

Havana Power Station Havana, IL 23.3 8.0 31.3 26.0% 8.2

Hawthorn Generating Facility Kansas City, 

MO 190.0 1,659.0 1,849.0 13.1% 242.2

Iatan Generating Station Weston, MO 433.0 0.0 433.0 26.4% 114.4

J H Campbell Generating Plant West Olive, MI 477.3 0.0 477.3 34.5% 164.4

James H Miller Steam Plant Quinton, AL 681.0 0.0 681.0 2.2% 14.8

John W Turk Jr Plant Fulton, AR 212.0 1.0 213.0 1.3% 2.8

Joppa Joppa, IL 198.4 0.0 198.4 0.6% 1.2

La Cygne Generating Station La Cygne, KS 362.0 0.0 362.0 9.0% 32.4

Louisa Generating Station Muscatine, IA 161.0 0.0 161.0 25.7% 41.3

Montrose Generating Station Clinton, MO 111.0 0.0 111.0 7.2% 8.0

Muscatine Power & Water 

Generation Muscatine, IA 30.0 12.4 42.4 33.1% 14.0

Oologah Oologah, OK 413.2 1.5 414.7 2.5% 10.4

Ottumwa Generating Station Ottumwa, IA 50.6 406.6 457.1 49.2% 224.8

Platte Generating Station Grand Island, 

NE 21.4 3.8 25.2 91.8% 23.1

Prairie Creek Generating 

Station

Cedar Rapids, 

IA 6.9 3.3 10.2 74.7% 7.6

Shady Point LLC Panama, OK 2.0 367.0 369.0 2.3% 8.6

Sheldon Station Hallam, NE 74.0 0.0 74.0 3.8% 2.8

Sherburne County Generating 

Plant Becker, MN 974.5 0.0 974.5 1.3% 12.4

Walter Scott Jr Energy Center Council 

Bluffs, IA 578.0 0.0 578.0 12.0% 69.5

Welsh Plant Pittsburg, TX 296.1 1,874.0 2,170.1 7.5% 163.8

Western Farmers Electric Coop Hugo, OK 72.4 0.0 72.4 1.5% 1.1

White Bluff Generating Plant Redfield, AR 311.1 0.0 311.1 41.4% 128.8

Source: EPA (2015)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-14

3.1.4.4 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change

Following publication of the draft EA, OSMRE has determined that a revised GHG and climate 

change assessment would provide useful information to the decision maker and the public. The 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts (chapters 4) were revised, which required revising the 

affected environment.

This document assesses the effects of the proposed action on climate change and the effect of 

climate change on the proposed action and its environmental impacts through assessment of 

direct and indirect GHG emissions as a proxy for the assessment of potential climate change 

effects.

Executive Order 13693 defines GHGs as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide 

(N2O), and fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, nitrogen trifluoride, and 

sulfur hexafluoride). These constituents are referred to as GHGs throughout the analysis. For 

consistency between projects, OSMRE describe GHG emissions in terms of “CO2-equivalents” 

(CO2e). For climate, climate change, and GHG analysis, there is no specific analysis area, and 

project emissions are used as a proxy.

CO2 is emitted from the combustion of fossil fuels, including coal. CH4 can be emitted during the 

production and transport of coal. N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as 

well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Fluorinated gases are synthetic, powerful 

greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. CO2 and other GHGs 

are naturally occurring gases in the atmosphere; their status as a pollutant is not related to their 

toxicity, but instead is due to the added long-term impacts they may have on climate because of 

their increased incremental levels in the earth’s atmosphere. Because they are non-toxic and nonhazardous at normal ambient concentrations, CO2 and other naturally occurring GHGs do not 

have applicable ambient standards or emission limits under the major environmental regulatory 

programs. Each GHG has a different lifetime in the atmosphere and a different ability to trap heat 

in the atmosphere. To allow different gases to be compared and added together, emissions can 

be converted into carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions. This measure is used to compare 

the capacity of each GHG to trap heat (Global Warming Potential, or GWP) in the atmosphere 

relative to that of CO2, which is used as a reference gas. The CO2e for a gas is derived by 

multiplying the amount of gas emitted by its 100-year GWP conversion factor (CEC 2011). The 

GWP conversion factor for the three primary GHGs are provided in table 3-11.

Table 3-11. Global Warming Potential (as CO2e) Conversion Factors for Selected 

GHGs

GHG Conversion Factor

Carbon dioxide CO2 1

Methane CH4 28

Nitrous oxide N2O 265

Estimates related to mining include emissions from all sources, including all types of carbon fuels 

used in the mining operations, electricity used on site (i.e., lighting for facilities, roads, and 

operations and electrically powered equipment and conveyors), the mining processes (i.e., 

blasting, coal fires caused by spontaneous combustion, and methane released [vented] from 

exposed coal seams), and coal combustion. Direct CO2e emissions include emissions directly 

related to the recovery of coal and indirect emission result from the transportation of the coal 

to and combustion of the coal at power plants. Although the BAM has not completed CO2e 

emissions inventories resulting from current coal recovery, these emissions were estimated by 

applying CO2e emission ratios (CO2e per Mt of coal produced, per mmbcy of overburden moved, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-15

and CO2e per acre of disturbance) from adjacent mines to recent BAM production (tonnages). 

This assumes that since mining methods and circumstances are similar, the estimated CO2e 

emission ratios for the BAM would be similar to the calculated ratios at adjacent mines. Annual 

direct CO2e emissions estimates for the BAM between 2009 and 2016 are included in table 

3-12. The emissions estimates in table 3-12 show that from 2009 through 2016 the estimated 

amount of direct CO2e emissions ranged between 105,093 and 203,019 metric tons per year, 

averaging approximately 150,939 metric tons per year from mining an annual average of 21.3 Mt 

of coal.

The amount of CO2e emitted from transporting and combustion of the coal was calculated using 

an emission factor that considered the carbon content and heating value of the fuel used (EPA 

2017a). Table 3-12 shows that the estimated amount of BAM indirect CO2e emissions between 

2009 and 2016 ranged between 25,380,042 and 49,089,300 metric tons, averaging 36,459,839 

metric tons per year. 

Total CO2e emissions from coal mined at the BAM from 2009 through 2016 ranged between 

25,485,134 and 49,292,319 metric tons, averaging 36,610,779 metric tons per year. Therefore, 

combustion of coal from the BAM used for electricity generation accounted for approximately 

99.6 percent of the total CO2e emissions from coal mined between 2009 and 2016.

The potential for emissions of dust can be an environmental concern for coal use/transport 

project due to the large volumes of coal transported to large generating stations (Ramboll Environ 

2016). Coal dust and fines blowing or sifting from moving, loaded rail cars has been linked to 

railroad track stability problems resulting in train derailments and to rangeland fires caused by 

spontaneous combustion of accumulated coal dust (BLM 2009a). While no specific studies of coal 

dust impacts have been conducted in the PRB, BNSF has been involved in research regarding the 

impacts of coal dust escaping from loaded coal cars on rail lines in the PRB. BNSF has determined 

that coal dust poses a serious threat to the stability of the track structure and the operational 

integrity of rail lines in, and close to, the mines in the PRB.

3.2 Water Resources

Section 3.5 and Section 3.5.2.1 (Surface Water-Affected Environment) of the 2009 SGAC EIS and 

Section S1-5 of the Supplementary Information volume of the 2009 SGAC EIS included detailed 

discussions of water resources related to the leasing and mining of coal within the BAN tract. 

The analyses included herein serve to update discussions with recent groundwater and surface 

water quality monitoring findings and update groundwater and surface water rights discussions.

3.2.1 Groundwater 

Section 3.5.1.1 (Groundwater-Affected Environment) of the 2009 SGAC EIS and Section S1-5.1 

of the Supplementary Information volume for the 2009 SGAC EIS provide a detailed discussions

of the groundwater resources within the 2009 SGAC EIS, including the BAM. The BAN analysis 

area contains three water-bearing geologic units that have been directly affected by existing 

mining activities and would be directly affected by mining the BAN tract. In descending order, 

these units are the recent alluvium, the Wasatch Formation overburden, and the mineable coal 

seam in the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation, referred to as the Wyodak or 

Wyodak-Anderson. Figure 3-2 is a chart showing the stratigraphic relationships of the surface 

and subsurface geologic units in the analysis area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-16

Table 3-12. Estimated 2009-2016 Direct and Indirect CO2e Emissions1at the Belle Ayr Mine from Coal 

Combustion

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average

General

Mt of Coal Recovered 28.7 25.8 24.6 24.2 18.3 15.8 18.3 14.8 21.3

Average Transport Miles (One 

Way) 1,090 1,090 999 1,009 1,003 1,073 1,009 1,030 1,038

Number of Train Trips (One 

Way) 1,852 1,666 1,589 1,566 1,180 1,021 1,184 959 1,377

Direct Emissions Sources

Fuel 93,616 84,175 80,307 79,150 59,650 51,606 59,845 48,460 69,601

Electricity Consumed in Mining 

Process 76,514 68,798 65,636 64,691 48,753 42,178 48,913 39,608 56,886

Mining Process 32,888 29,572 28,213 27,806 20,956 18,130 21,024 17,025 24,452

Total Direct Emissions 203,019 182,545 174,156 171,647 129,359 111,914 129,782 105,093 150,939

Indirect Emissions Sources

Rail Transport2

1,090,579 980,595 857,430 853,535 639,428 591,804 645,357 533,463 774,024

From Coal Combustion 47,998,721 43,158,092 41,174,862 40,581,642 30,583,694 26,459,231 30,683,704 24,846,578 35,685,816

Total Indirect Emissions 49,089,300 44,138,687 42,032,291 41,435,178 31,223,122 27,051,035 31,329,060 25,380,042 36,459,839

Total Estimated CO2e 

Emissions 49,292,319 44,321,231 42,206,447 41,606,825 31,352,481 27,162,949 31,458,842 25,485,134 36,610,779

1

In metric tons

2 Coal haulage emissions based on 130-car trains with four locomotives, train trips per year; 488.2 kg CO2e per mile per loaded train, 96.1 Kg CO2e per mile per empty train; and one-way 

mileage to power plants. Coal haulage emissions calculations includes a loaded train and a returning empty train, per train trip. 

Source: WWC (2017), calculations are provided in appendix E
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-17

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

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

Wyoming.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-18

The underlying, sub-coal Fort Union Formation, the Lance Formation, and the Fox Hills Sandstone 

are used for water supply at local coal mines within the general BAN analysis area, but these units 

are not physically disturbed by mining activities and will not be addressed in this EA. New and 

previously discussed groundwater monitoring well locations are indicated on map 3-3. 

Monitoring wells are identified by well number and completion aquifer, such as recent alluvium, 

Wasatch Formation overburden, Wyodak/Wyodak-Anderson coal, backfill, or scoria.

Since the publication of the 2009 SGAC EIS, one new backfill monitoring well has been completed 

within the BAM permit boundary and added to the WDEQ-WQD approved 

groundwater-monitoring network for the BAM. Eleven monitoring wells (four overburden, one 

coal, and six alluvial) have been removed from the WDEQ-WQD monitoring network since the 

publication of the 2009 SGAC EIS. The removal of all of these wells resulted from pit 

advancement and their removal from the monitoring network was approved by WDEQ-WQD.

Following the removal of coal through the mining process, backfilled spoils create a backfill 

aquifer. These backfill aquifers will spatially lie between the clinker recharge area and the 

remaining coal that is too deep to be mined (Ogle et al. 2011). Studies described in the 2011 

Cumulative Hydrological Impact Assessment (2011 CHIA) indicate that permeability of the 

backfill may initially be greater than that for pre-mine strata; however, with time, the backfill may 

settle and the permeability decrease. These differences between the pre-mine and reclaimed 

aquifer characteristics may alter the groundwater flow system and may locally alter the location 

and amount of groundwater discharging to the surface (Ogle et al. 2011). According to recent 

monitoring data from 18 backfill wells, water levels in the backfill are increasing or stable (CCW 

2017b).

As stated in the 2009 SGAC EIS, groundwater quality varies according to the source aquifer. 

Alluvial, overburden and coal aquifer water quality is generally poor, with uses limited to livestock 

and wildlife. The water quality from subcoal formations (Fort Union and Lance) is generally good, 

with livestock, wildlife, and domestic uses (BLM 2009a). 

The following discussions on groundwater monitoring was taken from the 2017 BAM Annual 

Report (CCW 2017b). 

Alluvial Wells – There are two alluvial wells included in the water quality portion of the Belle 

Ayr groundwater monitoring program. These two wells were sampled in fourth quarter 2015 

and second quarter 2016. 

TDS in two sampled alluvial wells ranged from 1,970 mg/l to 2,710 mg/l. The average TDS for the 

alluvial wells was 2,358 mg/l. TDS in these wells has fluctuated over time, but presently remains 

well below livestock concentrations. TDS is generally lower in both wells during the spring when 

flows in Caballo Creek are higher, indicating a possible seasonal trend; however, TDS was slightly 

higher in well WRRI9 during spring 2016. This may have been due to low flows in Caballo Creek 

during the spring of 2016.

The field pH ranged from 6.8 to 7.15 standard units. The pH has fluctuated over time, but 

generally falls within the 6.5-8.5 range for livestock use. 

Dissolved manganese concentrations ranged from 1.49 mg/l to 2.35 mg/l. Dissolved manganese 

has been detected in nearly all samples in both wells throughout the monitoring history. Levels 

have fluctuated over time but do not appear to be increasing overall. A seasonal trend in dissolved
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-19

Map 3-3. Locations of Currently Active Groundwater Monitoring and Water 

Supply Wells at the BAM
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-20

manganese values appears to exist, with values generally being higher during the second (drier) 

half of the year.

Dissolved iron was detected in both samples at well BAS17E, with concentrations ranging from 

3.66 mg/l to 4.46 mg/l. Dissolved iron levels have fluctuated in this well over time. Dissolved iron 

concentrations ranged from 0.05 mg/l (the detection limit) to 0.19 mg/l at WRRI9.

Total iron concentrations ranged from 3.0 mg/l in WRRI-9 to 6.93 mg/l in BAS17E. Total iron 

concentrations in BAS17E have dropped significantly since several spikes occurred shortly after 

monitoring began. They have risen slightly overall since 2007 but dropped somewhat during the 

monitoring period. Total iron concentrations in WRRI-9 have remained relatively low with the 

exception of a few spikes in prior years. No limit for livestock concentrations exists for dissolved 

or total iron.

Overburden Wells – There were eight overburden wells sampled for water quality during the 

2015-2016 sampling period. 

The range of TDS in the overburden wells was from 200 mg/l to 7,500 mg/l. The average TDS 

weighted by well for all overburden wells was 2331 mg/l. TDS is generally higher in the shallower 

playa wells. The field pH in overburden wells ranged from 5.77 to 8.3 standard units. There were 

low levels of dissolved metals detected in the wells. Iron and manganese were present in all of 

the overburden wells.

Coal Wells – One coal well overburden wells sampled for water quality during the 2015-2016 

sampling period.

TDS was 2,500 mg and the field pH was 6.98 standard units. There were low levels of dissolved 

metals detected in this well. Iron (dissolved and total) and dissolved manganese were present in 

the sample. 

Scoria Wells – One scoria well was sampled during the third quarter of 2016. The TDS 

concentration was 900 mg/l, which is lower than 2015. Dissolved iron and manganese were 

detected in this sample at low concentrations.

Backfill Wells – Fifteen overburden wells sampled for water quality during the 2015-2016 

sampling period.

Dissolved iron was detected in all wells during the monitoring period, with concentrations ranging 

from non-detect in several wells to 184 mg/l. Dissolved iron levels have fluctuated in this well 

over time, with recent variations becoming larger. A clear trend of increasing dissolved iron levels 

does not exist in the backfill wells overall.

Total iron concentrations ranged from non-detect to 548 mg/l. Total iron concentrations in many 

of the wells have dropped significantly since several spikes occurred shortly after monitoring 

began. Clear trends of increasing total iron levels do not exist in the backfill wells overall. No 

limits for livestock concentration exist for dissolved or total iron.

Dissolved manganese concentrations ranged from 0.04 mg/l to 9.06 mg/l. Dissolved manganese 

has been detected in nearly all samples in both wells throughout the monitoring history. Levels 

have fluctuated over time but do not appear to be increasing overall, with the exception of 

RW3201. No limit for livestock concentration exists for manganese.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-21

The field pH in the backfill wells ranged from 6.1 to 8.5 standard units. The pH has fluctuated 

over time for some wells and has remained relatively constant for others, often showing seasonal 

variation. Overall, field pH in the backfill wells has generally fallen in the 6.5-8.5 range for livestock 

use. However, the average pH for the sampling period was lower than 6.5 at three wells.

TDS in the 15 sampled backfill wells ranged from 660 mg/l to 5,580, with an average of 2,922 

mg/l. TDS concentrations by well differ over time. Two wells had values over the 5,000 mg/l 

recommended for livestock use.

According to the 2011 CHIA, groundwater flowing through the backfill aquifer may have larger 

concentrations of dissolved constituents because more fresh mineral surfaces are exposed for 

chemical reaction in the backfill than in the undisturbed sediments (Ogle et al. 2011). Also, initial 

conditions in the backfill are a more oxidized environment as compared to the undisturbed 

conditions. This increase in exposed mineral surfaces and difference in oxidation state may cause 

an increase in TDS and other constituents in groundwater. Studies in the PRB indicate that the 

backfill water quality is similar to pre-mine overburden water quality (Van Voast and Hedges 1975 

and Davis, et al. 1978). Van Voast et al. (1976) found that the first groundwater to enter a backfill 

aquifer dissolves a high percentage of the available salts. However, subsequent groundwater is 

less mineralized. This subsequent, less mineralized water probably results from the clay content 

of the backfill causing reduction and cation exchange (Ogle et al. 2011).

The 2011 CHIA also states that any discharge of backfill aquifer water in the alluvial, clinker, and 

coal aquifers, based on available data, should have approximately the same water quality as the 

baseline pre-mining water quality in these aquifers (Ogle et al. 2011).

Fox Hills Wells – The two supply wells completed in the Fox Hills Formation well were sampled 

in the third quarter of 2016. The TDS ranged between 870 mg/l and 1140 mg/l and the field pH 

ranged between 8.09 and 8.51 S.U. Low levels of dissolved iron were detected in both wells.

Groundwater level monitoring data collected by the BAM and the other three mines located in 

the general South Gillette Coal Lease Applications EIS analysis area and presented in the Gillette 

Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization (GAGMO) 35-Year Report indicate that the CBNG 

discharges have caused the coal potentiometric surface and flow patterns to change (HydroEngineering 2016). Groundwater level declines observed near active mining areas before 1997 

were likely due to mine dewatering alone. The groundwater flow direction within the coal aquifer 

was typically toward the mine where it would drain by gravity into the open pits. By 2000, 

groundwater level decline rates had dramatically increased because drawdown caused by 

widespread CBNG development west of the mines was overlapping with drawdown caused by 

mining operations. A continuous cone of depression currently exists around the Belle Ayr, Coal 

Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines due to their closeness to each other and the cumulative 

drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges (Hydro-Engineering 2011). 

The extent of drawdown west of the mines that is specifically attributable to mine dewatering 

can no longer be defined due to much greater and areally extensive drawdown caused by CBNG 

development. However, current records of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

(WOGCC 2017) indicate that most, if not all, of the CBNG wells in the Duck Nest Creek 

watershed are no longer producing so the effects of CBNG production on groundwater levels 

are diminishing. Groundwater level monitoring is currently ongoing at the BAM, with data from 

18 backfill wells providing information on water level changes. 

Coal seam water level data presented in the GAGMO 30-year report (Hydro-Engineering 2011) 

indicate that the greatest drawdown near the BAN tract is occurring near the western edge of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-22

the BAN LBA tract, while less drawdown is occurring near the tract’s eastern edge. The 2010 

coal seam water level contours in the area of the four mines depict the groundwater flow 

direction to be entirely to the west, away from the open pits. Roughly 39 years of surface mining 

and CBNG development resulted in nearly complete dewatering of the coal seams in localized 

areas, particularly near mine pits and where the coal seams are structurally highest. 

3.2.2 Surface Water 

A description of, and impacts to, surface water related to the BAN tract were thoroughly 

discussed in sections 3.5.2.1 and 3.5.2.2 of the 2009 SGAC EIS and Section S1-5.2 also includes a 

detailed description of surface water within the BAN tract. The BAN analysis area and the existing 

BAM permit area are located in the Caballo Creek watershed. Duck Nest Creek, a southeasterlyflowing tributary of Caballo Creek, drains the southern and western portions of the BAN tract

(map 3-4). Two small, first order tributaries of Caballo Creek and two internally-drained playas 

drain the remainder of the analysis area. As stated in the 2011 CHIA, “The lower reaches 

contained a groundwater discharge area where seeps created a few small, shallow pools and wet 

terrace surfaces (Belle Ayr Mine Permit, 2011). The lower portion of the drainage has been mined 

and mining will continue to advance into the upper drainage (Belle Ayr Mine Permit, 2011).”

According to the 2009 SGAC EIS, 2011 CHIA and Appendix 2.11-12 of the BAM PAP, Duck Nest 

Creek is identified as an ephemeral stream. The 2014 and 2017 WYDEQ-LQD SDD identifies 

Duck Nest Creek as an intermittent stream. As described in Section S1-5.2 of the Supplementary 

Information volume of the 2009 SGAC EIS, a marshy area occurred along a short reach of lower 

Duck Nest Creek, which is located outside the proposed Belle Ayr North Tract, where 

groundwater discharged from the overburden bedrock to the overlying alluvium (BLM 2009b). 

The seep was persistent, but the seepage rate was insufficient to sustain a base flow in the channel 

and only enough to create a marshy area with some shallow pools of stagnant water. This area 

has been removed through pit advance. 

The 2011 CHIA indicates that Caballo Creek is an intermittent tributary of the Belle Fourche 

River (Ogle et al. 2011). Streamflow and water quality in Caballo Creek are currently being 

monitored by the BAM at Sites BA-4 and BA-6 (map 3-4), which are located downstream and 

upstream of the mine operation, respectively, and the data are being reported to WDEQ in the 

mine’s annual reports. Water quality is also being monitored at a site on Duck Nest Creek (map 

3-4). Surface water quality within the area depends highly on flow. Dissolved solids 

concentrations (TDS) and specific conductance have an inverse relationship with streamflow; 

thus, the highest concentrations occur during low flows and lowest concentrations occur during 

high flows. Total suspended solids (TSS) show a direct relationship with streamflow; TSS 

concentrations are typically high during high flow and low during low flows. Because vegetative 

cover is sparse and surface water runoff occurs infrequently in this semi-arid environment, high 

surface-water TSS concentrations can be expected, especially from runoff caused by 

thunderstorms.

Water quality within the area was also apparently affected by CBNG discharges in the upper 

watershed. The dominant water type of the Wyodak Anderson coal aquifer, which is the primary 

target for CBNG production, is mainly sodium-bicarbonate (Ogle et al. 2011). CBNG water and 

gas production in the Caballo Creek drainage peaked in 2000 and has been steadily declining over 

time and surface-water discharge related to CBNG production likely has less effect on 

surface-water quality within Caballo Creek than in 2000.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-23

Map 3-4. Surface Drainages and Belle Ayr Mine Surface Water Monitoring Sites 

Associated with the BAN Tract.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-24

Baseline (1977-1983) and current (2014-2016) analytical results for selected constituents from 

surface water samples at the BA-4, Duck Nest Creek, and USGS 06425900 (Caballo Creek at 

Mouth) sampling sites are included in table 3-13. As indicated in the 2011 CHIA, the overall 

2000 to 2010 water-quality data from the mouth of Caballo Creek indicated that class of use 

criteria was met during that time period and mining had not caused material damage to surfacewater quality (Ogle et al. 2011).

A direct comparison between the baseline data and the recent data may not be appropriate due 

to the differences between the number of samples available for analysis. However, the sampling 

does show that, when sampled, the surface water quality in terms of the selected constituents 

was generally similar to pre-mine values.

3.2.3 Water Rights 

The Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO) administers groundwater and surface-water rights 

in Wyoming. Before developing water resources associated with energy development, water 

appropriations in the PRB (either groundwater or surface water) were typically for livestock use. 

Currently, mining companies and CBNG development companies hold the majority of the water 

rights in the BAN analysis area.

SEO records were searched for groundwater and surface-water rights within a 3-mile radius of 

the BAN tract study area. This information is required for WDEQ permitting. The results of the 

most recent search are provided below for each tract. 

For the BAN tract, SEO data indicate that as of September 2015, there were 1,188 permitted 

water wells within 3 miles of the tract, of which 771 are owned by coal mining companies. The 

other 417 non coal mine-related, permitted water wells, which include 327 wells permitted for 

uses related to CBNG development, are permitted for the following uses:

1. 189 CBNG

2. 128 CBNG, Livestock

3. 24 Livestock

4. 18 Domestic

5. 16 Monitor

6. 15 Domestic, Livestock

7. 8 Miscellaneous

8. 6 CBNG, Miscellaneous, Livestock

9. 5 Industrial

10. 4 CBNG, Miscellaneous

11. 1 Miscellaneous, Livestock

12. 1 Irrigation

13. 1 Irrigation, Livestock

14. 1 Domestic, Irrigation, Livestock
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-25

Table 3-13. Baseline and Recent (2014-2016) Water Quality for Selected Parameters at the Caballo Creek, BA-4, BA-6, 

and the Duck Nest Creek/Reservoir Sampling Sites

Sample Potassium (μg/L) Sodium(μg/L) Chloride(mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) SAR pH (S.U.)

Site1 Ave. Max. Ave. Max. Ave Max. Ave Max. Ave. Max. Ave. Max. Ave Max. Ave

Max.

Max.

Basline2

Caballo Creek (USGS 06425900) 18 46 199 500 44.9 190 953 2,300 1,422 14,500 1,817 4,600 3 10 8.0 8.5

Duck Nest Creek -- -- 1 343 1 16 1 2,993 57 401 829 4,100 -- -- 7.6 8.7

BA-4 -- -- 28 1,160 5 94 156 5,380 14 360 2,428 9,360 -- -- 7.8 9.0

BA-6 -- -- 51 2,550 4 2,072 224 11,200 16 108 6,497 18,570 -- -- 7.9 9.1

Recent

2014

BA-4 (Three Samples) 13.3 16 202 249 21 35 594.3 842 44 132 1,178 1,520 4.3 5.8 8.9 8.5

BA-6 (Dry All Four Quarters) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Duck Nest Creek (Two Samples) 8 19 373.5 509 11.5 16.0 1,508 2,080 15 24 2,670 4,020 5.5 6.0 7.9 8.0

Duck Nest Reservoir (Not 

Sampled) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Caballo Creek (USGS 06425900) 

(Twelve Samples) 14.7 21.2 267.8 407 34.8 56.6 932.8 1,460 -- -- 1,796 2,540 -- -- 8.1 8.6

2015

BA-4 (Four Samples) 17.5 20 249.8 874 37.8 43 602 683 10 38 1,353 1,640 4.5 5.0 8.4 8.5

BA-6 (One Sample) 18 18 198 198 11 11 1,750 1,750 13 13 2,820 2,820 2.2 -- 8.1 --

Duck Nest Creek (Not Sampled)3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Duck Nest Reservoir (Two 

Samples) 18 23 338.5 397 15.5 17 1,600 1,750 21 36 2,540 2,800 4.3 4.8 9.3 9.8

Caballo Creek (USGS 06425900)

(Twelve Samples) 17.6 24.4 313.4 425 48.9 65.4 1,084 1,560 29 29 2,076 2,930 -- -- 8.2 8.5

2016

BA-4 (Four Samples) 29.5 61 373.5 737.0 44.3 66 1,519.8 3,740 36 105 2,925 6,640 4.7 6.3 8.3 8.5

BA-6 (No Flow in 2016) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Duck Nest Creek (Not Sampled)3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Duck Nest Reservoir 26 38 586.8 900 31.8 49 3,005 4,500 7.25 10 5,038 7,800 5.9 7.7 9.3 10.1

Caballo Creek (USGS 06425900) 

(Six Samples) 22.4 25.7 389 504 52.4 64.1 1,284 1,730 -- -- 2,680 3,890 -- -- 8.2 8.3

1

See map 3-4 for sample site locations

2 Caballo Creek: 1977-1983 (43 samples – TSS, 27 samples – TDS); Duck Nest Creek: 1990-2001(22 samples – TSS, 21 samples – TDS)

3 The Duck Nest Creek sampling site was mined out so sampling was moved to Duck Nest Reservoir, upstream of the original sampling site

Source: USGS (2015) and BAM (2015, 2016, 2017)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-26

SEO records indicate that as of September 2015, there were 105 surface-water rights within the 

3-mile search area, of which 65 were owned by coal mining companies and were related to 

industrial uses. The other 40 non-coal mine-related, permitted surface water rights are permitted 

for the following uses:

Adjudicated (22)

1. 9 Livestock

2. 6 Irrigation

3. 3 Domestic, Irrigation

4. 1 Domestic, Irrigation, Reservoir

5. 1 Irrigation, Reservoir

6. 1 Domestic, Livestock

7. 1 Irrigation, Livestock

Unadjudicated (18)

1. 6 Industrial 

2. 5 Livestock

3. 2 Livestock, Wetlands

4. 1 Wetlands

5. 1 Industrial, Miscellaneous

6. 1 Irrigation

7. 1 Industrial, Other

8. 1 Fish Propagation, Livestock, Wildlife

3.3 Wildlife

The initial wildlife baseline inventory for the BAM was conducted in 1974, with additional baseline 

monitoring conducted periodically since that time to accommodate permit expansions over the 

years. Biologists from ICF International (ICF, formerly Jones and Stokes and Thunderbird Wildlife 

Consulting) have conducted annual wildlife surveys at the BAM since 1984. Annual wildlife 

monitoring has been completed each year since the 2009 SGAC EIS was released in 2009 (ICF 

2010 through 2016). An annual wildlife monitoring program was developed in 1983 for the BAM 

that included systematic and regular surveys for a variety of vertebrate species and aquatic 

invertebrates. Baseline wildlife conditions within the BAN tract were thoroughly discussed in 

section 3.10 of the 2009 SGAC EIS. As outlined in current annual wildlife reports, the use areas 

for big game, other mammals, upland game birds (excluding the GRSG), other birds, reptiles and 

amphibians, and aquatic species populations have not changed in recent years (ICF 2017). Since 

there have been no significant changes in use areas for these species, the discussion presented in 

the 2009 SGAC EIS are sufficient to address the current conditions. There have been changes in 

discussions related to raptor nest locations, GRSG, threatened, endangered, and candidate (T&E) 

species, BLM sensitive species. Therefore, discussions of these specific sensitive species have been 

updated in chapter 3. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-27

3.3.1 Raptors

The 2016 wildlife annual report identified the location and annual status of raptor nests for 2016 

(ICF 2017). Surveys conducted by ICF between 1984 and 2016 have documented eight raptor 

species (golden eagle [Aquila chrysaetos], ferruginous hawk [Buteo regalis], northern harrier [Circus 

cyaneus], red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis], Swainson’s hawk [Buteo swainsoni], great horned owl 

[Bubo virginianus], burrowing owl [Athene cunicularia], and short-eared owl [Asio flammeus]) nesting 

at least once within the BAN tract raptor survey area. The raptor survey area is defined as a 

2-mile radius around the BAN tract (map 3-5).

As detailed in the 2009 SGAC EIS, 38 intact raptor nests were located within the BAN tract 

raptor survey area; three of these nests were within the BAN tract. In 2016, 42 intact raptor 

nests were present within the raptor survey area. The three raptor nests present within the tract 

in 2008 were intact on the BAN tract in 2016. One additional burrowing owl nest location has 

been identified within the tract. A platform nest used in the past by ferruginous hawks and golden 

eagles within 0.25 mile of the BAN tract was removed in 2016. All intact raptor nests except the 

previously located burrowing owl nest site are already encompassed by the existing BAM permit 

area. The location and status of these nests as of 2016 are included on map 3-5.

3.3.2 Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG)

On September 22, 2015, USFWS determined that listing the GRSG as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (Act) was not warranted (USFWS 2015). 

Recent documents regarding GRSG include the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Amendment 

(BLM 2015a), the Approved Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Buffalo Field Office Planning Area (Buffalo RMP/FEIS) (BLM 2015b), and the 

2015 State of Wyoming Executive Department Executive Order 2015-4 (State of Wyoming 

Executive Department 2015). These documents present management procedures to consolidate 

GRSG protection within the State of Wyoming in light of the federal government’s recent 

decision not to list the GRSG under the ESA.

According to the Buffalo RMP/FEIS, the BAN tract is within an area classified as a general habitat 

management area (GHMA) for GRSG (BLM 2015a). This classification prohibits or restricts 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied GRSG 

leks.

No GRSG leks occur within 0.25 mile of the BAN tract. Only one GRSG lek (Lynde) has been 

documented within 2 miles of the BAN tract during previous wildlife surveys conducted for the 

BAM and adjacent Caballo mines (map 3-5). The Lynde Lek was last confirmed active in 2009 

and is currently classified by the WGFD as occupied (WGFD 2016a). One male GRSG was 

observed approximately 1-mile south of the Lynde Lek in 2009. No other occupied leks are 

located within 4 miles of the tract. The 4-mile radius of concern represents the area in which 

two-thirds of the hens that were bred at a lek would be expected to nest. Three additional GRSG 

leks are present approximately 2.5 miles south of the BAN tract: Belle Ayr I, Belle Ayr II, and 

Stowe (map 3-5). The proximity of the leks to one another indicates that they are within the 

same complex (Belle Ayr Complex). As of 2016, all three leks are classified as 

unoccupied/destroyed as all three leks have been inactive since at least 2005. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-28

Map 3-5. Raptor Nest Sites and Greater Sage-Grouse Leks within and Adjacent 

to the BAN Tract
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-29

According to ICF personnel, no GRSG nests or broods have been encountered in the BAN tract 

study area incidental to surveys conducted for other species (ICF 2017). Additionally, no GRSG 

have been observed in that area during winter, although site visits occur less often at that time 

of year.

3.3.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species, and Special Status Species

3.3.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided an official list of T&E species, and designated 

critical habitats that could occur within the project area (USFWS 2017a). The USFWS also 

provides the Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system to evaluate the potential 

of encountering USFWS trust resources, including endangered and threatened species, in a 

proposed project area. The agency updates those species lists annually, or more frequently if any 

listing changes occur. According to the IPaC consultation letter, the species list fulfills the 

requirements of the USFWS under section 7(c) (Interagency Cooperation-Biological Assessment) 

of the ESA. The Wyoming Interagency Spatial Database & Online Management (WISDOM) 

System also provides a project specific evaluation of wildlife species. On September 22, 2015, 

USFWS determined that listing the GRSG as an endangered or threatened species under the ESA 

was not warranted (USFWS 2015).

The official USFWS list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in proposed BAN 

tract, and/or may be affected by the proposed project indicated that one T&E species could occur 

within the project area (table 3-14). The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), the Ute ladies’-

tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) (ULT), and the blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) were

evaluated in the 2009 SGAC as occurring in the area based on information available at that time 

but an August 2017 search of IPaC specific to the BAN tract did not include the black-footed 

ferret, the ULT, or the blowout penstemon (USFWS 2017a). According to the 2017 IPaC 

evaluation, the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is the only ESA species that could 

potentially occur in the BAN tract study area. The USFWS has not designated any “critical” 

habitat for any of this species in the vicinity of the BAM at this time (USFWS 2017a). Discussions 

of black-footed ferrets, ULT, and blowout penstemon and have been included below even though 

they are not included on the 2017 IPaC list as occurring in the immediate area of the BAN tract.

Table 3-14. Potential Effects Evaluation of Federal T&E Species in the Area of the 

BAN Tract

Status Species Common Name Potential Effects

Threatened Northern Long-eared Bat May affect1

1 Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations. 

Source: USFWS (2017)

Black-footed Ferret

On March 6, 2013, the USFWS issued a letter acknowledging ‘block clearance’ for the State of 

Wyoming in response to a request from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

Consequently, the USFWS no longer recommends surveys for the black-footed ferrets in either 

black- or white-tailed prairie dog towns in the State of Wyoming (USFWS 2016). Prairie dog 

towns, which provide habitat for black-footed ferrets, are not found within the BAN tract. 

Northern Long-eared Bat

The northern long-eared bat was listed as a threatened species under the ESA on April 1, 2015, 

and therefore, was not discussed in the 2009 SGAC EIS. The listing was primarily due to the 

threat posed by white-nose syndrome, a fungal disease that has devastated many bat populations. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-30

The northern long-eared bat is a medium sized bat found throughout eastern and central North 

America, with an anticipated species range that includes portions of Campbell, Crook, and 

Weston counties, Wyoming (USFWS 2016). This species typically emerges at dusk to fly through 

the understory of forested hillsides and ridges, feeding on a variety of insects caught in flight or 

gleaned from vegetation. In the summer, male and reproductive female bats roost singly or in 

colonies in cracks, crevices, cavities, and under the bark of living or dead trees, while other males 

and non-reproductive females roost in cooler places like caves and underground mines. Breeding 

occurs in late summer and fall when bats swarm at entrances of hibernacula, which also typically 

are located in large underground cavities. 

Woodlands and prominent rocky features are extremely limited in the BAN tract. Vegetation 

communities are dominated by shrubland and grassland habitats, and no known underground 

cavities or caves exist in the area. Small water bodies (creeks and impoundments), which 

represent potential foraging habitat where insects tend to concentrate, are present throughout 

the BAN tract and surrounding survey area. No northern long-eared bat populations have been 

documented within Campbell County; however, approximately 17 percent of the BAN tract is 

within an area of influence (AOI) for the northern long-eared bat established by the USFWS.

Ute ladies’-tresses

Although the ULT is a vegetative species, the discussion of this T&E species is included here since 

affected environment discussions for vegetation are not provided in this EA, as discussed in

sections 1.4 and 3.0. An in-depth discussion on the biology and habitat requirements of the 

ULT is included in Appendix E - Section 1 of the 2009 SGAC EIS. Conditions or the potential for 

occurrence have not changed since the publication of the 2009 SGAC EIS. The environs of the 

Duck Nest Creek drainage that passes through the study area and playa grasslands within the 

tract constitute the closest approximation of suitable habitat for the ULT. Additional ULT surveys 

were completed by ESCO Associates Inc. (ESCO) within and adjacent to the tract in 2010, 2011, 

and 2012 using USFWS protocol for assessment of the presence. No ULTs were located within 

the BAN study area during the 2010, 2011, or 2012 searches (ESCO 2012).

Blowout Penstemon

As with the ULT, the blowout penstemon is a vegetative species and the discussion of this T&E 

species is included here since affected environment discussions for vegetation are not provided 

in this EA, as discussed in sections 1.4 and 3.0. An in-depth discussion on the biology and habitat 

requirements of the ULT is included in Appendix E - Section 1 of the 2009 SGAC EIS (BLM 

2009a). The BAN tract is not within the documented historical range of the blowout penstemon

(USFWS 2017b). The tract is located approximately 150 miles northwest of the known 

occurrences in Nebraska and approximately 150 miles northeast of the known occurrences in 

Wyoming. No suitable sand dunes (whether stable or blownout) are currently present on the 

BAN tract vegetation analysis area.

3.3.3.2 Vertebrate Sensitive Species

Special status species, including BLM’s Buffalo Field Office sensitive species and USFWS Birds of 

Conservation Concern (BCC) that could occur in in the study area (as determined from the 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database [WYNDD]), are present (appendix D).

3.3.3.2.1 BLM Sensitive Species

No quantitative surveys specifically targeting vertebrate sensitive species were conducted for the 

BAN EA. However, annual and periodic wildlife monitoring surveys conducted as part of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-31

programs at the BAM since at least 1974 provided information on the occurrence of and potential 

impacts to sensitive species.

As indicated in appendix D, 18 BLM sensitive species could potentially occur in the area. The 

absence or extremely limited presence of specialized habitat types, such as forests and woodlands, 

caves, cliffs, large expanses of wetlands and lakes, and calcareous rock outcrops, among others, 

make it unlikely that species restricted to those habitats would occur in the BAN tract study 

area. Nine vertebrate BLM-designated sensitive species have been documented in or within 0.5 

mile of the BAM permit area from 1984 through 2016: northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens); bald 

eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), burrowing owl, ferruginous 

hawk, GRSG, loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), 

and sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus). Detailed discussions of the observed species are 

included below. 

Northern leopard frogs are common residents in Wyoming and were observed in 2016 along 

a reclaimed creek route during waterfowl surveys, approximately 0.7 mile southeast of the tract. 

This species was not recorded in the BAN tract study area during waterfowl surveys in 2016. 

There are three major habitat types categorized for northern leopard frogs: winter habitat 

(overwintering in lakes, streams, and ponds), summer habitat (feeding by adults in upland areas), 

and tadpole habitat (up to 3 months spent as tadpoles in shallow breeding ponds) (Smith and 

Keinath 2007). Approximately 69.4 acres of aquatic features occur within the BAN tract. These 

features are considered marginally suitable habitat for northern leopard frogs. While these areas 

may provide habitat for this species in early spring when they are wet, they are typically dry by 

mid- to late-summer. The northern leopard frogs can migrate across the landscape to and from 

overwintering sites; the routes they take on these migrations probably include wet meadows, tall 

grass, and riparian corridors (Smith 2003). These routes are not found within the BAN tract 

study area.

Bald eagles are relatively common winter residents and migrants in northeastern Wyoming. 

Bald eagles have been observed within 1 mile of the BAN tract study area. However, no bald 

eagle nests or winter roost sites have been documented in or within 1 mile of the BAN tract 

study area or BAM permit area during more than two decades of annual monitoring at the mine. 

As noted above, the BAM annual monitoring area (permit area and a 1.0-mile perimeter) 

encompassed the entire BAN tract study area. The nearest known bald eagle nest is 

approximately 5 miles south of the BAN tract. Potential bald eagle roosting and nesting habitat is 

limited largely to the western portion of the BAN tract study area in cottonwood trees adjacent 

to a pond impoundment, trees in a small windbreak, and a few other individual trees. A few other 

trees exist within the BAN tract; however, the majority of those trees are too small to support 

roosting or nesting bald eagles. Additionally, no unique, concentrated, or predictable sources of 

prey or carrion (e.g., fisheries, sheep operations, large prairie dog colonies, or waterfowl staging 

areas) occur in the BAN tract study area or on surrounding lands, so foraging bald eagles would 

not be attracted to the location in great numbers. 

Brewer’s sparrows are common summer residents in Wyoming and are known to breed within 

northern Campbell County (Orabona et al. 2012). This species has been recorded within 1 mile 

of the BAN tract. Brewer’s sparrows have been recorded at the BAM during general migratory 

bird surveys during each of the last 17 years (2000–2016) (ICF 2017). Most observations occurred 

in stands of big sagebrush, their preferred habitat (Rotenberry et al. 1999), in the northern extent 

of the annual monitoring area. Although nests have rarely been encountered, the presence and 

behavior (singing and defending territories) of birds throughout spring and summer suggest that 

Brewer’s sparrows regularly nest in the area. The BAN tract study area is composed primarily of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-32

large expanses of grassland; however, a few small, scattered pockets of sparse to 

moderately-dense sagebrush which could provide suitable habitat for the Brewer’s sparrow are 

present in the area.

Ferruginous Hawks are common residents in Wyoming and are known to breed within 

northern Campbell County (Orabona et al. 2012). Breeding occurs in most grassland, shrub 

steppe, and desert environments in Wyoming. Wintering birds also occur at low densities in 

similar habitats in the state, typically in the southern counties (Travsky and Beauvais 2005). 

Ferruginous hawks have been documented as nesting in the vicinity of the BAM every year since 

1987. Over time, this species has established more nest sites than any other raptor species in the 

survey area, with as many as seven pairs nesting in a single year. At least four ferruginous hawk 

pairs nested in 7 of the 9 years from 1987 through 1995, with at least five pairs nesting in 6 of 

those years. However, no more than three pairs nested annually after 1995. In 2016, two pairs 

of ferruginous hawks fledged a combined total of six young. In 2016, both active ferruginous hawk 

nests were on artificial platforms. Aside from the ferruginous hawks associated with the active 

nests mentioned above, no other individuals were observed during the 2016 breeding season 

(ICF 2017).

Greater sage-grouse are common residents that have been documented to breed within 

northern Campbell County (Orabona et al. 2012). GRSG occurrence within the project area is 

thoroughly discussed in section 3.3.2, above. 

Loggerhead shrikes are common summer residents in Wyoming and have been observed 

breeding in northern Campbell County (Orabona et al. 2012). The breeding habitat for the 

loggerhead shrike is generally open country with scattered trees and large shrubs. The most 

important habitat feature seems to be the presence of dense shrubs or trees for nesting with 

nearby open herbaceous areas for foraging (e.g., grasslands or pastures) (Keinath and Schneider 

2005). Limited suitable habitat is present within the BAN tract study area for this species. 

Northern shrikes have been observed during BAM wildlife monitoring surveys (ICF 2017). 

Long-billed curlews are an uncommon summer resident in Wyoming but are known to breed 

within northern Campbell County (Orabona et al. 2012). As described by Dark-Smiley and 

Keinath (2004), long-billed curlews breed in prairies and grassy, moist meadows, generally near 

water and they are known to frequent plowed fields, meadows, and pastures for nesting. 

Short-grass or mixed-grass prairie habitats, with flat to rolling topography, are their preferred 

nesting habitat and they nest in shallow depressions in the ground. They have been documented 

nesting on the ground in flat areas with short grass, sometimes on more irregular terrain, often 

near a rock or other conspicuous object. They prefer open, sparse grassland habitats with low 

vegetation (under 30 cm) because tall vegetation hinders foraging, encourages predation, and 

reduces reproductive success (Dark-Smiley and Keinath 2004). Long-billed curlews have only 

been observed on rare occasions during BAM wildlife monitoring surveys (ICF 2017)

Sage thrashers are common summer residents in Wyoming and have been observed in 

northern Campbell County (Orabona et al. 2012). Breeding generally occurs in sagebrush steppe 

habitats, typically dominated by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), with nest sites most often 

occurring deep within or under big sagebrush (Buseck et al. 2004). Sage thrashers have been 

recorded in the BAN tract study area and are listed as rarely nesting in the 2016 annual wildlife 

report (ICF 2017). 

Burrowing owls are known to have nested and fledged young within the current BAM raptor 

monitoring area during 12 of the last 29 years (1987 through 2016) (ICF 2016). Despite their low 

nesting frequency, burrowing owls lay a relatively high number of eggs (clutch size can be up to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-33

12 eggs [Lantz et al. 2004]) and consequently have the highest production average at the BAM 

(ICF 2015). Two intact burrowing owl nests have been documented within the BAN tract 

(map 3-5). One nest is located very close to the Bishop Road and has not been active since prior 

to 2010. The other nest (BO14) was discovered in 2015. No burrowing owls were observed 

within the current BAM raptor monitoring area during the 2016 report period (ICF 2107).

Burrowing owls often use prairie dog burrows or other larger mammal burrows for nesting 

(Johnsgard 1990). One black-tailed prairie dog colony occurs within the BAM annual monitoring 

area. The colony is located approximately 1.9 miles southwest of the BAM permit area and 

approximately 5.3 miles from the BAN tract. No burrowing owl nests have been recorded within 

this prairie dog colony (ICF 2015). Over time, the BAM has constructed five artificial burrowing 

owl nest boxes in reclamation using the most current designs available. One box mitigated the 

loss of a nest site due to mining, and four were voluntarily constructed in an effort to provide 

additional nest sites for this species. However, none of the artificial nest boxes at the BAM has 

been used by burrowing owls to date, nor have any of the six other burrowing owl nest boxes 

that ICF has installed over the years at other mine properties (ICF 2017).

3.3.3.2.2 USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern

As indicated in appendix D, 19 USFWS Region 17 BCC could potentially occur in the area. 

Fifteen of these BCC have been documented in or within 0.5 mile of the BAM permit area from 

1984 through 2016: bald eagle, golden eagle, grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus sayannarum), 

short-eared owl, Brewer’s sparrow, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, prairie 

falcon (Falco mexicanus), GRSG, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, upland sandpiper (Bartramia 

longicauda), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), and sage thrasher. Bald eagles, 

Brewer’s sparrows, burrowing owls, ferruginous hawks, GRSG, loggerhead shrikes, long-billed 

curlew, and sage thrashers are discussed in section 3.3.3.2.1, above. Detailed discussions of the 

remaining observed species are included below.

Golden Eagles in North America typically inhabit open areas where small and medium-sized 

mammals are abundant. The species is classified as a common year-round resident in Wyoming 

(WGFD 2016b). Foraging habitat includes grasslands, sagebrush, and agricultural lands. Golden 

eagles nest on cliffs or in trees. Golden eagles nested in the monitoring area during 18 of the last 

30 years (ICF 2017). As with several of the other large raptor species, golden eagle nesting success 

in the BAM raptor monitoring area appears to have been heavily influenced by fluctuating 

lagomorph abundance over time. No golden eagle pairs have nested in the BAM annual 

monitoring area since 2006 (ICF 2017).

Grasshopper sparrows in Wyoming inhabit grassland mainly in the eastern half of the state, 

and are considered common summer residents. Grasshopper sparrows require herbaceous 

cover and conspicuous perches, and avoids areas containing more than 35% shrubs. Conversion 

of native grasslands to croplands and habitat loss to urbanization and industrialization have caused 

a contraction in this species' breeding range and rangewide population declines. Heavy livestock 

grazing can be detrimental to nests, young, and the availability of prey (WGFD 2010a). The 

grasshopper sparrow has been observed frequently in recent years within the BAM wildlife survey 

area and has likely nested in grassland habitats in the area. Grasshopper sparrows were recorded 

in 4 of the 5 habitats (excluding reclaimed shrubland) during breeding bird surveys conducted in 

2016 (ICF 2017). This species is typically associated with taller grassland vegetation, which is 

prevalent in mature stands of reclamation in the permit area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-34

Swainson’s Hawks breed primarily in western North America from Alaska and western 

Canada, south into northern Mexico, and east to Oklahoma and Iowa. They winter primarily in 

southern South America, irregularly north to Costa Rica and Panama, and sometimes north to 

the southwestern US and southern Florida. During summer, Swainson’s hawks occur and breed 

throughout most of Wyoming where preferred habitats (prairies, plains, shrub-steppe, large 

mountain valleys, savannahs, open pine-juniper woodlands, and cultivated lands with scattered 

trees) are present. Swainson’s Hawks are considered a common summer resident in Wyoming. 

They are impacted by the loss of native grasslands and nest trees and habitat fragmentation can 

accentuate the impacts of fluctuations of prey populations (WGFD 2010b). At least one pair of 

Swainson’s hawks fledged young in 26 of the last 30 years; no young fledged from 1993 through 

1995 or in 2013 (ICF 2017).

Short-eared owls occur year-round in Wyoming and are scattered across most of the state in 

open habitats. They are considered commons resident in Wyoming. Short-eared owls occupy 

broad expanses of open habitat with dense, low vegetation, including prairies, grasslands, 

meadows, marshes, and open sagebrush shrublands. They strongly associated with ungrazed and 

undisturbed native grasslands and wetlands that support dense small mammal populations. 

Short-eared owls are dependent on the meadow vole, which comprises at least 90 percent of its 

diet (WGFD 2010c). Habitat fragmentation can accentuate the impacts of fluctuations of prey 

populations and they are impacted by the loss or degradation of both breeding and wintering 

habitats, including urbanization, industrialization, intensive agriculture, overgrazing, and human 

disturbance. Nesting short-eared owls were only documented at the BAM during 4 of the last 30 

years and young fledged in 2 of those 4 years (ICF 2017).

Upland Sandpipers occurs primarily in the eastern half of Wyoming during the summer, 

although they have also been observed in north-central and northwestern Wyoming. Upland 

Sandpipers are considered an uncommon summer resident in Wyoming. They inhabit open 

grassland habitats, including prairies, meadows, pastures, hayfields, alfalfa fields, and highway 

ROWs. They require large areas of short grasses for foraging and courtship, interspersed with 

or adjacent to taller grasses for nesting and short to medium grasses for brood cover. They are 

impacted by the loss of habitat to urbanization, conversion of grasslands to woodlands and 

cultivated croplands, and loss of vegetation cover during the nesting season. Conversion of native 

grasslands to croplands and habitat loss to urbanization and industrialization have caused a 

contraction in this species' breeding range and rangewide population declines. Human activities 

have caused the loss of suitable nesting habitat in some areas (WGFD 2010d). Upland sandpipers 

have been documented in the area but nests have rarely been encountered in the area (ICF 2017).

Prairie falcons are considered a common resident in Wyoming, nesting in cliff habitats in open 

areas (WGFD 2009). Where suitable nesting habitat is available in the Wyoming PRB study area, 

several pairs can be found nesting in close proximity (BLM 2012 Task 1D report). Prairie Falcons 

feed primarily on birds and mammals, often exploiting locally abundant prey populations. Prairie 

falcons have been documented in the area (ICF 2017) but nesting substrate is limited.

Red-headed woodpeckers are associated with cottonwood-riparian, ponderosa pine 

savannah, aspen habitats (WGFD 2016b). These birds typically nest in a cavity in dead trees or 

stubs on live trees with no bark. They feed on a variety of plant and animal material including 

insects, bird eggs, nestlings, mice, corn, berries, and seeds. The loss of breeding and wintering 

habitats in the form of burned pine forests, park-like ponderosa pine forests, riparian cottonwood 

stands, and oak woodlands is thought to be the primary threat to the long-term persistence of 

Lewis’s woodpecker populations (Abele et al. 2004). This species has been documented in the 

area but observations are rare (ICF 2017).

3.4 Transportation

This section describes existing transportation conditions associated with the BAN tract.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-35

As discussed in the 2009 SGAC EIS, State Highway 59 is the major north-south public 

transportation corridor in this area (BLM 2009a). Access to the BAM is on the Bishop Road, 

which crosses the BAN tract. No recent annual average daily traffic (AADT) data are available 

for this county road. The Bishop Road is a paved highway with two 12-foot wide travelways and 

very narrow shoulders. It provides access to the BAM and the Caballo mine and rural areas east 

of the mines. The Bishop Road crosses under the BAM rail loop east of the mine and crosses 

under a three-track main line in the same area (map 1-2). Traffic using the Bishop Road is not 

affected by these underpasses.

The 2009 SGAC EIS included discussions of the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad (DM&E), 

which if built, would have provided additional rail capacity for the BAM. The Canadian Pacific 

Railway Ltd (CP) acquired the DM&E and its subsidiaries in 2007 and subsequently decided to 

suspend further consideration of the rail line expansion (TwinCities Pioneer Press 2015). In 2014, 

CP sold the west end of its DM&E line to Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. (RailwayAge 2014). There 

has been no further development activity regarding expansion of the rail line into the area.

3.5 Socioeconomics

This section describes existing socioeconomic conditions in Wyoming and Campbell County 

specific to the local and state economy, population, employment, and environmental justice.

3.5.1 Local Economy

Wyoming’s coal mines produced an estimate 375.7 million tons in 2015, a decrease of about 90.6 

million tons (19.4%) over the record 466.3 million tons produced in 2008. Coal produced from 

14 active mines in Campbell County, which makes up approximately 5 percent of the surface area 

of Wyoming, accounted for approximately 97% of total statewide coal production in 2015 

(Wyoming State Inspector of Mines 2015). According to coal production numbers from the U.S. 

Energy Information Administration (USEIA), the coal from Campbell County accounted for 

approximately 46 percent of the coal produced in the U.S. in 2015 (USEIA 2016a).

The estimated total fiscal benefit from coal production in Campbell County to the State of 

Wyoming in 2016 was calculated by including half of the bonus bid payments, half of the federal 

mineral royalties based on current prices, a designated portion of the AML fees, and all of the ad 

valorem taxes, severance taxes, and sales and use taxes for coal produced in Campbell County 

in 2015. The coal sales results in an estimated $922.5 million, or $2.48 per ton (figure 3-3). The 

calculations for revenues related to the BAN tract are included in appendix E.

Recent (2015) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) calculations for Wyoming indicate that the 

minerals industry (mining and oil and gas) accounted for about 23 percent of the state’s total 

GDP of $38.6 billion, which made it the largest sector of the Wyoming economy. The 

contribution of mining was nearly three times that of government, the next largest sector, and 

nearly three times more than the contribution of the real estate industry, the next largest private 

sector. In 2014, mining alone accounted for 11 percent of the Wyoming GDP (WDAI/EAD 2016).

Wyoming’s economy was exposed to a substantial decline in the price of oil in 2015, an extended 

period of low natural gas prices, and the decline in the price of coal (WDWS 2016a). This trend 

continued into 2016. As well as direct effects to oil and gas and mining employment, the effects 

of the reduced demand for these natural resources also effects the required support industries 

for the mining and quarrying of minerals and for the extraction of oil and gas.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-36

Source: WWC 2017

Figure 3-3. Estimated 2016 Wyoming and Federal Revenues from 2015 Coal 

Production in Campbell County
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-37

3.5.2 Population

As shown in table 3-15, Campbell County had a population of 49,220 in 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2016). Campbell County’s population ranks it as the third most populous of Wyoming’s 23 

counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2014).

2000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2000-2015 

Increase

2000-2015 

% Change

Campbell County 33,698 46,600 47,881 48,121 48,243 49,220 14,478 43.0

City of Gillette 19,646 30,432 31,423 31,732 31,920 32,649 13,003 66.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2014a - 2017)

The majority of the Campbell County mine employees and support services reside in the city of 

Gillette. It is estimated that the total population in the Gillette city limits increased from 19,646 

in 2000 to 32,649 in July 2015, an increase of 66.2 percent over the period (U.S. Census Bureau 

2015a and 2017). Table 3-15 presents the population changes for Campbell County and Gillette. 

As of July 2013, Gillette accounted for roughly 66 percent of the county’s residents (WDAI/EAD 

2014). Gillette was the fourth largest city in the state, following Cheyenne, Casper, and Laramie 

(WDAI/EAD 2014).

3.5.3 Employment

Table 3-16 presents the employment changes for Wyoming and Campbell County between 2000 

and August 2016. The statewide total employment increased by 30,670 jobs (12 percent) from 

2000 to 2015 while the employment in Campbell County increased by 30,670 (30.4 percent) 

during the same time period (Bureau of Labor 2016). The average unemployment rate in 

Campbell County for 2000 was 3.4 percent and 6.8 percent for August 2016 (Bureau of Labor 

2016). Between the second quarter of 2014 and the second quarter of 2016, the mining sector 

lost approximately 1,977 jobs (Bureau of Labor 2016). The Natural Resources and Mining sector 

in Campbell County experienced an approximate 14.7 percent decline in employment between 

June 2015 and June 2016 (WDWS 2016a).

As stated in section 2.3, 259 people are currently employed at the BAM (CCW 2016a). 

Table 3-16. Wyoming and Campbell County Employment Rate Change, 2000 and 

2011 to 2015

2000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 August 

2016

Wyoming (Number Employed) 256,414 289,019 291,076 292,157 294,207 293,262 287,084

Wyoming (Number Unemployed) 10,394 17,796 16,349 14,414 12,726 12,750 14,686

Wyoming Unemployment Rate 3.9 5.8 5.3 4.7 4.1 4.2 5.5

Campbell County (Number Employed) 17,975 24,605 24,919 24,609 25,423 24,943 23,446

Campbell County (Number Unemployed) 830 1,267 1,213 1,087 882 987 1,708

Campbell County Unemployment Rate 3.4 4.9 4.6 4.2 3.4 3.8 6.8

Source: Bureau of Labor 2016

3.5.4 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is defined by EPA as, "The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment 

Table 3-15. Campbell County and City of Gillette Population Change, 2000 and 

2011 to 2015
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 3-38

means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a 

disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, 

municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs 

and policies" (EPA 2017d). Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations also addresses this issue. Its purpose 

is to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health effects of federal actions on 

minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all 

communities (EPA 1994).

According to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2015, 93.6 percent of the population of Campbell 

County were white, which is slightly higher than the 91.0 percent of the population of Wyoming 

that were listed as white (U.S. Census Bureau 2015a). Also, according to U.S. Census Bureau 

(2015), the percentage rate of Native Americans in Campbell County population (1.3 percent) is 

lower than in the state rate as a whole (2.2 percent) and there are no known Native American 

sacred sites on or near the BAN tract. 

The poverty rate in Campbell County for all people combined was 7.2 percent (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2015b). This rate was lower than the 2015 poverty rate for Wyoming for all people 

combined, which was 11.5 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2015c). 

3.5.5 Housing

Section 3.17.4 of the 2009 SGAC EIS discusses in detail the housing opportunities in Gillette and 

Campbell County (BLM 2009a) and the 2012 Task 1C Report (Current Social and Economic 

Conditions) of the Powder River Basin Coal Review provides additional, more current, 

information. Housing information specifically related to the leasing and mining of coal within the 

BAN tract is included below. 

The 2015 census FactFinder estimated 19,525 housing units in Campbell County, an increase of 

47 percent since 2000. Approximately 89.7 percent of the Campbell County units were occupied 

at the time of the 2015 estimate (U.S. Census Bureau 2015d). The 2015 census FactFinder 

estimated 12,796 housing units in Gillette, with approximately 89.2 percent of the units occupied 

at the time of the 2015 estimate (U.S. Census Bureau 2015e). CCW does not anticipate adding 

additional employees if the federal mining plan modification is approved so there will be no 

additional demands placed on the housing infrastructure of Campbell County or Gillette.

3.5.6 Local Government Facilities and Services

Detailed discussions on government facilities and services in Campbell County and Gillette are 

included in Section 3.17.5 of the 2009 SGAC EIS (BLM 2009a). Revenues generated by mineral 

production continues to support local government facilities and services, which allows these 

facilities to keep pace with growth. Current facilities and services are generally adequate for the 

current population, although several service providers are engaged in expansion plans to 

accommodate future growth. CCW does not anticipate adding additional employees if the federal 

mining plan modification is approved so there will be no additional demands placed on the 

Campbell County or Gillette government facilities or services.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-1

4.0 Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action 

and the No Action Alternative, as described in chapter 2. The discussion is organized by the 

affected resource in the same order as they are described in chapter 3 and then by alternative.

An impact, or effect, is defined as a modification to the environment brought about by an outside 

action. Impacts vary in significance from no change, or only slightly discernible change, to a full 

modification or elimination of the resource. Impacts can be beneficial (positive) or adverse 

(negative). Impacts are described by their level of significance (i.e., significant, moderate, minor, 

negligible, or no impact). For purposes of discussion and to enable use of a common scale for all 

resources, resource specialists considered the following impact levels in qualitative terms.

Significant Impact: Impacts that potentially could cause irretrievable loss of a resource; 

significant depletion, change, or stress to resources; or stress within the social, cultural, and 

economic realm.

Moderate Impact: Impacts that potentially could cause some change or stress to an 

environmental resource but the impact levels are not considered significant.

Minor Impact: Impacts that potentially could be detectable but slight.

Negligible Impact: Impacts in the lower limit of detection that potentially could cause an 

insignificant change or stress to an environmental resource or use.

No Impact: No discernible or measurable impacts.

Direct impacts are defined as those impacts which are caused by the action and occur at the same 

time and place (40 CFR 1508.8[a]). Indirect impacts are those that are caused by the action and 

occur later in time or are farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 

1508.8[b]). Cumulative impacts are those impacts that result from incremental effects of an action 

when added to other past and present actions, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency or other entity undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts occur over a given time period. The time period for cumulative effects includes 

the time period when the impacts of past and present actions and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions overlap with the time period when project impacts would occur (including construction, 

operation, and reclamation phases).

Impacts can be short term meaning these impacts generally occur over a short period during a 

specific point in the mining process and these changes generally revert to pre-disturbance 

conditions at or within a few years after the ground disturbance has taken place. Long-term 

impacts are defined as those that substantially would remain beyond short-term ground-disturbing 

activities. Long-term impacts would generally last the life of the federal mining plan modification 

approval and beyond.

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative are 

comparable to those described in the 2009 SGAC EIS, except as noted herein. In addition to 

addressing the specific issues identified in chapter 1, this updated environmental consequences 

analysis reflect changes to the mining operations presented in chapter 2 and any updated 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-2

descriptions of the affected environment presented in chapter 3 that have taken place since the 

2009 SGAC EIS and the 1999 federal mining plan modification were approved.

Regional activity includes coal mining, oil and gas development, recreation, and agricultural 

activities. The Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review provides a detailed 

discussion of reasonably foreseeable development activities in the PRB (BLM 2011). The Task 3D 

Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review provides a detailed discussion of cumulative 

environmental effects in the PRB (BLM 2013). Both of these reports provide information updated 

since the 2009 SGAC EIS was published. 

Regarding subregion 2 activity, the primary regional activity is associated with coal recovery at the 

Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines (Subregion 2, middle group of mines) 

that are in the immediate vicinity of the BAN tract (map 1-1). Information regarding ownership, 

permitted areas, and 2015 coal production from these mines is included in table 4-1. 

Table 4-1. Ownership, Permitted Acres, and Coal Production of Subregion 2 

Mines

Mine Ownership Permitted 

Acres

2015 

Production 

(Mt)

Caballo Peabody Caballo Coal, LLC 21,269 11.4

Belle Ayr Alpha Coal West Inc. 12,091 18.3

Cordero Rojo Cloud Peak Energy LLC 21,685 22.9

Coal Creek Thunder Basin Coal Co. 9,741 7.8

Total 64,786 60.4

The Task 2 Coal Review Report (BLM 2011) includes estimates of current, 2020, and 2030 

disturbance for the Subregion 2 area (coal-mine related disturbance) and for subwatersheds (for 

oil and gas related development) (table 4-2). Task 2 Report discussions for oil and gas 

development disturbance are presented by watershed and, as discussed in Section 3.5.2.1 of the 

2009 SGAC EIS and in section 3.2.2 of this EA, the major drainage associated with the Subregion 

2 mines is the upper portion of the Belle Fourche River.

Table 4-2. Total Development-related Disturbance Acreages Associated with the 

BAN Study Area

Area 2008 2020 2030

Subregion 2 (Coal-mine Related) 35,395 37,060 39,120

Upper Belle Fourche River (Oil and Gas Related) 2,015 2,015 2,075

As noted from table 4-2, coal-mine related disturbance within Subregion 2 is estimated to 

increase by 10 percent by the year 2030 and oil and gas related disturbance within the Upper Belle 

Fourche River subwatershed is estimated to increase by only 3 percent by the year 2030. 

As determined from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD), agricultural use within a 

345,600-acre area that includes all mines within Subregion 2 is estimated at approximately 2,450 

acres (0.71 percent of total) (NLCD 2017). Few, if any, of the developed recreation sites in the 

study area would be affected by long term disturbance under the lower and upper development 

scenarios listed in the Task 3D Coal Review Report (BLM 2013). Therefore, due to the relatively 

small proportion of the area utilized for agriculture and recreation and due to detailed discussions 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-3

included in the 2009 SGAC EIS and the BLM Coal Review documents, these resources will not be 

included in cumulative effects analysis for this EA.

The environmental and cumulative effects discussions below assume that under the Proposed 

Action, the federal mining plan modification to mine coal in the remaining Federal Coal Lease 

WYW161248 would be approved. Market conditions are highly variable, which results in variable 

annual coal recovery rates. From 2009 through 2016, the annual coal recovery at the BAM ranged 

from 28.7 Mt in 2009 to 14.9 Mt in 2016, averaging 21.3 Mtpy over that time period (WDWS 

2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). Coal recovery would continue within the BAM 

permit boundary at an estimated annual rate of 20 Mt, which is consistent with the 2009 through 

2016 average annual recovery rate. The recovery of federal coal would continue for approximately 

10.4 additional years over the No Action Alternative. New mine facilities, associated surface 

disturbances, and subsidence repairs would not be required in connection with the Proposed 

Action.

Under the No Action Alternative, the mining plan modification for the federal coal within 

WYW161248 would not be approved. Currently approved mining operations associated with 

federal coal would continue for approximately 2.2 years within federal leases WYW78629, 

WYW80954, and WYW0317682, approved in prior ASLM federal mining plan modifications in 

accordance with conditions to WDEQ-LQD Permit No. PT0214, at an estimated rate of 

approximately 20 Mtpy. The actual mining rate is dictated by coal demands. The BAM is currently 

permitted to mine at a rate of 35 Mtpy.

4.1.1 Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts

A summary comparison of the direct and indirect environmental impacts is included in table 4-3

and in Table 2-2 of the 2009 SGAC EIS.

4.2 Topography and Physiography

4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.2.1.1 Proposed Action

The direct and indirect effects to topography and physiography would not be significantly different 

from those described in the 2009 SGAC EIS. Following reclamation, the average surface elevation 

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

premining contours, and the basic drainage network would be retained; however, the reclaimed 

surface would typically contain fewer and gentler topographic features. The Proposed Action 

would impact the topography and physiography of the remaining portions of lands included in 

WYW161248 but these impacts would be similar to those currently occurring on the existing 

BAM coal leases as coal is mined and the mined-out areas are reclaimed. The direct effects on 

topography and physiography resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate 

and permanent on the BAN tract. There would be no indirect effects under the Proposed Action. 

As discussed in section 1.2, WDEQ-LQD, through the PAP process, considered and approved 

the impacts of mining coal related to WYW161248, including effects to topography and 

physiography.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-4

Resource Name Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Added Recoverable Coal (Mt) 208.4 0.0

Added Disturbance (Acres) 695.0 0 

Topography and Physiography Moderate, permanent on the tract. Local impacts 

only.

Moderate, permanent on the tract due to mine 

related activity authorized under a state mine 

permit and federal mining plan. Local impacts 

only.

Geology, Minerals and Paleontology Moderate, permanent on the tract. Recovery of 

208.4 Mt of Wyodak coal and CBNG within 

Wyodak coal. While CBNG is not part of the 

Proposed Action, there would be a loss of CBNG 

through venting and/or depletion of hydrostatic 

pressure in Wyodak coal resulting from mining 

adjacent areas. However, CBNG recovery has 

been greatly reduced in the area. Local impacts 

only.

Moderate, permanent on the tract due to mine 

related activity authorized under a revised state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. 

Approximately 208.4 Mt of coal would not be 

removed on the CCW but loss of CBNG would 

occur though venting and/or depletion of 

hydrostatic pressure in Wyodak coal resulting 

from mining adjacent areas. Local impacts only.

Air Quality Moderate, short term (10.4 years) from full 

mining on the tract. Primarily local impacts, with 

the potential for regional and global impacts from 

transportation and combustion of coal.

Moderate, short term (2.2 years) on the tract due 

to mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Primarily 

local impacts, with the potential for regional and 

global impacts from transportation and 

combustion of coal.

Water Resources – Surface Water Moderate, short term (10.4 years) on the tract 

from full mining. Primarily local impacts, with the 

potential for regional impacts.

Moderate, short term (2.2 years) on the tract due 

to mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Primarily 

local impacts, with the potential for regional 

impacts.

Water Resources-Groundwater Moderate, short and long term on the tract due 

to aquifer (alluvial, overburden, and coal) removal.

Local impacts only.

Moderate, short and long term on the tract due 

to mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Local 

impacts only.

Alluvial Valley Floors Moderate, short term (10.4 years) on the tract 

from full mining. Local impacts only.

Moderate, short term (2.2 years) on the tract 

from full mining. Local impacts only.

Wetlands Moderate, short term (10.4 years) on the tract 

from full mining. Local impacts only.

Moderate, short term (2.2 years) on the tract due 

to mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Local 

impacts only.

Table 4-3. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-5

Table 4-3. Continued

Resource Name Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Soils Moderate, short term (10.4 years) on the tract 

from full mining. Local impacts only.

Moderate, short term (2.2 years) on the tract due 

to mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Local 

impacts only.

Vegetation Moderate, short term (10.4 years) on the tract 

from full mining. Local impacts only.

Moderate, short term (2.2 years) on the tract due 

to mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Local 

impacts only.

Wildlife Moderate, short term (10.4 years) on the tract 

from full mining. Local impacts only.

Moderate, short term (2.2 years) on the tract due 

to mine related activity authorized under a 

revised state mine permit and federal mining plan. 

Local impacts only.

Land Use Minor, short term (10.4 years) on the tract from 

full mining. Local impacts only.

Moderate, short term (2.2 years) on the tract due 

to mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. 

Cultural Resources Negligible, long term on the tract from full mining.

Local impacts only.

Negligible, long term on the tract due to mine 

related activity authorized under a revised state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. NRHP sites 

would not be disturbed. Local impacts only.

Visual Resources Moderate, long term (LOM) on the tract from full 

mining. Local impacts only.

Moderate, long term (LOM) on the tract due to 

mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Local 

impacts only.

Noise Minor to moderate, short term (10.4 years) on 

the tract from mining. The moderate effects 

would attenuate rapidly due to the reduction 

effect related to distance. Local impacts only.

Minor to moderate, short term (2.2 years) on the 

tract due to mine related activity authorized 

under a state mine permit and federal mining plan.

Local impacts only.

Transportation facilities Moderate, long term due the likelihood of the 

need to relocate the Bishop Road.

No impact

Hazardous and Solid Waste No impact Same as Proposed Action

Socioeconomics Moderate, beneficial, short term (10.4 years) on 

the tract from full mining. LOM state and federal 

revenues from the BAN tract coal would be 

$798.7 million. Local and regional impacts.

Moderate direct and indirect negative 

socioeconomic effects short term on the tract 

due the loss of $798.7 million in federal and state 

revenues, compared to Proposed Action. Local 

and regional impacts.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-6

4.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. The impacts to 

topography under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action 

although the impacts to approximately 695.0 acres to recover federal coal within the tract would 

not occur.

4.2.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impacts to topography and physiography would not be significantly different than 

those described in the 2009 SGAC EIS. The cumulative effects would primarily be related to the 

existing Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines (middle group of mines). 

Following surface coal mining and reclamation, topography would be modified within the permit 

boundary of these mines. The cumulative effects on topography and physiography resulting from 

the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate and permanent on the tract.

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for topography beyond those required by the BAM 

WDEQ-LQD mining permit.

4.3 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology

4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.3.1.1 Proposed Action

The direct and indirect effects to geology, mineral resources, and paleontology would not be 

significantly different than those described in the 2009 SGAC EIS. As stated in Section 3.3.1.2.1 of 

the 2009 SGAC EIS, the stratigraphic units from the base of the lowest coal seam mined to the 

land surface would be subject to permanent change after the coal is removed under the Proposed 

Action or Alternative 2 or 3. Mining would substantially modify the subsurface characteristics of 

these lands. The replaced overburden and interburden (backfill) would be a mixture of the 

geologically distinct layers of sandstone, siltstone, claystone, and shale that currently exist. As a 

result, the physical characteristics of the backfill would be different from the physical 

characteristics of the existing layered overburden stratigraphy.

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

permanent change on the areas of coal removal, and the Proposed Action would alter the 

subsurface physical characteristics on 695.0 acres associated with the BAN tract. These impacts 

are occurring on the existing BAM coal leases as coal is mined and the mined-out areas are 

reclaimed. The Proposed Action would result in the recovery of approximately 208.4 Mt of federal 

coal from the Wyodak coal seam. The Proposed Action would also result in the loss of any 

remaining CBNG through venting and/or depletion of hydrostatic pressure in Wyodak coal 

resulting from mining adjacent areas. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects on geology and 

mineral resources are expected to be moderate and permanent on the tract.

As of March 2, 2017, 418 CBNG wells and 169 oil and gas wells had been permitted within 2 miles 

of the BAN tract (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission [WOGCC 2017]). Fifty-six 

CBNG wells have been permitted within the BAN tract. There are 47 CBNG wells completed 

within the tract, with one of those wells currently producing gas. CBNG would be recovered from
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-7

the Wyodak coal seam within the BAN tract until mining approaches near enough to the wells to 

result in loss through venting and/or depletion of hydrostatic pressure. CBNG reserves not 

recovered from the Wyodak coal seam prior to mining would be vented to the atmosphere. As 

of March 2, 2017, eight conventional oil and gas wells had been permitted within the BAN tract; 

all eight of the wells have been abandoned. There are existing facilities and equipment associated 

with CBNG production and development within the tract. The direct effects on CBNG resources 

resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate and permanent for CBNG on 

the BAN tract due to the loss of any remaining CBNG within the Wyodak coal seam. Current 

unconventional oil and gas drilling techniques (horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing) allow 

extraction of oil and gas from areas not available using vertical drilling techniques (EPA 2017e). 

Therefore, the effects would be minor and short term for conventional oil and gas due to the 

surface disturbance that could prohibit recovery of the resource. 

Section 3.3.3 of the 2009 SGAC EIS provides a detailed discussion of BAN paleontological 

resources (BLM 2009a). No unique or significant paleontological resources have been identified 

or are suspected to exist on the BAM. As stated in the 2009 SGAC EIS, none of the fossil material 

found within the general South Gillette analysis area was considered to have much scientific 

significance; as a result, no specimens were collected. While vertebrate fossils appear to be very 

scarce, BLM imposed lease and permit conditions that require, should previously unknown, 

potentially significant paleontological sites be discovered, work in that area would stop and 

measures would be taken to assess and protect the site. The direct effects on paleontological 

resources resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate and permanent on 

the BAN tract.

4.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Impacts to the geological 

resources have resulted from current mining activity and therefore under this alternative, 

geological resources in the area would be similar to those under the Proposed Action although 

the impacts to the geological and paleontological resources on approximately 695.0 acres within 

the tract would not occur. Impacts to CBNG resources may still occur as a result of mining 

activities in adjacent lands.

4.3.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impacts to geology, mineral resources, and paleontological resources would not 

be significantly different than those described in the 2009 SGAC EIS. The PRB coalfield 

encompasses an area of about 12,000 square miles. The USGS estimates that there are 

approximately 162 billion tons of recoverable coal in the PRB, of which, an estimated 25 billion 

tons are considered economically recoverable coal, with a maximum stripping ratio of 10:1 (USGS 

2013). The cumulative effects would primarily be related to the existing BAM and Campbell 

County. 

According to October 17, 2016 information from the WOGCC website, 21,360 CBNG wells have 

been drilled in Campbell County. The WOGCC records indicate that a majority of the wells 

produce from privately held or state minerals, while approximately 36.7 percent of the wells (7,846 

of 21,360) produce from federal minerals. Status of these wells includes shut-in, producing, plugged 

and abandoned, and injection. Currently, one of the 21,360 CBNG wells permitted in the analysis 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-8

area is reported as being in production. The pace of CBNG development in Wyoming has recently 

slowed considerably (WOGCC 2016). 

Impacts to paleontological resources as a result of the already-approved cumulative energy 

development occurring in the PRB consist of losses of plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate fossil 

material for scientific research, public education (interpretive programs), and other values. Losses 

have and would 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. The cumulative effects on geology, mineral resources, and paleontology 

resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate and permanent.

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for geology or mineral resources. Should significant 

paleontological resources be encountered as a result of the Proposed Action, the appropriate 

agencies would be consulted.

4.4 Air Quality and Climate Change

4.4.1 Particulate Matter

4.4.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.4.1.1.1 Proposed Action

CCW projects that the annual coal production is expected to average 20 Mt with mining the 

remaining federal coal within the BAN tract (CCW 2016a). BAM’s currently approved air quality 

permit (P0014896) issued by WDEQ-AQD, limits annual coal production to 35 Mt of coal. 

According to CCW, production would continue for approximately 10.4 additional years under the 

Proposed Action. Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most 

likely to occur along publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the area of the 

mining operations. Occupants of residences in the area could also be affected. As indicated on 

map 3-1, the closest residence is located approximately 3,300 feet from the tract disturbance 

and the closest public transportation route is the Bishop Road, which bisects the tract. 

WDEQ-AQD issued air quality permit P0014896 for the BAM on June 3, 2015, based partially on 

an analysis using emission factors, estimation methods, and model selection consistent with 

WDEQ-AQD policy. Fugitive and point source emission inventories for PM10 for the years 2014 

through 2031 were developed for BAM based on site-specific information provided by the mine. 

A summary of modeling results is included in appendix E. The resultant PM10 inventories were 

used to determine the years that would be modeled. Maximum PM10 emission rates were predicted 

to occur during 2016 and 2017, based on estimated emissions of 1,486 and 1,443 tpy, respectively. 

The selection of these years should ensure that the maximum potential PM10 impacts on ambient 

air quality are addressed. PM10 inventories for the mining activities at the BAM were modeled for 

all years in the currently anticipated LOM. Fugitive emission sources, such as overburden and coal 

blasting events and truck dumps, and point sources, such as baghouse dust, were modeled using 

the Industrial Source Complex Long-term (ISCLT3) model to estimate average annual PM10

concentrations. McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. (McVehil-Monnett) reviewed regulatory 

modeling techniques to select the most appropriate air quality dispersion model to simulate 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-9

dispersion of air pollutants emitted by the proposed project for a near-field air quality impact 

analyses (AQIA). Following WDEQ-AQD guidance, the ISCLT3 model was used in all modeling 

analysis (McVehil-Monnett 2014). The model evaluated overall maximum PM10 emissions resulting 

from mining activities at the Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines (middle 

group of mines).

Redhorse Corporation (Redhorse) also conducted air quality modeling in 2016 for the Cordero 

Rojo Mine located immediately adjacent (south) of the BAM. Redhorse also used the ISCLT3 

model to estimate average annual PM10 concentrations for the years 2016 through 2035, for the 

Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines (middle group of mines) (Redhorse 

2016). Based on mine plan parameters and highest emissions inventories, the years 2017 and 2023 

were selected as the worst-case years for evaluation, since those years had the highest modeled 

PM10 concentrations.

WDEQ-AQD does not require modeling of fugitive dust emissions to predict compliance with the 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 μg/m3(WDEQ-AQD 2006). Compliance with the 24-hour PM10

ambient air quality standard has been demonstrated by ambient air monitoring conducted at BAM 

and other nearby mines. A discussion of PM10 monitoring results for the BAM is included in 

section 3.1.4.1. There have been no recorded exceedances of the NAAQS or WAAQS 24-hour 

PM10 at the BAM.

While the results were slightly different, the two models indicated that the currently projected 

mine activities will be in compliance with the annual PM10 ambient air standard for the LOM. Coal 

production in all years was modeled at the maximum permitted production level of 35 Mt 

(McVehil-Monnett 2014 and Redhorse 2016). The results of annual dispersion modeling are 

included in table 4-4. The locations of the maximum-modeled annual PM10 concentrations for 

2016 and 2017 (BAM) are shown on map 4-1 and the locations of the maximum-modeled annual 

PM10 concentrations for 2017 and 2023 (Cordero Rojo) are shown on map 4-2. A discussion of 

PM10 monitoring results for the 2009 through 2016 period for the BAM is included in section 

3.1.4.1. Based on the information included in section 3.1.4.1, the BAM would not cause or 

contribute to a violation of the federal 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 μg/m3. Note that maps 4-1

and 4-2 also include references to NO2, which is discussed in section 4.4.3.

An inventory of all point sources, controls, and emissions for the P0014896 air quality permit 

showed the potential to emit a maximum of 37.9 tpy of PM10; therefore, as discussed in chapter 3, 

a PSD increment consumption analysis was not necessary. Since the maximum potential to emit is 

below the 100 tpy major source threshold limit specified in Chapter 6, Section 3 of the WAQSR, 

the BAM will not be subject to the Title V Operating Permit program (McVehil-Monnett 2014).

There have been no recorded exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS or the annual PM10

WAAQS. In addition, the 2014 ISCLT3 modeling conducted for the years 2014 through 2031 for 

the current BAM AQ permit and the 2016 ISCLT3 modeling conducted for the current Cordero 

Rojo Mine AQ permit predicted no future exceedances of the annual PM10 AAQS for the combined 

emissions at the Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines (McVehil-Monnett 2014 

and Redhorse 2016, respectively). At the estimated average annual production rate of 20 Mt there 

would be an extension of approximately 10.4 years in the duration of coal production. Also, an 

increase in overburden thickness within the BAN tract would occur; however, fugitive dust

emissions are projected to remain within 24-hour and annual NAAQS and WAAQS limits 

(McVehil-Monnett 2014).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-10

Table 4-4. McVehil-Monnett and Redhorse Annual Particulate Matter PM10 and 

NO2 Dispersion Modeling Results

Pollutant

Modeled 

Concentrationa

(μg/m3)

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3)

Total 

Concentrationb

(μg/m3)

NAAQS/

WAAQS

(μg/m3)

McVehil- Monnett

2016 Mine Year

PM10 36.78 9.00 45.78 50c

NO2 34.94 14.00 48.94 100

2017 Mine Year

PM10 34.47 9.00 43.97 50c

NO2 31.99 14.00 45.99 100

Redhorse

2017 Mine Year

PM10 26.06 9.50 35.56 50c

NO2 30.67 20.00 50.67 100

2023 Mine Year

PM10 15.58 9.50 25.08 50c

NO2 23.18 20.00 43.18 100

a PM10 modeled concentrations include the Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo mines plus background (Redhorse 2017 PM10 

total does not include Caballo Mine per Redhorse report)

NO2 modeled concentrations include the Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo mines, a regional concentration plus background

b The total includes modeled concentrations for the Belle Ayr, Caballo, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo mines plus background 

c WAAQS standard only (no annual standard for NAAQS). Violation occurs with more than one expected exceedance per calendar year

Source: McVehil-Monnett (2014) and Redhorse (2016)

As indicated in table 3.4, the highest concentrations of PM2.5 recorded at Site BA-4 

(24 μg/m3- 24-hour and 7.3 μg/m3– annual; excluding an event that was flagged as exceptional on 

July 4, 2012) were well below the PM2.5 NAAQS, which are 35 μg/m3for the 24-hour period and 

15 μg/m3for the annual average. Assuming future PM2.5 concentrations would be proportional to 

previous concentrations, based on coal production levels consistent with the 2009 through 2016 

average annual production and related emissions, the proposed modifications to the BAM federal 

mining plan would not significantly increase monitored values, nor would they cause the monitored 

values to approach the PM2.5 NAAQS. Also, based on monitoring data in the PRB, annual and 24-

hour PM2.5 NAAQS and WAAQS are not projected to be exceeded.

Public exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most likely to occur 

along publicly accessible roads and highways that are adjacent to the area of the mining operations. 

Occupants of residences in the area could also be affected. Although modeling indicates that there 

would be no exceedances of particulate matter as a result of the Proposed Action, the direct and 

indirect effects related to particulate matter emissions could affect local residences and are 

therefore listed as moderate but short term (10.4 years) on the BAN tract.

4.4.1.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Impacts from particulate

matter emissions have resulted from current mining activity and therefore under this alternative, 

particulate matter emission impacts in the area would be similar to those under the Proposed 

Action but would not be extended for an additional 10.4 years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-11

Map 4-1. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2 Concentrations at the South Gillette 

Area for the Years 2016 and 2017, McVehil-Monnett Modeling
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-12

Map 4-2. Maximum Modeled PM10 and NO2 Concentrations at the South Gillette 

Area for the Years 2017 and 2023, Redhorse Modeling
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-13

4.4.1.2 Cumulative Effects

The locations of PM10 and PM2.5 emission monitoring samplers within Coal Mine Subregion 2 (Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines) are depicted on map 3-2. Monitoring during 

the 2009-2016 period demonstrated that ambient concentrations of PM10 were within established 

short-term (24-hour) NAAQS and WAAQS presented in table 4-5. During this period, no 

exceedances of the PM10 standards were reported at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, or 

Cordero Rojo mines. The highest 24-hour average concentration reported from any individual 

station during the 2009-2016 monitoring period was 122 μg/m3, recorded at Caballo/C-8A/B 

(56-005-0886). This site is approximately 4 miles east of the BAN tract.

Table 4-5. PM10 Concentration Values (First Maximum Value - μg/m3) for 2009-

2016 Associated with the Middle Group2 of Mines in the PRB.

Location/Site Name/AQS Site ID3 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

South Campbell County/Campbell 

County/56-005-0456 43 36 41 71 39 52 135 34

Belle Ayr/BA-1/56-005-0802 28 29 51 45 27 28 49 44

Belle Ayr/BA-3/56-005-0893 25 31 46 48 34 38 52 27

Belle Ayr/BA-4/56-005-0892 50 55 69 54 39 43 66 38

Caballo/C-8A/B/56-005-0886 117 122 98 99 84 55 80 52

Caballo/C-9/56-005-0908 72 67 69 76 64 54 72 76

Coal Creek/CCM 7-1/56-005-0841 24 26 32 45 30 21 51 20

Coal Creek/Site 26/56-005-0890 32 44 38 49 **   ** 

Coal Creek/Site 3/56-005-0303 **   65 56 39 51 31

Cordero/CRC-E10A/56-005-0885 86 66 83 108 68 67 88 52

Cordero Rojo/CRM-W11 Hilight Road/56-005-

1003 **  ** 66 63 55 60 51 35

Cordero Rojo/Site W/56-005-0883 83 83 53   **  ** **

Cordero/Hv-3/PM-3/56-005-0889 54 54 27   **  ** **

Cordero Rojo/CRM-S11/56-005-1009   47 68 41 46 56 57

1 The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3

, as 

determined in Appendix K, 40 CFR Part 50, is equal to or less than 1

2 Belle Ayr, Caballo, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines (See map 3-2)

3

See map 3-2 for site locations

**  Indicates that the site is inactive

Source: WDEQ-AQD (2016)

The adjacent middle group of mines would contribute cumulative particulate matter emissions to 

the surrounding area. PM10 modeling conducted for the current BAM and Cordero Rojo air quality 

permits each included the effects of the adjacent middle group of mines. The models indicated that 

the mining activities at the middle group of mines would not contribute to a violation of the 

WAAQS annual PM10 of 50 μg/m3or the WAAQS or NAAQS 24-hour standards of 150 μg/m3

(McVehil-Monnett 2014 and Redhorse 2016). Cumulative impacts from particulate matter 

emissions could be higher in the short term (10.4 years) in this area due to coal mining activities 

if surface inversions occur in the middle portion of the PRB. This would be temporary, lasting only 

during the inversion event. Air quality impacts would cease to occur after mining and reclamation 

are completed. Although modeling indicates that there would be no exceedances particulate 

matter as a result of the Proposed Action, the cumulative effects from particulate matter emissions 

could affect local residences and are therefore listed as moderate but short term (10.4 years) on 

the BAN tract. The effects of particulate matter emissions from coal combustion are included in 

section 4.4.3.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-14

4.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures beyond those required by the BAM air quality permit would be required 

for emissions of particulate matter.

4.4.2 Emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Mercury (Hg), and 

Lead (Pb)

4.4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.4.2.1.1 Proposed Action

CCW projects that the annual coal production is expected to average 20 Mt, with mining of the 

federal coal associated with the BAN tract (CCW 2016a). BAM’s currently approved air quality 

permit from WDEQ limits annual coal production to 35 Mt of coal. According to CCW, the 

recovery of federal coal would continue at an average rate of 20 Mtpy for approximately 10.4 

additional years under the Proposed Action. The BAM is not required to monitor CO, SO2, or Pb 

so a direct comparison between current CO, SO2, or Pb at the mine and state or federal standards 

is not possible. 

SO2 monitoring data were available from Wyodak Site 4 (560050857), which is approximately 11 

miles north of the BAN tract. As presented in table 3-8, SO2 data collected at the Wyodak Site 

4 were below the 1-hour NAAQS and WAAQS 99th percentile concentration of 75 ppb, indicated 

in table 3-3. Therefore, it is likely that ambient air quality within the vicinity of the proposed 

action is currently in compliance with the SO2 WAAQS and NAAQS.

Hg emissions data collected from three coal-fired power plants located in Campbell County are 

shown in table 3-9. A direct comparison between the monitored values at the power plants and 

NAAQS and WAAQS is not possible since the monitored values were presented in pounds, rather 

than the NAAQS and WAAQS units (μg/m3). In lieu actual comparisons of Pb emissions with 

NAAQS and WAAQS, WDEQ-AQD annual inspection reports stated that the Dry Fork Station 

power plant (DFS) appeared to be operating in compliance with all applicable Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards & Regulations (WAQS&R), including those for Hg (WDEQ-AQD 2011, 2012, 2013a, 

2013b, 2014, and 2015b).

Pb emissions data collected in Campbell County from three coal-fired power plants, one mine, 

and one AQS site are shown in table 3-10. A direct comparison between the monitored values 

at the power plants/ mine and NAAQS and WAAQS is not possible since the monitored values 

were presented in pounds, rather than the NAAQS and WAAQS units (μg/m3). In lieu actual 

comparisons of Pb emissions with NAAQS and WAAQS, WDEQ-AQD annual inspection reports 

stated that DFS appeared to be operating in compliance with all applicable Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards & Regulations (WAQS&R), including those for Pb (WDEQ-AQD 2011, 2012, 2013a, 

2013b, 2014, and 2015b). The 2011-2015 monitoring results from the Thunder Basin AQS site 

showed that annual 1st maximum Pb monitoring values were well below the 90-day average 

NAAQS and WAAQS of 0.15 μg/m3.

CO is not monitored in Campbell County, therefore the effects of CO emissions from the 

Proposed Action are difficult to assess based on monitored values. However, there are currently 

no counties/cities in Wyoming, Montana, or South Dakota that are considered as nonattainment 

for CO, based on NAAQS and WAAQS (EPA 2017b).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-15

Coal recovery would continue within the BAM permit boundary at an estimated annual rate of 20 

Mt, which is consistent with the 2009 through 2016 average annual recovery rate. Given the results 

of ongoing SO2, Hg, and Pb monitoring in the area that show not exceedances of these AQ 

parameters, the effects of emissions of CO, SO2 and Pb from the Proposed Action would be 

minor.

4.4.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the BAN tract. Impacts from CO, SO2, and Pb 

emissions have resulted from current mining activity and therefore the impacts related to CO, 

SO2, and Pb emissions under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the 

Proposed Action but would not be extended for an additional 10.4 years.

4.4.2.2 Cumulative Effects

The adjacent middle group of mines would contribute additional CO, SO2, and Pb emissions to 

the surrounding area. Based on past monitoring, the permit modification request would not likely 

increase CO, SO2, or Pb emissions since coal recovery would continue at an estimated annual rate 

that is consistent with the 2009 through 2016 average annual recovery rate. While cumulative 

impacts from CO, SO2, and Pb could be higher in the short term in this area due to coal mining 

activities if surface inversion occurs in the northern portion of the PRB, this would be temporary, 

lasting only during the inversion. Air quality impacts would cease to occur after mining and 

reclamation are complete. Therefore, the cumulative effects from CO, SO2, and Pb emissions are 

expected to be minor and they would be extended by approximately 10.4 years.

4.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures beyond those required by the BAM air quality permit would be required

for emissions of CO, SO2 and Pb.

4.4.3 Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Ozone (O3)

4.4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.4.3.1.1 Proposed Action

Fugitive and point source NO2 emission inventories for the years 2014 through 2031 were 

developed for the BAM based on site-specific information provided by the mine. Modeling for 

NOX for the years 2016 through 2035 was also conducted in 2016 for the Cordero Rojo Mine, 

which is immediately adjacent (south) of the BAM. The resultant NO2 inventories were used to 

determine the years that would be modeled. Maximum NOX emission rates were predicted to 

occur during 2016 and 2017 using the BAM site-specific model and during 2017 and 2023 using 

the Cordero Rojo modeling. The selection of these years should ensure that the maximum 

potential NOX impacts on ambient air quality are addressed.

The approval of the WDEQ-AQD issued air quality permit P0014896 for the BAM was based 

partially on an analysis of NO2 dispersion modeling, which was consistent with WDEQ-AQD 

policy. NO2 modeling closely followed many of the same procedures used in the PM10 analysis. 

Emissions were apportioned in a similar manner, and the same meteorological data set was used. 

Emissions were modeled as NOX, and the final concentrations were multiplied by 0.75 to account 

for chemical conversion to NO2. Background concentrations of 14.0 μg/m3and 20.0 μg/m3 NO2
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-16

were then added to the model results to obtain the total impact (McVehil-Monnett 2014 and 

Redhorse 2016). 

While resulting in slightly different results, the two models indicated that the currently projected 

mine activities will be in compliance with the annual NOX ambient air standard for the LOM (table 

4-3). The locations of the maximum-modeled annual NO2 concentrations for 2016 and 2017 (BAM 

modeling) are shown on map 4-1 and the locations of the maximum-modeled annual NO2

concentrations for 2017 and 2023 (Cordero Rojo modeling) are shown on map 4-2. The annual 

NAAQS and WAAQS are 100 μg/m3(53 ppb). The potential NO2 impacts from mining the BAN 

tract have been inferred to be similar to the currently permitted impacts of mining the existing 

coal leases at the BAM because of the similarities in mining rates and mining operations.

Public exposure to emissions caused by surface mining operations is most likely to occur along 

publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the area of the mining operations. 

Occupants of dwellings in the area could also be affected. There are occupied dwellings located 

approximately 3,300 feet southwest of the BAN tract. There are currently no bus stops along the 

Bishop Road within the tract. The mine uses small blasts that are loaded and detonated on the 

same day, which greatly reduces the potential to produce NOX. There have been no reported 

events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting activities at the BAM through December 2015 

(Emme 2015). 

As indicated in section 3.1.4.2, O3 monitoring is not required by WDEQ-AQD at PRB mines but 

levels have been monitored at WDEQ-AQD operated and maintained ambient air quality monitor 

sites in the PRB since 2001. No violations of the 8-hour O3 NAAQS have occurred at the Thunder 

Basin National Grassland (56-005-0123), north of I-90, or the Campbell County monitoring site 

(56-005-0456), located in the PRB, south of I-90.

As stated above, there have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting 

activities at the BAM through December 2015 and there have been no violations of the NAAQS 

or WAAQS 8-hour O3 standards in Campbell County during the 2009-2016 monitoring period. 

Coal recovery would continue within the BAM permit boundary at an estimated annual rate of 20 

Mt, which is consistent with the 2009 through 2016 average annual recovery rate. While the 

results from ongoing monitoring show no violations of NOX or O3 NAAQS or WAAQS standards 

in Campbell County, the slight potential for exposure to NOX and O3 emissions suggests that the 

direct and indirect effects from emissions resulting from the Proposed Action would be moderate 

for NOX and minor for O3. The effects would be short term (10.4 years) on the BAN tract.

4.4.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Impacts from NOX and 

O3 emissions have resulted from current mining activity and therefore the impacts related to NOX

and O3 emissions under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed 

Action but would not be extended for an additional 10.4 years.

4.4.3.2 Cumulative Effects

The adjacent middle group of mines would contribute cumulative NOX and O3 emissions to the 

surrounding area. NOX modeling conducted for the current BAM and Cordero Rojo air quality 

permits each included the effects from the adjacent middle group of mines. The models predicted 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-17

that mining activities at the middle group of mines would not contribute to a violation of the 

NAAQS or WAAQS annual NO2 of 100 μg/m3(53 ppb) (McVehil-Monnett 2014 and Redhorse 

2016). Cumulative impacts from NOX could be higher in the short term (10.4 years) in this area 

due to coal mining activities if surface inversion occurs in the northern portion of the PRB. This 

would be temporary, lasting only during the inversion. NOX impacts would cease to occur after 

mining and reclamation are complete. 

O3 has been monitored at AQS sites 56-005-0123 and 56-005-0456 (map 3-1) since 2009. 

Monitoring at the two sites provide an estimate of cumulative O3 emissions effects. No 

exceedances of the 8-hour or O3 standard have occurred at the monitoring sites during the 2009 

through 2016 monitoring period. 

The cumulative effects from NOX and O3 emissions are expected to be moderate and they would 

be extended by approximately 10.4 years under the Proposed Action.

4.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures beyond those required by the BAM air quality permit would be required 

for emissions of NOX or O3.

4.4.4 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs)

4.4.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.4.4.1.1 Proposed Action

Visibility

Since the BAN tract is adjacent to the current BAM, the impacts to visibility from mining the BAN 

tract have been inferred from the currently permitted impacts from mining the existing coal leases 

at the BAM. 

Current techniques for blasting, coal removal, and coal processing would be expected to continue 

for a longer period of time than is shown in the BAM’s currently approved air quality permit. 

Material movement would continue utilizing direct cast blasting, draglines, and/or truck and shovel 

fleets for overburden and truck and shovel fleets and overland conveyors for coal. The BAM would 

not propose significant changes to the facilities shown in the current air quality permit or the 

blasting procedures or blast sizes. However, the blasting processes and required mitigation 

measures would be reviewed when the mining permit is amended to include the coal within the 

BAN tract, and the blasting plan would be modified to incorporate best available control 

technology (BACT) protection measures that are in effect at that time. Impacts to visibility under 

the Proposed Action would be minor but they would be extended by approximately 10.4 years.

Acidification of Lakes/Acid Deposition

Because the BAM is not required by WDEQ-AQD to monitor H2S, a direct comparison to 

WAAQS standards is not possible. Since factors affecting H2S emissions would not change as a 

result of the Proposed Action, the direct and indirect effects have been inferred from the currently 

permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the BAM. As indicated in table 4-6, the 

2011-2015 trend in hydrogen ion (H+) concentrations at monitoring site WY99 (see map 3-1) 

appears to be relatively stable. Based on this comparison of the current information available, the 

Proposed Action is not expected to contribute to increased direct or indirect effects to 

acidification of lakes or acid deposition that may impact soils.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-18

Table 4-6. Measured Hydrogen Ion (H+) Concentrations1at Monitoring Site 

WY99, 2011–2015

Parameter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

pH 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8

Wet (kg/hectare) 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

1 Measures as pH and WET (whole effluent toxicity) deposition

Source: National Atmospheric Deposition Program (2011-2015)

4.4.4.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Impacts to air quality 

related values have resulted from current mining activity and therefore the impacts related to 

AQRVs under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action 

but would not be extended for an additional 10.4 years.

4.4.4.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative AQRVs would be effected by mines in Campbell County. One method of evaluating 

the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action on AQRVs would be to assess the air quality index 

(AQI) for Campbell County. As described by the AirNow website, the AQI provides an index of 

how clean or polluted the air is within an area, and what associated health effects might be a 

concern (AirNow 2016). The AQI focuses on health affects experienced within a few hours or 

days after breathing polluted air. EPA calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by 

the Clean Air Act: ground-level O3, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), CO, SO2, 

and NO2. For each of these pollutants, EPA has established national air quality standards to protect 

public health. Ground-level O3 and airborne particles are the two pollutants that pose the greatest 

threat to human health in this country. The AQI evaluates air quality based on six levels 

(categories) of health concern that correspond to a different level of health concern.

The six categories of health concern are:

Good - Number of days in the year having an AQI value 0 through 50, indicating that air quality is 

considered satisfactory, and air pollution poses little or no risk.

Moderate - Number of days in the year having and AQI value 51 through 100, which means that 

air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate health concern 

for a very small number of people who are unusually sensitive to air pollution.

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups - Number of days in the year having an AQI value 101 through 

150, where members of sensitive groups may experience health effects. The general public is not 

likely to be affected.

Unhealthy - Number of days in the year having an AQI value 151 through 200. Everyone may begin 

to experience health effects; members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health 

effects.

Very Unhealthy - Number of days in the year having an AQI value 201 or higher. This category is 

a health alert: everyone may experience more serious health effects.

Hazardous - Number of days in the year having an AQI greater than 300. This would trigger a 

health warnings of emergency conditions with the entire population more likely to be affected.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-19

According to information obtained from the AirNow Website for Campbell County, 

approximately 98.9 percent of the days between 2012 and 2016 were classified as having a good 

or moderate AQI and no days were classified as very unhealthy or hazardous (table 4-7).

Table 4-7. Average Annual Campbell County Air Quality Index Values, 2009-2016.

Days 

With 

AQI

Good Moderate

Unhealthy 

for Sensitive 

Groups

Unhealthy Very 

Unhealthy Hazardous

2009 365 217 147 1 0 0 0

2010 365 223 139 3 0 0 0

2011 365 201 159 4 1 0 0

2012 366 130 221 13 2 0 0

2013 365 222 142 1 0 0 0

2014 365 262 102 1 0 0 0

2015 365 252 110 2 1 0 0

20161274 195 79 0 0 0 0

Average -- 212.8 137.4 3.1 1.0 0 0

Percent of 

Total Average -- 60.1% 38.8% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

1 Annual statistics for 2016 are not final until May 1, 2017

Source: EPA (2017)

Mercury is a heavy metal that is a known persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) substance 

that occurs naturally in coal. Air releases of mercury are associated with a variety of important 

environmental and human health consequences (CEC 2011). Power plants can release trace 

metals, such as mercury, during the combustion of coal to generate electricity. 

The Proposed Action would not increase Hg emissions but would extend the current emissions 

rate by approximately 10.4 years. Based on an average of 20 Mtpy, the estimated Hg emissions 

resulting from the proposed action would contribute approximately 0.032 ton of Hg emissions 

per year for an additional 10.4 years (WWC 2017). 

Blasting, coal crushing, loading and hauling of coal, moving equipment, and other activities 

associated with surface coal mining and the combustion of coal at power plants produce 

particulates that can be released into the air, which could impact AQRVs. However, specific end 

user locations are unknown and can fluctuate based on market conditions. The cumulative effects 

on AQRVs are expected to be minor but they would be extended by approximately 10.4 years. 

Impacts to AQRVs from mining the federal coal within the BAN tract would cease to occur after 

mining and reclamation are completed.

4.4.4.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures beyond those required by the BAM air quality permit would be required 

for visibility.

4.4.5 Air Quality Related to Coal Combustion

4.4.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.4.5.1.1 Proposed Action

Emissions that affect air quality also result from combustion of fossil fuels. Comprehensive 

emission summaries are available for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), SO2, nitrogen oxides 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-20

(sum of NO and NO2), VOC, and CO. Table 4-8 presents the PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2, Hg, and 

CO emissions estimates from coal mined at the BAM used for power generation. Emission 

estimates for 2017 through 2027 are also provided based on the projected average coal recovery 

for the time period. Using information from table 4-8, comparisons can be made between 

combustion emissions from coal mined BAM and emissions from coal mined from Campbell 

County. Total U.S. emissions are also included in the table.

Table 4-8. Estimated Annual PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and Hg Contributions from 

Combustion of Coal Mined at the BAM for 2009-2016 and 2017-2027, 

Compared to Campbell County and U.S. Total Emissions

Year

Coal 

Recovered

(Mt)

PM10 

(Tons)

PM2.5

(Tons)

SO2

Emissions 

(Tons)

NO2

Emissions 

(Tons)

Hg 

Emissions 

(Tons)

CO 

Emissions 

(Tons)

2009 28.7 19,911.2 6,072.9 250,739.6 103,161.4 1.2 7,164.0

2010 25.8 17,903.1 5,460.5 225,452.7 92,757.7 1.1 6,441.5

2011 24.6 17,080.4 5,209.5 215,092.6 88,495.2 1.0 6,145.5

2012 24.2 16,834.4 5,134.5 211,993.7 87,220.2 1.0 6,057.0

2013 18.3 12,686.9 3,869.5 159,765.6 65,732.1 0.8 4,564.7

2014 15.8 10,976.0 3,347.7 138,219.9 56,867.6 0.7 3,949.1

2015 18.3 12,728.4 3,882.2 160,288.0 65,947.1 0.8 4,579.7

2016 14.8 10,307.0 3,143.6 129,795.6 53,401.6 0.6 3,708.4

2017-2027 Annual 

Average 20.0 13,896.7 4,238.5 175,000.0 72,000.0 0.8 5,000.0

Total Campbell 

County1

386.2 268,345.3 81,845.3 3,379,250.0 1,390,320.0 16.0 96,550.0

2017-2027 

Average Percent of 

Campbell Co.

-- 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2%

Total U.S. 

Emissions (2015) 824.8 573,077.7 174,788.7 7,216,720.0 2,969,164.8 34.2 206,192.0

2017-2027 

Average Percent of 

U.S.

-- 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4%

1 Based on an estimated production of 386.2 Mt (average of 2011 through 2016 production)

Source: WWC 2017, calculations provided in appendix E

Hg is a heavy metal that is a known persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substance that 

occurs naturally in coal. Air releases of Hg are associated with a variety of important environmental 

and human health consequences (CEC 2011). Power plants can release trace metals, such as Hg, 

during the combustion of coal to generate electricity. The Hg emissions from BAM supplied 

coal-fired power plants are indicated in table 4-8. Based on an average of 20 Mtpy, the estimated 

Hg emissions resulting from the proposed action would contribute approximately 0.6 ton of Hg

emissions per year for an additional 10.4 years (WWC 2017). Therefore, the Proposed Action 

would not increase Hg emissions but would extend the emissions by approximately 10.4 years.

Impacts to air quality related to coal combustion under the Proposed Action would be similar to 

the conditions currently experienced and the anticipated future production at the BAM is 

consistent with the 2009 through 2016 average annual recovery rate. In addition, when compared 

to emissions from Campbell County mines, direct and indirect effects would be minor 

(approximately 5.2 percent of the Campbell County average emissions) but they would be 

extended by approximately 10.4 years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-21

4.4.5.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Impacts from combustion 

of coal mined at the BAM have resulted from current mining activity and therefore the impacts 

related to air quality impacts from combustion under the No Action Alternative would be similar 

to those under the Proposed Action but would not be extended for an additional 10.4 years.

4.4.5.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impacts from coal combustion would be effected by mines in Campbell County. 

Comprehensive emission summaries are available for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), SO2, 

nitrogen oxides (sum of NO and NO2), VOC, and CO. Table 4-8 presents the PM10, PM2.5, SO2, 

NOX, and Hg emissions estimates from coal mined in Campbell County used for power generation 

for 2017 through 2027, based on the projected average coal recovery for the time period. Using 

information from table 4-8, comparisons can be made between combustion emissions from coal 

mined BAM and emissions from coal mined from Campbell County. Total U.S. emissions are also 

included in the table.

Cumulative Impacts to air quality related to coal combustion under the Proposed Action would 

be similar to the conditions currently experienced but they would be extended by approximately 

10.4 years.

4.4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

As discussed in section 3.1.4.4, each GHG has a different lifetime in the atmosphere and a 

different ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, which is referred to as GWP. To allow different 

gases to be compared and added together, emissions can be converted into CO2e emissions.

4.4.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.4.6.1.1 Proposed Action

Emissions were estimated from combined sources based on annual coal recovered from 2012 

through 2016 and known production and variables used to calculate CO2e emissions, and for the 

2017-2029 period using estimated production and estimated variables (table 4-9). CO2e 

emissions are projected to remain constant at the BAM for the LOM. When compared to the 

2009 through 2016 average annual coal production at the BAM, the Proposed Action would not 

increase annual production but would extend the life of the mine by approximately 10.4 years. 

The direct and indirect effects from GHG emissions at the mine resulting from the Proposed

Action are expected to be minor but they would be extended by approximately 10.4 years. 

OSMRE has elected to quantify direct and indirect GHG emissions and evaluated these emissions 

in the context of Wyoming and national GHG emission inventories, as discussed in section 

4.4.7.1. Because emissions would remain constant and because 2017-2029 emissions related to 

the Proposed Action are estimated to represent only 0.59 percent of the projected 2020 U.S. CO2

emission, impacts would be potentially detectable but slight, meeting the definition of “minor” as 

described in the EA.

As presented in table 4-9, the combustion of the coal is the primary contributing factor related 

to CO2e emissions from the Proposed Action, accounting for approximately 99.6 percent of the 

emissions. Based on estimated average annual CO2e emissions of 34,366,535 metric tons (34.4 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-22

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2027 

Average

General

Mt of Coal Recovered 28.7 25.8 24.6 24.2 18.3 15.8 18.3 14.8 20.0

Average Transport Miles (One 

Way) 1,090 1,090 999 1,009 1,003 1,073 1,009 1,030 1,0383

Number of Train Trips (One 

Way) 1,852 1,666 1,589 1,566 1,180 1,021 1,184 959 1,512

Direct Emissions Sources

Fuel 93,616 84,175 80,307 79,150 59,650 51,606 59,845 48,460 65,338

Electricity Consumed in Mining 

Process 76,514 68,798 65,636 64,691 48,753 42,178 48,913 39,608 53,402

Mining Process 32,888 29,572 28,213 27,806 20,956 18,130 21,024 17,025 22,954

Total Direct Emissions 203,018 182,545 174,156 171,647 129,359 111,914 129,782 105,093 141,694

Indirect Emissions Sources

Rail Transport21,090,579 980,595 857,430 853,535 639,428 591,804 645,357 533,463 724,841

From Coal Combustion 47,998,721 43,158,092 41,174,862 40,581,642 30,583,694 26,459,231 30,683,704 24,846,578 33,500,000

Total Indirect Emissions 49,089,300 44,138,687 42,032,291 41,435,178 31,223,122 27,051,035 31,329,060 25,380,042 34,224,841

Total Estimated CO2e 

Emissions 49,292,319 44,321,231 42,206,447 41,606,825 31,352,481 27,162,949 31,458,842 25,485,134 34,366,535

1

In metric tons

2 Coal haulage emissions based on train trips per year; 452.7 kg CO2e per mile per loaded train, 87.2 Kg CO2e per mile per empty train; and one-way mileage 

to power plants. Coal haulage emissions calculations includes a loaded train and a returning empty train, per train trip. 2017-2027 rail distance calculated as 

the average 2009-2016 rail miles. 

Source: WWC (2017), calculations are provided in appendix E

Table 4-9. Estimated Annual Equivalent CO2 (CO2e) Emissions1for the Proposed Action at 

the BAM (2009 through 2016, and 2017-2027 Average)
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-23

million metric tons) from coal mined from 2017 through 2029, the total estimated CO2e emissions 

at the BAM (including coal combustion) resulting from the Proposed Action would be 433,018,346 

metric tons (433.0 million metric tons). The direct and indirect effects from GHG emissions when

rail transport to final destinations at power plants and loading terminals (see table 2-2) and coal 

combustion are included are expected to be moderate and would be extended by approximately 

10.4 years. Since specific end user locations are unknown and can fluctuate based on market 

conditions and emissions presented could vary depending on BACT used at plants, the estimates 

of impacts could vary somewhat but are not expected to be significantly different than those 

discussed above.

4.4.6.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. The impacts directly 

resulting from GHG emissions under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under 

the Proposed Action but would not be extended by approximately 10.4 years. While annual CO2e 

emissions would remain the same as the Proposed Action for approximately 2.2 years, the CO2e 

emissions from coal mined at the BAM would decrease by approximately 82.5 percent as a result 

of the No Action Alternative, based on 10.4-fewer years of combustion of BAM coal.

4.4.6.2 Cumulative Effects

The analyses provided above include direct and indirect effects analysis for GHG emissions. Due 

to the global nature of climate change, and the difficulty therefore of predicting climate change 

impacts caused by an incremental increase in GHG emissions from specific actions separately or 

together, a separate cumulative impacts analysis for GHG emissions is not appropriate.

4.4.6.3 Mitigation Measures

As determined from table 4-9, a majority (approximately 99.7 percent) of the estimated average 

2017-2027 GHG emissions would be from non-mining activities, not controlled by CCW (e.g., rail 

transportation to and combustion at power plants). The DOI has no regulatory authority over 

GHG emissions from rail transportation and coal combustion. Air emissions, both direct and 

indirect, are regulated by other regulatory entities, including WDEQ-AQD (for emissions at the 

BAM) and other state regulatory agencies (for emissions from out-of-state power plants), through 

permit limits. Given these facts, OSMRE has determined that no additional mitigation is required.

4.4.7 Climate Change Cause and Effect

4.4.7.1 Proposed Action/No Action Alternative

Although the effects of GHG emissions and other contributions to climate change in the global 

aggregate are estimable, it is currently not feasible to determine what effect GHG emissions in a 

specific area resulting from a specific activity might have on climate change and resulting 

environmental impacts. It is therefore not currently possible to associate any particular action with 

the creation or mitigation of any specific climate-related environmental effects.

Historically, the coal mined in the PRB has been used as one of the sources of fuel to generate 

electricity in power plants located throughout the U.S. Coal-fired power plant emissions include 

CO2, which has been identified as a principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas. According to the EPA 

(2016c) in 2014 (the most recent year of available CO2 data at this time):
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-24

1. CO2 emissions represent approximately 81 percent of the total 2014 U.S. greenhouse 

gas emissions.

2. Estimated CO2 emissions in the U.S. totaled 6,871 million metric tons in 2014, which 

was a 3.1 percent decrease from 2012.

3. Estimated CO2e emissions from energy-related consumption in the U.S. totaled 5,556 

million metric tons in 2014.

4. Estimated CO2 emissions from the electric power sector totaled 2,081 million metric 

tons, or approximately 37.5 percent of total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions in 2014.

5. Estimated CO2 emissions from electric power generation from coal totaled 1,570

million metric tons, or about 28.3 percent of total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions 

in 2014.

Approximately 98 percent of the 394.6 Mt of coal mined in 2014 in Wyoming was used to generate 

electricity by coal-fired power plants in the U.S. (USEIA 2016b). Coal production from Wyoming 

represented approximately 46.9 percent of the coal used for power generation in 2014, which 

means that, using a simple calculation, Wyoming surface coal mines were responsible for 

approximately 736.3 million metric tons of the estimated U.S. CO2 emissions from coal power 

generation in 2014. If a more accurate method of calculating CO2 emissions are used, based on 

the tons of CO2 emissions per ton of coal combusted (EPA 2008), the emissions are approximately 

647.7 million metric tons in 2014 (see appendix E). The BAM produced 15.8 Mt of coal in 2014, 

which represents approximately 4.0 percent of the coal produced in Wyoming in 2014, or about 

26.5 million metric tons (1.7 percent) of the estimated 2014 U.S. CO2 emissions (1,570 million 

metric tons) from coal power generation and approximately 4.1 percent of the CO2 produced 

from Wyoming coal. From 2009 through 2016, all coal mined at the BAM was burned in power 

plants outside of Wyoming but within the U.S. (CCW 2017a). 

Estimated CO2 emissions in the U.S. decreased 10.4 percent from 2007 through 2015 (EPA 2017a). 

Under the Proposed Action, CCW anticipates producing the coal included in the BAN tract at 20 

Mtpy levels, using existing production and transportation facilities. This would extend the mine’s 

current GHG emissions by approximately 10.4 years and combustion of BAN tract federal coal in 

coal-fired power plants would also continue for approximately 10.4 additional years. Because CO2

emissions have been declining in recent years and because CO2 from coal mined at the BAM would 

remain at or only slightly above current levels, climate impacts associated with direct/indirect 

emissions from BAN from mining, transportation, and combustion would be moderate but short 

term (10.4 years). The impacts would diminish after the life of the mine.

A protocol to estimate what is referenced as the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) associated with 

GHG emissions was developed by a federal Interagency Working Group (IWG), to assist agencies 

in addressing Executive Order (EO) 12866. That EO required federal agencies to assess the cost 

and the benefits of intended regulations as part of their regulatory impact analyses. The SCC 

protocol was also developed for use in cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations that could 

impact cumulative global emissions (Shelanski and Obstfeld 2015).

Notably, the SCC protocol does not measure the actual incremental impacts of a project on the 

environment and does not include all damages or benefits from carbon emissions. The SCC 

protocol estimates economic damages associated with an increase in carbon dioxide emissions --

typically expressed as a one mt increase in a single year -- and includes, but is not limited to, 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-25

potential changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, and property damages from 

increased flood risk over hundreds of years. The estimate is developed by aggregating results 

“across models, over time, across regions and impact categories, and across 150,000 scenarios” 

(Rose et al. 2014). The dollar cost figure arrived at based on the SCC calculation represents the 

value of damages avoided if, ultimately, there is no increase in carbon emissions.

A recent EO entitled, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” issued March 28, 

2017, directed that the IWG be disbanded and that technical documents issued by the IWG be 

withdrawn as no longer representative of federal policy. The 2017 EO further directed that when 

monetizing the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations, agencies 

follow the guidance contained in OMB Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003. In all cases, a Federal 

agency should ensure that its consideration of the information and other factors relevant to its 

decision is consistent with applicable statutory or other authorities, including requirements for 

the use of cost-benefit analysis. 

Based on emission estimates for coal combustion, SCC calculations can quickly rise to large values; 

however, specific threshold levels for the determination of significance can vary depending on 

numerous project factors. OSMRE has elected not to specifically quantify the SCC in its assessment 

of the Belle Ayr North mining plan modification. NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis 

(40 C.F.R. § 1502.23) or the presentation of the SCC cost estimates quantitatively in all cases, and 

that analysis was not undertaken here. Without a complete monetary cost-benefit analysis, which 

would include the social benefits of energy production to society as a whole and other potential 

positive benefits, inclusion solely of a SCC analysis would be unbalanced, potentially inaccurate,

and not useful. 

Given the uncertainties associated with assigning a specific and accurate social cost of carbon 

resulting from 10.4 additional years of operation under the mining plan modification, and that the 

SCC protocol and similar models were developed to estimate impacts of regulations over long 

time frames, this EA quantifies direct and indirect GHG emissions and evaluates these emissions 

in the context of global, U.S., and Wyoming GHG emission inventories as discussed in Sections 

4.4.6 and 4.4.7 of the EA. 

Further, any increased economic activity, in terms of revenue, employment, labor income, total 

value added, and output, that is expected to occur with the proposed action is simply an economic 

impact, rather than an economic benefit, inasmuch as such impacts might be viewed by another 

person as negative or undesirable impacts due to potential increase in local population, 

competition for jobs, and concerns that changes in population will change the quality of the local 

community. Economic impact is distinct from “economic benefit” as defined in economic theory 

and methodology, and the socioeconomic impact analysis required under NEPA is distinct from

cost-benefit analysis, which is not required. To summarize, this EA does not undertake an analysis 

of SCC because 1) it is not engaged in a rulemaking for which the protocol was originally 

developed; 2) the IWG, technical supporting documents, and associated guidance have been 

withdrawn; 3) NEPA does not require cost-benefit analysis and the agency did not undertake one 

here; and 4) because the full social benefits of coal-fired energy production have not been 

monetized, quantifying only the costs of GHG emissions would provide information that is both 

potentially inaccurate and not useful. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-26

4.4.7.2 Cumulative Effects 

All GHG emissions contribute to cumulative climate change on a global scale. However, it is not 

scientifically possible to determine the impact that would result on the global climate conditions 

from the emissions from this specific proposed action or in total from the emissions of other 

actions. As stated in 40 CFR 1502.22(b), the variables involved in such an analysis would make this 

determination conjectural and not within the rule of reason. For this reason, past projects and 

other projects that may or may not be approved by OSMRE are not included in the GHG emissions 

cumulative effects analysis.

4.4.7.3 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Proposed Action/No Action Alternative

USGS predicted potential impacts between 2025 and 2049 using the conservative climate change 

scenario (RCP8.5), which assumes no new climate change regulations or reductions would be 

implemented (USGS 2016). According to the USGS National Climate Change Viewer 

(USGS 2016), potential climate change impacts in Campbell County, Wyoming could include: 

1. annual mean temperature increases of up to 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit, 

2. annual mean precipitation increases of up to 0.4 inch per day, 

3. annual mean snowfall decrease of up to 0.1 inch per year,

4. annual mean soil water storage decrease of up to 0.1 inch per year,

5. annual mean evaporation deficit increase of up to 0.2 inch per month, and 

6. annual mean runoff increases up to 0.1 inch per month. 

For analysis purposes, the EA assumes that the maximum annual mean values would be realized 

during the life of the mine and that the direct and indirect effects on the Proposed Action and the 

No Action Alternative would be similar. 

Hydrology

The potential changes to the annual snowfall, precipitation levels, and streamflow could impact 

area surface water body levels, groundwater recharge, and soil erosion. During the anticipated 

10.4-year life of the project, natural variations result in dryer or wetter years. Considering the 

overall climate change timeframe of centuries, it is possible that decreased snowpack may or may 

not be observable locally during the project timeframe. Likewise, decreases in streamflow may be 

observed, but during the mining dewatering timeframe of 10.4 years, mine dewatering may 

compensate for climate change related stream flow reduction, or may have no additional influence 

on streamflow. Therefore, there would be no climate change impacts on streamflows where 

project impacts occur or they may be negligible during the project timeframe. The Proposed 

Action would have moderate, short-term effects on surface water bodies and groundwater, 

however, the impact from changes to these resources based on climate change would be negligible 

and long-term. 

Soils

The Proposed Action would involve new surface disturbance of approximately 695.0 acres. As 

described in section 4.8.1.1, the direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action to 

soils would be moderate and they would be extended by approximately 10.4 years on the tract. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-27

However, the USGS climate viewer does not predict any significant changes to annual mean runoff 

so there would be negligible impacts from climate change on soils. 

Vegetation/Wildlife

The Proposed Action would involve new surface disturbance of approximately 695.0 acres. As 

described in sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.10, the direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed 

Action to vegetation and wildlife would be moderate and they would be extended by 

approximately 10.4 years on the tract. The Proposed Action is consistent with BLM’s Approved 

Resource Management Plan (BLM 2015b), which takes into account potential climate change. 

Impacts from climate change on the wildlife and vegetation during the life of the project are 

anticipated to be negligible.

Reclamation

The post-reclamation land use would be wildlife habitat and grazing, utilizing vegetation cover of 

grasses and shrubs. Potential changes to the natural environment, as listed above, could result in 

the need to consider different plant species during reclamation to account for the higher 

temperatures and increased precipitation levels. WDEQ-LQD regulates surface coal mining 

operations and the surface effects of underground coal mining on federal lands within the state of 

Wyoming. Federal coal leaseholders in Wyoming must submit a permit application package to 

OSMRE and WDEQ-LQD for any proposed revisions to reclamation operations on federal lands 

in the state. Therefore, any change to reclamation practices (i.e., seed mix) at the BAM would 

require the approval of WDEQ. Climate change impacts on reclamation during the life of the 

project would be negligible. Reestablishment of wildlife and vegetation in areas that have been 

disturbed is reliant on the reclamation process which would be negligibly impacted by climate 

change; therefore, climate change impacts to wildlife and vegetation in reclaimed areas would be 

negligible and long-term.

4.5 Water Resources

4.5.1 Groundwater

4.5.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.5.1.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding groundwater can be found in sections 3.5.1.1 and 3.5.1.2 of the 

2009 SGAC EIS. Additional discussions can also be found in the groundwater portion of the 2011 

CHIA for the Middle Powder River Basin, Cordero Rojo Mine (Ogle et al. 2011). The existing 

federal leases at the BAM include approximately 6,616.5 acres, including the WYW161248 federal 

lease tract. Under the Proposed Action, continued mining the BAN tract would extend the area 

of overburden and coal removal on about approximately 695.0 acres. 

The general impacts to groundwater as a result of surface coal mining include the following:

1. The removal of the coal aquifer and any overburden and alluvial aquifers within the 

areas that are mined would continue, as would the replacement of these aquifers with 

backfilled overburden material. Should any overburden or alluvial aquifer be critical to 

the area’s hydrologic balance, and restoration of the essential hydrologic functions can 

only be achieved by reestablishment of the aquifer, these materials may be selectively 

salvaged and replaced.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-28

2. A lowering of static water levels in the coal and overburden aquifers around the mine 

would continue due to dewatering associated with removal of these aquifers within the 

mine boundaries. This reduction in static water levels would not be permanent, and 

recharge to the backfill and adjacent undisturbed aquifers would occur as mined areas 

are reclaimed.

3. Other groundwater impacts that may or may not occur, or may occur only at specific 

locations, include changes in water quality (usually deterioration) outside the area that 

is mined and reclaimed. This would result from communication between the reclaimed 

aquifer and the unmined aquifer, and changes in recharge-discharge conditions and/or 

groundwater flow patterns.

Additional alluvium, overburden, and Wyodak coal aquifers would be removed in the BAN tract 

during the mining process. These aquifers would be replaced with backfilled overburden and 

interburden materials. The physical characteristics of the reclaimed backfill material are dependent 

upon mining methods and premining overburden lithology. Information provided in the 2011 CHIA 

states that the backfill aquifers will likely have hydraulic conductivities at least that of the 

overburden and possibly even greater than the fractured coal (Ogle et al. 2011). In addition, 

permeability and porosity of the backfill within the BAM are expected to be at least that of or 

possibly even greater than the original material. Data compiled and analyzed for backfill aquifer 

from the middle PRB coal mines for the period from 1977 to 2011 shows that the median 

concentration of the major ions and TDS concentrations are below the WQD livestock water 

standards of 3,000 mg/l for sulfate (SO4) and 5,000 mg/l for TDS (Ogle et al. 2011). Based on 

existing groundwater quality monitoring, it is anticipated that TDS concentrations will not exceed 

premine conditions, and the water will be suitable for the post-mine land use after reclamation 

and recovery are complete (Ogle et al. 2011). Therefore, the reclaimed spoil aquifer could provide 

adequate water quality for stock wells. Predicted drawdowns for the Wyodak coal seam included 

in the 2016 Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization (GAGMO) report is presented 

on map 4-3 (Hydro-Engineering 2016). According to the 2011 CHIA, the groundwater migrating 

from the backfill aquifer in the future is not expected to cause material damage to the coal aquifer 

(Ogle et al. 2011). This statement is supported by the results of backfill well monitoring, discussed 

in section 3.2.1. Therefore, mining the BAN tract is not expected to change the potential for 

material damage to groundwater quality. 

The water quality in the backfill aquifer is predicted to initially have increased dissolved salts 

because more fresh mineral surfaces are exposed for chemical reaction in the backfill than in the 

undisturbed sediments. After flushing of the backfill and establishment of geochemical equilibrium, 

the concentrations of dissolved salts in the backfill aquifer are expected to drop (Ogle et al. 2011).

Based on predictions in the permits, literature research, and monitoring data submitted by the 

mines, it appears the backfill aquifer will meet livestock class of use (Ogle et al. 2011). The potential 

for the mines in the cumulative impacts area (CIA) to have a cumulative impact on groundwater 

quality is present but, based on current information and predictions, the impact is not predicted 

to cause material damage (Ogle et al. 2011). As discussed in section 3.2.1, while the physical 

characteristics of the backfill is different from premine conditions, backfill recharge has been 

documented. In addition, as discussed in section 3.2.1 and in the 2011 CHIA (Ogle et al. 2011), 

backfill water quality is generally suitable for livestock use and wildlife habitat, which are the 

planned post-mining land uses. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects to groundwater resources 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-29

Map 4-3. Predicted Drawdowns for the Wyodak Coal Seam
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-30

resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate and short and long term on the 

tract due to aquifer removal.

4.5.1.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. The impacts to 

groundwater under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed 

Action but the aerial extent of groundwater aquifer removal would be reduced by approximately 

695.0 acres. However, as discussed in section 3.2.1, a continuous cone of depression currently 

affects the overburden and coal aquifers around the BAM due to ongoing BAM mining activities;

its proximity to the Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines; and the cumulative drawdown 

effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges (Hydro-Engineering 2011). Therefore,

implementation of the No Action Alternative would have negligible effect on reducing the extent 

of impacts to overburden and coal aquifers around the BAM.

4.5.1.2 Cumulative Effects

The 5-foot drawdown area was selected as the CIA for groundwater since this limit would detect 

the extent of minor groundwater impacts. This area corresponds to the CIA utilized in the 2011 

CHIA (Ogle et al. 2011). The area delineated by the maximum cumulative 5-foot drawdown 

contour in the Wyodak coal aquifer for the Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek 

mine is included on (map 4-4). The CIA for groundwater impacts includes parts of the Caballo 

Creek and Belle Fourche River drainage basins. The effects of removal of the coal and overburden 

aquifers and replacing them with backfilled overburden are the foremost groundwater concern 

regarding cumulative effects. Continued mining of the BAN tract would increase the cumulative 

size of the backfill area in the middle group of mines in the PRB. The extent of water level 

drawdown in the coal and shallower aquifers in the area surrounding the mines also would be 

expected to increase slightly as a result of continued mining in the tract and from dewatering the

active mine pits. Where the effects of pumping from Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal 

Creek mines overlap, additional water level declines would result from concurrent operations.

Section 3.2.1 provides a detailed discussion on CBNG activities as they relate to groundwater 

associated with the BAN tract and the middle group of mines. Current records of the WOGCC 

indicate that most, if not all, of the CBNG wells in the Duck Nest Creek watershed (includes the 

BAN tract) are no longer producing so the effects of CBNG production on groundwater levels 

are diminishing. As described in the 2011 CHIA, CBNG dewatering in the CIA has caused 

drawdown of water levels in the Wyodak coal aquifer within the CIA, making it difficult to 

accurately distinguish the impacts caused by mining and to estimate groundwater recovery rates. 

However, the saturated thickness of the coal seams increases to the west and becomes confined 

as the coal seams dip below the water table. Therefore, the effect of this predicted mining induced 

drawdown on the Wyodak coal seam is likely minor. Modeling conducted for the Cordero Rojo 

Mine predict that the coal aquifer will achieve 25 percent recovery within 5 years of cessation of 

mining and would be 75 percent recovered within 75 years (Ogle et al. 2011). While some other 

mines predict a longer period of time, most of the model area recovers much faster than 300 

years, and only the most interior backfill locations require this long recovery period (Ogle et al. 

2011). The reference to Cordero Rojo modeling is appropriate since it is one of the middle group 

of mines and is adjacent to the BAM.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-31

Map 4-4. Cumulative Impact Area for Potential Surface Water and 

Groundwater Impacts
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-32

Studies in the PRB show that the backfill water quality is similar to premine overburden water 

quality (Van Voast and Hedges 1975 and Davis et al. 1978). Van Voast (1974) indicated that the 

first groundwater to enter a backfill aquifer will dissolve a high percentage of the available salts, 

but the quality of groundwater will be less mineralized. This less mineralized water probably 

results from the clay content of the backfill causing reduction and cation exchange (Ogle et al. 

2011).

Other studies found that chemical equilibrium within backfill aquifers was reached very quickly 

(Davis et al. 1978).

Wastewater produced from conventional oil and gas operations are disposed of in accordance with 

WDEQ requirements (WDEQ-WQD 2015). Wastewater is generally stored above-ground tanks for a 

maximum of 90 days and then transported to a WDEQ-authorized disposal site (WDEQ-WQD 2017).

Therefore, wastewater disposal would not significantly affect groundwater aquifers.

As discussed in section 4.5.1.1.1, while the physical characteristics of the backfill is different from 

premine conditions, backfill recharge has been documented at the BAM. In addition, backfill water 

quality is generally suitable for livestock use and wildlife habitat, which are the planned postmining land uses. Similar groundwater quality and quantity results have been noted within the 

CIA (Ogle et al. 2011). Information from the Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS) shows 

that average monthly CBNG water production in the PRB had declined by 72 percent over 2006 

when water production reached peak levels (WSGS 2017), which has likely reduced effects on 

groundwater. Therefore, cumulative effects to groundwater resources resulting from the 

Proposed Action are expected to be moderate but long term (direct aquifer removal would be 

extended by approximately 10.4 years on the tract).

4.5.1.3 Mitigation Measures

WDEQ-LQD Rules and Regulations require surface coal mine permittees to replace any 

domestic, agricultural, industrial, or any other legitimate use groundwater supplies if, as a result 

of mining, a supply is diminished, interrupted, or contaminated, to the extent of precluding use 

of the water. The Wyoming State Rules and Regulations also require surface coal mine permittees 

to enhance or restore the hydrologic conditions of disturbed land surfaces and minimize adverse 

impacts to the hydrologic balance. The recharge capacity of the reclaimed lands will be restored 

to a condition that minimizes disturbance to prevailing hydrologic balance in the permit area and 

in adjacent areas (WDEQ-LQD 2012).

Under provisions of WDEQ-LQD Permit PT0214, the BAM is required to monitor water levels 

and water quality in the overburden, coal, interburden, underburden, and backfill and required to 

report this information in WDEQ-LQD annual reports (CCW 2017b). Operational groundwater 

monitoring programs are dynamic and modified through time as wells are removed by mining, 

discontinued from monitoring to eliminate redundancy, or added to replace those removed by 

mining and to facilitate monitoring of future mine expansion areas as mining has progressed. 

Additional wells have also been installed in the reclaimed backfill to monitor recovering, postmine 

groundwater conditions. Many groundwater monitoring wells installed by BAM within and around 

its current permit area have been used to evaluate groundwater conditions associated with the 

mine since the early 1970s and continue to be monitored to reveal a long-term record of 

groundwater conditions. Also under provisions of WDEQ-LQD Permit PT0214, materials would 

be selectively salvaged and replaced for any overburden or alluvial aquifers that are critical to the 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-33

area’s hydrologic balance, where restoration of the essential hydrologic functions can only be 

achieved by reestablishment of the aquifer.

4.5.2 Surface Water

4.5.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.5.2.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding surface water can be found in sections 3.5.2.1 and 3.5.2.2 of the 

2009 SGAC EIS. Additional discussions can also be found in the Surface Water portion of the 

2011 CHIA (Ogle et al. 2011). As discussed in section 3.2.2, streamflow and water quality in 

Caballo Creek are currently being monitored by the BAM at Sites BA-4 and BA-6 and the data 

are being reported to WDEQ in the mine’s annual reports. Water quality is also being monitored 

at a site on Duck Nest Creek. Current (2013-2015) analytical results for selected constituents 

from surface water samples at the BA-4, Duck Nest Creek, and USGS 06425900 (Caballo Creek 

at Mouth) sampling sites indicated that class of use criteria was met during that time period and 

mining had not caused material damage to surface-water quality (Ogle et al. 2011).

Changes in surface runoff characteristics and sediment discharges would occur during mining on 

the BAN tract because of the mining and reconstruction of drainage channels as mining 

progresses and because of the use of sediment control structures to manage discharges of surface 

water from the mine permit areas. Since the BAN tract would be mined as an extension of the 

existing BAM there would not be a significant increase in the size of the area that is disturbed at 

any given time. Reclamation would be ongoing and concurrent with mining. As discussed in 

section 3.2.2, while the physical characteristics of the surface is different from premine 

conditions, surface water quality monitoring shows that surface water quality is generally suitable 

for livestock use and wildlife habitat, which are the planned post-mining land uses. Stream 

channels would be restored after surface mining operations are completed on the tract. 

Monitoring conducted on site suggests that surface water flow, quality, and sediment discharge 

would approximate premining conditions. In Coal Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1, Section 

2(cd), WDEQ-LQD defines material damage to the hydrologic balance as a significant long-term 

or permanent adverse change to the hydrologic regime (WDEQ-LQD 2012). WDEQ-LQD Coal 

Rules and Regulations require surface coal mine permittees to enhance or restore the hydrologic 

conditions of disturbed land surfaces and minimize adverse impacts to the hydrologic balance 

(WDEQ-LQD 2012). Therefore, the direct and indirect effects to surface water are expected to 

be moderate and until final bond release has been obtained.

4.5.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. The impacts to surface 

water under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action 

(moderate and until final bond release has been obtained) but the areal extent of surface water 

feature removal would be reduced by approximately 695.0 acres. However, impacts to surface 

water features have already occurred within the tract related to CBNG recovery and mining 

activities unrelated to recovery of coal from the tract. As discussed above, since the BAN tract 

would be mined as an extension of the existing BAM, there would not be a significant increase in 

the size of the area that is disturbed at any given time. In addition, reclamation would be ongoing 

and concurrent with mining, which would reduce the amount of disturbed but unreclaimed land 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-34

and only a slight reduction in streamflow downstream of the BAM during mining is expected 

because runoff is currently being controlled within the BAM as a result of mining unrelated to 

the Proposed Action. Therefore, implementation of the No Action Alternative would have 

negligible effect on reducing the extent of these impacts.

4.5.2.2 Cumulative Effects

The surface water CIA includes two separate drainages in the upper Belle Fourche River Basin 

(map 4-4). This area corresponds to the proposed LOM disturbance areas for the adjacent 

middle group of mines within local drainage basins and, therefore, is not specific to permit 

boundaries. CIA also corresponds to the CIA utilized in the 2011 CHIA (Ogle et al. 2011). The 

CIA for surface water impacts includes parts of the Caballo Creek and Belle Fourche River 

drainage basins. The CIA is the area where existing and proposed mining activities may cause 

measurable changes to the hydrologic environment and depends on the characteristics of the 

surface systems. The cumulative impact area for potential surface water impacts includes (map 

4-4). Premine stream morphology measurements have been used to design and evaluate 

reconstructed stream channels. Runoff modeling is used to evaluate hydraulic suitability and 

predict post-mine discharges in reconstructed channels for varied recurrence intervals. The 

reclaimed topography includes the reconstruction of portions of several of the main channels 

associated with the BAM and adjacent mines, including Caballo Creek and the Belle Fourche 

River. Cumulative mining related impacts to surface water resources associated within the 

Caballo Creek/Belle Fourche River CIA were analyzed in the 2011 CHIA (Ogle et al. 2011). 

While the physical characteristics of the surface is different from premine conditions, surface 

water quality monitoring from area mines shows that surface water quality is generally suitable 

for livestock use and wildlife habitat, which are the planned post-mining land uses (Ogle et al. 

2011). Stream channels in the CIA would be restored after surface mining operations are 

completed on area mines. Information from the WSGS shows that average monthly CBNG water 

production in the PRB had declined by 72 percent over 2006 when water production reached 

peak levels (WSGS 2017), which has likely reduced effects on surface water. Therefore, the 

cumulative effects to surface water are expected to be moderate and until the disturbed areas 

within the CIA have been reclamation. 

4.5.2.3 Mitigation Measures

The WDEQ-LQD Rules and Regulations require surface coal mine permittees to enhance or 

restore the hydrologic conditions of disturbed land surfaces and minimize adverse impacts to the 

hydrologic balance (WDEQ-LQD 2012). And, as stated above, proposed mining operations must 

be designed and conducted in a way to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside 

the permit area (WDEQ-LQD 2012). WDEQ-LQD defines material damage to the hydrologic 

balance as a significant long-term or permanent adverse change to the hydrologic regime 

(WDEQ-LQD 2012).

Under provisions of WDEQ-LQD Permit PT0214, the BAM is required to restore stream 

channels after surface mining operations are completed on the tract (CCW 2016b). The drainages 

that intersect the BAM permit area will be reclaimed to exhibit channel geometry characteristics 

similar to the premining characteristics. The Caballo Creek stream channel would be restored in 

approximately the same location as the natural channel, and its premining hydrologic functions 

would be restored. Other WDEQ-LQD permit requirements for the BAM include constructing 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-35

sediment control structures to manage discharges of surface water from the mine permit area, 

treating all surface runoff from mined lands as necessary to meet effluent standards, and restoring 

stock ponds, playas, and in-channel impoundments disturbed during mining (CCW 2016b).

4.5.3 Water Rights

4.5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.5.3.1.1 Proposed Action

The type and number of groundwater and surface-water rights within 3 miles of the tract are 

discussed in section 3.2.3 of this EA. Additional discussions regarding water rights can be found 

in sections 3.5.3.1 and 3.5.3.2 of the 2009 SGAC EIS. Prior to energy development in the area, 

water appropriations (both groundwater and surface water) were typically for livestock use. 

Currently, mining companies hold the majority of the water rights in the vicinity of the EA project 

area. According to Wyoming State Rules and Regulations, proposed mining operations must be 

designed and conducted in a way to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside 

the permit area (WDEQ-LQD 2012). According to W.S. 35-11-415(b) (xii), the BAM must 

replace, in accordance with state law, the water supply of an owner of interest in real property, 

who obtains all or part of his supply of water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or any other 

legitimate use from an underground or surface source where the supply has been affected by 

contamination, diminution or interruption resulting from the surface coal mine operation. Ogle 

et al. (2011) assessed the potential for coal mining to result in material damage to groundwater 

and surface water resources in the middle group of mines. Material damage is presumed to occur 

when the median concentrations of a given constituent exceed WDEQ-WQD surface water 

standards, and the available evidence suggests the cause of exceedance is due to coal mining 

activity and will contribute to permanent or long-term change of use suitability. 

Groundwater-quality parameters for domestic (Class I), agriculture (Class II), and livestock (Class 

III) are included in Chapter 8 of Wyoming Rules and Regulations and surface water-quality 

parameters for outstanding waters (Class 1), fisheries and drinking water (Class 2), aquatic life 

and other fish (Class 3), and agriculture, industry, recreation, and wildlife (Class 4) are included 

in Chapter 1 of Wyoming Rules and Regulations (Wyoming Secretary of State 2017).

Monitoring wells are placed between mine operations and nearby private wells to monitor for 

water level and water quality changes to anticipate any downgradient impacts. Currently, CBNG 

production has exceeded the amount of drawdown predicted to result from mining. Therefore, 

potential impacts from mining to stock and domestic wells in the area have become largely 

irrelevant (WDEQ 2014b). Several livestock water wells have been removed over the years to 

facilitate mining operations but no effects to domestic supplies have been reported. The BAM 

currently has a stock watering system in place in the reclamation plan that utilizes water from a 

deep well. The postmining land use plan for grazing land includes a commitment to provide water 

for livestock, so the water will be replaced using a combination of stock reservoirs, water wells, 

and reclaimed creek channels. Typically, the wells that replace premine stock wells are drilled 

into deeper aquifers that produce more water, so there are fewer wells overall but the amount 

of water available for livestock is the same or greater (CCW 2016a). As stated in Section 3.5.2.1.1 

of the 2009 SGAC EIS, some privately permitted water wells in the vicinity of the BAN tract have 

been or will likely be impacted (either by removing the well or by water level drawdown) by 

mining and CBNG development (BLM 2009a). Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer 

are expected to be negligible because the coal seam has essentially been dewatered due to 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-36

ongoing BAM mining activities; its proximity to the Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines; 

and the cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges (HydroEngineering 2011). Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted water wells would 

be impacted by water level drawdown to a greater extent than they currently are if the BAN 

tract is mined.

Only a slight reduction in streamflow downstream of the BAM during mining is expected because 

runoff is currently being controlled within the BAM as a result of mining unrelated to the 

Proposed Action. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted surface water 

rights would be impacted by removal of surface water features within the BAN tract to a greater 

extent than they currently are if the BAN tract is mined.

In general, the proposed federal mining plan modification would contribute to additional, more 

extensive, mining disturbance that may impact groundwater and surface-water rights in the BAM 

area. As stated in section 3.2.1, a continuous cone of depression that affects overburden and 

coal aquifers currently exists around the BAM due to its closeness to other area mines and the 

cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges 

(Hydro-Engineering 2016). In addition, only a slight reduction in streamflow downstream of the 

BAM during mining is expected because runoff is currently being controlled within the BAM as a 

result of mining unrelated to the Proposed Action. Impacts to groundwater or surface-water 

rights have already occurred from mining within the BAM and from CBNG development and 

implementation of the Proposed Action would have negligible effect on increasing the extent of 

impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in substantial declines in the 

groundwater or surface water availability due to reduced quantity and quality for livestock use 

and wildlife habitat, which are the planned post-mining land uses. Impacts to groundwater and 

surface water rights would be minor.

4.5.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. The impacts to surface 

and groundwater rights under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the 

Proposed Action but the areal extent of surface water feature and groundwater aquifers removal 

would be reduced by approximately 695.0 acres. Impacts to water rights have already occurred 

within the tract related to coal recovery on adjacent federal coal leases, as approved by CCW’s 

WDEQ-LQD Permit PT0214 and OSMRE’s 1999 federal MPDD. As discussed in section 3.2.1, 

a continuous cone of depression that affects overburden and coal aquifers currently exists around 

the BAM due to its closeness to other area mines and the cumulative drawdown effects from pit 

dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges (Hydro-Engineering 2016). In addition, only a slight 

reduction in streamflow downstream of the BAM during mining is expected as a result of the 

Proposed Action because runoff is currently being controlled within the BAM. Therefore, 

implementation of the No Action Alternative would have negligible effect on reducing the extent 

of these groundwater and surface water impacts.

4.5.3.2 Cumulative Effects

The CIA for water rights impacts are the same as those described above for groundwater and 

surface water. The type and number of groundwater and surface-water rights within 3 miles of 

the tract are discussed in section 3.2.3 of this EA. A continuous cone of depression that affects 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-37

overburden and coal aquifers currently exists around the BAM due to ongoing BAM mining 

activities; its proximity to the Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines; and the cumulative 

drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges (Hydro-Engineering 2016). 

The physical characteristics of the backfill in the CIA is different from premine conditions but 

backfill aquifer recharge has been documented. Backfill water quality from monitoring wells in the 

CIA is generally suitable for livestock use and wildlife habitat, which are the planned post-mining 

land uses (Ogle et al. 2011). Any impacts to downstream water rights would fall under the 

jurisdiction of the State Engineer. If it is determined that a water right has been impacted by 

activities of the BAM, that impact will be mitigated. Cumulative effects on groundwater rights 

would be similar to direct and indirect effect described in section 4.5.3.1.

Only a slight reduction in streamflow downstream of the CIA during mining is expected because 

runoff is currently being controlled within the all mines within the CIA as a result of mining 

unrelated to the Proposed Action. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted 

surface water rights would be impacted by removal of surface water features within the CIA to 

a greater extent than they currently are if the BAN tract is mined. Postmine reclamation at the 

BAM has been designed to satisfy any downstream water rights.

While the approval of the federal mining plan modification request would contribute to additional, 

more extensive mining disturbance in the Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek 

mine areas, there would be minor additional cumulative water rights impacts because 

groundwater and surface water systems have already been affected by CBNG removal and 

ongoing mining and because runoff is currently being controlled in within the Caballo, Belle Ayr, 

Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines. Regarding water quality within the Caballo Creek CIA 

analyzed in the 2011 CHIA, current mining at the Caballo, Belle Ayr, and Cordero Rojo mines is 

not expected to cause long-term or permanent material damage to surface water quantity in the 

Caballo Creek CIA (Ogle et al. 2011). In addition, as discussed above, the water supply of an 

owner of interest in real property, who obtains all or part of his supply of water for domestic, 

agricultural, industrial, or any other legitimate use from an underground or surface source where 

the supply has been affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption resulting from the 

surface coal mine operation.

4.5.3.3 Mitigation Measures

Wyoming State Rules and Regulations require surface coal mine permittees to replace any 

domestic, agricultural, industrial, or any other legitimate use groundwater supplies if such supplies 

are diminished, interrupted, or contaminated, to the extent of precluding use of the water as a 

result of mining. The regulations also require restoration of the essential hydrologic function of 

disturbed land surfaces.

Under provisions of WDEQ-LQD Permit PT0214, the BAM is required to update the list of 

potentially impacted private water supply wells and predict impacts to those wells within the 

5-foot drawdown contour as part of the permitting process. The operator would be required to 

replace those water supplies affected by mining with water of equivalent quality and quantity 

(CCW 2016a). Any impacts to downstream water rights would fall under the jurisdiction of the 

State Engineer. If it is determined that a water right has been impacted by activities of the BAM, 

that impact will be mitigated.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-38

4.6 Alluvial Valley Floors

4.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.6.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding alluvial valley floors (AVFs) can be found in sections 3.6.1 and 

3.6.2 of the 2009 SGAC EIS. There are approximately 10.9 acres of declared AVF along Duck 

Nest Creek within the BAN tract. Mining activity would not be restricted in the AVF areas 

because the WDEQ-LQD has declared them not to be significant to farming (WDEQ-LQD 1988). 

The entire reach of Duck Nest Creek downstream of the tract has been affected by previous and 

current mining operations at the BAM. The mine is required to restore the essential hydrologic 

functions of affected AVFs and preserve the hydrologic functions of the AVFs on adjacent lands. 

The direct and indirect effects AVFs would not be significantly different than those described in 

the 2009 SGAC EIS and are expected to be moderate and short term (10.4 years).

4.6.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Therefore, under this 

alternative, disturbance related impacts to AVFs in the area would remain as described in section 

4.6.1.1, but to a lesser extent (10.9 acres).

4.6.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects to AVFs would not be significantly different than those described in the 

2009 SGAC EIS. AVF investigations conducted within and adjacent to the tract have identified 

approximately 10.9 acres of declared AVF along Duck Nest Creek within the BAN tract. 

The BAM is required to monitor impacts to downstream AVFs by measuring discharges from 

sediment ponds for quantity and quality. The mine is also required to restore the essential 

hydrologic functions of any affected AVFs, if delineated, and preserve the hydrologic functions of 

the AVFs on adjacent lands. WDEQ-LQD believes that mining operation at the BAM will not 

result in any material damage to the any AVFs downstream of the current BAM and that 

reclamation will replace the alluvial materials and restore the hydrologic function of the Belle 

Fourche River (WDEQ-LQD 2004). Therefore, the cumulative effects on AVFs are expected to 

be negligible and short term (10.4 years).

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures

The mine is required to restore the essential hydrologic functions of affected AVFs and preserve 

the hydrologic functions of the AVFs on adjacent lands.

4.7 Wetlands (Aquatic Resources)

4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.7.1.1 Proposed Action

A detailed discussion of wetlands occurring within the BAN tract and a 0.25-mile disturbance 

buffer was included in sections 3.7.1.1 and 3.7.1.2 of the 2009 SGAC EIS (BLM 2009a) and in 

Section S1-7 of the Supplementary Information document for the 2009 SGAC EIS (BLM 2009b). 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-39

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-verified delineations are made a part of the mine permit 

document. The reclamation plan requires replacement of at least equal types and number of 

jurisdictional wetlands. Approximately 9.0 acres of jurisdictional wetlands occur along the 

watercourse of Duck Nest Creek, within the BAN tract. Approximately 0.9 acre of jurisdictional 

other waters of the U.S. that did not qualify as wetlands consisting primarily of open water held 

within the in-channel impoundments and intermittent pools along Duck Nest Creek. Disturbed 

non-jurisdictional wetlands would be restored as required by the authorized federal, state, or 

private surface landowner, as specified in the mining permit, which are approved by WDEQ-LQD 

before mining operations are conducted on the BAN tract. There are approximately 55.0 acres 

of non-jurisdictional wetlands, consisting of the internally drained playas, within the BAN tract. 

These wetlands are primarily located in the Northwest and Southwest corners of the BAM (map 

4-5).

During the period of time after mining and before replacement of wetlands, all functions of the 

jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands would be lost. However, there would be no net loss 

of jurisdictional wetlands since wetlands would be replaced during the reclamation phase of 

mining. The direct and indirect effects to surface water would not be significantly different than 

those described in the 2009 SGAC EIS and are expected to be moderate and short term (10.4 

years).

4.7.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Therefore, under this 

alternative, disturbance related impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in the area would remain as 

described in section 4.7.1.1, but to a lesser extent (9.9 acres of jurisdictional and 55.0 acres of 

non-jurisdictional wetlands).

4.7.2 Cumulative Effects:

The cumulative effects to jurisdictional wetlands would not be significantly different than those 

described in the 2009 SGAC EIS. Wetland delineations conducted within the tract have identified 

approximately 9.9 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. along Duck Nest 

Creek and 55.0 acres of non-jurisdictional playas within the BAN tract. Disturbed jurisdictional

and non-jurisdictional wetlands would be restored as required by the authorized federal, state, 

or private surface landowner, as specified in the mining permit, which are approved by 

WDEQ-LQD before mining operations is conducted on the BAN tract. There would be no net 

loss of jurisdictional wetlands so cumulative impacts to wetlands would be moderate and short 

term (10.4 years).

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures

Disturbed jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands would be restored as required by the 

authorized federal, state, or private surface landowner, as specified in the mining permit, which 

are approved by WDEQ-LQD before mining operations is conducted on the BAN tract.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-40

Map 4-5. Wetlands Associated with the BAN Tract.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-41

4.8 Soil

4.8.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.8.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding soils can be found in sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 of the 2009 SGAC 

EIS. The direct and indirect effects to soils would not be significantly different than those 

described in the 2009 SGAC EIS. Soils within the BAN tract would be altered under the Proposed 

Action. The potential impacts from the Proposed Actions include

1. increased near-surface bulk density and decreased soil infiltration rate resulting in 

increased potential for soil erosion,

2. more uniformity in soil type, thickness, and texture,

3. decreased runoff due to topographic modification,

4. reduction in organic matter,

5. reduction in microorganism population,

6. reduction in seeds, bulbs, rhizomes, and live plant parts, and

7. more uniform soil nutrient distribution.

According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (2017), no “prime” or 

“unique” farmland exists within the proposed BAN tract so none would be disturbed. Drainage 

features would be reconstructed on the area similar to reclamation techniques used at the BAM. 

Therefore, special handling techniques would not be required for soils within the tract.

The direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action to soils would be moderate and 

short term (10.4 years) on the tract.

4.8.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Therefore, under this 

alternative, disturbance related impacts to soils in the area would remain as described in section 

4.8.1.1, but to a lesser extent (695.0 acres).

4.8.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to soil would be related to cumulative disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, 

Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines. According to the 2011 Middle Powder River Basin CHIA, 

approximately 50,000 acres of land have been approved for disturbance within the middle group 

of mines (Ogle et al. 2011). If the Proposed Action is approved, the cumulative disturbance would 

be increased by 695.0 acres. The cumulative effects would be reduced following reclamation when 

the replaced topsoil would support a stable and productive native vegetation community 

adequate in quantity and quality to support planned post-mining land uses (i.e., rangeland and 

wildlife habitat). In additions, the cumulative effects would be reduced since areas within active 

mines are progressively disturbed and reclaimed by planting appropriate vegetation species to 

restore soil productivity and prevent soil erosion. The cumulative effects related to soils would 

be moderate.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-42

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures

Soils suitable to support plant growth would be salvaged for use in reclamation. Soil stockpiles 

would be protected from disturbance and erosional influences. Soil material that is not suitable 

to support plant growth would not be salvaged. Soil or overburden materials containing 

potentially harmful chemical constituents (such as selenium) would be specially handled.

Regraded overburden would be sampled to verify suitability as subsoil for compliance with root 

zone criteria as specified by WDEQ-LQD guideline No. 1A (Topsoil and Subsoil) (WDEQ-LQD 

2015). Unsuitable materials would be buried under adequate fill (at least 4 feet of suitable 

overburden) prior to soil redistribution to meet guidelines for vegetation root zones.

Redistributed soil would be sampled to document redistribution depths. After topsoil is 

redistributed on reclaimed surfaces, revegetation would reduce wind erosion. Sediment control 

structures would be constructed as needed to detain sediments.

Vegetation growth would be monitored on reclaimed areas to confirm vegetation establishment 

and acceptability for bond release. Appropriate normal husbandry practices may be implemented 

to achieve specific reclamation goals.

These measures are required by Wyoming State regulations and are therefore considered part 

of the Proposed Action.

4.9 Vegetation

4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.9.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding vegetation can be found in sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 of the 2009 

SGAC EIS. The direct and indirect effects to vegetation would not be significantly different than 

those described in the 2009 SGAC EIS. Short-term (direct) impacts associated with the removal 

of vegetation from the BAN tract would include increased soil erosion and habitat loss for wildlife 

and livestock over what is currently being experienced. Potential long-term (indirect) impacts on 

reclaimed lands include loss of habitat or loss of habitat carrying capacity for some wildlife species 

as a result of reduced plant species diversity or plant density, particularly big sagebrush. However, 

livestock and grassland-dependent wildlife species would benefit from the increased grass cover 

and production. A study conducted at the BAM has shown that vegetative cover and warmseason grasses production was higher on reclamation than on adjacent undisturbed, native sites 

(Stahl et al. 2009).

The Proposed Action would result in the gradual loss of 695.0 acres of vegetation communities, 

which represents approximately 42 percent of the BAN tract. As described in section 1.2.3, 

approximately 58 percent of the tract has been approved for disturbance under the currently 

approved WDEQ-LQD Permit No. PT0214. Reclamation, including revegetation of these lands, 

would occur contemporaneously with mining on adjacent lands; i.e., reclamation would begin

once an area is mined. In an effort to approximate premining conditions, during reclamation CCW 

would plan to reestablish vegetation types that are similar to the premine types. A study 

conducted at the BAM has shown that shrubs and warm-season grasses were being reestablished 

on reclamation at high densities within 5 years (Stahl et al. 2009). Reestablished vegetation would 

be dominated by species mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures approved by WDEQ-LQD. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-43

The Revegetation Enhancement Techniques section of the Reclamation Plan included in the 

WDEQ-LQD Permit No. PT0214 for the BAM includes steps to control invasion by weedy 

(invasive nonnative) plant species. Given the fact that successful reclamation has been 

demonstrated at the BAM and that mitigation measures designed to reduce negative effects are 

currently in-place, the direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action on vegetation 

would be moderate and short term (10.4 years).

4.9.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Under this alternative, 

disturbance to vegetation in the tract unrelated to the Proposed Action that is similar to that

described in section 4.9.1.1 would remain as but the total disturbance would be reduced by 

approximately 695.0 acres.

4.9.1.3 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek mines. As described in the 2013 Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal 

Review, habitat fragmentation from activities such as roads, well pads, mines, pipelines, and 

electrical power lines can result in the direct loss of habitat (BLM 2013). Other indirect effects 

such as dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species and dust deposition from unpaved road 

traffic can extend beyond the surface disturbance boundaries. According to the 2011 CHIA, 

approximately 50,000 acres of land, and the associated vegetative communities, have been 

approved for disturbance within the middle group of mines (Ogle et al. 2011). Therefore, the 

effects of the Proposed Action related to vegetation removal, invasive weeds, and dust would 

increase the approved disturbance by only 695.0 acres (1.4 percent). However, the cumulative 

size of the disturbance associated with the middle group of mines is large enough that impacts 

would likely be moderate and extended by approximately 10.4 years of mining.

4.9.1.4 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for vegetation resources.

4.9.2 Vegetative Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species and Other 

Species of Special Interest

4.9.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.9.2.1.1 Proposed Action and No Action Alternative

The 2009 SGAC EIS indicated that ULTs and blowout penstemon could potentially occur within 

the BAN tract (BLM 2009). An August 2017 IPaC search specific to the BAN tract for T&E species 

did not include any vegetation species (USFWS 2017a). The environs of the Duck Nest Creek 

drainage that passes through the study area and playa grasslands within the tract constitute the 

closest approximation of suitable habitat for the ULT. ULT surveys were completed by ESCO 

Associates Inc. (ESCO) within and adjacent to the tract in 2010, 2011, and 2012 using USFWS 

protocol for assessment of the presence. No ULTs were located within the BAN study area 

during the 2010, 2011, or 2012 searches (ESCO 2012). An in-depth discussion on the biology and 

habitat requirements of the blowout penstemon is included in Appendix E - Section 1 of the 2009 

SGAC EIS. As stated in the 2009 SGAC EIS, typical suitable habitat for this species on the tract 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-44

is nonexistent. Given the fact that no ULT have been documented within or adjacent to the BAN 

tract and habitat for the blowout penstemon is nonexistent within the tract, the direct and 

indirect effects related to the Proposed Action on T&E species on vegetation would be negligible

and short term (10.4 years).

4.9.2.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to T&E would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, 

and Coal Creek mines. As described in the 2013 Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin 

Coal Review, habitat fragmentation from activities such as roads, well pads, mines, pipelines, and 

electrical power lines can result in the direct loss of habitat (BLM 2013). Other indirect effects 

such as dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species and dust deposition from unpaved road 

traffic can extend beyond the surface disturbance boundaries. According to the 2011 CHIA, 

approximately 50,000 acres of land, and the associated vegetative communities, have been 

approved for disturbance within the middle group of mines (Ogle et al. 2011). Therefore, the 

effects of the Proposed Action related to vegetation removal, invasive weeds, and dust would 

increase the approved disturbance by only 695.0 acres (1.4 percent). However, the cumulative 

size of the disturbance associated with the middle group of mines is large enough that impacts 

would likely be moderate and extended by approximately 10.4 years of mining.

4.9.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for T&E vegetation resources.

4.10 Wildlife

Additional discussions regarding wildlife can be found in section 3.10 of the 2009 SGAC EIS. If 

the federal mining plan modification for the BAM is approved to include recovering coal within 

the BAN tract, disturbance would continue on the BAN tract. Mining would be extended by 

approximately 10.4 years at the BAM. Impacts to wildlife that would be caused by mining the 

tract have been addressed by the WGFD and WDEQ-LQD when the mining and reclamation 

permits were amended to include the BAN tract.

Mining directly and indirectly impacts local wildlife populations. These impacts are both short 

term (until successful reclamation is achieved) and long term (persisting beyond successful 

completion of reclamation). The direct impacts of surface coal mining on wildlife occur during 

mining and are therefore short-term. They include road kills by mine-related traffic, restrictions 

on wildlife movement created by fences, spoil piles, and pits, and displacement of wildlife from 

active mining areas. Displaced animals may find equally suitable habitat that is not occupied by 

other animals, occupy suitable habitat that is already being used by other individuals, or occupy 

poorer quality habitat than that from which they were displaced. In the second and third 

situations, the animals may suffer from increased competition with other animals and are less

likely to survive and reproduce. Reclamation would be ongoing and concurrent with mining so 

habitat would be restored throughout the 10.4-year period of coal recovery. A study conducted 

at the BAM has shown that shrubs and warm-season grasses were reestablished on reclamation 

at high densities within 5 years (Stahl et al. 2009). If the proposed federal mining plan modification 

is approved, the direct impacts related to mine operations would be extended by approximately 

10.4 years of mining.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-45

The indirect impacts are longer term. After the BAN tract is mined and reclaimed, alterations in 

the topography and vegetative cover and diversity, particularly a potential reduction in sagebrush 

density, would cause a decrease in carrying capacity for some sagebrush dependent species. 

Sagebrush would gradually become reestablished on the reclaimed land, but the topographic 

changes described in section 4.2.1.1 would be permanent. Microhabitats (very specific habitats) 

may be reduced on reclaimed land due to flatter topography, less diverse vegetative cover, and 

reduction in sagebrush density.

The environmental consequences related to mining the BAN tract for other mammals; upland 

game birds (excluding the GRSG); other birds; and amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic species are 

not significantly different than those presented in 2009 SGAC EIS and are not presented herein. 

Updated discussions for big game, raptors, GRSG, T&E species, and other species of special 

interest are included below.

4.10.1 Big Game

4.10.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.10.1.1.1 Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, big game would be displaced from portions of the BAN tract to 

adjacent ranges during mining. Mule deer likely would be most affected as the BAN tract contains 

good quality habitat. Pronghorn would not be substantially impacted, given that they are scattered 

throughout the site and there is suitable habitat available in adjacent areas. White-tailed deer, elk 

(Cervus elaphus), or moose (Alces alces) would not be affected, as they have not been observed 

on the BAN tract (ICF 2017). 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. However, big game species have continued to occupy areas adjacent to and 

within active mine operations at the BAM, suggesting that some animals may become habituated 

to such disturbances. Monitoring has shown that, while annual fluctuations occur in big game 

numbers, the populations with the mine-wide big game monitoring area have remained relatively 

stable over time (ICF 2017).

The BAM would be required to reclaim disturbed habitats back to wildlife habitat, as outlined in 

the reclamation requirements of revised state and federal mine permits. 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 tract. 

Sagebrush would gradually become re-established on the reclaimed land, but the topographic 

changes would be permanent. Given the observed response of big game to mining relative 

disturbance discussed above, the direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action on 

big game would be moderate and they would be short term (extended by approximately 10.4 

years).

4.10.1.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Under this alternative, 

the impacts to big game and big-game habitats in the tract unrelated to the Proposed Action 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-46

would be similar to that described in section 4.9.1.1 but the total extent of the impacts would 

be reduced by approximately 695.0 acres and the duration of the impacts would be reduced by 

approximately 10.4 years.

4.10.1.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek mines. As described in the 2013 Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal 

Review, habitat fragmentation from activities such as roads, well pads, mines, pipelines, and 

electrical power lines can result in the direct loss of potential wildlife habitat (BLM 2013). Other 

indirect effects such as increased noise, elevated human presence, dispersal of noxious and

invasive weed species, and dust deposition from unpaved road traffic can extend beyond the 

surface disturbance boundaries. According to the 2011 CHIA, approximately 50,000 acres of land 

have been approved for disturbance within the middle group of mines (Ogle et al. 2011). 

Therefore, the effects of the Proposed Action related to additional habitat fragmentation, noise, 

elevated human presence, invasive weeds, and dust on regional big game populations would 

increase the approved disturbance by only 695.0 acres (1.4 percent). However, the overall 

contribution to cumulative impacts to big game species under Proposed Action would be 

moderate due to the localized effects. The improved productivity on mined lands that have been 

reclaimed would reduce any potential impacts. No severe mine-caused mortalities have occurred 

and no long-lasting impacts on big game species have been noted on the BAM. As described in 

section 4.3.2, the pace of CBNG development in Wyoming has recently slowed considerably 

(WOGCC 2016), which will reduce the potential for cumulative impacts to big game. Given the 

observed response of big game to mining relative disturbance discussed above, the cumulative 

effects on regional big game populations would be moderate and they would be extended by

approximately 10.4 years.

4.10.1.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to big game are necessary. General reclamation practices for 

establishing or enhancing post‐mine wildlife habitat at the BAM described in the Reclamation Plan 

of Permit PT0214 are in place. 

4.10.2 Raptors

4.10.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.10.2.1.1 Proposed Action

Four intact raptor nests (two burrowing owl, one Swainson’s hawk, and one Swainson’s 

hawk/ferruginous hawk/great horned owl) were present within the tract in 2016. Only one of the 

nests was active in 2016. CCW has in place approved plans and procedures to minimize impacts 

to nesting raptors and ensure proper reclamation techniques are implemented to enhance habitat 

in the post-mine landscape for both raptors and their primary prey species. Inactive, non-eagle, 

raptor nests may be removed from areas likely to be impacted in potential disturbance areas to 

discourage nesting of raptors and other migratory birds, in accordance with USFWS guidance 

provided in the Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum (USFWS 2003). Decisions as to whether nest 

removal or relocation is the most appropriate approach would be based on the long-term history 

of the nest site including historic and recent raptor use; presence/absence, location, and potential 

vulnerability of alternate nests within the territory; number, proximity, and/or orientation of 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-47

conspecific territories; historical use of artificial nest structures, if any; timing, duration (e.g., 

continuous and ongoing or short-term); proximity, and visibility of potentially disturbing mine 

activities; and other pertinent factors. In addition, CCW conducts annual surveys at multiple 

prairie falcon nest sites throughout the monitoring area and on neighboring lands as part of 

required and/or voluntary monitoring for this species. 

Raptor mortalities associated with collisions with vehicles and electrocutions have been recorded 

at the BAM (ICF 2017). In all instances, USFWS was contacted for guidance and authorization of 

carcass disposal, if necessary.

Based on the low density of nesting raptors within the BAN tract and the BAM’s approved plans 

and procedures in place to reduce impacts to raptors, the direct and indirect effects related to 

the Proposed Action on site-specific raptors would be moderate and short term (10.4 years).

4.10.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Under this alternative, 

the ongoing impacts to raptors unrelated to the Proposed Action would be similar to that 

described in section 4.9.1.1 but the total disturbance would be reduced by approximately 695.0 

acres and the duration of the impacts would be reduced by approximately 10.4 years.

4.10.2.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek mines. As described in the 2013 Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal 

Review, habitat fragmentation from activities such as roads, well pads, mines, pipelines, and 

electrical power lines can result in the direct loss of potential wildlife habitat (BLM 2013). Other 

indirect effects such as increased noise, elevated human presence, dispersal of noxious and 

invasive weed species, and dust deposition from unpaved road traffic can extend beyond the 

surface disturbance boundaries. According to the 2011 CHIA, approximately 50,000 acres of land 

have been approved for disturbance within the middle group of mines (Ogle et al. 2011). The 

overall contribution to cumulative impacts to raptors under Proposed Action would be moderate 

due to the localized effects and the improved productivity on mined lands that have been 

reclaimed. Approved mine permits adhere to regulations specifying mitigation measures for 

wildlife, including minimization of disturbance, reclamation of habitats, and raptor-safe power line 

construction. The measures specified in mining permits and enforced by WDEQ-LQD ensure 

compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and 

the ESA. The cumulative effects on regional raptor populations would be moderate and they 

would be extended by approximately 10.4 years.

4.10.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to raptors are necessary. General reclamation practices for 

establishing or enhancing post‐mine wildlife habitat at the BAM described in the Reclamation Plan 

of Permit PT0214 are in place. CCW has also developed plans and procedures to minimize 

impacts to nesting raptors and ensure proper reclamation techniques are implemented to 

enhance habitat in the post-mine landscape for raptors and their primary prey species.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-48

4.10.3 Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG)

4.10.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.10.3.1.1 Proposed Action

Four GRSG leks have been documented within 2 miles of the BAM permit area but no GRSG 

leks have been documented (map 3-5). Three leks (Belle Ayr I, Belle Ayr II, and Stowe) were 

destroyed by mining activities. The only intact lek within the survey boundary is the Lynde Lek, 

which was last surveyed in 2016. This lek has been classified as occupied by the WGFD. GRSG 

have not been observed on or near the Lynde Lek since 2009.

Long-term results from annual lek monitoring suggest that GRSG populations in the BAM annual 

monitoring area are cyclic, with periodic peaks and declines (CCW 2016c). These data suggest 

that the BAM area may only support larger groups of GRSG when regional populations are 

especially high (CCW 2016c).

Executive Order No. 2015-4 constitutes Wyoming's strategy for the conservation of the GRSG 

and their habitats. The executive order identified areas where GRSG and their habitats would be 

most effectively conserved (core population areas); developed a strategy to reduce or eliminate 

potential threats to the species; and developed methodology to evaluate, document and track 

potential impacts over time (State of Wyoming Executive Department 2015). Although the 

executive order deals primarily with activities that occur within or adjacent to core population 

areas, as defined in the order, guidance is provided for activities in non-core population areas. 

Using mapping included in Executive Order 2015-4, it has been determined that the closest core 

area to the BAN tract is approximately 9 miles distant. Since surface occupancy and seasonal use 

restrictions for non-core areas apply to 0.25-mile buffers around occupied leks and since no 

occupied leks are within 0.25 mile of the BAN tract, restrictions included in the executive order 

do not apply to this action. In addition, according to Executive Order No. 2015-4, existing land 

uses and activities (including those authorized by the existing permit but not yet conducted) 

would be recognized and respected by state agencies, and those uses and activities that exist at 

the time the changes outlined in the Executive Order becomes effective would not be managed 

under the stipulations included in Executive Order No. 2015-4. Because the tract evaluated under 

the Proposed Action is within and adjacent to BAM’s currently approved WDEQ-LQD Permit 

PT0214 permit boundary, these activities would not be managed according to the Executive 

Order.

According to the Buffalo RMP/FEIS, the BAN tract is within an area classified as a general habitat 

management area (GHMA) for GRSG (BLM 2015a). This classification prohibits or restricts 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied GRSG 

leks. No GRSG leks occur within 0.25 mile of the BAN tract.

WDEQ-LQD Permit PT0214 currently contains multiple monitoring and protection plans that 

include numerous specific measures for GRSG and their habitats, including those mentioned 

above. The WDEQ-LQD has strict bonding, reclamation, and bond-release requirements for all 

surface coal mines in Wyoming, including detailed reclamation plans and post-reclamation 

monitoring requirements that extend 10 years or more to ensure that all reclamation standards 

have successfully been met prior to full bond release. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-49

Potential impacts to GRSG would likely be limited primarily to indirect influences resulting from 

habitat disturbance, though loss of individual birds may occur at times. Ongoing BAM operations 

may adversely impact individual GRSG through mining activity mortality or habitat loss but are 

not likely to result in a loss of population viability in the wildlife monitoring area or cause a trend 

toward federal listing. The use of appropriate timing and spatial buffers, timely implementation of 

reclamation, and application of targeted conservation measures in suitable habitats both on- and 

off-property throughout the region are expected to sufficiently reduce overall impacts to maintain 

a viable population within the area. The direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action 

on GRSG would be moderate and long term.

Potential impacts to GRSG would likely be limited primarily to indirect influences resulting from 

habitat disturbance, although loss of individual birds may occur at times. Ongoing BAM operations 

may adversely impact individual GRSG but are not likely to result in a loss of population viability 

in the wildlife monitoring area or cause a trend toward federal listing. The use of appropriate 

timing and spatial buffers, timely implementation of reclamation, and application of targeted 

conservation measures in suitable habitats both on- and off-property throughout the region are 

expected to sufficiently reduce overall impacts to maintain a viable population within the area. 

The proposed project is not restricted by BLM or Wyoming GRSG guidance. In light of the above 

discussions, the direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action on GRSG would be 

moderate and short term (10.4 years).

4.10.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Impacts to the GRSG 

have resulted from current mining activity. Under this alternative, the ongoing impacts to GRSG 

unrelated to the Proposed Action would be similar to that described in section 4.9.1.1 but the 

total disturbance would be reduced by approximately 695.0 acres and the duration of the impacts 

would be reduced by approximately 10.4 years.

4.10.3.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek mines. As described in the updated 2012 Task 1D Report (BLM 2012), substantial 

areas of GRSG habitats have been altered from their natural conditions as a result of past and 

on-going human activities in the Wyoming PRB study area. Human disturbances include, but are 

not limited to, agriculture, mining, roads, urban areas, and oil and gas development. Potential 

short-term impacts arise from habitat removal and disturbance associated with a project’s 

development and operation (e.g., coal mines, oil and gas wells, etc.) and would cease upon project 

completion and successful reclamation in a given area. Potential long-term impacts consist of 

permanent loss of habitats and the wildlife populations that depend on those habitats, irrespective 

of reclamation success, and habitat disturbance related to longer term projects (e.g., power plant 

facilities, rail lines, etc.) (BLM 2012). The severity of both short- and long-term impacts to GRSG 

would depend on factors such as seasonal use patterns, type and timing of a project’s activities,

and physical parameters (e.g., topography, cover, forage, and climate).

The GRSG population in the WGFD Sheridan Region (including the BAN tract) appears to follow 

a 10-year cycle (BLM 2012). WGFD information indicated that over 42,300 male sage grouse 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-50

were recorded 2016 in Wyoming. The average number of male grouse per lek was up 16 percent 

in 2016 compared to 2015, which was 66 percent higher than 2014 (WGFD 2016). 

In light of the above discussions and the discussions included in section 4.10.3.1, which state 

that impacts would be moderate and long term, the cumulative effects related to the Proposed 

Action on GRSG regional GRSG populations would be moderate and long term.

4.10.3.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to GRSG are necessary. The general reclamation practices for 

establishing or enhancing postmine wildlife habitat at the BAM described in the Reclamation Plan 

of WDEQ-LQD Permit PT0214 are in place. Shrub seedlings will be planted in shrub pockets in 

order to improve the beneficial effects of the shrubs for wildlife.

4.10.4 Vertebrate Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species and Other 

Species of Special Interest

4.10.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.10.4.1.1 Proposed Action

The USFWS maintains a list of T&E species, and designated critical habitats on their official 

website for each county in Wyoming (USFWS 2017c). The USFWS also provides the Information 

for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system to evaluate the potential of encountering USFWS 

trust resources, including T&E species, related to a specific project area. The USFWS list of T&E 

wildlife species includes black-footed ferrets, which are listed as experimental, non-essential; and 

the northern long-eared bat, which is listed as threatened. The analysis area for T&E species 

includes the BAM permit boundary with an additional evaluation of species that occur within 

Campbell County. There are no critical habitats for these T&E species within the BAN tract or 

within Campbell County.

On March 6, 2013, the USFWS issued a letter acknowledging ‘block clearance’ for the State of 

Wyoming in response to a request from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Prairie dog 

towns, which provide habitat for black-footed ferrets, are not found within the BAN tract. Block 

clearance provides an acknowledgement that the likelihood of identifying ferrets in Wyoming, 

outside of those resulting from reintroductions, is distinctly minimal (USFWS 2016a).

According to the USFWS, the primary threat to the northern long-eared bat is white-nose 

syndrome (WNS), a fungal disease that has devastated many bat populations (USFWS 2016b). 

The northern long-eared bat is also threatened by the loss and degradation of summer habitat; 

by barotrauma (injury to the bat lungs due to an extreme change in air pressure caused by flying 

to near wind turbines); collision with wind turbine blades; and loss of and vandalism to winter 

roosts and hibernacula. No wind turbines are within the general area and, as described in section 

3.3.3.1, preferred roosting and reproductive habitats are limited in the BAM permit area and 

surrounding 1.0-mile monitoring area. However, potential foraging areas are present throughout 

the BAM permit area and surrounding monitoring area. No northern long-eared bat populations 

have been documented within Campbell County (ICF 2017).

The USFWS has established an area of influence (AOI) for the northern long-eared bat. Any 

projects that would occur within the AOI are anticipated to have impacts on northern long-eared 

bat. USFWS has a 4(d) rule for this species, which provides flexibility to landowners, land 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-51

managers, government agencies and others as they conduct activities in areas that could be 

northern long-eared bat habitat. In areas of the northern long-eared bat’s range that have not yet 

been affected by WNS, defined as outside the WNS zone in the final 4(d) rule, such as in 

Wyoming, incidental take (unintentional harm to bats incidental to otherwise lawful activities) is 

not prohibited. Even though the final 4(d) rule excepts incidental take, federal agencies still have 

an obligation to consult on may affect determinations. This obligation is addressed if the federal 

agency complies with measures outlined in the framework for the USFWS’s January 5, 2016, 

programmatic biological opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule.

A portion of the proposed project as defined in this EA falls within the AOI; therefore, OSMRE 

has complied with the programmatic BO and fulfilled the Section 7 consultation requirements 

under the Endangered Species Act through submission of the Northern Long-eared Bat 4(d) rule 

streamlined consultation form to the Wyoming Ecological Field Services Office. 

As discussed in section 3.3.3.2.1, nine vertebrate BLM-designated sensitive species have been 

documented in or within 0.5 mile of the BAM permit area from 1988 through 2016: northern 

leopard frog, bald eagle, Brewer’s sparrow, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, GRSG, loggerhead 

shrike, long-billed curlew, and sage thrasher. While these BLM-designated sensitive species have 

been documented within or near the BAN tract, a majority have been only rarely observed or 

rely on habitats that are not prevalent in the tract. Species associated with sagebrush or grassland 

habitats are likely to be most impacted. Current reclamation practices in-place at the BAM would 

promote the reestablishment of these habitats once reclamation has been completed.

As discussed in section 3.3.3.2.2, 15 USFWS Region 17 BCC have been documented in or 

within 0.5 mile of the BAM permit area from 1984 through 2016: bald eagle, golden eagle, 

grasshopper sparrow, short-eared owl, Brewer’s sparrow, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, 

Swainson’s hawk, prairie falcon, GRSG, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, upland sandpiper, 

red-headed woodpecker, and sage thrasher. While these USFWS-designated BCC have been 

documented within or near the BAN tract, a majority have been only rarely observed or rely on 

habitats that are not prevalent in the tract. Species associated with sagebrush or grassland habitats 

are likely to be most impacted. Monitoring and mitigation plans for Migratory Bird Species of 

Management Concern have also been developed in cooperation with USFWS for the existing 

BAM, and those plans would be amended to include the BAN tract. Current reclamation practices 

in-place at the BAM would promote the reestablishment of these habitats once reclamation has 

been completed.

The USFWS has acknowledge that the likelihood of identifying wild ferrets in Wyoming outside 

of reintroduction areas is minimal (USFWS 2013), and no northern long-eared bat populations 

have been documented within Campbell County (ICF 2017). However, if present, T&E species 

would be displaced. Considering the minimal potential of encountering T&E species in the area 

and the in-place reclamation techniques, the direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed 

Action on species of special interest would be minimal but they would be extended by 

approximately 10.4 years.

Species of special interest have been encountered within the study area (nine BLM sensitive 

species and 15 USFWS BCC), and would be displaced under the Proposed Action. However, 

current reclamation practices in-place at the BAM would promote the reestablishment of 

sagebrush and grassland habitats of affected species once reclamation has been completed and 

the implementation monitoring and mitigation plans for BCC would reduce potential impacts. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-52

Therefore, considering in-place reclamation techniques included in the Revegetation 

Enhancement Techniques section of the Reclamation Plan incorporated in the WDEQ-LQD 

Permit No. PT0214 and mitigation and monitoring, the direct and indirect effects related to the 

Proposed Action on species of special interest would be moderate and they would be extended 

by approximately 10.4 years.

4.10.4.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. However, 

approximately 695.0 acres within the tract have been approved for disturbed related to recovery 

of coal outside of the BAN tract under OSMRE’s currently approved federal MPDD and impacts 

to threatened, endangered, and candidate species and other species of special interest within the 

tract have already resulted from current mining activity. Therefore, under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts to these species of special interest in the area would remain as 

described in section 4.10.4.1.1 but the extent of the impacts would be reduced by 

approximately 695.0 acres and the duration of the impacts would be reduced by approximately 

10.4 years.

4.10.4.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects for T&E species and species of special interest are related to the cumulative 

disturbance at BAM, Belle Ayr, Caballo, and Coal Creek mines. As described in the 2013 Task 

3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, habitat fragmentation from activities such 

as roads, well pads, mines, pipelines, and electrical power lines can result in the direct loss of 

potential wildlife habitat (BLM 2013). Other indirect effects such as increased noise, elevated 

human presence, dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species, and dust deposition from 

unpaved road traffic can extend beyond the surface disturbance boundaries. According to the 

2011 CHIA, approximately 50,000 acres of land have been approved for disturbance within the 

middle group of mines (Ogle et al. 2011). Therefore, the effects of the Proposed Action related 

to additional habitat fragmentation, noise, elevated human presence, invasive weeds, and dust on 

regional T&E species and other species of special interest populations would increase the 

approved disturbance by only 695.0 acres (1.4 percent). However, the cumulative size of the 

disturbance associated with the middle group of mines is large enough that impacts would likely 

be moderate and they would be extended by approximately 10.4 years. 

4.10.4.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to T&E species and other species of special interest are 

necessary. General reclamation practices for establishing or enhancing post‐mine wildlife habitat 

at the BAM described in the Reclamation Plan of Permit PT0214 are in place. 

4.11 Land Use

4.11.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.11.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding land use can be found in sections 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 of the 2009 

SGAC EIS and in the Amended Campbell County Natural Resource Land Use Plan (Campbell 

County Board of County Commissioners 2016). Surface ownership within the BAN tract is 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-53

private (CCW) and the proposed coal removal area is managed by the BLM. The primary adverse 

environmental consequences of mining the proposed BAN tract on land use would be reduction 

of livestock grazing, loss of wildlife habitat, and curtailment of other mineral development on 

about 695.0 additional acres during active mining. Recreational use of the area is limited. There 

would be a loss of approximately 373 acres of hayland within the tract. Wildlife (particularly big 

game) use would be displaced while the BAN tract is being mined and reclaimed. Livestock grazing 

has already been prohibited due to the BAN tract being inside the permit boundary and adjacent 

to active mine areas. According to the WGFD 2015 Big Game Job Completion Report, the BAN 

tract is within the Black Thunder Pronghorn Herd Unit, which is currently below the herd 

management objective of 49,000 animals (WGFD 2015). The lower than desired population 

numbers are likely the result of reduced fawn recruitment due to drought, significant mortality 

during and following the 2010-11 winter, and increased summer mortality of all age classes due 

to disease, and perhaps even some unknown density dependent factors (WGFD 2015). The BAN 

tract is within the Cheyenne River Mule Deer Herd Unit, which is currently near the herd 

management objective of 27,000 animals (WGFD 2015). Hunting on the BAN tract is currently 

limited because the tract is within and adjacent to the mine permit boundary and would continue 

to be discouraged during mining and reclamation (WGFD 2015). While non-coal mineral 

development would be curtailed on the BAN tract, the 2013 Task 3D Report for the Powder 

River Basin Coal Review states that much of the CBNG may be depleted in the shallower 

production areas of the PRB by 2020 (BLM 2013). The proposed project is consistent with the 

Campbell County Natural Resource Land Use Plan, which includes the goals of:

• Electrical power generation using low-sulfur Powder River Basin coal, oil and gas, and 

renewable energy resources.

• Use of land and resources to accommodate new growth and foster economic 

development.

• Diversification of the county’s economic base through the development and 

demonstration of renewable energy and clean coal technologies such as fuel 

enhancement, coal-to-fuels, coal to value added products and advanced combustion.

Since CCW owns and controls the surface within the BAN tract, the loss of agricultural land 

would not directly impact other landowners in the area. There is also limited recreational use of 

the area. Following reclamation, the land would be suitable for historical uses of grazing and 

wildlife uses and recreational use. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects related to land use 

would be minor and they would be extended by approximately 10.4 years.

4.11.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts would remain as described in section 4.11.1.1 but disturbance 

would be reduced by approximately 695.0 acres.

4.11.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects would be related to land use at BAM, Belle Ayr, Caballo, and Coal Creek 

mines. According to the 2011 CHIA, approximately 50,000 acres of land have been approved for 

disturbance within the middle group of mines (Ogle et al. 2011). The primary adverse cumulative 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-54

effects of mining resulting from the proposed BAN tract on land use would be reduction of 

livestock grazing, loss of wildlife habitat, and curtailment of other mineral development on about

695.0 additional acres during active mining. Since the mines own or control the surface within 

their permit boundaries, the loss of agricultural land would not directly impact other landowners 

in the area. There is also limited recreational use of the area. Following reclamation, the land 

would be suitable for historical uses of grazing and wildlife uses and recreational use. As stated 

above, much of the CBNG within the shallower production areas of the PRB may be depleted in 

these areas by 2020. Therefore, cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action on land use would 

be minor and would be extended by approximately 10.4 years. 

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to land use are necessary.

4.12 Cultural Resources

4.12.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.12.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding cultural resources can be found in sections 3.12.1 and 3.12.2 of 

the 2009 SGAC EIS. The BAN tract has been subjected to Class III cultural resource inventories. 

No sites within the tract have classified as NRHP eligible sites that would require mitigation prior 

to disturbance. The direct and indirect effects on cultural resources from the Proposed Action 

would be negligible but long term.

4.12.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts would remain as described in section 4.12.1.1 but disturbance 

would be reduced by approximately 695.0 acres.

4.12.2 Cumulative Impacts

The individual evaluation of cultural resource sites in the CCW study area suggests that through 

avoidance of sensitive site types and mitigation through data recovery for all unavoidable 

disturbance to NRHP eligible sites, the cumulative effects to cultural resources have been minor. 

The cumulative impacts on cultural resource would be negligible but long term.

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to cultural resources are necessary.

4.13 Visual Resources

4.13.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.13.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding visual resources can be found in sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2 of 

the 2009 SGAC EIS. Mining would affect landscapes classified by the BLM as visual resource 

management Class IV (BLM 2015c); the overall natural scenic quality of that class rating is 

considered relatively low. Mining activities would be visible from State Highway 59 and the Bishop 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-55

Road, though the extent and duration of visibility would vary according to the visual perspective 

from the roads. The nearest occupied residence is approximately 3,300 feet from the tract 

boundary (map 3-1). No unique visual resources have been identified in or near the general 

analysis area, and the landscape character would not be significantly changed following 

reclamation. Current mining activities (blasting procedures and sizes, coal haul rates and 

distances, dust suppression, etc.) at the BAM would not change if the federal mining plan 

modification is approved. Current BACT measures would continue to be employed to control 

visibility impacts from particulates. While the initial disturbance related to the Proposed Action 

would be visible from Highway 59, the Bishop Road, and from the closest residence, this visual 

effects would be less than effects currently visible in the area. Ongoing BAM disturbance 

immediately adjacent to Highway 59 and a BAM topsoil pile is approximately 1,260 feet from the 

residence mentioned above. 

Although no unique visual resources have been identified in or near the general analysis area and 

the landscape character would not significantly change as a result of the Proposed Action, the 

direct and indirect effects related to visual resources could affect local residences and are 

therefore listed as moderate but long term.

4.13.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts would remain as described in section 4.13.1.1 but the extent of the 

impacts would be reduced by approximately 695.0 acres and the duration of the impacts would 

be reduced by approximately 10.4 years.

4.13.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative visual resources effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, 

Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines and from oil and gas development. Human disturbances 

include, but are not limited to, agriculture, mining, roads, urban areas, and oil and gas 

development. Potential temporary impacts arise from disturbance associated with a project’s 

development and operation (e.g., coal mines, oil and gas wells, etc.) and would cease upon project 

completion and successful reclamation in a given area. Potential long-term impacts consist of 

permanent changes to existing topography and the vegetative component of the area, irrespective 

of reclamation success. Given the fact that moderate visual impacts are currently occurring in the 

area and that the effects from the Proposed Action are not significantly greater than current 

effects, the cumulative effects related to the visual resources would be moderate but long term.

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to visual resources are necessary.

4.14 Noise

4.14.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.14.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding noise can be found in sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2 of the 2009 

SGAC EIS. Existing noise sources in the BAN tract area includes coal mining activities, rail traffic, 

traffic on the nearby state highway, county and access roads, natural gas compressor stations, 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-56

and wind. According to the 2009 SGAC EIS, the current median noise level near mining is 

estimated to be 40-60 dBA for day and night, with the noise level increasing with proximity to 

active mining operations at the adjacent mine. Mining activities are characterized by noise levels 

of 85-95 dBA at 50 ft from actual mining operations and activities (BLM 1992).

The Bishop Road passes through the BAN tract and, at its closest point, Highway 59 is 

approximately 2,350 feet west of the tract. The nearest occupied residence is located 

approximately 3,300 feet north of the BAN tract. Noise levels in wildlife habitat adjacent to the 

expansion area might increase, but incidental observations at the BAM and other local coal mines 

have demonstrated that numerous wildlife species inhabit or regularly use reclaimed lands within 

active mines during various stages of their establishment (i.e., newly seeded, maturing, wellestablished) (ICF 2016). No increase in average daily railroad traffic or railroad noise would occur 

under the Proposed Action.

Although noise levels would not significantly change as a result of the Proposed Action, the direct 

and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action could affect local residences for a longer 

period of time and are therefore listed as moderate but long term. Given the distance from mining 

related to the Proposed Action, direct and indirect effects to residences would be minor to 

moderate and short term (10.4 years). Impacts to people using the Bishop Road as a result of the 

Proposed Action would increase over current conditions due to the proximity of mining activities 

but would be minor to moderate considering the short duration of noise exposure.

4.14.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Under this alternative, 

noise impacts would remain as described in section 4.14.1.1 but the extent of the impacts 

would be reduced by approximately 10.4 years.

4.14.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek mines. Potential sources of noise disturbances include, but are not limited to, 

agriculture, mining, roads, urban areas, and oil and gas development. Coal recovery would 

continue within the BAM permit boundary at an estimated annual rate of 20 Mt, which is 

consistent with the 2009 through 2016 average annual recovery rate. Potential impacts would 

cease upon project completion and successful reclamation in a given area. 

Recreational users, local residents and grazing lessees using lands surrounding active mining areas 

do hear mining-related noise, but this has not been reported to cause a substantial impact. 

Wildlife in the immediate vicinity of mining may be adversely affected by noise; however, 

observations at the BAM indicate that wildlife generally adapt to noise conditions associated with 

active coal mining (ICF 2016). Although noise levels would not significantly change as a result of 

the Proposed Action, the cumulative noise effects related to the Proposed Action could affect 

local residences for a longer period of time and are therefore listed as moderate but long term. 

Given the distance from mining related to the Proposed Action, cumulative effects to residences 

would be minor to moderate and short term (10.4 years). Impacts to people using the Bishop 

Road as a result of the Proposed Action would increase over current conditions due to the 

proximity of mining activities but would be minor to moderate considering the short duration of 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-57

noise exposure. The cumulative impacts related to noise as discerned by the public would be 

minor to moderate but short term (10.4 years).

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to noise impacts are necessary.

4.15 Transportation Facilities

4.15.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.15.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding transportation facilities can be found in sections 3.15.1 and 3.15.2 

of the 2009 SGAC EIS. Major roads and railroads in the general area of the BAN tract are 

presented on map 1-2. Existing transportation facilities include roads, railroads, coal conveyors, 

and overhead electrical transmission lines associated with the BAN tract. All of these facilities 

would continue to be used under the Proposed Action. Employees and vendors would continue 

to travel on the Bishop Road to access the mine at a rate consistent with current road use but 

the use rate would be extended by approximately 10.4 years. 

All of the coal mined at the BAM is transported by rail (BNSF/UP trackage) and, based on an 

estimated annual production rate of 20 Mt of coal shipped by rail and an estimated 15,470 tons 

of coal per train, the Proposed Action would result in approximately 1,293 train trips per year 

(one way), which is the approximate current annual shipping rate. The Bishop Road crosses under 

the BAM rail loop tracks, east of the mine. The road also crosses under a three-track main line 

in the same area. The Proposed Action will not result in an increase in the average number of 

trains using BNSF/UP rail lines but the current shipping rate would be extended by approximately 

10.4 years. Since the Bishop Road crosses under the tracks at both crossings, there will be no 

effects on that portion of the road.

As discussed in section 3.1.4.4, the potential for emissions of dust from the large volumes of 

coal transported to large generating stations can be an environmental concern (Ramboll Environ 

2016). Coal dust and fines blowing or sifting from moving, loaded rail cars has been linked to 

railroad track stability problems resulting in train derailments and to rangeland fires caused by 

spontaneous combustion of accumulated coal dust (BLM 2009a). In response to suits brought on 

by environmental groups alleging that coal spilled from trains pollutes waterways, BNSF Railway 

has agreed to study the use of physical covers for coal trains to reduce the effects of blowing coal 

particles (Seattle Times 2016). BNSF has cited studies and experience to demonstrated that 

shippers can take steps in the loading of coal cars using existing, cost-effective technology that 

will substantially reduce coal dusting events. BNSF has a Coal Loading Rule, in effect since 

October 2011, specifically requiring all shippers loading coal at any Montana or Wyoming mine 

to take measures to load cars in such a way that ensures coal dust losses in transit are reduced 

by at least 85% compared to cars where no remedial measures have been taken (BNSF 2016a).

Two recent Australian studies involved measuring particle concentrations in the air near a coal 

haul transport corridor to assess whether coal dust was being emitted from the railcars and 

whether any such emissions would result in particulate matter concentrations that would be 

considered potentially harmful to human health. The two reports presented strong evidence that, 

while particulate levels were elevated for the several minutes during and after trains passed the 

monitoring station, coal trains did not result in any more emissions than any other freight-hauling 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-58

trains (Ramboll Environ 2016). Rail traffic to and from the mines would continue at existing levels 

for over an additional 10.4 years since coal recovery would continue at an estimated annual rate 

that is consistent with the 2009 through 2016 average annual recovery rate.

CCW has indicated that the Bishop Road would likely be relocated under the Proposed Action 

so that federal coal under the current ROW could be accessed. The relocation was discussed in 

the preferred alternative included in the 2009 SGAC EIS, which was selected by BLM when the 

tract was approved for lease. However, a final decision on whether or not the road would be 

relocated or a proposed alignment for the relocation route for the road has not been formally 

decided so an assessment of the impacts of the relocation are speculative. In accordance with 40 

CFR 1502.22, it should be noted that this information is incomplete and unavailable for this 

OSMRE evaluation. For purposes of this EA, Bishop Road is assumed to be relocated to land 

within the existing BAM or the existing Caballo Mine permit boundaries, and potential impacts 

from the road relocation in the BAN tract are captured in the total disturbance acreage. Any 

mining related road relocation option plans for the Bishop Road would be reviewed and approved 

by the Campbell County Commissioners and Wyoming Department of Transportation 

(WYDOT) prior to road relocation. 

The mining on the tract analyzed in this EA would extend the time period that the BAM would 

produce and transport coal from the mine. The added direct and indirect effects of the Proposed 

Action on current transportation facilities would be minor but they would be extended by 

approximately 10.4 years. Other than the unknown aspect of incomplete and unavailable 

information, the relocation of the Bishop Road would result in moderate, long-term effects. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects on transportation would be moderate and long term.

4.15.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Indirect impacts on 

transportation have resulted from current mining activity. Therefore, under this alternative, 

transportation impacts in the area would remain as described in section 4.15.1.1 but the 

duration of the impacts would be reduced by approximately 10.4 years.

4.15.2 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to transportation are related to coal production levels. If coal production 

levels increase, cumulative impacts to transportation would increase. Highway traffic accidents 

and delays at grade crossings could result from train traffic. The transportation facilities for the 

middle group of mines are already in place, and coal production and employment levels would 

not change with the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would extend the duration of mining 

by approximately 10.4 years at the BAM, and thus the length of employment and associated 

transportation utilization would be extended. 

Coal extracted from the existing surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB is transported in rail 

cars along the BNSF and Union Pacific (UP) rail lines. The coal mines south of Gillette, including 

the BAM, ship most of their coal via the Gillette to Douglas BNSF and UP joint trackage that runs 

south through Campbell and Converse Counties and then east over separate BNSF and UP 

mainlines for destinations in the Midwest. The Proposed Action would extend the duration of 

mining by approximately 10.4 years at the BAM, and thus the duration of utilization of BNSF and 

UP rail lines would be extended by that amount.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-59

The added cumulative impacts related to transportation would be moderate and they would be 

extended by approximately 10.4 years.

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures

All mining related road relocation option plans would be reviewed and approved by the Campbell 

County Commissioners and WYDOT prior to road relocation. 

4.16 Hazardous and Solid Waste

4.16.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.16.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding hazardous and solid wastes can be found in sections 3.16.1 and 

3.16.2 of the 2009 SGAC EIS. Waste is generated during mining operations at the BAM, as at all 

mines. While coal mining and associated coal processing associated with the Proposed Action 

would yield additional coal waste, mining wastes are currently being generated on site and are 

handled according to WDEQ-LQD rules and regulations. Non-hazardous waste, which is similar 

to domestic or municipal solid waste, is currently disposed of on-site. Most of the wastes 

generated at the BAM that are not recycled are disposed of in a designated sanitary landfill located 

on a portion of the BAM area. Disposal of these non-hazardous wastes, which include abandoned 

mining machinery, scrap iron, scrap lumber, packing material, and other items is permitted under 

the mine’s existing WDEQ-LQD permit to mine. These wastes would be buried and left in place, 

but no solid wastes would be deposited within 8 feet of any coal outcrop or coal storage area, 

or at refuse embankments or impoundment sites (CCW 2014).

The BAM does utilize some non-hazardous liquids; some materials that may be classified as 

hazardous, or are handled as hazardous, include some greases, solvents, paints, flammable liquids; 

and other combustible materials determined to be hazardous by the EPA under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. These types of wastes are disposed of at an off-site 

EPA-permitted hazardous waste facility. 

As stated above, disposal of non-hazardous wastes is permitted under the mine’s existing 

WDEQ-LQD permit to mine and wastes would be buried and left in place, but no solid wastes 

would be deposited within 8 feet of any coal outcrop or coal storage area, or at refuse 

embankments or impoundment sites. In addition, appropriate non-hazardous liquids and materials 

classified as hazardous or are handled as hazardous would be disposed of at an off-site EPA 

permitted hazardous waste facility. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects from hazardous and 

solid wastes would be negligible and would be extended by approximately 10.4 years.

4.16.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. Hazardous and solid

wastes are currently being generated at the BAM. Therefore, under this alternative, impacts from 

hazardous and solid wastes in the area would remain as described in section 4.16.1.1 but the 

duration of the impacts would be reduced by approximately 10.4 years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-60

4.16.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative hazardous and solid wastes effects would be related to mining at Caballo, Belle Ayr, 

Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines. Mining wastes are currently being generated on site and 

are handled according to WDEQ-LQD rules and regulations. Since coal recovery at the BAM 

would continue at an estimated annual rate that is consistent with the 2009 through 2016 average 

annual recovery rate, the Proposed Action would not contribute to additional cumulative impacts, 

and they would remain as described in section 4.16.1.1.

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to hazardous and solid wastes are necessary beyond those 

required by the BAM WDEQ-LQD mining permit.

4.17 Socioeconomics

4.17.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.17.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding socioeconomics can be found in sections 3.17.1 and 3.17.2 of 

the 2009 SGAC EIS. Wyoming, Campbell County, Campbell County School District 1, the City 

of Gillette, and many other governmental entities across the state receive revenues derived 

directly and indirectly from taxes and royalties on the production of federal coal, including that 

at the BAM. Such revenues include lease bonus bids, ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, royalty 

payments, sales and use taxes on equipment and other taxable purchases, and portions of 

required contributions to the federal AML program and Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. A 

summary of federal and state revenues generated from recovery of federal coal within the BAM, 

including federal coal within the BAN tract, is provided in table 4-10 and table 4-11 provides 

an estimate of the revenues derived from recovering the federal coal within the BAN tract, only.

Table 4-10. LOM Federal and State Revenues from Federal Coal Recovery within 

the BAM

Revenues Total $ Collected 

(Million $)

Federal Revenue

(Million $)

State Revenue

(Million $)

Federal Mineral Royalties 420.7 210.4 210.4

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 71.1 35.6 35.6

Severance Tax 166.3 --

2

166.3

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues10.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 139.9 -- 139.9

Black Lung 139.7 139.7 --

Sales and Use Tax 20.3 -- 20.3

Totals 958.0 385.6 572.4

1 No bonus bid revenues collected after 2016

2

-- denotes No Revenues

Source: WWC 2017, calculation provided in appendix E

Under the Proposed Action, Wyoming revenues generated from LOM BAM production could 

be increased by approximately $468.0 million and federal revenues could be increased by $316.4 

million. The primary difference between state and federal revenues is related to the fact that 

severance, Ad Valorem, and sales and use taxes are only paid to the state of Wyoming. The

Proposed Action would extend the duration of the economic impacts related to mining the 

federal coal.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-61

Table 4-11. LOM Federal and State Revenues from Federal Coal Recovery within 

the BAN Tract

Revenues Total $ Collected 

(Million $)

Federal Revenue

(Million $)

State Revenue

(Million $)

Federal Mineral Royalties 345.2 172.6 172.6

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 58.4 29.2 29.2

Severance Tax 134.9 --

2

134.9

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues10.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 114.7 -- 114.7

Black Lung 114.6 114.6 --

Sales and Use Tax216.6 -- 16.6

Totals 784.4 316.4 468.0

1 No bonus bid revenues collected after 2016

2

-- denotes No Revenues

Source: WWC 2017, calculation provided in appendix E

Continued mining in the BAN tract would not directly create new jobs and therefore, the 

availability of housing units would not be impacted. No additional employees are anticipated as a 

result of the tract being mined, although the Proposed Action would extend the duration of 

employment for current employees and extend the economic impacts related to mining the 

federal coal. 

The economic and demographic data presented above indicate that neither minority populations 

nor people living at or below the poverty level make up a greater proportion of Campbell County 

population than they do in the state as a whole or that they would be unequally impacted if the 

BAM federal mining plan modification request is approved. Consequently, no environmental 

justice concerns are present in Campbell County. 

As described in section 3.16, no negative changes in the current socioeconomic situation are 

anticipated but the positive effects would be extended. The positive direct and indirect effects 

described above (additional revenues) would be moderate and would be extended by 

approximately 10.4 years. 

4.17.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the federal coal included in the BAN tract. In terms of coal 

conservation; the No Action Alternative would mean that approximately 208.4 Mt of federal coal 

within the BAN tract would not be recovered. Wyoming revenues of approximately $482.4 

million and federal revenues of approximately $316.4 million related to this coal would not be 

realized over the LOM under No Action Alternative. The selection of the No Action Alternative 

would likely not result in direct job losses. However, the No Action Alternative would reduce 

the LOM by approximately 10.4 years. It is also likely that state funded programs and services 

would be negatively affected by the loss of the revenue and fewer abandoned mine lands and 

black lung fees would be collected. The loss of revenue from the No Action Alternative would 

result in moderate negative direct and indirect socioeconomic effects. It is possible that state and 

federal revenues would be maintained given that the power plants supplied by CCW have 

alternative sources for coal, and the BAM also has non-federal coal reserves that could be mined 

(see section 1.2.1).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-62

4.17.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects would be related to socioeconomic conditions in Campbell County. 

Cumulative impacts related to the Proposed Action are not significantly different than those 

described in section 4.17.1.1 because Wyoming, Campbell County, Campbell County School 

District 1, the City of Gillette, and many other governmental entities across the state receive 

revenues derived directly and indirectly from taxes and royalties on the production of federal 

coal from Campbell County. Under the Proposed Action, Wyoming revenues generated from 

LOM production from Campbell County mines could be increased by approximately $482.4 

million and federal revenues could be increased by $316.4 million. The positive cumulative effects 

on socioeconomics are expected to be moderate but short term (10.4 years) on the tract.

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to reducing socioeconomic impacts are necessary.

4.18 Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity

The discussions contained within this environmental consequences chapter and Section 3.18 of 

the 2009 SGAC EIS, which is incorporated by reference, provide the analysis and relationships of 

shorter uses (such as mining coal) and long-term productivity (such as generating electricity for 

homes, schools, and industry).

4.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Unavoidable adverse impacts are the effects on natural and human resources that would remain 

after mitigation measures have been applied. For the Proposed Action, details regarding these

impacts are presented in the preceding resource sections. Unavoidable adverse effects are

summarized in table 4-12.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 4-63

Table 4-12. Unavoidable Adverse Effects of the Proposed Action

Resource Unavoidable Adverse Effect

Topography and 

Physiography

Topographic effects of mining are unavoidable because mining activities such as blasting, 

excavating, loading and hauling of overburden and coal are required to recover coal in an

economical manner.

Geology, Mineral 

Resources and 

Paleontology

Geology, mineral resources and buried paleontological resources may be permanently 

impacted by mining activities. Such impacts are unavoidable as the resources are not 

locatable and, therefore, cannot be avoided by mining activities.

Air Quality/GHGs Emissions and associated impacts are unavoidable, but are not expected to degrade 

ambient air quality in the area. Mined coal is primarily used for combustion; therefore, 

any associated GHG emissions are unavoidable if the Proposed Action is implemented.

Water Resources Impacts to water resources resulting from coal extraction are unavoidable. However, 

these impacts would be mitigated through replacement of groundwater or surface water 

supplies for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or any other legitimate use if such a supply 

is diminished, interrupted, or contaminated, to the extent of precluding use of the water, 

as a result of mining (see Section 4.5.1.3).

Soils Soil in disturbance areas would exhibit more homogenous textures and may have 

coarser fragments near the surface following mining. Some soil loss may occur as a result 

of erosion, prior to stabilization.

Vegetation Vegetation would be eliminated beginning with the initial disturbance and continue until 

reclamation is complete, which would extend to the end of the mining term for many 

facilities. Noxious weeds may be introduced as a result of mining activity, potentially 

affecting vegetation communities and requiring implementation of control measures in 

the long term.

Wildlife Wildlife would be temporarily affected by mine activities, which would alter habitat 

conditions, particularly in the vicinity of surface disturbance. These impacts would be 

short-term and habitats would be reclaimed following mining.

Cultural Resources No sites within the BAN tract have been designated as eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Undiscovered cultural resources could be impacted by surface disturbing activities. All 

discovered sites would be mitigated as required by Section 106 of the NHPA.

Visual Resources Mining activity and associated disturbances and facilities would unavoidably alter the 

landscape during the mining term, affecting the aesthetic qualities. Some features would 

be visible from public access points, including State Highway 59 and the Bishop Road. 

The effects would be negligible following reclamation.

Noise Noise would result from mining activities similar to the existing condition, which is 

unavoidable. 

Transportation

Facilities

State Highway 59 and the Bishop Road would continue to experience mine-related traffic 

from area mine employees. The Bishop Road would likely be relocated under the 

Proposed Action. Coal dust blowing or sifting from moving, loaded rail cars would 

continue. These effects are unavoidable until mining ceases throughout the entire mine.

Hazardous and Solid

Waste

Coal mining and associated coal processing would yield unavoidable coal waste.
Chapter 5 –Consultation and Coordination

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 5-1

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5.1 Public Comment Process 

OSMRE released a public notice of the availability of the EA in the Gillette News Record on

September 10 and again on September 24, 2015. Written comments were solicited until October 

10, 2015. Appendix B presents a summary of the public scoping comments received and the 

OSMRE’s responses to these comments. OSMRE announced the availability of the EA on their 

Initiatives webpage and published a notice of availability (NOA) for the EA and unsigned FONSI 

in Gillette News Record on June 9, 2017. Public outreach and Tribal consultation letters were 

also sent out to interested parties, stakeholders and tribes that could be affected by the project. 

The EA and unsigned FONSI were being provided to the public for review and comment for a 

30-day period, ending on July 10, 2017. Appendix B presents a summary of the public review 

comments and the OSMRE’s responses to these comments. The comments were evaluated and 

considered before the EA was finalized and the FONSI was signed.

5.2 Preparers and Contributors

OSMRE personnel that contributed to the development of this EA are listed in table 5-1.

Name Organization Project Responsibility

Marcelo Calle OSMRE Project Lead

Gretchen Pinkham OSMRE Project Coordination

Lauren Mitchell OSMRE Project Assistance

Roberta Martinez Hernandez OSMRE Air Quality

Nicole Caveny OSMRE Fish and Wildlife

Jeremy Iliff OSMRE Cultural Resources

Cecil Slaughter OSMRE Hydrology

Michelle Fishburne OSMRE NEPA

Jacob Mulinix OSMRE Soils

Third party contractors who contributed to the development of this EA are identified in table

5-2.

Name Organization

Project

Responsibility

John Berry WWC Engineering NEPA Project Manager/Document 

Preparation/Technical Review

Mike Evers WWC Engineering

Technical Review, Quality 

Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 

Chris McDowell WWC Engineering Technical Review, QA/QC

Table 5-1. OSMRE Personnel

Table 5-2. Third Party Contractor Personnel
Chapter 5 –Consultation and Coordination

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 5-2

5.3 Distribution of the EA

This EA will be distributed to individuals who specifically request a copy of the document. It will 

also be made available electronically on the OSMRE website at 

https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/belleAyrMine.shtm.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-1

6.0 References

Abele, S.C., V.A. Saab, and E.O. Garton, 2004, Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): a 

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Available on the Internet as of March 2017: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lewisswoodpecker.pdf.

Alpha Coal West (ACW), 2016, 2016 Annual Report Submitted to WDEQ-LQD. Electronic 

Copy Only. Available on request from OSMRE.

Belle Ayr Mine (BAM), 2017, 2017 Belle Ayr Mine Annual Report. Submitted to WDEQ-LQD.

Electronic copy only. Document not yet available on BLM E-Planning Website. 

Electronic copy available on request from OSMRE.

Bureau of Labor, 2017, Employment Status of the civilian Noninstitutional Population, 1976 to 

2016 Annual Averages. Available on the Internet as of March 2017: 

https://www.bls.gov/lau/staadata.txt.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1985, Record of Decision for the Resource Management 

Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement for Buffalo Resource Area. Electronic copy 

only. Document not yet available on BLM E-Planning Website. Electronic copy available 

on request from OSMRE.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2009a, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2009 

SGAC EIS WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248. Available on the 

Internet as of August 2018: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/eplanning/docset_view.do?projectId=67025¤tPageId=96919&documentId=8

2254.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2009b, Supplementary Information on the Affected 

Environment in the General South Gillette Analysis Area for the Belle Ayr North, West 

Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II Coal Lease Applications Environmental

Impact Statement. Available on the Internet as of August 2018:

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/eplanning/docset_view.do?projectId=67025¤tPageId=96919&documentId=8

2254.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2001, Approved Resource Management Plan for Public 

Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office. Document 

not yet available on BLM E-Planning Website. Electronic copy available on request from 

OSMRE.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010, Record of Decision for the Belle Ayr North Lease by 

Application Campbell County, Wyoming WYW161248. 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/67025/82249/97126/RODBelleAyr.pdf.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-2

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011, Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal 

Review – Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities.

Document not yet available on BLM E-Planning Website. Electronic copy available on 

request from OSMRE.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2012, Powder River Basin Coal Leases by Application, 

Leases Sold. Document not yet available on BLM E-Planning Website. Electronic copy 

available on request from OSMRE.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2013, Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal 

Review Cumulative Environmental Effects. Available on the Internet as of April 2017:

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/64842/78267/88488/25-

Task3Dreport.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2015a, Record of Decision and Approved Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for the Rocky Mountain Region, Including the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Lewistown, North Dakota, Northwest Colorado, 

Wyoming, and the Approved Resource Management Plans for Billings, Buffalo, Cody, 

HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National Monument, South Dakota, Worland. 

Available on the Internet as of January 2016: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/lup/65266/79044/91309/2015_Greater_SageGrouse_ROD_for_NW_Colorado.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2015b, Buffalo Field Office Approved Resource 

Management Plan. Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/lup/36597/63092/68334/BFO_ARMP_2015_0914_full_print.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2015c, Buffalo Field Office Approved Resource 

Management Plan. Visual Resources Management Map. Document not yet available on 

BLM E-Planning Website. Electronic copy available on request from OSMRE.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2016, Secretary Jewell Launches Comprehensive Review of 

Federal Coal Program, Bureau Of Land Management News Release. Available on the 

Internet as of August 2017: https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-jewell-launchescomprehensive-review-federal-coal-program.

Buseck, Rebecca, Douglas A. Keinath, and Matthew H. McGee, 2004, Species Assessment for 

Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes Montanus) In Wyoming. Available on the Internet as of 

August 2017: 

http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/sagethrasherdec2004.pdf.

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2015b, Paris Agreement Summary. Available on the 

Internet as of January 2016: http://www.c2es.org/print/international/negotiations/cop21-

paris/summary.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-3

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2015c, EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations FAQ. 

Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www.c2es.org/print/federal/executive/epa/greenhouse-gas-regulation-faq.

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2017, What is the Mercury Rule (National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coal- and Oil- Fueled Electricity Generating 

Units)? Available on the Internet as of March 2107: 

https://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/mercury-rule.

Clark, T. W., T. M. Campbell III, D. G. Socha and D. E. Casey, 1982, Prairie dog colony 

attributes and associated vertebrate species. Great Basin Naturalist 42(4): 572-582. 

1982. Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

https://ia700704.us.archive.org/5/items/cbarchive_34590_prairiedogcolonyattributesanda

1982/prairiedogcolonyattributesanda1982.pdf.

Contura Coal West LLC (CCW), 2016a, Information provided by CCW. Document not 

available on the Internet. Electronic copy available on request from OSMRE.

Contura Coal West LLC (CCW), 2016b, Belle Ayr Mine Permit Application Package.

Document not available on the Internet. Electronic copy available on request from 

OSMRE.

Contura Coal West LLC (CCW), 2016c, 2016 Annual Wildlife Report. Document not available 

on the Internet. Electronic copy available on request from OSMRE.

Contura Coal West LLC (CCW), 2017, Information provided by CCW. Document not 

available on the Internet. Electronic copy available on request from OSMRE.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 2005, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Available on the Internet as of 

April 2017: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NEPA-40CFR1500_1508.pdf.

Dark-Smiley, Darby N. and Douglas A. Keinath, 2004, Species Assessment for Long-Billed 

Curlew (Numenius Americanus) in Wyoming. Available on the Internet as of August 2017: 

http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/long-billedcurlewjan2004.pdf. 

Davis, R.W., Hasfurther, V., and Rechard, P.A. 1978. Shallow groundwater distribution and 

movement as influenced by surface coal mining in the Eastern Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming. Water Resources Series No. 77. Water Resources Research Institute, 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Department of the Interior (DOI), 2004, Departmental Manual 516 DM 13. Available on the 

Internet as of August 2017: https://elips.doi.gov/ELIPS/DocView.aspx?id=1725.

Emme, D., 2015, Wyoming Department of Environment Quality/Air Quality Division, Personal 

communications regarding NOX exposure at the Belle Ayr Mine. December 23, 2015. 
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-4

Document not available on the Internet. Electronic copy available on request from 

OSMRE.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1974, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise 

Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 

Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2010, National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016a, National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016b, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program. 

Available from website on the Internet as of January 2017: https://www.epa.gov/toxicsrelease-inventory-tri-program/tri-basic-data-files-calendar-years-1987-2015. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks: 1990 – 2014. Available on the Internet as of December 2016: 

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2016-

Main-Text.pdf.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017b, Current Nonattainment Counties for All 

Criteria Pollutants, as of January 30, 2015, Listed by State, County then Pollutant. 

Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www3.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017c, Outdoor Air Quality Data – Monitoring Value 

Report. Available on the Internet as of April 2017: https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-airquality-data/monitor-values-report.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017d, EJ 202 Glossary. Available on the Internet as of 

April 2017: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ej-2020-glossary.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017e, The Process of Hydraulic Fracturing. Available 

on the Internet as of July 2017: https://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing/processhydraulic-fracturing.

ESCO Associates Inc. (ESCO), 2012, Results of Ute Ladie’s (ladies’)-tresses Surveys Belle Ayr 

Mine North LBA. Letter from David L. Buckner, Ph.D. to Mark Thrall, Belle Ayr Mine. 

September 3, 2012.

Government Publishing Office (GPO), 2005, Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 44/Tuesday, March 

8, 2005/Notices Powder River Regional Coal Team Activities, Notice of Public Meeting 
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-5

in Gillette, WY. Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-03-08/pdf/05-4420.pdf.

Government Publishing Office (GPO), 2007, Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 60/Thursday, March 

29, 2007/Notices Notice of Public Hearing, Notice of Intent To Begin Scoping, and To 

Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Available on the Internet as of January 

2016: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-03-29/pdf/E7-5734.pdf.

Government Publishing Office (GPO), 2008a, Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 207/Friday, 

October 24, 2008/Notices Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability. 

Available on the Internet as of January 2016: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-10-

24/pdf/E8-25454.pdf.

Government Publishing Office (GPO), 2008b, Federal Register /Vol. 73, No. 202/Friday, 

October 17, 2008/Notices; Notice of Availability and Notice of Hearing for the South 

Gillette Area Coal Draft Environmental Impact Statement That Includes Four Federal 

Coal Lease by Applications, Wyoming. Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-10-24/pdf/E8-25454.pdf.

Hydro-Engineering, LLC. Hydro-Engineering, 2011, Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring 

Organization, 30-year report. Document not available on the Internet. Electronic copy 

available on request from OSMRE.

ICF International (ICF), 2017, Belle Ayr Mine 2017 Annual Wildlife Monitoring Report. 

Prepared for: Contura West, LLC. Document not available on the Internet. Electronic 

copy available on request from OSMRE.

Keinath, Douglas A. and Catherine Schneider, 2005, Species Assessment for Loggerhead Shrike 

(Lanius Ludovicianus) In Wyoming. Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/wildlife/animalassessmnts.Par.94347.File.dat/LoggerheadShrike.pdf.

King, Kurt, 2016, Wyoming Department of Environment Quality/Land Quality Division, 

Personal communications regarding the WDEQ-LQD review process for Belle Ayr Mine 

permit amendment TFN 6 1/57. January 26, 2016.

Kolker, Allan, Quick, J.C., Senior, C.L., and Belkin, H.E., 2012, Mercury and halogens in coal—

Their role in determining mercury emissions from coal combustion: U.S. Geological 

Survey Fact Sheet 2012–3122, 6 p. Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3122/pdf/FS2012-3122_Web.pdf.

Lantz, Sarah J., Hamilton Smith, and Douglas A. Keinath, 2004, Species Assessment for Western 

Burrowing Owl (Athene Cunicularia Hypugaea) In Wyoming. Available on the Internet as 

of January 2016: 

http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/westernburrowingo

wl-sep2004.pdf.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-6

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc., (McVehil-Monnett), 2014, Air Quality Permit Application to 

Modify the Belle Ayr Mine. MMA Project Number 2578-13. Prepared for Alpha Coal 

West. Document not available on the Internet. Electronic copy available on request 

from OSMRE.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 1989, Handbook on 

Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Available on the 

Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www.osmre.gov/LRG/docs/directive490_NEPAHandbook.pdf.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 1999, REG-31 881-

Preparation of Mining Plan Decision Documents. Available from website as of January 

2017: http://www.osmre.gov/lrg/directives.shtm.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 2015, Annual Evaluation 

Report for the Regulatory Program Administered by the Department of Environmental 

Quality – Land Quality Division of Wyoming. Available on the Internet as of July 2017: 

http://www.osmre.gov/resources/bonds/BondsOverview.shtm.

Ogle, K.M., Kunze, M.D., and Reckentine, L.J., 2011, Cumulative Hydrological Impact 

assessment of Coal Mining in the Middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, WDEQ-CHIA-27. 

Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1301/ML13015A660.pdf.

Orabona, A., C. Rudd, M. Grenier, Z. Walker, S. Patla, and B. Oakleaf, 2012, Atlas of Birds, 

Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Available on the Internet as of January 

2016: 

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Wildlife/Nongame/WILDLIFE_ANIMA

LATLAS.pdf.

Shelanski, H. and M. Obstfeld, 2015, Estimating the benefits from carbon dioxide emissions 

reductions. Office of Management and Budget. Available on the Internet as of July 2017:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/estimating-benefits-carbon-dioxideemissions-reductions.

Smith, Brian E., 2003, Conservation Assessment of the Northern Leopard Frog in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. Available on the Internet as of 

January 2016: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012268.pdf.

Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath, 2007, Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-7

State of Wyoming Executive Office, 2015, Order 2015-4 Greater Sage-Grouse Core Are 

Protection. Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://will.state.wy.us/sis/wydocs/execorders/EO2011-05.pdf.

Thrall, Mark, 2015, Personal Communications regarding information needed for completion of 

the BAN Environmental Assessment. October 20, 2015.

Travsky, Amber and Dr. Gary P. Beauvais 2005, Species Assessment for the Ferruginous Hawk 

(Buteo Regalis) in Wyoming. Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/wildlife/animalassessmnts.Par.1082.File.dat/FerruginousHawk.pdf.

TwinCities Pioneer Press, 2015, Southern Minnesota: Controversial coal train plan mothballed 

by railroad. Available on the Internet as of February 2017: 

http://www.twincities.com/2012/12/02/southern-minnesota-controversial-coal-trainplan-mothballed-by-railroad/.

U.S. Senate 2015, Clean Air Act. .Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www.epw.senate.gov/envlaws/cleanair.pdf.

U.S. Supreme Court, 2015, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46. Available 

on the Internet as of January 2016: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-

46_bqmc.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 

Manual. Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2010, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 

Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). Available on the 

Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/gp_supp.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2015, Jurisdiction determination letter from Kevin 

Little to Mark Thrall regarding wetlands at the Belle Ayr Mine. April 29, 2015.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2016a, Annual Coal Distribution Report 2015. 

Available on the Internet as of July 2017: 

https://www.eia.gov/coal/distribution/annual/pdf/acdr_fullreport2015.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2016b, Annual Coal Distribution Report 2014, 

April 2014 Version. Available on the Internet as of July 2017: 

https://www.eia.gov/coal/distribution/annual/pdf/acdr_fullreport2014.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2016c, Annual Coal Report. Available on the 

Internet as of July 2017: https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-8

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2015, Historic Conservation Campaign Protects 

Greater Sage-Grouse, USFWS Press Release. Available on the Internet as of January 

2016: https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/historic-conservation-campaign-protectsgreater-sage-grouse.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2016, Counties in Northern Long-eared Bat Range. 

Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/documents/NLEBRangeCountyL

ist043015.xls.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2017a, List of threatened and endangered species that 

may occur in your proposed project location. Available on the Internet as of August

2017: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2017b, ECOS / Species Profile for Blowout penstemon 

(Penstemon haydenii). Available on the Internet as of August 2017: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q2EX.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2017c, List of threatened and endangered species that 

may occur in Campbell County, Wyoming. Available on the Internet as of August 2017: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2017a, IPaC - List of Threatened and Endangered 

Species that may Occur in your Proposed Project Location, and/or may be Affected by 

your Proposed Project. Electronic copy only. Available on request from OSMRE.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2013. Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserve 

Base in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana, Fact Sheet 2012–3143. 

Available from website as of December 2016: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3143/fs-2012-

3143.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. National Climate Change Viewer. Available on the 

internet as of April 2017: https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/nccv.asp.

Van Voast, W.A., 1974, Hydrologic effects of strip coal mining in southeastern Montana--

Emphasis: one year of mining near Decker: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

Bulletin 93, 24 p.

Van Voast, W. A. and Hedges, R.B. 1975. Hydrogeologic aspects of existing and proposed strip 

coal mines near Decker, southeastern Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

Bulletin 97, 31 p.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), 2012, 

Wyoming Wildfire Exceptional Event Demonstration June 26, 2012- July 5, 2012. 

Available on the Internet as of January 2017: 

http://deq.wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Air%20Quality/Monitoring/Exceptional%20Ev

ents/2012-0701.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-9

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), 2015,

WDEQ-AQD approval of BAM Air Quality Permit No. P0014896. Electronic copy only. 

Available on request from OSMRE.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality- Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), 2016a, 

Current Rules & Regulations, Chapter 2: Ambient Standards. Available from website as 

of February 2017: http://deq.wyoming.gov/admin/resources/rules-regs/.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality- Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), 2016b, 

Request for Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plan for Attainment in the 

Particulate Matter Moderate Nonattainment Area Sheridan, Wyoming. Available from 

website as of February 2017: 

http://deq.wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Air%20Quality/Rule%20Development/Propos

ed%20Rules%20and%20Regulations/City%20of%20Sheridan%20Nonattainment%20Redes

ignation%20Request_11.18.16_Public%20Comment%20Draft.pdf_PM25-and-PM10-

Exceedances-Due-to-Wildfire-in-June-July.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2012, 

Environmental Protection Performance Standards for Surface Coal Mining Operations. 

http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/8882.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2014, 

Bond Release Categories And Submittal Procedures For Coal Mines. Available on the 

Internet as of January 2016: 

http://deq.wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Land%20Quality/Guidelines/Guidelines20_Coal-Bond-Release-guide-20.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2015a, 

Chapter 11, Self-Bonding Program. Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/4770.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2015b, 

Notice of substitution requirement of Self-bond No. SBC 128 for Permit No. 214 (Belle 

Ayr Mine). Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

https://eqc.wyo.gov/Public/ViewPublicDocument.aspx?DocumentId=10921.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2015c, 

GUIDELINE NO. 8, Hydrology. Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://deq.wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Land%20Quality/Guidelines/Guidelines08_Hydrology-Coal-and%20Noncoal-Guide-8.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division (WDEQ-WQD), 

2015, Chapter 2: Permit Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters. 

Available on the Internet as of August 

2017: https://rules.wyo.gov/DownloadFile.aspx?source_id=9763&source_type_id=81&do

c_type_id=110&include_meta_data=Y&file_type=pdf&filename=9763.pdf&token=13715

4168010112251023075038252050235157169217097.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-10

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division (WDEQ-WQD), 

2017, Produced Water Disposal & Treatment. Available on the Internet as of August 

2017: http://deq.wyoming.gov/wqd/permitting-2/resources/produced-water-disposaltreatment/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2009. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2010. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2011. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2012. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2013. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2014. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2015. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2016. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Secretary of State, 2017, Rules & Regulations – Chapters 1 (Wyoming Surface Water 

Quality Standards) and 8 (Quality Standards for Wyoming Groundwaters). Available on 

the Internet as of February 2017: https://rules.wyo.gov/Search.aspx?mode=1. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 2015, 2015 Big Game Job Completion Report for 

the Casper Region. Available on the Internet as of February 2017: 

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Hunting/Job-Completion-Reports/2015-Big-Game-Job-CompletionReports.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-11

WWC Engineering (WWC), 2017. GHG, Air Quality, and Socioeconomic Calculations located 

in Appendix E.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-12

6.2 Abbreviations/Acronyms

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

AQ air quality

AQI air quality index

AQRVs air quality related values

AQS Air Quality System

ASCM alternative sediment control measures

ASLM Assistant Secretary, Land and Mineral Management (DOI)

AVF alluvial valley floor

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BAM Belle Ayr Mine

BAN Belle Ayr North tract

BCC birds of conservation concern

BFO BLM Buffalo Field Office

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best management practice

BNSF BNSF Railway Company

BO biological opinion

Btu British thermal unit

CAA Clean Air Act, as amended

CBNG coal bed natural gas

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFO Casper Field Office

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CH4 methane

CHIA cumulative hydrologic impacts

CIA cumulative impacts area

CO carbon monoxide

COA condition of approval

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e Equivalent CO2

CWA Clean Water Act

dBA adjusted decibels, a logarithmic unit of sound levels

DFS Dry Fork Station

DM Departmental Manual

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EQC Environmental Quality Council

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FCLAA Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment (1976)

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-13

FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GDP gross domestic product

GHG Greenhouse gas 

GPO U.S. Government Publishing Office

GRSG Greater sage-grouse

GWP Global Warming Potential

H+ hydrogen ion

H2S hydrogen sulfide

Hg mercury

HAP hazardous air pollutants

ICF ICF International

in. inches

IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation

ISCLT3 Industrial Source Complex Long Term

LAC level of acceptable change

lb. pounds

LNCM lands necessary to conduct mining

LOM life of mine

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

MATS Mercury and Air Toxic Standards

MBCC migratory birds of conservation concern

MBCY million-bank cubic yards

MBHFI migratory birds of high federal

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended

Mg/L milligrams per liter

MLA Mineral Leasing Act (1920)

MMPA Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970

MPDD Mining Plan Decision Document

Mt million tons

Mtpy million tons per year

MW megawatts

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (1969) 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NOA Notice of Availability

NOI Notice of Intent

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOX oxides of nitrogen

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NWI Nation Wetlands Inventory

O3 ozone
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-14

OSMRE Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

PAP Permit Application Package

Pb lead

PBT bioaccumulative and toxic

pH power of hydrogen

PM2.5 fine particulates less than 2.5 microns

PM10 fine particulates less than 10 microns

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

PRB Wyoming Powder River Basin

PRPA Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009

PSD Significant Deterioration Program

PTE potential to emit

R2P2 Resource Recovery and Protection Plan

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision

ROW right-of-way

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SH State Highway

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP State Implementation Plan

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977)

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOSI species of special interest

STP standard temperature and pressure

TDS total dissolved solids

T&E threatened and endangered

tpy tons per year

TSP total suspended particles

TSS total suspended solids

UP Union Pacific

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USEIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compound

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

WAQSR Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WDEQ-AQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Air Quality Division

WDEQ-LQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Land Quality Division

WDEQ-WQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Water Quality Division

WDWS Wyoming Department of Workforce Services

WEQA Wyoming Environmental Quality Act of 1973

WET whole effluent toxicity

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 6-15

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

WRS Wyoming Revised Statutes

W.S. Wyoming Statue

WYPDES Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

WYNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity Database
APPENDIX A

LEGAL NOTICES

FOR FEDERAL LEASE MODIFICATION APPROVAL

WYW161248
Appendix A

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 A-1

Public Notice

Belle Ayr Mine Mining Plan Modification

Environmental Assessment

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement (OSMRE), Western Region Office will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) 

for the Belle Ayr Mine North Tract Federal mining plan modification (the Project). The Project 

was officially proposed by Alpha Coal West (ACW), a subsidiary of Alpha Natural Resources, 

Inc., on October 20, 2014. In accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), The DOI 

Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management (ASLM) must approve the Project before 

any mining and reclamation can occur on lands containing leased Federal coal. The Belle Ayr Coal 

Mine is located in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 10 miles south-southeast of 

Gillette. The Project is located on Federal coal leases administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Casper Field Office and located within and adjacent to the Belle Ayr Mine’s 

permit area, approved in accordance with the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. 

The lease and sale of the Federal coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA (WYW161248) was 

originally evaluated in the 2009 2009 SGAC EIS Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The coal 

was offered for sale in a sealed-bid, competitive lease process on July 13, 2011. Following 

determination by BLM that the highest bid at the sale met or exceeded the fair market value of 

the coal within the tract, the bid submitted by BTU Western Resources Inc. was accepted. The 

lease was subsequently transferred from BTU Western Resources to Alpha Wyoming Land 

Company, a subsidiary of Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., in July of 2012. The coal would be mined 

using conventional surface-mining methods and shipped from an onsite railroad loading facility to 

various sites within the United States. On June 11, 2014, the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ)/Land Quality Division (LQD) approved ACW’s application to 

amend the Mine Permit No. 214-T8 to include approximately 976 acres of the Federal coal lease 

area within the existing and approved Belle Ayr Mine permit boundary. On January 28, 2015, 

ACW submitted an application to WDEQ/LQD to amend Mine Permit No. 214-T8 to include 

the remainder (approximately 695 acres) of the Belle Ayr North Tract.

OSMRE is preparing this EA to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the Project, 

pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Under 

the currently approved State mine permit approved in 2013, mining operations have disturbed 

12,091 acres and the proposed modification would add approximately 1,478 acres of disturbance. 

Since 2010, the annual production rate has ranged from a high of about 25.8 million tons (mmt) 

in 2010 to a low of about 14.4 mmt in 2014. Due to the uncertainty in determining the demand 

for coal, the EA will be prepared assuming that the average annual production rate would be 22.5 

mmt. Based on remaining coal reserves and the estimated future production rate; mining at the 

Belle Ayr Mine would be completed in approximately 2 years if the Project is not approved. The 

amount of federal coal to be added at this mine as a result of the Project is approximately 221.7 

mmt of which, approximately 218.2 mmt would be mineable. The approval would extend the life 

of mine by approximately 9 years.

This EA will disclose the potential for direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the environment 

from the Project. Further, this EA will update, clarify, and provide new and additional 

environmental information for the Project. Through the EA process, OSMRE will determine 

whether or not there are significant environmental impacts. If a finding of no significant impact is 
Appendix A

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 A-2

reached, the OSMRE Director will make a recommendation to the DOI’s ASLM on the proposed 

Federal mining plan modification and the ASLM will approve, approve with conditions, or 

disapprove the Federal mining plan modification, as required under the MLA. If the EA identifies 

significant impacts, an EIS will be prepared. 

OSMRE is soliciting public comments on the Project. Your comments will help to determine the 

issues and alternatives that will be evaluated in the environmental analysis. You are invited to 

direct these comments to: ATTN: Belle Ayr North Tract EA, C/O Lauren Mitchell, Western 

Region Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1999 Broadway, Suite 

3320, Denver, CO 80202-3050. Email: OSM-NEPA-WY@osmre.gov. Comments should be 

received or postmarked no later than October 10, 2015 in order to be considered during the 

preparation of the EA. Comments received, including names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the public record for this Project and will be available for 

public inspection. Additional information regarding this Project may be obtained from Lauren 

Mitchell, telephone number (303) 293-5028. When available, the EA and other supporting 

documentation will be posted at: http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/belleAyrMine.shtm
Appendix A

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 A-3
Appendix A

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 A-4
APPENDIX B

PUBLIC SCOPING AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY MAILING LISTS,

PUBLIC SCOPING and BAN EA REVIEW COMMENTS SUMMARIES

and

BAN EA REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE LOG

(INDIVIDUAL LETTERS RECEIVED HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED)
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-1

Mailing List

Name Title

Tribes

Ivan Posey Chairman Shoshone Business Council

Glenda Trosper Director of Cultural Preservation Eastern Shoshone Tribe

Richard Brannan Chairman Arapahoe Business Council

JoAnn White Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Northern Arapaho Tribe

Eugene Little Coyote President Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council

Conrad Fisher Northern Cheyenne Cultural Commission

Carl Venne Chariman Crow Tribal Council

Dale Old Horn Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Crow Tribe

John Yellow Bird Steele President Oglala Sioux Tribal Council

Roger Trudell Chairman Santee Sioux Tribal Council

Rodney Bordeaux President Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council

Terry Gray Cultural Resource Coordinator Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Ron His-Horse-Is-Thunder Chairman Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council

Tim Mentz Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Duane Big Eagle Tribal Council Chairman Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

Gordon Yellowman Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma

Joshua Weston President Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe

Joe Brings Plenty Sr Chairman Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council

Michael Jandreau Chairman Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Council

Albert Le Beaux THPO Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

Alonzo Chalepah Tribal Chairman Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

Bobby Jay Administrator Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

Matthew Komalty Chairman Kiowa Business Committee

Ruth Touhty NAGPRA Coordinator Comanche Nation

Edgar Bear Runner Oglala Sioux Tribe

Ruth Toahty NAGPRA Coordinator Comanche Tribe NAGPRA Office
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-2

Name Title

Russell Eagle Bear Rosebud Sioux THPO

Sam Allen Office of Cultural Preservation Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe

Joyce Whiting THPO Oglala Sioux Tribe

Anthony Addison Northern Arapaho Business Council

Wallace Coffey Chairman Comanche Nation Tribe

Lester Thompson, Jr. Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

Byron Olson Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

State and Local Agencies

Alan J Ver Ploeg Wyoming State Geological Survey

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Bill Radden-Lesage BLM WO320

Phil Perlewitz BLM-Montana State Office

Tom Bills BLM Buffalo Field Office

Chris Durham BLM Buffalo Field Office

Sarah Bucklin BLM Casper Field Office

BLM Library

Coal Coordinator BLM Montana State Office

Nate Arave BLM Powder Miles City Office

Coal Coordinator BLM Wyoming State Office

File Copy BLM-Wyoming High Plains District Office

Al Elser BLM-Wyoming High Plains District Office

Don Sutherland Bureau of Indian Affairs

Campbell County Conservation District

Campbell County School District 1

Campbell Cty Board of Commissioners

Executive Director Campbell Cty Econ Dev Corp

Fred Lawrence Carbon Recovery Technology

Russ Gilroy Central Files - WYHPD - BLM
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-3

Name Title

Russ Gilroy Central Records - WYHPD - BLM

Congresswoman Cynthia M. Lummis

Converse County Commission

Superintendent Converse County School District

Paul W. Musselman Converse Cty, Special Projects

Judy Smith CSU Library

Department of Energy

Devils Tower National Monument

Economic Analysis Division

Tom Langston Gillette Dept of Comm Dev

Steve Bullock Governor of Montana

Matt Mead Governor of Wyoming

Environmental Division HQ-USAF/CEVP

Tom Florich Medicine Bow National Forest

Bob Berham Meineadair Consultants

Monte Mason Mineral Management Service

Environmental Protection Specialist National Park Service - Air Quality

NPS

NPS - Air Quality

NPS Air Resources Division

NPS 2310

NWU Policy Research Inst

James Bennett Office of natural Resources Revenue

Karen Garza Office of Natural Resources Revenue

Mike Throckmorton Office of Natural Resources Revenue

Office of State Lands and Investments

Office of the State Treasurer

OPEC : Denver Region

Rocky Mtn Region Solicitor
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-4

Name Title

Ryan Lance State Land Commissioner - State of Wyoming

Wendy Hutchinson Thunder Basin Coal Company

Mayor Town of Wright

Laurie Hall U.S. Government Printing Office

Chandler Peter US Army Corps of Engineers

BLM US Department of the Interior

US EPA

US EPA Region VIII

Pat Carter US Fish & Wildlife Service

Ecological Services US Fish and Wildlife Service

US Geological Survey

US Senator John Barrasso

US Senator John Barrasso

Robin Bailey US Senator Mike Enzi

Jason M. Ryan - Business Analytics Director US Western Surface Operations

Melody Holm USDA Forest Service

BLM Cooperator Lead USDA-FS Douglas Ranger District

Jeff Sorkin USDA-FS Rocky Mtn Region

USGS Water Resources Division

Tamsen Hert UW Libraries

David Waterstreet WDEQ - Water Quality Division

Mark Rogaczewski WDEQ Land Quality Division

David Waterstreet WDEQ Water Quality Division

Jeremy Lyon WDEQ: Water Quality Division

Tim Stark WY Dept of Transportation

Dave Spencer WY Business Council/NE Region

Jim McBride WY Department of Education

WY Dept of Employment Research & Planning

John Corra WY Dept of Environmental Quality
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-5

Name Title

Kelly Bott WY DEQ Air Quality Division

Don Likwartz WY O&G Conservation Comm

Milward Simpson WY Parks & Cultural Res Dept

Pat Tyrrell WY State Engineer's Office

Joan Binder WY State Geological Survey

Sarah Needles WY State Historic Pres Office

Steve Furtney WY State Planning Office

Bill Schilling Wyoming Business Alliance

Natural Resources & Policy Section Wyoming Dept of Agriculture

Mark Gillette Wyoming Dept. of Transportation

John Emmerich Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Kyle Wendtland Wyoming LQD - DEQ

Darrell Zlomke Wyoming Public Service Comm

Harry LaBonde Wyoming Water Dev Comm

Businesses and Individuals

Kyle Wendtland Antelope Coal Company

Doug Downing Ark Land Company

Managing Editor Associated Press

Robert Stamp Belle Fourche Pipeline Company

Huntington Walker - Sr. VP Land Bill Barrett Corporation

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

BNSF Railway Company

Buckskin Mine

Dustin Bleizeffer Casper Star Tribune

Amy M. Atwood Center for Biological Diversity

Bret Jones City of Gillette

John Trummel Cloud Peak

Russ Hallcroft Cloud Peak Energy

Dick Turpin Cloud Peak Energy
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-6

Name Title

Cordero Rojo Mine

Defenders of Wildlife

Douglas Budget

Valerie J. Randall ENSR

Environmental Policy and Culture Program

Dennis McGirr Environmental Solutions Inc

Fdn for N American Wild Sheep

Laurel Vicklund Foundation Coal

Energy Reporter Gillette News-Record

Scott Child Interwest Mining Company

Joe Mehl Kiewit Mining Group Inc

John Corkery M&K Oil Company Inc

Bob Yarkosky Marston & Marston

Marion Loomis Mining Associates of Wyoming

Hal Quinn National Mining Association

National Wildlife Federation

Natural Resources Defense Council

P&M Coal

P&M Coal Mining Co

Peabody Energy

Petroleum Association of Wyoming

Shannon Anderson Powder River Basin Resource Council

Phil Dinsmoor Powder River Coal Company

Janet Pasque Resolute Wyoming

Rockpile Museum

Peter Morgan Sierra Club

Cathy Pruves, Technical Advisor Trout Unlimited

Union Pacific Railroad

US West Communications
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-7

Name Title

WildEarth Guardians

Mike Evers WWC Engineering

Matt Grant Wyoming Mining Association

Gary Wilmont Wyoming Outdoor Council

Niels Hansen Wyoming Stock Growers Assoc

Steve Kilpatrick Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Liz Philp Wyoming Wool Growers Assoc

Managing Editor Wyoming-Tribune Eagle

Land Department Yates Petroleum Corp et al
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-8

BAN Public Outreach (Scoping) Comments Summary

Comment Topic

Comment 

Date Water 

Quality

Air 

Quality Wildlife

Level of 

NEPA/

NEPA 

Process

Noise Reclamation/

Self Bonding Bankruptcy

Climate 

Change/

Global 

Warming

Economy Pro 

Mining Notes # of Comments

10/6/2015 1 1 1

10/8/2015 1 1 1

10/8/2015 1 1 1

10/8/2015 1 1 1

10/8/2015 1 1 1

9/25/2015 1 1 1

10/10/2015 1 1 1

10/9/2015 1 1 1

10/1/2015 1 1

Did not specifically address Belle Ayr 

expansion 1

10/10/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1

10/9/2015 1 1 1

10/7/2015* 3217 3217 3217 3217 3217 WEG template comments 3217

10/10/2015 1 1 1 1 1

3/15/2015 1 1 1

Did not specifically address Belle Ayr 

expansion 1

10/2/2015 1 1 1 1

10/6/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1

3218 3221 3220 3223 1 4 3 3220 6 9 3232

* Comments received over extended period
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-9

Comment Topic Count1 Percent Count2 Percent

Pro Mining 9 0.1% 9 20%

Level of NEPA/NEPA Process 3,223 20% 7 15%

Economy 6 0.04% 6 13%

Air Quality 3,221 20% 5 11%

Wildlife 3,220 20% 4 9%

Climate Change/ Global Warming 3,220 20% 4 9%

Reclamation/ Self Bonding 4 0.02% 4 9%

Bankruptcy 3 0.02% 3 7%

Water Quality 3,218 20% 2 4%

Noise 1 0.01% 2 4%

Total 16,125 100% 46 100%

1. 1 Count includes WEG comment template letters as individual comments

2 Count includes WEG comment template letters as one comment

Public Outreach (Scoping) Comments Categorized by Key Resource Category
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-10

Belle Ayr North EA Review Public Comments Summary

Water Quality Wildlife

Level of 

NEPA/

NEPA 

Process

Reclamation Climate 

Change Permitting

Against 

Coal 

Mining

Notes # of 

Comments

# Commenters

(Counting Each 

Commenter)

1 1

WGFD notes that the area provides 

seasonal habitat for wildlife and 

recommends reclamation efforts 

strive to re-establish productive 

habitat

2 1

No comment on project, updated 

point of contact, should only be 

addressed to the tribal chairman 

"Matthew Komalty PO Box 369 

Carnegie, OK 73015"

0 1

1 1 1

Comments on reclamation, bonding, 

and groundwater. 3 1

1 1 1

contains multiple comments about 

GHG/climate change analysis and 

insists that an EIS is required

3 1

1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 4
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-11

Belle Ayr North EA Substantive Public Review Comments and OSMRE Response

Commenter Comment Response Revision

Wyoming Game and 

Fish

"The proposed addition area provides seasonal habitat to 

pronghorn, mule deer, and a variety of songbirds and raptors. We 

recommend that reclamation efforts strive to re-establish 

productive habitat for wildlife.

We have no aquatic concerns pertaining to the mining plan 

modification."

As stated in section 4.10.1.2, general reclamation practices for 

establishing or enhancing post‐mine wildlife habitat at the BAM 

described in the Reclamation Plan of Permit PT0214 are in place.

No changes required.

No changes made.

Kiowa Tribe "Our office is in receipt of recent correspondence from your 

agency office regarding an EA for the Belle Ayr Mine North Tract. 

At this time the Kiowa Tribe has no comments to make on the 

project. However, please update POC information to reflect that 

all correspondence should be addressed ONLY to the tribal 

chairman. Upon receipt at the chairman's office, correspondence 

is routed to the appropriate department.

Matthew Komalty

PO Box 369

Carnegie, OK 73015"

Noted and OSMRE mailing list updated. The mailing list was revised to correct the 

Kiowa Tribe contact

Powder River Basin 

Resource Council

"Our organization remains very concerned about the reclamation 

status of the Belle Ayr Mine individually and combined with other 

Powder River Basin mines cumulatively. The mines have expanded 

with new federal coal leases but have not returned a 

commensurable amount of land back to the public through final 

reclamation and bond release. There remains doubt about 

whether the mines are meeting contemporaneous reclamation 

standards under SMCRA."

Section 2.3.1 of the EA provides a detailed discussion on 

contemporaneous reclamation. Table 2-1 provides a summary of 

the Project's reclamation status and bond release. Revisions have 

been made in EA to clarify this discussion. Chapter 4 includes 

evaluation of potential cumulative impacts, including surrounding 

mines in the Powder River Basin.

Text has been added to the end of section 

2.3.1 to update the discussion of 

contemporaneous reclamation.

"On page 2-3 of the OSMRE states that “It is important not to 

equate contemporaneous reclamation with final bond release.” 

While this may be true, it is also important not to equate 

backfilling and grading with permanent and sustainable 

reclamation as OSMRE does in its EA on page 2-4. The 

reclamation process must follow through to the end in order for 

it be contemporaneous (ongoing or continuous) with mining 

operations."

Section 2.3.1 of the EA provides a detailed discussion on 

backfilling and grading. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the 

Project's reclamation status and bond release. Revisions have been 

made in EA to update the contemporaneous reclamation 

discussion.

Text has been added to the end of section 

2.3.1 to update the discussion of 

contemporaneous reclamation.

"Additionally, we are concerned about the data and information 

cited on page 2-4 of the EA that 2,750 acres or almost 40% of 

disturbed acres are areas of “long-term mining or facilities.” The 

EA does not define what is meant by “long-term,” and the EA 

does not explain how the mine (or OSMRE) has determined that 

these acres are in fact not available for reclamation. Please 

provide additional detail about these areas and how OSMRE has 

determined them to be exempt from contemporaneous 

reclamation standards under SMCRA.

That said, we acknowledge the Belle Ayr Mine for having a 

proportionally greater amount of final bond release than some 

other mines in the Powder River Basin."

Revisions have been made in to section 2.3.1 of the EA to clarify 

long-term facilities and to caveat the use of bond release as a 

measure of reclamation success.

The 5th paragraph of section 2.3.1 has been 

revised to clarify the meaning of long-term 

activities.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-12

"We appreciate the efforts OSMRE and DOI, along with your 

attorneys, have taken to hold the mine operator accountable and 

require sufficient bonding through the bankruptcy and mine 

permit/ coal lease transfer process. The Belle Ayr Mine has 

replaced all of its uncollateralized self-bonds to guarantee 

reclamation work – an action which will better protect the public 

from any liability associated with a weak and uncertain coal 

market.

However, the statement on page 2-3 of the EA is incorrect (at 

least to our knowledge) as the Belle Ayr Mine still has self-bonds 

collateralized by real property assets and therefore does not have 

third-party surety bonds for the entire reclamation bond amount. 

While the real property backed bonds are less risky than bonds 

backed by equipment and machinery (bonds the operator has 

committed to replacing with third-party sureties), they are still 

technically self-bonds (just with collateral backing)."

Revisions have been made in EA to clarify this discussion. The 3rd paragraph of section 2.3.1 has been 

revised to update the bond amount and to 

revise the surety bond discussion.

"Our organization remains very concerned about groundwater

drawdown in and around the Powder River Basin mines, including 

the Belle Ayr Mine. We appreciate the updated information on 

groundwater drawdown in the EA on pages 3-17 to 3-19 (and 

also in Chapter 4), including information that CBM development 

in the area has stopped. We look forward to future information 

about groundwater recharge post-CBM and better information 

about the mine’s contributions to changes in the coal 

potentiometric surface and flow patterns. This information is 

critical to assessing whether the mine – individually or 

cumulatively with neighboring mines – is causing material damage 

to the hydrologic balance."

No revisions were made to the EA to address this portion of the 

comment. Section 4.5.1.2 provides information regarding the 

groundwater drawdown and potential cumulative impacts 

associated with other area mines in the Powder River Basin and 

states on page 4-33 that "Where the effects of pumping from 

Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines overlap, 

additional water level declines would result from concurrent 

operations.

The text in section 4.5.1.2 of the EA will be revised to add a 

discussion on the impacts of CBNG dewatering within the Duck 

Nest Creek watershed.

The 2nd paragraph of section 4.5.1.2 has been 

revised as indicated in the response.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-13

Sierra Club/Center 

for Biological 

Diversity

"OSM must analyze and disclose the reasonably foreseeable 

direct, indirect, and cumulative climate impacts of the proposed 

mining, and evaluate the “significance” of these impacts. 40 C.F.R. 

§§ 1508.7, 1502.16.

OSM cannot attempt to meet this obligation merely by comparing 

project level carbon dioxide emissions to national greenhouse gas 

emissions. Here, OSM quantified the 34 million tons of carbon 

dioxide emissions that would result from mining, shipping, and 

burning Belle Ayr coal each year. EA at 4-22. OSM then 

concluded that “[b]cause emissions would . . . represent only 0.59 

percent of the projected 2020 U.S. CO2 emissions, impacts 

would be potentially detectable but slight.” EA at 4-23.

This limited approach fails to provide the public and decisionmakers with meaningful information on climate change and fails to 

follow clear instruction from the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ), which promulgates NEPA regulations and 

guidance. In August 2016, the CEQ issued guidance to assist 

federal agencies in analyzing climate impacts of their actions under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).2 Although the 

CEQ Climate Guidance has been “withdrawn for further 

consideration,” 82 Fed. Reg. 16,576 (April 5, 2017), the underlying 

requirement to consider climate change impacts under NEPA has 

not changed.

OSM’s approach to evaluating the significance of the climate 

impacts of its decision is precisely the kind of limited analysis that 

CEQ specifically directed agencies not to do:

Therefore, a statement that emissions from a proposed Federal 

action represent only a small fraction of global emissions is 

essentially a statement about the nature of the climate change 

challenge, and is not an appropriate basis for deciding whether or 

to what extent to consider climate change impacts under NEPA. 

Moreover, these comparisons are also not an appropriate method 

for characterizing the potential impacts associated with a 

proposed action and its alternatives and mitigations because this 

approach does not reveal anything beyond the nature of the 

climate change challenge itself: the fact that diverse individual 

sources of emissions each make a relatively small addition to 

global atmospheric GHG concentrations that collectively have a 

large impact.

CEQ Climate Guidance at 11 (emphasis added). OSM cannot 

comply with NEPA merely by comparing the carbon dioxide 

emissions from its proposal with national levels of greenhouse gas 

emissions. OSM has the means to provide the public and decisionmakers with meaningful information, and OSM must do so before 

it approves the proposed mine expansion. As explained below, 

OSM has the tools that would allow it to evaluate both the 

amount and impact of greenhouse gas emissions that will flow 

from its decision to authorize the mining of an additional 221 

million tons of federally owned coal."

Text of section 4.4.6.1.1 and section 4.4.7.1 of the EA has been

be revised to update the discussions related to quantifying direct 

and indirect GHG emissions in the context of state and national 

emission.

The 1st paragraph of section 4.4.6.1.1 has 

been revised as indicated in the response.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-14

"OSM’s EA entirely fails to address the key climate question: 

whether there is a measurable difference in greenhouse gas 

emissions between approving and rejecting this 220 million ton 

mine expansion. OSM must answer this question in order to 

make an informed decision here. Without such an answer, neither 

OSM nor the public can adequately distinguish between the 

climate impacts of the Action and No Action alternatives. OSM’s 

current approach quietly dodges responsibility for any 

contribution to the climate problem. But NEPA requires federal 

agencies to study and disclose the effects of their decisions; it 

does not permit them to leave key questions silently unanswered. 

Quantifying emissions from the fifth largest coal mine in the U.S. 

is not enough. Because OSM could answer this fundamental 

question about the effects of its decision, but has not done so, 

NEPA demands more. By not even attempting to answer the key 

environmental question, OSM has failed to take the hard look that 

NEPA requires.

There is no doubt that agencies must provide a clear basis for 

choice among alternatives, and in particular between the climate 

impacts of Action and No Action alternatives. 42 U.S.C. §§ 

4332(2)(C), 4332(2)(E), and 40 CFR §§ 1502.14(f), 1508.9(b). In 

the context of climate change, OSM must at least analyze and 

disclose the difference in greenhouse gas emission levels between 

alternatives. Among other clear directives, CEQ reaffirmed the 

bedrock principles that an agency must present its climate analysis 

“in clear terms and with sufficient information to make a 

reasoned choice between no action and other alternatives” and 

that it is the agency’s obligation to “ensure the professional and 

scientific integrity” of its analysis. CEQ Climate Guidance at 10 

(citing 40 CFR § 1500.1, 1502.24).

Here OSM admits that “[f]rom 2009 through 2016, all coal mined 

at the [Belle Ayr North] was burned in power plants,” EA at 4-24, 

and OSM quantifies carbon dioxide emissions that will result from 

burning the Belle Ayr North coal in coal-fired power plants.3 Yet 

OSM never addresses whether approving or rejecting the 220 

million tons of coal at stake here would change those 

downstream greenhouse emissions from coal-fired power plants. 

The closest OSM gets is to acknowledge, as of course it must, 

that under the No Action alternative, “CO2e emissions from coal 

mined at the [Belle Ayr Mine] would decrease . . . based on 10.4-

fewer years of combustion of [Belle Ayr Mine] coal.” EA at 4-23. 

But stating that less Belle Ayr North coal would be burned is not 

the same as analyzing whether less coal overall would be burned.

Moreover, OSM here expressly adopts the 2009 South Gillette 

Final EIS prepared by BLM that purported to analyze the climate 

impacts of four coal mines in Wyoming, including the Belle Ayr 

North coal covered in this proposed mine plan amendment. As 

OSM explains: “[b]because the 2009 [South Gillette] EIS 

thoroughly described the environmental setting of the Belle Ayr 

Mine operations, it tiers to and is incorporates [sic] by reference 

According to CEQ guidance, you "may contrast the impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives with the current condition and 

expected future condition in the absence of the project" (underline 

added - CEQ 2005). Therefore, the No Action Alternative was 

evaluated under the assumption that power companies would 

make up for the loss of coal provided by the Belle Ayr Mine by 

finding alternative sources for the coal. Any additional analysis of 

the use of coal from other mines within or outside of the U.S. at 

power plants is outside the scope of this EA. OSMRE is tiering to 

the SGAC 2009 EIS pursuant to CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1502.20 

which states that, "Agencies are encouraged to tier their 

environmental impact statements to eliminate repetitive 

discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues 

ripe for decision at each level of environmental review (§1508.28). 

Whenever a broad environmental impact statement has been 

prepared (such as a program or policy statement) and a 

subsequent statement or environmental assessment is then 

prepared on an action included within the entire program or policy 

(such as a site specific action) the subsequent statement or 

environmental assessment need only summarize the issues 

discussed in the broader statement and incorporate discussions 

from the broader statement by reference and shall concentrate on 

the issues specific to the subsequent action. The subsequent 

document shall state where the earlier document is available." 

No changes required.

No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-15

in this EA.” EA at 1-8.

The problem for OSM, and the public, is that the South Gillette 

FEIS contains a deeply flawed view of how energy markets work, 

and this flawed view caused BLM to incorrectly assert that the 

decision to approve or reject the proposals, (which, again, 

includes the Belle Ayr North coal at issue here), would have no 

impact on the amount of coal mined, coal burned, or carbon 

dioxide emitted.

According to the BLM analysis that OSM expressly adopts in this 

EA:

It is not likely that selection of the No Action Alternative would 

result in a decrease in U.S. CO2 emissions attributable to coalburning power plants in the longer term because there are 

multiple other sources of coal that, while not having the cost, 

environmental, or safety advantage, could supply the demand for 

coal beyond the time that [the mines] complete recovery . . . .

BLM, South Gillette Area Coal LBA Tracts, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, at 4-120 to 4-121 (2009). Not only did OSM 

explicitly adopt the 2009 FEIS analysis in this EA, it was a 

cooperating agency in that 2009 FEIS. Id. at inside cover page."
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-16

"The assumption – that if OSM were to reject the proposal in 

favor of the No Action alternative, other coal mines would simply 

ramp up production to completely replace all 221 million tons of 

Belle Ayr North coal in the market – defies the most basic 

understanding of market economics, lacks any support, and fails 

to meet the standard of professional analysis that NEPA demands. 

Simply put: supply and demand matter. OSM does not get to 

ignore basic economic principles or remain ignorant of their 

effects simply because it would prefer not to own the climate 

effects of its decision to approve more than 221 million tons of 

coal mining and the resulting coal combustion. Under NEPA, 

agencies have a duty to “insure the professional integrity” of the 

analyses in an EIS, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24, and must present “highquality” information and “[a]curate scientific analysis.” 40 C.F.R. § 

1500.1(b). OSM’s adoption of the flawed “perfect substitution” 

assumption is illogical and unsupported, and its refusal to correct 

this error by adequately studying the market effects using 

available tools violates NEPA.

In the U.S. energy market – where coal, natural gas, wind, solar, 

and nuclear all compete for market share, where utilities can 

choose among these competing options on an on-going basis, and 

where utilities and grid operators can quickly alter the rates at 

which these commodities are utilized – price, supply, and demand 

interact in predictable ways. Although BLM and OSM assert that 

other coal mines “could supply the demand” if it were to reject 

the Belle Ayr North proposal, that statement fundamentally 

misunderstands how supply and demand works. Economic 

demand is not a fixed threshold that suppliers of a commodity will 

necessarily rise to meet; it is instead a relationship among 

economic parameters that ultimately lead to certain levels of 

consumption.4 As you restrict the supply of a good, price 

increases, and this in turn affects demand. As explained by Judge 

Posner, these “straightforward, intuitive premises” dictate that 

“[i]f quantity falls, price will rise . . . [i]f price rises, quantity falls 

because consumers buy less of the good.”5 In the energy context, 

that means that if OSM, BLM, or other federal agencies restrict 

the supply of coal, coal prices will increase. This increase in coal 

price will cause some utilities to switch from coal to a cheaper 

alternative. Because switching from coal to anything else – natural 

gas, wind, solar, geothermal or nuclear energy, etc. – results in 

decreased carbon dioxide emissions, this fuel switching results in 

quantifiable decreases in greenhouse gas emissions."

Where a choice of no action" by the agency would result in 

predictable actions by others, this consequence of the "no action" 

alternative should be included in the analysis." Therefore, OSMRE 

can reasonably assume that power plants under the No Action 

Alternative would seek additional suppliers to fulfill the needs of 

the plant. The EA does not rely on "perfect substitution" argument 

and quantifies associated impacts related to the Proposed Action 

to allow the decision maker to make an informed choice amongst 

alternatives (see Chapter 4 of the EA). A full-scale supply and 

demand market analysis is not required and is outside the scope of 

this EA.

No changes required.

No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-17

"As noted, OSM neither identifies nor answers the key 

environmental question posed by its consideration of the Belle 

Ayr North proposal. But NEPA does not allow OSM to simply 

stick its head in the sand and remain willfully ignorant of the 

environmental effects of its decision. NEPA affirmatively requires 

“reasonable forecasting,” and requires agencies to provide 

information that is “essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives,” where the cost of obtaining the information is not 

exorbitant. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a).

Here OSM chose not to provide any information on relevant 

market factors that might help explain why OSM believes in this 

perfect substitution theory. For example, OSM provided no 

information comparing Belle Ayr coal prices to the prices and 

availability of other sources of coal. OSM provided no information 

on shipping prices, existing reserves, sulfur or heat content of 

other sources of coal. OSM provided no mention of the 

relationship between supply, price and demand in the coal 

market, which are crucial pieces when evaluating the market 

effect of a decision to approve hundreds of millions of tons of 

federal coal mining, and must be evaluated by OSM here.

Notably, OSM’s analysis here directly contradicts the approach 

that CEQ recommended agencies take in looking at climate 

impacts. CEQ’s Climate Guidance, which articulated then (and 

still) controlling obligations under NEPA statute and regulations, 

specifically instructed agencies to compare the greenhouse gas 

emissions levels between alternatives in agencies’ NEPA reviews:

When considering GHG emissions and their significance, agencies 

should use appropriate tools and methodologies for quantifying 

GHG emissions and comparing GHG quantities across alternative 

scenarios.

...

[A]n agency should compare the anticipated levels of GHG 

emissions from each alternative – including the no-action 

alternative – and mitigation actions to provide information to the 

public and enable the decision maker to make an informed choice.

CEQ Climate Guidance at 10, 15.

Moreover, CEQ directs federal agencies to use the tools available 

to conduct the necessary study in order to distinguish between 

the climate impacts of various project alternatives:

When data inputs are reasonably available to support calculations, 

agencies should conduct GHG analysis and disclose quantitative 

estimates of GHG emissions in their NEPA reviews. These tools 

can provide estimates of GHG emissions, including emissions 

from fossil fuel combustion and estimates of GHG emissions and 

carbon sequestration for many of the sources and sinks 

potentially affected by proposed resource management actions.

CEQ Climate Guidance at 12. In correcting its error here, OSM 

cannot simply assert that emissions differences between Action 

and No Action alternatives would be uncertain. That sort of 

dodge is belied by the fact that these market and climate effects 

Per CEQ 40 Frequently Asked Questions # 3, "Where a choice of 

"no action" by the agency would result in predictable actions by 

others, this consequence of the "no action" alternative should be 

included in the analysis." Therefore, OSMRE can reasonably 

assume that power plants under the No Action Alternative would 

seek additional suppliers to fulfill the needs of the plant. The EA 

does not rely on "perfect substitution" argument and quantifies 

associated impacts related to the Proposed Action including GHG 

emissions to allow the decision maker to make an informed choice 

amongst alternatives (see Chapter 4 of the EA). A full-scale 

supply and demand market analysis is not required and is outside 

the scope of this EA.

No changes required.

No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-18

do not need to be uncertain, as evidenced by DOI’s statement 

that it will develop and use models to answer this question going 

forward. This question is only uncertain because federal agencies 

have often refused to do the necessary study. In fact, there are 

multiple energy-economy models that could supply OSM with the 

projected levels of emissions in comparing the Action and No 

Action alternatives for 221 million tons of coal at issue here. 

These tools are already widely used by private parties and federal 

agencies to evaluate market effects of agency proposals in the 

coal mining and energy sectors.

For example, OSM’s sister federal agency, the Department of 

Energy, has a computer model created by the EIA that has been in 

use since 1994, and it could be utilized by OSM here to undertake 

precisely the kind of analysis that would be useful to decisionmakers. EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) is an 

energy-economy model that projects future energy prices, supply, 

and demand and can be used to isolate variables such as changes 

in coal supply and variations in delivered coal price.6

Similarly, ICF International’s Integrated Planning Model has been 

used to evaluate these types of market responses to numerous 

federal proposals in recent years. Recent examples include, but 

are not limited to the following projects: EPA, Clean Power Plan; 

State Department, Keystone XL Pipeline; Surface Transportation 

Board, Tongue River Railroad; U.S. Forest Service, Colorado 

Roadless Rule; Washington Department of Ecology, Millennium 

Bulk Export Terminal."

"Courts have long recognized the connection between market 

impacts and environmental effects, and have set aside agency 

decisions for violating NEPA’s “hard look” mandate where the 

agency misunderstood basic economic principles or a third-party’s 

economic report. Both the Eighth Circuit, Mid States Coal. for 

Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 550 (8th Cir. 2003), 

and more recently the District of Colorado, High Country 

Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F.Supp. 3d 1174, 

1197-98 (D.Colo. 2014) have rejected similar unsupported, 

“illogical” assumptions of perfect substitution in essentially 

identical contexts. As the Eight Circuit explained:

[T]he proposition that the demand for coal will be unaffected by 

an increase in availability and a decrease in price . . . is illogical at 

best. The increased availability of inexpensive coal will at the very 

least make coal a more attractive option to future entrants into 

the utilities market when compared with other potential fuel 

sources, such as nuclear power, solar power, or natural gas. . . . 

[The railroad] will most certainly affect the nation’s long-term 

demand for coal.

Mid-States Coal. for Progress v. STB, 345 F.3d at 549. The Eighth 

Circuit then concluded that even if the “extent” of the increase in 

coal use was not reasonably foreseeable, the “nature” of the 

effect was, and that in this circumstance, “the agency may not 

simply ignore the effect.” Id. (citing 40 C.F.R. §1502.22).

The court in High Country Conservation Advocates, et al. v. United 

States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014) did not 

order the agency to use the Social Cost of Carbon protocol. 

Rather, the Court held that the agency did not offer non-arbitrary 

reasons why the quantification of the lease modifications’ 

contribution to the social cost of carbon were abandoned in the 

FEIS. The Court determined that the agency did not demonstrate 

that it took a “hard look” at whether using the Social Cost of 

Carbon protocol should not have been included in the FEIS when 

the protocol was included in the DEIS (Id. at 1191-1192). Section 

4.4.6 of the EA clearly includes the estimated direct and indirect 

impacts from GHG emissions related to the Proposed Action.

In Mid-States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd, a Colorado 

district court ruled that OSMRE failed to take a "hard look" a the 

consequences of a surface coal mine in Colorado and that 

OSMRE’s NEPA review ignored the “indirect” effects expected 

from this mine expansion. With regard to the overall NEPA 

assessment, Chapter 4 of this EA provides a rigorous evaluation of 

impacts and section 4.4.6 specifically evaluates the direct and 

indirect effects of the Proposed Action.

No changes required

No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-19

The Forest Service’s error in High Country is even more on 

point. The Forest Service in High Country, like BLM and OSM 

here, argued that “if the coal does not come out of the ground in 

the North Fork consumers will simply pay to have the same 

amount of coal pulled out of the ground from somewhere else—

overall [greenhouse gas] emissions from combustion will be 

identical under either scenario.” 52 F.Supp. 3d 1174, 1197-98 The 

court in High Country held that the Forest Service’s FEIS was 

deficient, concluding that the increased supply made possible by 

the Forest Service’s decision would “impact the demand for coal 

relative to other fuel sources” and that “[t]his reasonably 

foreseeable effect must be analyzed.” Id. at 1198.

Other courts have similarly invalidated agency decisions that fail 

to take into account the connection between economic 

information and environmental impacts. For example, the Ninth 

Circuit invalidated a timber sale because Forest Service 

misinterpreted economic reports supporting the sale, explaining 

that, “[i]inaccurate economic information may defeat the purpose 

of an EIS by ‘impairing the agency’s consideration of the adverse 

environmental effects’ and by ‘skewing the public’s evaluation’ of 

the proposed agency action.” NRDC v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 

F.3d 797, 811 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hughes River Watershed 

Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 446-48 (4th Cir. 1996)). 

See also Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 235 

F.Supp.2d 1143, 1157 (D. Wash. 2002) (“An EIS that relies upon 

misleading economic information may violate NEPA if the errors 

subvert NEPA’s purpose of providing decision makers and the 

public an accurate assessment upon which to evaluate the 

proposed project.”)."
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-20

"In addition to federal courts, the Secretary of Interior has 

recognized that opening up more federal lands for fossil fuel 

production could not only affect the amount of coal produced, 

but also the amount of wind and solar generation in our energy 

grid. That is why, in ordering a comprehensive study of the 

climate impacts of the federal coal program—since cancelled for 

political purposes—then-Secretary Jewell directed the 

Department of Interior to evaluate “how the administration, 

availability, and pricing of Federal coal affect regional and national 

economies (including job impacts), and energy markets in general, 

including the pricing and viability of other coal resources... and 

other energy sources.”7 The Secretary further directed the 

Department to study, “[t]he impact of possible program 

alternatives on the projected fuel mix and cost of electricity in the 

United States."8

More recently, in releasing a scoping report on the now-cancelled 

PEIS process, the Department of Interior – which OSM is a part 

of – acknowledged that the climate impacts of various alternatives 

for the federal coal leasing program are “largely contingent on the 

degree to which the substitute fuel sources are less carbon 

intensive (e.g., natural gas-fired generation or renewable 

generation) as opposed to similarly carbon intensive (e.g., nonFederal coal).”9 The Department acknowledged that this issue has 

not yet been studied and evaluated by either the Department or 

BLM, explaining that “BLM will develop and use economic models 

to assess these substitution dynamics and the impact they have on 

the costs and benefits of any changes.”10

Comment noted. OSMRE is aware of the programmatic federal 

coal lease EIS and since the analysis identified by the commenter 

was not completed OSMRE is unable to review any findings in 

relation to our EA.

No changes required.

No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-21

"Critically, every time these robust modeling tools discussed 

above have been used, they have documented market impacts. 

Most on point, the U.S. Forest Service recently documented 

impacts to wind and solar generation of a proposal that would 

open up approximately 170 million tons of coal on otherwise 

protected public lands in Colorado. Notably, that proposal 

entailed roughly 50 million tons of coal less than the one OSM is 

considering here. OSM should be well aware of this analysis, as 

OSM was a cooperating agency in that NEPA review.

In its analysis, using ICF’s Integrated Planning Model (IPM) version 

5.13, which most closely matches our current regulatory setting 

where the Clean Power Plan has not been implemented, the 

Forest Service concluded: “the mix of energy sources used to 

generate electricity changes, in response to increases in North 

Fork Coal Mining Area coal production,” resulting in quantifiable 

decreases in renewable generation (measures in megawatt hour) 

as a result of the proposal.11 The Forest Service explained that 

“[t]hese shifts in the mixtures of energy used to generate 

electricity, as well as the production of different types of energy 

will change carbon dioxide emissions.12 The Forest Service 

concluded that the proposal would result in an additional 130 

million tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the 

proposal, when compared to the No Action alternative based on 

IPM version 5.13.13

Understanding the market and climate impacts of a decision to 

approve or reject massive coal mine expansions like the one at 

issue here is essential to making an informed decision. In order to 

comply with NEPA, OSM must either use available tools to 

provide that essential information or explain why it could not do 

so. OSM has done neither. Under the applicable regulations, the 

agency “shall” explain in its EIS (1) why such essential information 

is incomplete or unavailable; (2) its relevance to reasonably 

foreseeable impacts; (3) a summary of existing science on the 

topic; and (4) the agency’s evaluation based on any generally 

accepted theoretical approaches. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b).

In order to fully understand the climate impacts of its proposal, 

OSM must use one of the available climate energy models to 

evaluate market changes. Without using available tools to 

compare the greenhouse gas emission levels between Action and 

No Action, OSM cannot make an informed decision or take the 

hard look NEPA requires.

It should be noted that 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b) is specific to 

Environmental Impact Statements. As described in 40 CFR 1508.9 

(Environmental Assessments), an environmental assess "Means a 

concise public document for which a Federal agency is responsible 

that serves to: (1) Briefly provide sufficient evidence (emphasis 

added) and analysis for determining whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant 

impact." OSMRE believes that, regardless of the method of

evaluation, the EA provides brief, but sufficient evidence that the 

impacts from GHG are not significant. Full-scale modeling for the 

social cost of carbon using the ICF IPM or the EIA model is not 

required and is outside the scope of this EA. OSMRE, where 

appropriate and not overly speculative, included reasonable 

forecasting as in the case with the Air Quality and Climate Change 

discussion in Chapter 4 allowing the decision maker to evaluate 

potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action using 

representative or predicted emissions. 

No changes required.

No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-22

"In the EA, OSM asserts—incorrectly—that it simply does not 

have the means to assess the climate impact of the greenhouse 

emissions it quantifies.

It is currently not feasible to determine what effect GHG 

emissions in a specific area resulting from a specific activity might 

have on climate change and resulting environmental impacts. It is 

therefore not possible to associate any particular action with the 

creation or mitigation of any specific climate-related 

environmental effects.

EA at 4-24. Not only is this statement patently untrue, it is 

boilerplate stock language used by OSM in other NEPA reviews. 

See, e.g. OSM Spring Creek Draft Environmental Assessment at 

4-15 (2016) (repeating quoted language verbatim).

OSM’s assertion that it does not have tools to assess climate 

impacts from its decision is incorrect. The social cost of carbon –

a tool created by federal agencies and generally accepted in the 

scientific community – could be used here, as it would allow OSM 

to quantify and disclose the harm caused by that the project’s 

carbon dioxide emissions. The social cost of carbon provides a 

metric for estimating the economic damage, in dollars, of each 

incremental ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the 

atmosphere.14

NEPA specifically requires federal agencies to analyze and disclose 

the environmental effects of their actions, including “ecological . . . 

aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic [and] health” impacts. 40 

C.F.R. § 1508.8. Where “information relevant to reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained 

because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the 

means to obtain it are not known,” NEPA regulations direct 

agencies to evaluate a project’s impacts “based upon theoretical 

approaches or research methods generally accepted in the 

scientific community.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(4). The social cost 

of carbon is based on generally accepted research methods and 

years of peer-reviewed scientific and economic studies. It is a 

simple tool that is easy for federal agencies to use and easy for 

the public to understand.15 Putting a dollar figure on each ton of 

CO2 emitted as a result of a federal project places climate 

impacts in a context that both decision makers and the public can 

readily comprehend. The social cost of carbon is backed by years 

of peer reviewed scientific and economic research, it is designed 

to be updated to reflect the most up-to-date information, and it 

has already been used by federal agencies in both rulemaking 

decisions and project-level reviews under NEPA.

Although President Trump recently disbanded the IWG and 

rescinded its Technical Support Document – he did so on 

political, not scientific grounds.16 The President’s Executive 

Order directed federal agencies to refer to OMB Circular A-4 

when evaluating greenhouse gas emission impacts from federal 

regulations. Circular A-4 instructs agencies to account for both 

the costs and benefits and to account for global impacts when 

The information in the EA disclosing the employment and 

payments from coal mining were included based on the current 

market value and employment. Text has been added to section 

4.4.7.1 to clarify why OSMRE determined that a social cost of 

carbon (SCC) analysis was not necessary for this project. 

The court in High Country Conservation Advocates, et al. v. United 

States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014) did not 

order the agency to use the Social Cost of Carbon protocol. 

Rather, the Court held that the agency did not offer non-arbitrary 

reasons why the quantification of the lease modifications’ 

contribution to the social cost of carbon were abandoned in the 

FEIS. The Court determined that the agency did not demonstrate 

that it took a “hard look” at whether using the Social Cost of 

Carbon protocol should not have been included in the FEIS when 

the protocol was included in the DEIS (Id. at 1191-1192).

Section 4.4.7.1 has been revised to clarify 

why social cost of carbon was not utilized for 

this NEPA evaluation.

Section 4.17.1.2 has been revised to indicate 

that state and federal revenues could be 

unaffected by the No Action Alternative if 

power plants get coal from alternative sources 

or if the BAM supplies coal to power plants 

from non-federal coal supplies.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214B-23

evaluating impacts “likely to have effects” outside the U.S.17 The 

social cost of carbon allows OSM to evaluate those impacts here. 

There is nothing about the science behind the social cost of 

carbon that makes it more applicable in the regulatory setting 

than to project-level NEPA processes, and thus its specific 

application in the regulatory context does not detract from its 

utility here.

Moreover, federal agencies’ obligation to analyze the costs 

associated with greenhouse gas emissions through NEPA was 

directly affirmed by the court in High Country Conservation 

Advocates v. U.S. Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D.Colo. 

2014). In its decision, the court identified the social cost of 

carbon protocol as a tool to “quantify a project’s contribution to 

costs associated with global climate change.” Id. at 1190. After 

rejecting the agency’s excuses for not using the tool, the court 

concluded: “[t]he critical importance of [climate change] . . . tells 

me that a ‘hard look’ has to include a ‘hard look’ at whether this

tool, however imprecise it might be, would contribute to a more 

informed assessment of the impacts than if it were simply 

ignored.” Id. at 1193. The same is true here.

Nor can the agency tout the benefits of coal development 

without similarly disclosing the costs. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.23. 

Here, as is often the case, federal agencies reviewing coal leasing 

proposals tout the economic benefits of the project—such as job 

creation or local taxes—while failing to discuss the costs. EA at E-

14. OSM quantified “future revenues added by the [Belle Ayr 

North] Tract,” including federal royalties, three different types of 

tax revenues, bonus bid payments, contributions to abandoned 

mine land funds. Id. Yet, as noted, OSM refused to make any 

attempt to quantify costs associated with its proposal. Although 

NEPA does not require agencies to prepare cost-benefit analyses, 

this type of misleading and one-sided analysis is expressly 

forbidden. See Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. 

Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 446-47 (4th Cir. 1996) (“it is essential that 

the EIS not be based on misleading economic assumptions”); 

Sierra Club v. Sigler, 695 F.2d 957, 979 (5th Cir. 1983) (agency 

choosing to “trumpet” an action’s benefits has a duty to disclose 

its costs).

Finally, if OSM truly believes that other mines would simply ramp 

up production to fully replace Belle Ayr coal in the market, then 

OSM cannot simultaneously refuse to apply that same logic to its 

evaluation of the economic benefits of its decision. Essentially, 

OSM discounts the climate harms as ‘likely to happen anyway’ but 

treats the benefits as incremental additions. OSM does not 

acknowledge that, under its theory, for example, the taxes and 

royalties it touts as benefits of its decision would largely accrue 

anyway since production would just occur elsewhere. OSM wants 

to take responsibility for the benefits while disavowing 

responsibility for the harms. This misleading and internally-

inconsistent analysis must be discarded."
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-24

"OSM must consider the urgent need to cut carbon emissions to 

combat climate change in accordance with our international 

commitments and scientific consensus regarding the urgent need 

to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the very near 

term. One of the measuring standards available to the agency for 

analyzing the magnitude and severity of OSM-related fossil fuel 

emissions is by applying those emissions to the remaining global 

carbon budget. A “carbon budget” offers a cap on the remaining 

stock of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted while still keeping 

global average temperature rise below scientifically-backed 

warming thresholds—beyond which climate change impacts may 

result in sever and irreparable harm to the biosphere and 

humanity. Utilizing carbon budgets would offer OSM a 

methodology for analyzing how the proposed mine expansion and 

the continued coal combustion from the Belle Ayr North may 

affect the country’s ability to meet its national and international 

greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

As the Department of Interior recently explained, a “central 

objective to the BLM’s reform effort for the Federal coal program 

is consideration of the effect of the program on, and alternatives 

for alignment with, US climate goals.” Department of Interior, 

Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS Scoping Report at 6-13. 

The fact that President Trump ordered the Department of 

Interior to abandon that review on political grounds does not 

relieve OSM and other federal agencies of the obligation to take a 

hard look at the climate impacts of their decisions, including by 

examining how agency decisions align with U.S. climate objectives. 

Here OSM has made no attempt to align its decision with stillbinding U.S. climate reduction goals, nor has OSM assessed the 

severity of its emissions by discussing the diminishing U.S. carbon 

budget.

NEPA regulations mandate that federal agencies, “shall discuss any 

inconsistency of a proposed action with any approved State or 

local plan and laws (whether or not federally sanctioned),” 40 

C.F.R. § 1506.2(d), and require agencies to address “possible 

conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of 

Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the case of a reservation, 

Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area 

concerned.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(c).

In order to take the hard look at this issue as NEPA requires, 

OSM must acknowledge and address the extent to which the 

proposed action conflicts with our national emissions reduction 

goals and international climate commitments, including 

internationally-agreed upon carbon budgets.

It should be noted that 40 C.F.R. 1502 is specific to Environmental 

Impact Statements, as is 40 CFR 1506.2. However, with regard to 

the overall NEPA assessment, chapter 4 of this EA provides a 

rigorous evaluation of impacts and section 4.4.6 specifically 

evaluates the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action 

and Section 4.4.6 of the EA clearly includes the estimated direct 

and indirect impacts from GHG emissions related to the Proposed 

Action. 

Regarding carbon budgeting, a full-scale carbon budgeting analysis is 

not required to determine if significant impacts related to GHG 

emissions are occurring and is outside the scope of this EA. 

OSMRE, where appropriate and not overly speculative, included 

reasonable forecasting as in the case with the Climate Change 

discussion in Chapter 4 allowing the decision maker to evaluate 

potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action using 

representative or predicted emissions. 

No changes required.

No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-25

NEPA also requires a detailed analysis of “cumulative” effects, 

“the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 

1508.7, 1508.25(c).

Here OSM improperly refused to even consider cumulative 

climate impacts. The sum total of its cumulative climate section 

reads as follows: The analyses provided above include direct and 

indirect effects analysis for GHG emissions. Due to the global 

nature of climate change, and the difficulty therefore of predicting 

climate change impacts caused by an incremental increase in GHG 

emissions from specific actions separately or together, a separate 

cumulative impacts analysis for GHG emissions is not appropriate. 

All GHG emissions contribute to cumulative climate change on a 

global scale. However, it is not scientifically possible to determine 

the impact that would result on the global climate conditions 

from the emissions from this specific proposed action or in total 

from the emissions of other actions. As stated in 40 CFR 

1502.22(b), the variables involved in such an analysis would make 

this determination conjectural and not within the rule of reason. 

For this reason, past projects and other projects that may or may 

not be approved by OSMRE are not included in the GHG 

emissions cumulative effects analysis.

EA at 4-23 to 4-25.

This blatant dodge plainly violates NEPA.

“The impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is 

precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis that NEPA 

requires agencies to conduct.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 

Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 (9th 

Cir. 2008).

[T]he fact that climate change is largely a global phenomenon that 

includes actions that are outside of [the agency’s] control . . . 

does not release the agency from the duty of assessing the effects 

of its actions on global warming within the context of other 

actions that also affect global warming. Id.

Analysis of cumulative impacts protects against “the tyranny of

small decisions,” Kern v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 

1078 (9th Cir. 2002), by confronting the possibility that agency

action may contribute to cumulatively significant effects even 

here the impacts appear insignificant in isolation. 40 C.F.R. §§ 

1508.7, 1508.27(b)(2). See Grand Canyon Trust v. Fed. Aviation 

Admin., 290 F.3d 339, 342 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (evaluating the 

environmental consequences of a proposed action, the agency 

“must give a realistic evaluation of the total impacts and cannot 

isolate a proposed project, viewing it in a vacuum.”). Here OSM 

cannot simply punt because it thinks predicting impacts might be 

“difficult[].” EA at 4-23. Moreover, the factors in 40 C.F.R. § 

1502.22(b) do not excuse BLM’s failures here. 40 C.F.R. § 

1502.22(b) states that federal agencies “shall” explain (1) why 

such essential information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) its 

relevance to reasonably foreseeable impacts; (3) a summary of 

Section 4.4.7.2 includes a detailed discussion for the reasoning 

behind not including cumulative effects for GHG evaluations. 

Section 4.4.6 presents emissions related to the Proposed Action 

in the context of total U.S. emissions. OSMRE, where appropriate 

and not overly speculative, included reasonable forecasting as in 

the case with the Air Quality and Climate Change discussion in 

Chapter 4 allowing the decision maker to evaluate potential 

impacts associated with the Proposed Action using representative 

or predicted emissions. 

No changes required

No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-26

existing science on the topic; and (4) the agency’s evaluation 

based on any generally accepted theoretical approaches. 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1502.22(b). OSM has not gone through any of these factors, as 

NEPA requires, nor would doing so lead OSM to conclude that it

cannot reasonably estimate cumulative climate impacts of its 

decisions. Indeed, above we gave OSM two methods for 

evaluating the climate impact of its decisions, and these tools 

could easily be used in the cumulative analysis context. OSM may

not want to add up the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions that 

result from its past, pending, and foreseeable future approvals for 

coal mining on public lands, but NEPA does not allow it.

"In its short, two-page section on climate impacts, EA at 4-23 to 

4-25, OSM fails to appreciate the urgency of climate change. OSM 

characterizes climate impacts associated with the Belle Ayr Mine 

as “minor” and “short term,” which it believes accurately 

describes over a decade—10.4 years. EA at 4-24. However, 

climate experts disagree with OSM: we don’t have a decade to 

spare. At best, we have three years. A coalition of prominent 

climate experts, policymakers, and corporate leaders warns in the 

top scientific journal Nature that keeping the global temperature 

rise below 2 °C, as set out in the Paris Climate Agreement, will 

be impossible without major changes in the next three 

years.18,19 The Paris Climate Agreement remains legally binding 

to the United States and is an international commitment that will 

require urgent action before 2020 to honor. As explained in these 

recent studies, this timeline will make it possible to attain the UN 

Sustainable Development goals set out in 2015.20 Pushing back 

the year of peak emissions just five years to 2025 will make it 

infeasible to transform the global economy in time to forestall the 

devastating impacts of climate change.21

Using climate models, scientists have estimated the quantity of 

allowable global emissions to remain within a global temperature 

increase of 2 °C or lower compared to pre-industrial 

temperatures.22 This is our remaining global carbon budget, 

which has been estimated at around 1000 gigatons of CO2 

(GtCO2),23 or at most, 1050 GtCO2 this century.24 A lower 

bound for the carbon budget has been estimated at only 150 

GtCO2, also over the next century.25 By 2013, cumulative 

carbon emissions had amounted to 1970 GtCO2.26 In other 

words, when looking at cumulative carbon emissions since preindustrial levels, we have less than one-third of aggregate carbon 

emissions remaining before we will see a 2 °C temperature rise, 

and this is the most conservative estimate, giving us only a 67% 

chance of reaching the goal according to the largest carbon 

budget estimate available.27 In its EA, OSM failed to even mention 

the concept of a global carbon budget, nor the urgency of keeping 

global emissions within a strict carbon budget that is consistent 

with our international commitments.

The 1 °C of global warming humans have caused since the Global 

temperature and sea levels keep rising, reaching record highs 

The comment references the Paris Climate Agreement, which is an 

accord among 197 countries to reduce their greenhouse-gas 

emissions. The Paris Climate Agreement formally “entered into 

force” on 4 November 2016. The U.S. ratified the agreement in 

September , 2016 and the U.S. document entered into force on 

November 4, 2016. The agreement is considered a “treaty” under 

international law, but only certain provisions are legally binding and 

the agreement does not include binding emission targets (CCES 

2017). Under U.S. law, U.S. participation in an international 

agreement can be terminated by a president, acting on executive 

authority, or by an act of Congress, regardless of how the United 

States joined the agreement. However, the Paris Agreement 

specifies that a party may not withdraw from the agreement within 

the first 3 years following its entry into force (CCES 2017). 

With regard to the overall NEPA assessment specific to GHG 

emissions, chapter 4 of this EA provides a rigorous evaluation of 

impacts and section 4.4.6 specifically evaluates the direct and 

indirect effects of the Proposed Action and Section 4.4.6 of the 

EA clearly includes the estimated direct and indirect impacts from 

GHG emissions related to the Proposed Action. OSMRE, where 

appropriate and not overly speculative, included reasonable 

forecasting as in the case with the CO2 emissions discussion in 

Chapter 4 allowing the decision maker to evaluate potential 

impacts associated with the Proposed Action using representative 

or predicted emissions.

No changes required.

No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214B-27

once again in 2016. Global sea ice cover reached a record low, 

and mountain glaciers and the huge ice sheets in Greenland and 

Antarctica are on a trajectory of accelerating mass loss. More and 

more people are suffering from increasing and often 

unprecedented extreme weather events, both in terms of 

casualties and financial losses.28

Controlling global warming to a 2 °C increase is difficult enough, 

but in reality, keeping warming at or below 1.5 °C is ideal, since 

greater increases in temperature are associated with a higher 

chance of “crossing critical tipping points where major and largely 

irreversible changes...are triggered.”29 Achieving just the 2 °C 

target requires immediate action and leaves no room for 

continued coal leasing on federal lands.

Experts have made projections of where the world must be in 

2020 to keep global temperature rise below 2 °C. Within the 

energy sector, all coal plants will need to be in the process of 

retirement, and no new coal plants can be approved.30 Leasing a 

federal coal mine with climate impacts reaching to 2027 and 

beyond is inconsistent with where the United States must be by 

2020 in order to meet our climate commitments. Our current 

global rate of carbon emissions is highly unsustainable. At our 

current rate of emissions of 39 GtCO2 emitted each year, we 

could reach the lower bound for the world’s estimated carbon 

budget in just four years, and the mid-point estimate would be 

reached within fifteen years.31 Even the current intended 

Nationally Determined Contributions (“(I)NDCs”) pursuant to 

the Paris Climate Agreement are insufficient to meet the 2 °C 

goal.32,33

Deliberate climate leadership is needed, and now. Scientific 

simulations have shown that to fulfill the Paris Climate 

Agreement, “the effort required to close the gap between current 

conditional (I)NDCs and the 2 °C goal [falls] solely to the G8 and 

China.”34 Moreover, experts indicate moving away from coal by 

2020 is not only necessary but achievable. Demand for coal will 

have peaked by 2020.35 In addition, [m]ost governments and 

investors increasingly realize that there is no room for new coal-

fired power plants in the emissions budget implied by the Paris 

Agreement temperature limits: emissions from existing power 

plants alone would exceed the cost-optimal carbon budget by 

114%. Most governments are also beginning to recognize that 

reliance on coal (and gas) exposes their economy to price 

volatility on the global coal markets and decreases their energy 

security. These considerations, combined with increasing cost 

competitiveness of renewables, means that investment in new 

fossil fuel generation capacity is slackening off.36

Furthermore, the United States bears a disproportionately large 

share of the blame for anthropogenic climate change. The United 

States’ historical emissions debt (the difference between how 

much we should have been emitting based on population size and 

actual emissions) is extremely large. In fact, since 1960, “[t]he 
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214B-28

United States is a clear leader among debtor countries, with 

historical CO2 emissions that have consistently exceeded the 

world per-capita average” and carries the largest share of both 

carbon (CO2) and climate (also including methane, nitrous oxide, 

and sulfur dioxide) debt.37

In terms of countries that bear the greatest responsibility for 

anthropogenic climate change, the United States easily tops the 

list. In the period from 1990–2010, the United States alone was 

responsible for 32% of global climate debt.38 The country with 

the next greatest impact during the same period was Russia, 

which was responsible for only 10% of emissions, much lower by 

comparison.39 In total, our carbon debt by the year 2013 

surmounted 100 GtCO2, compared to just 3.1 GtCO2 owed by 

France.40 In any future global discussions about who bears the 

responsibility for climate change, such as the costs of mitigation, 

the United States could be expected to pay a significant amount 

relative to other debtor nations,41 potentially to climate creditor 

nations such as India.42

In the extreme case of the United States, [fully accounting

for both past and future inequalities] would entail both: (1) at 

least a 90% reduction in emissions by 2050, relative to 2005; and 

(2) an additional accounting for the more than 150 Gt CO2 

carbon debt that will have accrued against the United States by 

that time. And neither of these conditions are trivial. The US 

EPA’s own estimates of the social cost of carbon range vary 

widely, from $11 to almost $100 per tonne of CO2 emitted, 

based on various assumptions of the future cost and discount rate 

of climate damages associated with emissions. Even at the very 

lowest end of this cost range, the United States’ current 

cumulative carbon debt of 100 Gt CO2 is valued at more than a 

trillion dollars. 43

Several other published studies have estimated the United States’ 

portion of the global carbon budget based on various principles, 

each of which offers OSM a viable option for better evaluating the 

impact of the emissions from its decision to authorize the Belle 

Ayr North project. These studies allocate the remaining global 

carbon budget across countries based on factors including equity 

and economics. Estimates of the U.S. carbon budget reported by 

the four studies discussed below range from 34 GtCO2 to 158 

GtCO2, depending on the temperature target used by the study 

(1.5°C versus 2°C), the likelihood of meeting the temperature 

target (50% or 66% probability), the equity principles used to 

allocate the global budget among nations, and whether a cost-

optimal model was employed.

Using a non-precautionary 50% probability of limiting global 

warming to 2°C, Raupach et al. (2014) estimated the U.S. carbon 

budget at 158 GtCO2 based on a “blended” approach of sharing 

principles for allocating the global carbon budget across 

nations.44 The “blended” approach is midway between a non-

equity “inertia” approach in which sharing is based on current 
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-29

emissions, and an “equity” approach in which sharing is based on 

population and provides for equal per-capita emissions across 

countries.

Using a more precautionary 66% probability of keeping warming 

below 2°C, Peters et al. (2015) estimated the U.S. carbon budget 

at 34 GtCO2 under an equity approach and 123 GtCO2 under an 

inertia approach.45

Similarly using a 66% probability of keeping warming below 2°C, 

Gignac et al. (2015) estimated the U.S. carbon budget at 78 to 97 

GtCO2, based on a contraction and convergence framework, in 

which all countries adjust their emissions over time to achieve 

equal per-capita emissions.46 Although the contraction and 

convergence framework corrects present emissions inequities 

among countries over a specified time frame, it does not account 

for inequities stemming from historical emissions differences. 

When accounting for historical responsibility, Gignac et al. (2015) 

estimated that the United States has an additional cumulative 

carbon debt through 2013 of 100 GtCO2.

Du Pont et al. (2017) averaged across five IPCC-AR5 sharing 

principles (capability, equal per capita, greenhouse development 

rights, equal cumulative per capita, and constant emissions ratio)

to estimate the U.S. carbon budget through 2100.47 Using a 66% 

probability of keeping warming below 2°C, du Pont et al. (2017) 

estimated the U.S. carbon budget at 104 GtCO2eq (equal to ~ 69 

GtCO2) based on a cost-optimal model. Du Pont et al. (2017) 

further estimated the U.S. carbon budget at 57 GtCO2eq (equal 

to ~ 38 GtCO2) for a 50% chance of returning global average 

temperature rise to 1.5°C by 2100, which is the only target 

among the four studies just discussed that is consistent with the 

“well below 2°C” temperature target of the Paris Agreement.

Under any scenario, the remaining U.S. carbon budget consistent 

with limiting global average temperature rise to 1.5°C or 2°C is 

quite small and is rapidly being consumed. Keeping in mind

considerations of both equity and future costs, the United States 

must place cutting CO2 emissions as a pressing national priority 

to sustain its leadership role in the international landscape, which 

leaves no place for continued coal mine leasing on federal lands. 

OSM must take the threat of climate change seriously in light of 

the overwhelming research and evidence presented by climate 

experts. At a minimum, OSM must address this recent 

scholarship on the concept of carbon budgeting, which was not 

addressed by BLM In the 2009 South Gillette EIS or OSM’s 2017 

Draft EA, and evaluate how the direct and indirect greenhouse 

gas emissions associated with the Belle Ayr North project affect 

the remaining available carbon budget."

"NEPA “is our basic national charter for protection of the 

environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a). NEPA requires federal 

agencies to analyze and disclose the potential environmental 

impacts of a proposed course of action, as well as alternatives to 

that action, before committing to a decision.

OSMRE has reviewed the conclusions in the SGAC 2009 EIS and 

determined that the EIS is sufficient. This EA tiers to the EIS which 

is appropriate according to 40 CFR 1508.28 because the EA is “a 

subsequent statement or analysis at a later stage...” and excludes 

“from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe.” The 

No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-30

To that end, NEPA directs federal agencies to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (“EIS”) for each proposed “major 

Federal action[]” that could “significantly affect[] the quality of the 

human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); see also 40 C.F.R. § 

1501.4.

[B]y requiring agencies to take a ‘hard look’ at how choices 

before them affect the environment, and then place their data and 

conclusions before the public, NEPA relies upon democratic 

processes to ensure—as the first appellate court to construe the 

statute in detail put it—that the ‘most intelligent optimally 

beneficial decision will ultimately be made.’

Or. Nat. Desert Ass’n v. BLM, 625 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 

2010) (quoting Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. U.S. 

Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1971)).

In evaluating impacts, agencies must inform the public and 

decision-makers of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects “and 

their significance.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(a)-(b). Indirect impacts 

“are caused by the action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” 40 

C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). Further, agencies must “evaluate the severity” 

of adverse environmental effects. Robertson v. Methow Valley 

Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 352 (1989). To serve NEPA’s 

“twin aims” of informing agency decision makers and the public, 

this evaluation must be in terms that will meaningfully inform 

these intended audiences of the magnitude and consequences of 

these effects. Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 

462 U.S. 87, 106-107 (1983).

A thorough consideration of available alternatives is the “heart” 

of any NEPA analysis. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. Agencies must 

“present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the 

alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues 

and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the 

decision maker and the public.” Id. OSM must “provide full and 

fair discussion of significant environmental impacts” and “shall 

inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable 

alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or 

enhance the quality of the human environment.” 4 0 C.F.R. § 

1502.1. An agency’s “hard look” under NEPA thus must provide 

detailed analysis that will be “useful to a decision maker in 

deciding whether, or how, to alter [a project] to lessen 

cumulative environmental impacts.” Natural Res. Def. Council v. 

Hodel, 865 F.2d 284.8, 299 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Further, NEPA affirmatively requires “reasonable forecasting,” 

and requires agencies to provide information that is “essential to 

a reasoned choice among alternatives,” where the cost of 

obtaining the information is not exorbitant. 40 C.F.R. § 

1502.22(a); Scientists’ Inst. for Pub. Info. v. Atomic Energy 

Comm’n, 481 F.2d 1079, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1973)."

EA analyzed the site-specific impacts related to the federal mining 

plan. Rationale and findings are included in the FONSI. The analysis 

in the EA did not show significant impacts that would require an 

EIS. The determination of significance is based on the context and 

intensity as defined by CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1508.27. The 

significance of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to all 

resources is analyzed in the EA in Chapter 4, and the rationale for 

the conclusions reached is provided. For the reasons described in 

the FONSI, OSMRE has determined that there are no significant 

impacts. Therefore, an EIS is not required under this pretext. 

OSMRE completed a thorough evaluation of any reasonable 

alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EA. Chapter 2 

includes discussion of alternatives carried forward for analysis as 

well as alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed 

discussion in accordance with CEQ's regulations 40 CFR 1502.14. 

OSMRE, where appropriate and not overly speculative, included 

reasonable forecasting as in the case with the Air Quality and 

Climate Change discussion in Chapter 4 allowing the decision 

maker to evaluate potential impacts associated with the Proposed 

Action using representative or predicted emissions.

No changes required.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-31

"OSM appears to assert that indirect emissions from power plants 

may in fact be unknowable because some power plants, at some 

point in the future, may use a carbon capture technology that has 

yet to be discovered. In discussing the climate impacts of the 

proposed action, OSM concludes with a caveat: “However, 

specific end user locations are unknown and . . . emissions 

presented could vary depending on BACT used at plants.” EA at 

4-23. This excuse lacks merit and has rightly been rejected by the 

courts. “The agency cannot rely on unsupported assumptions that 

future mitigation technologies will be adopted.” High Country, 52 

F.3d at 1197.

Moreover, OSM never identifies what this BACT, or “best 

available control technology,” is, but presumably OSM is referring 

to some form of carbon capture and sequestration technology. 

Yet OSM, for good reason, does not identify a single carbon 

capture and sequestration plant operating in the U.S. Southern 

Company’s Kemper plant, supposedly the country’s flagship 

carbon capture operation, recently admitted that despite costing 

$7.1 billion to construct, it cannot afford to burn coal.48 OSM’s 

assertion is plainly untenable and must be removed from OSM’s 

final NEPA analysis."

OSMRE was simply stating that the CO2e emissions estimates 

included in the EA could be affected by changes to end users and 

implementation of BACTs in the future. The method used to 

evaluate CO2e emissions were sufficient to allow a determination 

that emissions would be moderate (not significant). However, the 

EA will be revised to clarify the statement.

The 3rd paragraph of section 4.4.6.1.1 has 

been revised to add a caveat to the CO2e 

emissions estimates discussion. 

"NEPA requires OSM prepare a full Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the proposed mine expansion instead of the 

more limited EA and unsigned Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) it has prepared thus far. This proposal is massive – the 

20 million tons of coal per year Belle Ayr North would generate 

would make it the fifth largest coal mine in the U.S. See supra 

note 1 and accompanying text. OSM’s proposed course is legally 

insufficient. The agency must prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) to fulfill its duties under NEPA.

NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS rather than a 

more limited EA for any “major federal action[] significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 

4332(2)(C). Agencies must prepare an EIS if there are “substantial 

questions whether a project may have significant effect,” Blue 

Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1212 

(9th Cir. 1998), and an agency “cannot avoid preparing an EIS by 

making conclusory assertions that an activity will have only an 

insignificant impact on the environment.” Ocean Advocates v. U.S. 

Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846, 864 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of coal mining 

and combustion associated with the proposed expansion will 

undoubtedly have a significant effect on the environment. The 

proposed expansion will assuredly result in the release of carbon 

dioxide into our atmosphere. When combined with other mine 

expansions, including those currently under evaluation by OSM, 

the proposal will undoubtedly result in hundreds of millions of 

tons of greenhouse gas emissions – making them significant by any 

measure.

A proposal may require an EIS if its effects are “likely to be highly 

No changes required. No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-32

controversial.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4). Increasing methane and 

carbon dioxide emissions by expanding coal mining into federal 

lands is particularly controversial at this time, as doing so may 

interfere with efforts to meet our international climate 

commitments and could make it impossible to keep global 

warming limits within manageable thresholds."

Wyoming 

Department of 

Health

"The WDH PHO and Campbell County Health Department 

reviewed the EA and the Finding of No Significant Impact {FONSI) 

documents. The WDH recommends the BAM mining plan 

continue to include any mitigation measures related to air quality 

such as those addressing particulate matter, CO, S02, Pb, NOX 

and 03 that are required in the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division Permit No. P0014896. 

Additionally, the commitments for controlling dust, included in 

the Permit Application Package {PAP) such as applying water and 

chemical dust suppressants to control fugitive dust emissions, 

should continue to be part of the PAP."

Belle Ayr Mine would be required to comply with all other 

approvals, grants, or permits necessary to implement their 

Proposed Action. Permit No. 90014896 is outside of OSMRE's 

jurisdiction. WDEQ is the regulatory authority for implementing 

and monitoring compliance with Permit No. P0014896. WDEQLQD approval commits the applicant to implementing the design 

features contained in the PAP. See Section 2.4.4 of the EA. 

No changes required

No changes made.

"As mentioned in the FONSI, all mine activities where potential 

exists for public exposure should be subject to state mine permit 

approval and Mine Safety and Health Administration review. The 

Proposed Action should continue to include precautions for 

public health and safety during transport of equipment along 

public roads to and from the EA project area."

Belle Ayr Mine would be required to comply with all other 

approvals, grants, or permits necessary to implement their 

Proposed Action. Permit No. 90014896 is outside of OSMRE's 

jurisdiction. WDEQ is the regulatory authority for implementing 

and monitoring compliance with Permit No. P0014896. WDEQLQD approval commits the applicant to implementing the design 

features contained in the PAP. See Section 2.4.4 of the EA. 

No changes required.

No changes made.

"Disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes should be in 

compliance with the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality-Land Quality Division Permit Number PT0214."

Belle Ayr Mine would be required to comply with all other 

approvals, grants, or permits necessary to implement their 

Proposed Action. Permit No. 90014896 is outside of OSMRE's 

jurisdiction. WDEQ is the regulatory authority for implementing 

and monitoring compliance with Permit No. P0014896. WDEQLQD approval commits the applicant to implementing the design 

features contained in the PAP. See Section 2.4.4 of the EA.

No changes required.

No changes made.

"In addition, coal recovery associated with this plan modification 

should not be allowed until the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division Mine Permit 214-TB 

amendment currently under review is approved."

WDEQ approved the permit modification on June 29, 2017.

No changes required.

No changes made.
Appendix B

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 B-33

Campbell County 

Wyoming

"Approximately forty percent (40%) of the nation's coal is 

produced from the surface mines located in Campbell County. 

Through existing rules, roughly forty percent (40%) of the selling 

price of every ton of coal is delivered in the form of taxes, fees 

and royalties to local, state and federal governments and over $1 

billion a year in royalties are generated for the United State 

Treasury. The added millions of tons of coal will extend the life of 

the Belle Ayr Mine by over ten (10) years and, when added with 

the existing mine operation, would generate nearly a billion 

dollars in vital federal, state and local tax revenue over the same 

period. The Belle Ayr Mine employs over two hundred and fifty 

(250) people with good paying, highly coveted jobs. Using a 3.5 

multiplier, 875 more indirect local jobs could be extended 

approximately 10 years if this permit is approved. The Belle Ayr 

Mine and its employees provide important support to regional 

human service and community agencies. In addition, the mine has 

demonstrated its commitment to quality reclamation, and is in 

receipt of national and statewide environmental, wildlife 

stewardship and safety awards."

Noted. Sections 3.5 and 4.17 of the EA describe the 

socioeconomic conditions and potential project impacts.

No changes required.

No changes made.

References included in response portion of the Comments Response Log:

Corner, A., Lewandowsky, S., Phillips, M. and Roberts, O., 2015, The uncertainty handbook-A practical guide for climate change communicators. Bristol: University of 

Bristol.

Dietz, T., 2013, Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 110(3): 14081-14087.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2010, Guidelines for preparing economic analyses. Updated May 2014.

Etkin, D. and Ho, E., 2007, Climate change: Perceptions and discourses of risk. Journal of Risk Research 10(5): 623-641.

Field, B.C., 2008, Natural resource economics: An introduction, second edition: Illinois, Waveland Press, Inc.

Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Social Cost of Carbon, 2010, Technical support document: Technical update of the social cost of carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis under Executive Order 12866.

Kotchen, M.J., 2011, Cost-benefit analysis. Chapter in: Encyclopedia of climate and weather, Second edition. Schneider, S.H., editor-in-chief. New York, Oxford University 

Press: pp 312-315.

National Research Council, 2009a, Informing decisions in a changing climate: Washington D.C., The National Academies Press.

National Research Council, 2009b, Hidden costs of energy: Unpriced consequences of energy production and use: Washington D.C., The National Academies Press.

National Research Council, 2010, Informing an effective response to climate change: Washington D.C., The National Academies Press.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2003, Circular A-4, released September 17, 2003.

Watson, P., Wilson, J., Thilmany, D., and Winter, S, 2007, Determining economic contributions and impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? The Journal of 

Regional Analysis and Policy 37(2):140–146.
Appendix C

APPENDIX C

AIR QUALITY MODELING FOR BAM PERMIT P0014896

McVEHIL-MONNETT ASSOCIATES, INC.

AIR QUALITY MODELING FOR CORDERO ROJO PERMIT #MD-9943

REDHORSE CORPORATION
Appendix C

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 C-1

Selection of Worst-Case Years - McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc.

WDEQ-AQD issued air quality permit P0014896 for the Belle Ayr Mine (BAM) on June 3, 2015, 

based partially on an analysis using emission factors, estimation methods, and model selection 

consistent with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)-Air Quality Division 

(AQD) policy. Fugitive and point source emission inventories for PM10 for the years 2014 through 

2031 were developed for BAM based on site-specific information provided by the mine. The 

resultant PM10 inventories were used to determine the years that would be modeled. Maximum 

PM10 emission rates were predicted to occur during 2016 and 2017, based on estimated emissions 

of 1,486 and 1,443 tpy, respectively. The selection of these years should ensure that the maximum 

potential PM10 impacts on ambient air quality are addressed. PM10 inventories for the mining 

activities at the BAM were modeled for all years in the currently anticipated Life of Mine (LOM). 

Fugitive emission sources, such as overburden and coal blasting events and truck dumps, and 

point sources, such as baghouse dust, were modeled using the Industrial Source Complex Longterm (ISCLT3) model to estimate average annual PM10 concentrations. McVehil-Monnett 

Associates, Inc. (McVehil-Monnett) reviewed regulatory modeling techniques to select the most 

appropriate air quality dispersion model to simulate dispersion of air pollutants emitted by the 

proposed project for a near-field air quality impact analyses (AQIA). Following WDEQ-AQD 

guidance, the ISCLT3 model was used in all modeling analysis (McVehil-Monnett 2014). The model 

evaluated overall maximum PM10 emissions resulting from mining activities at the Caballo, Belle 

Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines (middle group of mines).

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)-Air Quality Division (AQD) policy 

requires that the maximum PM10 and NOX impacts (during the life-of-mine) from all mine sources 

be identified and compared to the applicable air quality standards. Because it is not practical to 

model all of the years in the life-of-mine, years with maximum annual emissions from mining 

operations are determined and then modeled. Model results for these "worst-case" emission 

years are then compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. If the maximum impact 

is below the air quality standard, it can be assumed that the standard will be achieved throughout 

the LOM.

Impacts on ambient air from Belle Ayr (and other mines) are not solely dependent on emission 

rate. Yearly variations in mining activities, emission density, and pit proximity to “lands necessary 

to conduct mining” (LNCM) boundaries also influence ambient air impacts. As such, it was 

necessary to apply a set of semi-objective criteria to select as many "worst-case" years as practical 

for detailed modeling. The process involves a year-to-year comparison of fugitive PM10 emissions 

from the applicant mine. Annual fugitive emissions for each year are ranked and candidate worstcase years are further evaluated regarding their proximity to the LNCM boundary, as the LNCM 

defines the location of ambient air and therefore the placement of model receptors. If the distance 

between mining and the LNCM boundary is small, air quality impacts at the LNCM boundary can 

be more significant than impacts in years with higher emission rates that are further from the 

LNCM boundary. Therefore, special attention was given to those years when mining will be 

conducted in close proximity to LNCM boundaries.

The annual PM10 emissions from Belle Ayr and the other Middle Group mines are summarized on 

page C-3. Based on mine plan parameters, emission inventories, and discussions with AQD 

personnel, years 2016 and 2017 were chosen as worst-cases to be modeled. Year 2016 was 

selected as the BAM's highest emission year and the second-highest regional emission year. Year 

2017 was selected as the Middle Group's highest emission year and BAM' s second-highest year. 
Appendix C

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 C-2

Coal removal areas will be near LNCM boundaries during these years, with Caballo pits near 

their west and east LNCM, Belle Ayr pits near their west and northeast LNCM, Cordero Rojo 

pits near their west and northwest LNCM, and Coal Creek pits near their west LNCM. The 

selection of these years should ensure that the maximum potential PM10 impacts on ambient air 

quality are addressed.

The table on page C-3 summarizes life-of-mine NOX emissions from Belle Ayr. NOX modeling 

was performed for years 2016 and 2017; the years were selected as described above.
Appendix C

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 C-3

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. BAM and Regional Mines Annual PM10 Emission Summary (tpy)

Year Belle Ayr Caballo Cordero Rojo Coal Creek Total

2014 1,062 1,695 2,736 1,112 6,603

2015 1,097 1,435 2,506 1,097 6,136

2016 1,486 1,635 2,484 1,257 6,861

2017 1,443 1,732 2,470 1,234 6,879

2018 1,294 1,512 2,206 1,149 6,161

2019 1,112 1,574 2,164 1,210 6,060

2020 1,168 1,689 327 1,249 4,433

2021 1,281 1,618 316 3,215

2022 1,269 1,554 2,823

2023 1,262 1,611 2,872

2024 1,306 1,306

2025 1,350 1,350

2026 1,199 1,199

2027 960 960

2028 173 173

2029 138 138

2030 101 101

2031 61 61

McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. BAM and Regional Mines Annual NOX Emission Summary (tpy)

Year Belle 

Ayr Caballo Cordero Rojo

Coal 

Creek

Mainline 

Railroad

Power 

Plants Highways Miscellaneous Point Sources Total

2014 1,053

2015 1,090

2016 1,409 1,893 3,642 1,493 775 11,961 202 1,327 22,702

2017 1,373 1,887 3,726 1,434 775 11,961 202 1,327 22,685

2018 1,249

2019 1,082

2020 1,107

2021 1,194

2022 1,173

2023 1,165

2024 1,202

2025 1,280

2026 1,184

2027 1,049

2028 86

2029 89

2030 89

2031 89
Appendix C

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 C-4

Selection of Worst-Case Years – Redhorse Corporation

Redhorse Corporation (Redhorse) also conducted air quality modeling in 2016 for the Cordero 

Rojo Mine located immediately adjacent (south) of the BAM. Redhorse also used the ISCLT3 

model to estimate average annual PM10 concentrations for the years 2016 through 2035, for the 

Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines (middle group of mines) (Redhorse 

2016).

Because of the nature of surface coal mining, air emissions will vary from year to year, both in 

magnitude and location. Dispersion modeling was completed to evaluate compliance with air 

quality standards based on selected worst-case emissions years. Because it is not feasible to 

develop modeling for all mine years, two worst-case years were selected for modeling that 

represent the maximum potential for off-site impacts.

Off-site impacts are primarily affected by the magnitude of emissions from the mine, and the 

proximity of the emission sources to the ambient air boundary. The first worst-case modeling 

scenario was selected based on the mine year that had the maximum projected particulate matter 

emissions. From Table 5-1 of the Redhorse modeling report, the mine year with the highest 

projected PM10 emissions from Cordero Rojo Mine is mine year 2023. This mine year also has 

pit operations that are in close proximity to the western and eastern borders of the LNCM.

Therefore, mine year 2023 was selected as the first mine year for the modeling analysis.

Based on guidance from WDEQ personnel at a pre-application meeting held on May 16, 2016, 

one of the worst-case years selected should be based on the maximum projected cumulative 

PM10 emissions from all Middle Group mines and at least one of the one of the worst-case years 

should be within 5 years of the application submittal. An examination of projected emissions 

shown in the PM10 table on page C-5 shows that mine year 2017 represents the highest 

cumulative PM10 emissions from the Middle Group mines and is also within 5 years. Therefore, 

mine year 2017 was selected as the second worst-case modeling scenario.

Mine years 2017 were also used for the NO2 modeling analysis. These mine years represent high 

Cordero Rojo Mine and cumulative projected NOX emissions. Mine year 2017 is 99 percent of 

the maximum cumulative NOX emission year and mine year 2023 is 97 percent of the maximum 

Cordero Rojo Mine NOX emission year (see NOX table on page C-5).
Appendix C

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 C-5

Redhorse Corporation Cordero Rojo Mine and Regional Mines Annual PM10 Emission Summary 

(tpy)

Year Belle Ayr1 Caballo2 Coal Creek3 Cordero Rojo Total

2017 1443 1730 1231 1822 6226

2018 1294 1511 1146 1885 5836

2019 1112 1573 1207 1930 5822

2020 1168 1688 1247 1730 5833

2021 1281 1616 --- 2013 4910

2022 1269 1552 --- 2097 4918

2023 1262 1609 --- 2111 4982

2024 1306 --- --- 2100 3406

2025 1350 --- --- 2110 3460

2026 1199 --- --- 1786 2985

2027 960 --- --- 1779 2739

2028 173 --- --- 1283 1456

2029 138 --- --- 837 975

2030 101 --- --- 880 981

2031 61 --- --- 1058 1119

1 The Belle Ayr Mine plan includes mining through 2031

2 The Caballo Mine plan includes mining through 2023

3 The Coal Creek Mine plan includes mining through 2020

Redhorse Corporation Cordero Rojo Mine and Regional Mines Annual NOX Emission Summary 

(tpy)

Year Belle Ayr1 Caballo2 Coal Creek3 Cordero Rojo Total

2017 1373 1892 1493 2758 7516

2018 1249 1887 1434 2789 7359

2019 1082 1892 1248 2830 7052

2020 1107 1872 1365 2621 6965

2021 1194 1865 1426 3126 7611

2022 1173 1872 --- 3164 6209

2023 1165 1887 --- 3226 6278

2024 1202 1862 --- 3253 6317

2025 1280 --- --- 3331 4611

2026 1184 --- --- 2901 4085

2027 1049 --- --- 2910 3959

2028 86 --- --- 1861 1947

2029 89 --- --- 1241 1330

2030 89 --- --- 1340 1429

2031 89 --- --- 1722 1811

1 The Belle Ayr Mine plan includes mining through 2031

2 The Caballo Mine plan includes mining through 2023

3 The Coal Creek Mine plan includes mining through 2020
APPENDIX D

BAM SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES SUMMARY TABLES

FOR FEDERAL LEASE MODIFICATION APPROVAL - WYW161248
Appendix D

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 D-1

BAM Species of Concern

Group Common Name Scientific Name

Observed 

in Study 

Area1

Bird of 

Conservation 

Concern2

USFWS2 WY_BLM2 USFS2 WGFD2 STATE 

RANK2

GLOBAL 

RANK2

Amphibians Tiger Salamander Ambystoma mavortiumNo NA S4 G5

Amphibians Great Plains Toad Anaxyrus cognatus No NA NSSU (U); 

Tier 3 S3 G5

Amphibians Northern Leopard 

Frog Lithobates pipiens Yes NA Not Warranted for Listing (NW) Sensitive Region 2 Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 3 S3 G5

Amphibians Plains Spadefoot Spea bombifrons Yes NA NSSU (U); 

Tier 3 S4 G5

Birds Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis No Yes Not Warranted for 

Listing (NW) Sensitive

Region 2 

Sensitive; 

Region 4 

Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 1 S2B;S3N G5

Birds Western Grebe Aechmophorus 

occidentalis Yes No

Birds Baird's Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii Yes No Sensitive S1?B G4

Birds Grasshopper 

Sparrow

Ammodramus 

savannarum

Yes Yes Region 2 

Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S4 G5

Birds Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Yes Yes S4B;S4N G5

Birds Sagebrush Sparrow Artemisiospiza 

nevadensis No No Sensitive Region 2 Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S3 G5

Birds Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Yes Yes Region 2 

Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S2 G5

Birds Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Yes Yes Sensitive Region 2 

Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 1 S4B G4

Birds Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Yes No S4B G5

Birds Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Yes Yes

Birds American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus No Yes

Birds Bufflehead Bucephala albeola No No S2B G5

Birds Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula No No S3B G5

Birds Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Yes Yes Sensitive Region 2 

Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 1 S4B;S5N G4

Birds Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Yes Yes
Appendix D

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 D-2

Group Common Name Scientific Name

Observed 

in Study 

Area1

Bird of 

Conservation 

Concern2

USFWS2 WY_BLM2 USFS2 WGFD2 STATE 

RANK2

GLOBAL 

RANK2

Birds Chestnut-collared 

Longspur Calcarius ornatus Yes No Region 2 Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S1 G5

Birds Greater SageGrouse

Centrocercus 

urophasianus Yes Yes

Candidate 

Warranted but 

Precluded (C)

Sensitive

Region 2 

Sensitive; 

Region 4 

Sensitive

NSS2 (Ba); 

Tier 1 S4 G3G4

Birds Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus No Yes Not Warranted for 

Listing (NW) Sensitive

Region 2 

Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 1 S2B;S3B G3

Birds Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus No No Sensitive

Region 2 

Sensitive; 

Region 4 

Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 3 S1 G5

Birds Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus No No NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S2 G5

Birds Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii No Yes

Birds Merlin Falco columbarius No No NSSU (U); 

Tier 3 S3B;S4N G5

Birds Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Yes Yes

Birds Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Yes Yes Delisted; formally 

monitored (DM) Sensitive

Region 2 

Sensitive; 

Region 4 

Sensitive

NSS3 (Bb); 

Tier 2 S2 G4

Birds Common Loon Gavia immer No No Region 4 

Sensitive

NSS1 (Aa); 

Tier 1 S1B;S2N G5

Birds Whooping Crane Grus americana No No

Listed Endangered 

(LE); and 

Endangered -

Nonessential 

Experimental 

Population (LEXN)

S1N G1

Birds Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis No No NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 3 S3B;S5N G5
Appendix D

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 D-3

Group Common Name Scientific Name

Observed 

in Study 

Area1

Bird of 

Conservation 

Concern2

USFWS2 WY_BLM2 USFS2 WGFD2 STATE 

RANK2

GLOBAL 

RANK2

Birds Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus Yes Yes Delisted; formally monitored (DM) Sensitive

Region 2 

Sensitive; 

Region 4 

Sensitive

NSS2 (Ba); 

Tier 1 S3B;S5N G5

Birds Black-necked Stilt Himantopus 

mexicanus No No S3B G5

Birds Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis No No S5B;S5N G5

Birds White-winged Junco Junco hyemalis aikeni No No S3 G5T4

Birds Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Yes Yes Sensitive Region 2 

Sensitive S3 G4

Birds Herring Gull Larus argentatus No No SNA G5

Birds California Gull Larus californicus No No S2B G5

Birds Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis No No S2 G5

Birds Eastern Screech-OwlMegascops asio No No S3 G5

Birds Red-headed 

Woodpecker

Melanerpes 

lentiginosus Yes Yes

Birds Lewis's WoodpeckerMelanerpes lewis No No Region 2 

Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 2 S2 G4

Birds Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Yes Yes Sensitive Region 2 

Sensitive

NSS3 (Bb); 

Tier 2 S3B G5

Birds Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Yes Yes Sensitive NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S5 G5

Birds Osprey Pandion haliaetus No No S3B G5

Birds American White 

Pelican

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos No No S1B G4

Birds Red-necked

Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus No No S3N G4G5

Birds Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus No No S1 G5

Birds White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi Yes No Sensitive NSS3 (Bb); 

Tier 2 S1B G5

Birds Virginia Rail Rallus limicola No No NSS3 (Bb); 

Tier 2 S3B G5

Birds American Avocet Recurvirostra No No S3B G5
Appendix D

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 D-4

Group Common Name Scientific Name

Observed 

in Study 

Area1

Bird of 

Conservation 

Concern2

USFWS2 WY_BLM2 USFS2 WGFD2 STATE 

RANK2

GLOBAL 

RANK2

americana

Birds Golden-crowned 

Kinglet Regulus satrapa No No S3B;S4N G5

Birds McCown's Longspur Rhynchophanes 

mccownii No Yes Region 2 Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S2 G4

Birds Dickcissel Spiza americana No No NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S1 G5

Birds Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri Yes Yes Sensitive Region 2 

Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S5 G5

Birds Clay-colored 

Sparrow Spizella pallida Yes No S3B G5

Birds Common Tern Sterna hirundo No No S1 G5

Birds Barn Owl Tyto alba No No S2 G5

Mammals Plains Bison Bos bison No NA Not Warranted for 

Listing (NW) S1 G4TU

Mammals Gray Wolf Canis lupus Yes NA Proposed for 

Delisting (PD)

Region 2 

Sensitive; 

Region 4 

Sensitive

S1 G4G5

Mammals Black-tailed Prairie 

Dog Cynomys ludovicianus No NA Not Warranted for Listing (NW) Sensitive Region 2 Sensitive S2 G4

Mammals Thirteen-lined 

Ground Squirrel

Ictidomys 

tridecemlineatus Yes NA S5 G5

Mammals Northern River 

Otter Lontra canadensis No NA Region 2 Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 2 S3 G5

Mammals Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes No NA

Listed Endangered 

(LE); and 

Endangered -

Nonessential 

Experimental 

Population (LEXN)

NSS1 (Aa); 

Tier 1 S1 G1

Mammals Western Smallfooted Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum No NA NSS4 (Cb); 

Tier 2 S3B G5
Appendix D

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 D-5

Group Common Name Scientific Name

Observed 

in Study 

Area1

Bird of 

Conservation 

Concern2

USFWS2 WY_BLM2 USFS2 WGFD2 STATE 

RANK2

GLOBAL 

RANK2

Mammals Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus No NA Petition Under 

Review (UR)

NSS4 (Cb); 

Tier 2 S5 G3

Mammals Olive-backed Pocket 

Mouse Perognathus fasciatus No NA NSS4 (Cb); Tier 2 S4 G5

Mammals White-footed 

Deermouse Peromyscus leucopus No NA S3 G5

Mammals Dwarf Shrew Sorex nanus No NA NSS3 (Bb); 

Tier 2 S4 G4

Mammals Plains Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius 

interrupta No NA Petition Under Review (UR) S3 G4T4

Mammals Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Yes NA S3 G5

Mammals Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos No NA Listed Threatened 

(LT) S1 G4T4

Mammals Swift Fox Vulpes velox No NA Not Warranted for 

Listing (NW) Sensitive Region 2 Sensitive

NSS4 (Cb); 

Tier 2 S2 G3

Mammals Bear Lodge Meadow 

Jumping Mouse

Zapus hudsonius 

campestris Yes NA S1 G5T3

Reptiles Eastern Spiny 

Softshell Apalone spinifera No NA NSS4 (Bc); Tier 3 S4 G5T5

Reptiles Eastern Yellowbellied Racer

Coluber constrictor 

flaviventris No NA S4 G5T5

Reptiles Pale Milksnake Lampropeltis 

triangulum multistriata No NA NSS3 (Bb); Tier 2 S3 G5TNR

Reptiles Bullsnake Pituophis catenifer sayi No NA S4 G5T5

Reptiles Plains Gartersnake Thamnophis radix No NA NSSU (U); 

Tier 2 S5 G5

Plants Barr's milkvetch Astragalus barrii Yes NA Region 2 

Sensitive S3 G3

1

Study area is BAM permit boundary and 0.5-mile buffer

2 Blank cells indicate the information is not applicable

Highlights indicates species has been documented in the same T/R as the BAM 

MBCC – Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern

USFS:

Region 2 Sensitive, R2 - In Wyoming, sensitive in Bighorn, Black Hills, Medicine Bow, and Shoshone National Forests, and Thunder Basin National Grassland

Region 4 Sensitive, R4 - In Wyoming, sensitive in Bridger-Teton, Caribou, Targhee, Wasatch-Cache, and Ashley (including Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area) National Forests
Appendix D

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 D-6

WGFD:

NSS1-NSS4:

The NSS rank of the species is subtracted from 5 and multiplied by 6: [(5-NSS)x6]. This would result in scores of NSS1 = 24, NSS2 = 18, NSS3 = 12, NSS4 = 6.

The species is assigned a score of 1-10 based on the variable "Wyoming's contribution to the species' overall conservation"; 10 being the highest contribution and 1 being the lowest contribution. The WYNDD G 

rank (global chance of extinction) and Wyoming Conservation Contribution score were consulted in determining this score. The species is assigned a score of 1-5; 5 being the highest and 1 the lowest for each 

of the following variables:

Regulatory/monetary impacts of the species' listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Urgency of conservation action.

Ability to implement effective conservation actions.

The species' ecological or management role as a keystone, indicator, or umbrella species.

Rank: 

G = Global rank assigned by NatureServe: range-wide probability of extinction for a species

S = Subnational (state/jurisdiction) rank assigned by WYNDD biologists for Wyoming

T = Trinomial rank: refers to the range-wide probability of extinction for a subspecies or variety

These letters are each followed by a numeric, 1-5 score: 

1 = critically imperiled

2 = imperiled

3 = vulnerable

4 = apparently secure

5 = secure

Source: WYNDD (2017) and USFWS (2017) for Birds of Conservation Concern
APPENDIX E

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, Hg, CO, and CO2 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM COAL COMBUSTION 

CALCULATIONS

REVENUE CALCULATIONS

(Completed by WWC Engineering)
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-1

GHG Calculations Assumptions 

Direct Emissions Variables

Source: SGAC Calculations (BLM 2009a)

Indirect Emissions Assumptions

Train: 130 Cars/Train, 1/2 aluminum rotary, 1/2 aluminum bottom dump (From BAM)

23 Tons/car empty - 1/2 are 21 tons and 1/2 are 25 tons (BNSF 2016b)

119 Tons of Coal/Car (BNSF 2016b)

15,470 Tons of Coal/Train (calculated)

200 Tons/locomotive – four per train (BNSF 2016b)

3,790 Weight of empty 130-car train (tons) (calculated)

19,260 Weight of loaded coal train (tons) (calculated)

Transportation Emissions Variables

Emission Rate (kg/gal) CO2e Conversion Rate Kg CO2e/Gal Diesel Kg CO2e/Mile/Ton

CO2 10.21 1 10.21 0.023417431

CH4 0.0000112 25 0.00028 0.000001

N2O 0.0000224 298 0.0066752 0.000015

Total 10.2169552 0.0234

Source: Conversion Rate – EPA 2017a

Emission Rate – EPA 2017a

Transportation Variables

Miles/gal/1 Ton1 Miles Kg 

CO2e/Mile/Ton2

Tons Gal/Train Kg CO2e/Mile Kg CO2e/Trip Metric Tons CO2e/Trip

Loaded 436 1,090 0.0234 19,260.0

(Calculated)

451.3

(Calculated)

4,611.2

(Calculated)

5,026,194.3

(Calculated)

5,026.2

(Calculated)

Empty 436 1,090 0.0234 3,790.0 88.8 907.4 989,059.0 989.1

1

FactCheck 2008

2 EPA 2017a

BAM Production, 2009-2016

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average

Production (Tons) 28,655,953 25,766,025 24,582,007 24,227,846 18,258,922 15,796,556 18,318,629 14,833,778 21,300,000

Source: WDWS (2009 through 2016)

Source CO2e/Mt Coal Mined

FUEL subtotal 3,266.9

ELECTRICITY subtotal 2,670.1

PROCESS subtotal 1,147.7
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-2

Estimated 2009 Belle Ayr Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 28.7 3,266.9 93,616

Electricity 2,670.1 76,514

Mining Process 1,147.7 32,888

Total Direct 203,019

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2009 Coal Production 28,655,953

2009 Coal Shipped by Rail 28,655,953

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 1,852

# Empty Trains/year 1,852

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,090

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.3

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.8

Kg CO2e/year Empty 179,318,563

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 911,260,033.2

Kg CO2e/year Total 1,090,578,596

Total Rail Transportation (Metric Tons) 1,090,577

Combustion1(CO2e) 47,998,721

Total Indirect CO2e 49,089,300

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 49,292,319

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants

1 Combustion emissions calculated by multiplying tons of coal shipped by a 1.675 CO2 emissions factor for sub-bituminous coal included in Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources 

(EPA 2008).
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-3

Estimated 2010 Belle Ayr Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 25.8 3,266.9 84,175

Electricity 2,670.1 68,798

Mining Process 1,147.7 29,572

Total Direct 182,545

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2010 Coal Production 25,766,025

2010 Coal Shipped by Rail 25,766,025

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 1,666

# Empty Trains/year 1,666

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,090

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.3

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.8

Kg CO2e/year Empty 161,234,442

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 819,360,249

Kg CO2e/year Total 980,594,691

Total Rail Transportation (Metric Tons) 980,595

Combustion1(CO2e) 43,158,092

Total Indirect CO2e 44,138,687

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 44,321,231

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants

1 Combustion emissions calculated by multiplying tons of coal shipped by a 1.675 CO2 emissions factor for sub-bituminous coal included in Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources 

(EPA 2008).
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-4

Estimated 2011 Belle Ayr Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 24.6 3,266.9 80,307

Electricity 2,670.1 65,636

Mining Process 1,147.7 28,213

Total Direct 174,156

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2011 Coal Production 24,582,007

2011 Coal Shipped by Rail 24,582,007

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 1,589

# Empty Trains/year 1,589

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 999

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.3

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.8

Kg CO2e/year Empty 140,982,992

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 716,446,549

Kg CO2e/year Total 857,429,541

Total Rail Transportation (Metric Tons) 857,430

Combustion1(CO2e) 41,174,862

Total Indirect CO2e 42,032,291

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 42,206,447

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants

1 Combustion emissions calculated by multiplying tons of coal shipped by a 1.675 CO2 emissions factor for sub-bituminous coal included in Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources 

(EPA 2008).
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-5

Estimated 2012 Belle Ayr Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 24.2 3,266.9 79,150

Electricity 2,670.1 64,691

Mining Process 1,147.7 27,806

Total Direct 171,647

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2012 Coal Production 24,227,846

2012 Coal Shipped by Rail 24,227,846

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 1,566

# Empty Trains/year 1,566

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,009

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.3

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.8

Kg CO2e/year Empty 140,342,713

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 713,192,783

Kg CO2e/year Total 853,535,495

Total Rail Transportation (Metric Tons) 853,535

Combustion1(CO2e) 40,581,642

Total Indirect CO2e 41,435,178

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 41,606,825

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants

1 Combustion emissions calculated by multiplying tons of coal shipped by a 1.675 CO2 emissions factor for sub-bituminous coal included in Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources 

(EPA 2008).
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-6

Estimated 2013 Belle Ayr Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 18.3 3,266.9 59,650

Electricity 2,670.1 48,753

Mining Process 1,147.7 20,956

Total Direct 129,359

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2013 Coal Production 18,258,922

2013 Coal Shipped by Rail 18,258,922

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 1,180

# Empty Trains/year 1,180

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,003

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.3

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.8

Kg CO2e/year Empty 105,138,061

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 534,289,987

Kg CO2e/year Total 639,428,048

Total Rail Transportation (Metric Tons) 639,428

Combustion1(CO2e) 30,583,694

Total Indirect CO2e 31,223,122

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 31,352,481

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants

1 Combustion emissions calculated by multiplying tons of coal shipped by a 1.675 CO2 emissions factor for sub-bituminous coal included in Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources 

(EPA 2008).
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-7

Estimated 2014 Belle Ayr Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 15.8 3,266.9 51,606

Electricity 2,670.1 42,178

Mining Process 1,147.7 18,130

Total Direct 111,914

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2014 Coal Production 15,796,556

2014 Coal Shipped by Rail 15,796,556

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 1,021

# Empty Trains/year 1,021

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,073

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.3

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.8

Kg CO2e/year Empty 97,307,436

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 494,496,364

Kg CO2e/year Total 591,803,800

Total Rail Transportation (Metric Tons) 591,804

Combustion1(CO2e) 26,459,231

Total Indirect CO2e 27,051,035

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 27,162,949

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants

1 Combustion emissions calculated by multiplying tons of coal shipped by a 1.675 CO2 emissions factor for sub-bituminous coal included in Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources 

(EPA 2008).
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-8

Estimated 2015 Belle Ayr Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 18.3 3,266.9 59,845

Electricity 2,670.1 48,913

Mining Process 1,147.7 21,024

Total Direct 129,782

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2015 Coal Production 18,318,629

2015 Coal Shipped by Rail 18,318,629

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 1,184

# Empty Trains/year 1,184

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,009

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.3

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.8

Kg CO2e/year Empty 106,112,862

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 539,243,728

Kg CO2e/year Total 645,356,590

Total Rail Transportation (Metric Tons) 645,357

Combustion1(CO2e) 30,683,704

Total Indirect CO2e 31,329,060

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 31,458,842

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants

1 Combustion emissions calculated by multiplying tons of coal shipped by a 1.675 CO2 emissions factor for sub-bituminous coal included in Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources 

(EPA 2008).
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-9

Estimated 2016 Belle Ayr Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 14.8 3,266.9 48,460

Electricity 2,670.1 39,608

Mining Process 1,147.7 17,025

Total Direct 105,093

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2016 Coal Production 14,833,778

2016 Coal Shipped by Rail 14,833,778

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 959

# Empty Trains/year 959

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,030

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.3

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.8

Kg CO2e/year Empty 87,714,804

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 445,748,580

Kg CO2e/year Total 533,463,384

Total Rail Transportation (Metric Tons) 533,463

Combustion1(CO2e) 24,846,578

Total Indirect CO2e 25,380,042

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 25,485,134

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants

1 Combustion emissions calculated by multiplying tons of coal shipped by a 1.675 CO2 emissions factor for sub-bituminous coal included in Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources 

(EPA 2008).
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-10

Summary of Estimated BAM 2009-16 CO2e Emissions

CO2e Source 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ave. % From 

Indirect

Direct Emissions

 Fuel 93,616 84,175 80,307 79,150 59,650 51,606 59,845 48,460 69,601 0.0%

 Electricity 76,514 68,798 65,636 64,691 48,753 42,178 48,913 39,608 56,886 0.0%

 Mining Process 32,888 29,572 28,213 27,806 20,956 18,130 21,024 17,025 24,452 0.0%

 Total Direct Emissions 203,019 182,545 174,156 171,647 129,359 111,914 129,782 105,093 150,939 0.0%

Indirect Emissions

 Rail Transport 1,090,579 980,595 857,430 853,535 639,428 591,804 645,357 533,463 774,024 2.1%

 Power Plant Combustion (CO2e) 47,998,721 43,158,092 41,174,862 40,581,642 30,583,694 26,459,231 30,683,704 24,846,578 35,685,816 97.9%

 Total Indirect Emissions 49,089,300 44,138,687 42,032,291 41,435,178 31,223,122 27,051,035 31,329,060 25,380,042 36,459,839 100.0%

Total Emissions 49,292,319 44,321,231 42,206,447 41,606,825 31,352,481 27,162,949 31,458,842 25,485,134 36,610,779 99.6%
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-11

Estimated 2017-2027 Belle Ayr Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 20.0 3,266.9 65,338

Electricity 2,670.1 53,402

Mining Process 1,147.7 22,954

Total Direct 141,694

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2017-2027 Coal Production 20,000,000

2017-2027 Coal Shipped by Rail 20,000,000

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 23

Loaded Train Tons 15,493

# Loaded Trains/year 1,293

# Empty Trains/year 1,293

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,038

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 119,182,158

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 605,659,199

Kg CO2e/year Total 724,841,357

Total Transportation (Metric Tons) 724,841

Combustion1(CO2e) 33,500,000

Total Indirect 34,224,841

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 34,366,535

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants

1 Combustion emissions calculated by multiplying tons of coal shipped by a 1.675 CO2 emissions factor for sub-bituminous coal included in Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources (EPA 

2008).
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-12

Summary of Estimated BAM 2017-2027 CO2e Emissions (in metric tons)

CO2e Source 2017-2027 Ave % From 

Indirect

Direct Emissions

Fuel 65,338 0.0%

Electricity 53,402 0.0%

Mining Process 22,954 0.0%

Total Direct 141,694 0.0%

Indirect Emissions

 Rail Transport 724,841 2.1%

 Power Plant Combustion 33,500,000 97.9%

 Total Indirect Emissions 34,224,841 100.0%

Total Emissions 34,366,535 99.6%
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-13

Parameters Used to Calculate Combustion Emissions

Btu per short ton 16,890,000 CEC 2011

tons per kg 0.00110231 Conversion

tons to generate 1KW-h 0.000618735 CEC 2011

tons to generate 1 MW-h 0.61873467 Calculated

PM10 Emissions per Btu (kg/MW-h) 0.39 CEC 2011

PM10 Emissions per Btu (ton/MW-h) 0.000429901 Calculated

PM2.5 Emissions per Btu (kg/MW-h) 0.305 CEC 2011

PM2.5 Emissions per Btu (ton/MWh)

0.00013112 Calculated

SOx emissions factor (lb/ton) 17.5 CEC 2011

NOx emission factor (lb/ton) 7.2 CEC 2011

Hg emission factor (lb/ton) 0.000083 CEC 2011

CO emission factor (lb/ton) 0.5 Calculated

Combustion Emissions Values

Past Production Proposed 

Action

No Action

Years 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2027 2017-2020

Tons of Coal Mined (From CCW) 28,655,953 25,766,025 24,582,007 24,227,846 18,258,922 15,796,556 18,318,629 14,833,778 20,000,000 20,000,000

mw-h from coal mined 14,901,096 13,398,333 12,782,644 12,598,480 9,494,639 25,531,467 9,525,687 7,713,565 10,400,000 10,400,000

PM10 Emissions (Tons) 6,406.0 5,760.0 5,495.3 5,416.1 4,081.8 10,976.0 4,095.1 3,316.1 4,471.0 4,471.0

PM 2.5 Emissions (Tons) 1,953.8 1,756.8 1,676.1 1,651.9 1,244.9 3,347.7 1,249.0 1,011.4 1,363.6 1,363.6

SO2 Emissions (Tons) 96,911.2 87,137.8 83,133.6 81,935.8 61,749.6 138,219.9 61,951.5 50,166.2 67,637.7 67,637.7

NOx Emissions (Tons) 45,646.8 41,043.4 39,157.3 38,593.2 29,085.1 56,867.6 29,180.2 23,629.1 31,858.5 31,858.5

Hg Emissions (Tons) 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3

CO Emissions (Tons) 7,164.0 6,441.5 6,145.5 6,057.0 4,564.7 3,949.1 4,579.7 3,708.4 5,000.0 5,000.0

Campbell County1 US Emissions2

2011-2015 Avg 2015

Tons of Coal Mined 386,200,000.0 824,768,000.0

mw-h from coal mined 624,202,679 1,333,046,078.5

PM10 Emissions (Tons) 268,345.3 573,077.7

PM 2.5 Emissions (Tons) 81,845.3 174,788.7

SO2 Emissions (Tons) 3,379,250.0 7,216,720.0

NOx Emissions (Tons) 1,390,320.0 2,969,164.8

Hg Emissions (Tons) 16.0 34.2

CO Emissions (Tons) 96,550.0 206,192.0

1 Coal Tonnages from WDWS 2016b - Average of 2011 through 2015 production

2 Coal Tonnages from EIA 2017
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-14

Estimated 2016 Fiscal Revenue from 2015 Coal Production in Campbell Co. (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 564.2 282.1 282.1

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 95.4 67.4 28.0

Severance Tax 241.1 241.1

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 307.9 153.9 153.9

Ad Valorem Tax 187.6 187.6

Black Lung 182.1 182.1

Sales and Use Tax 29.8 29.8

Totals 1608.0 685.5 922.5

$/Ton $2.48

Total Future Revenues from BAM (No Action Alternative) (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 75.6 37.8 37.8

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 12.8 6.4 6.4

Severance Tax 31.4 31.4

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 25.1 25.1

Black Lung 25.1 25.1

Sales and Use Tax 3.6 3.6

Totals 173.6 69.3 104.4

$/Ton $2.29

Future Revenues added by the BAM BAN Tract only (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 345.2 172.6 172.6

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 58.4 29.2 29.2

Severance Tax 134.9 134.9

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 114.7 114.7

Black Lung 114.6 114.6

Sales and Use Tax 16.6 16.6

Totals 784.4 316.4 468.0

$/Ton $2.25

Total Future Revenues from BAM (existing mine plus BAN tract) (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 420.7 210.4 210.4

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 71.1 35.6 35.6

Severance Tax 166.3 166.3

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 139.9 139.9

Black Lung 139.7 139.7

Sales and Use Tax 20.3 20.3

Totals 958.0 385.6 572.4

$/Ton $2.25
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-15

Difference Between the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 345.2 172.6 172.6

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 58.4 29.2 29.2

Severance Tax 134.9 134.9

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 114.7 114.7

Black Lung 114.6 114.6

Sales and Use Tax 16.6 16.6

Totals 784.4 316.4 468.0

Estimated 2022 Campbell Co. Fiscal Revenue (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 600.6 300.3 300.3

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 101.5 50.8 50.8

Severance Tax 234.7 234.7

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.000 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 199.7 199.7

Black Lung 199.4 199.4

Sales and Use Tax 29.0 29.0

Totals 1364.9 550.5 814.4

$/Ton $2.25

All revenues were calculated using variables presented below
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-16

Bonus Bid Payments, 2008-2017

Source: BLM 2017. Bids are paid off in equal four annual payments, after the initial 1/5 amount payment attached to the bid. 

Revenue Variables

Coal Surface # Units of Taxable 

Valuation

Taxable 

Valuation

Taxable Valuation 

Per Unit

Average Tax 

Levy (Mills)

Estimated Ad 

Valorem Tax Levied

Average Tax 

Per Unit

Sev. Tax 

Rate %

Estimated Severance 

Tax Collectible

Average Sev. 

Tax Per Unit

2015 Wyoming 392,418,629 $3,894,432,347 9.92 $0.059925 $233,373,858 0.5947 0.07 $272,610,264 $0.6947

2015 Campbell Co. 358,196,669 $3,348,921,099 9.35 $0.059592 $199,568,906 0.5571 0.07 $234,424,477 $0.6545

2016 Wyoming 372,577,808 $3,646,317,231 9.79 $0.059910 $218,450,865 0.5863 0.07 $255,242,206 $0.6851

2016 Campbell Co. 340,675,046 $3,149,810,399 9.25 $0.059554 $187,583,809 0.5506 0.07 $220,486,728 $0.6472

Source: WDOR 2015 and 2016a

Bonus Bids Lease-Month Tons Total Bid $/Ton 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

WYW155132 Eagle Butte 

West - May 255,000,000 $180,540,000.00 $0.71 $36,108,000.00 $36,108,000.00 $36,108,000.00 $36,108,000.00 $36,108,000.00

$144,432,000.00 $108,324,000.00 $72,216,000.00 $36,108,000.00 $0.00

WYW174407 South Maysdorf 

- August 288,100,000 $250,800,000.00 $0.87 $50,160,000.00 $50,160,000.00 $50,160,000.00 $50,160,000.00 $50,160,000.00

$200,640,000.00 $150,480,000.00 $100,320,000.00 $50,160,000.00 $0.00

WYW154432 North Maysdorf 

- August 54,657,000 $48,098,424.00 $0.88 $9,619,684.80 $9,619,684.80 $9,619,684.80 $9,619,684.80 $9,619,684.80

$38,478,739.20 $28,859,054.40 $19,239,369.60 $9,619,684.80 $0.00

WYW177903 West Antelope 

South 56,356,000 $49,311,500.00 $0.88 $9,862,300.00 $9,862,300.00 $9,862,300.00

$39,449,200.00 $29,586,900.00 $0.00

WYW163340 West Antelope 

North 350,263,000 $297,723,228.00 $0.85 $59,544,645.60 $59,544,645.60 $59,544,645.60 $59,544,645.60 $59,544,645.60

$238,178,582.40 $178,633,936.80 $119,089,291.20 $59,544,645.60 $0.00

WYW161248 Belle Ayr North 221,734,800 $210,648,060.00 $0.95 $42,129,612.00 $42,129,612.00 $42,129,612.00 $42,129,612.00 $42,129,612.00

$168,518,448.00 $126,388,836.00 $84,259,224.00 $42,129,612.00 $0.00

WYW172657 Caballo West 130,196,000 $143,417,403.80 $1.10 $28,683,480.76 $28,683,480.76 $28,683,480.76 $28,683,480.76 $28,683,480.76

$114,733,923.04 $86,050,442.28 $57,366,961.52 $28,683,480.76 $0.00

WYW174596 South Hilight 222,676,000 $300,001,011.66 $1.35 $60,000,202.33 $60,000,202.33 $60,000,202.33 $60,000,202.33 $60,000,202.33

$240,000,809.33 $180,000,607.00 $120,000,404.66 $60,000,202.33 $0.00

WYW176095 South 

Porcupine LBA 401,830,508 $446,031,864.00 $1.11 $89,206,372.80 $89,206,372.80 $89,206,372.80 $89,206,372.80 $89,206,372.80

$356,825,491.20 $267,619,118.40 $178,412,745.60 $89,206,372.80 $0.00

WYW173408 North 

Porcupine LBA 721,154,828 $793,270,311.00 $1.10 $158,654,062.20 $158,654,062.20 $158,654,062.20 $158,654,062.20 $158,654,062.20

$634,616,248.80 $475,962,186.60 $317,308,124.40 $158,654,062.20 $0.00

Average $0.98 $86,268,000.00 $95,887,684.80 $95,887,684.80 $236,107,723.16 $543,968,360.49 $457,700,360.49 $438,218,375.69 $438,218,375.69 $307,860,637.33 $0.00
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-17

Revenue Calculations Variables

Coal Production (tons)1

Campbell Wyoming

2015 Tons Produced 340,675,046 372,577,808

2022 Tons Produced (Estimated) 362,625,000 375,000,000

From Campbell Co. 91.44%

BAN Tract2(tons minable) (tons recoverable)

No Action Alternative 48,790,525 45,619,141

Added by Proposed Action 221,700,000 208,400,000

Average 2015 Sales Price ($/ton)

2015 8800 Btu Coal $13.232 $13.253

2015 Price without BLT4 $12.68 $12.70

Federal Royalties

WY share of FR = 0.5 x FR

Federal Royalties3 $564,243,044.94

Wyoming Share $282,121,522.47

Abandoned Mine Lands Funds5

Campbell AML Total $95,389,012.88

WY Share6 $28,000,000.00

Severance Taxes7

Campbell ST Rate/Ton $0.6472

2016 Severance Taxes8 $241,132,357.34

Lease Bonus Bids (2017 Payments)

2016 $307,860,637.33

2017 $0.00

2019+ $0.00

Total 2017+ Bonus Bid Payments $0.00

WY share $0.00

Campbell Ad Valorem Taxes7

AVT Rate/ton $0.55

AVT (Total) $187,575,680.33

Black Lung

2016 BLT Rate/Ton9 $0.534

2016 BLT Collected10 $182,058,833.01

Future BLT Rate/Ton11 $0.535

Future BLT Collected $194,094,683.91

2015 Campbell Co. Employment (mining)12

Buckskin 218

Belle Ayr 286

Eagle Butte 290

Cordero Rojo 521

Antelope 632

Caballo 133

NARM 1428

Rawhide 195

Black Thunder 1622

Coal Creek 153

Dry Fork 80

Wyodak 68

Total 5626

Federal Income Tax13

Head of Household income info:

10% on first $12,750

15% on next (up to $48,600)

Rate10 13.6%

Tax/employee $6,185.55

Fed Tax $34,799,904.30

Fiscal Year 2016 Sales and Use Tax14

Coal Mining $29,765,322

$/ton $0.08

1 Source: WDOR 2016a

2 CCW 2017a

3 Calculated - Tons produced x 2014 sales price per ton x 12.5%

4 Black lung tax removed since it is included in the sale price

5 Calculated - AML = $0.28 per ton produced - through 2021, WY share = 0.5 x AML (Max 28,000,000/yr as of September 2013), Price from 
Appendix E

Belle Ayr North Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0214 E-18

CREG 2016

6 Calculated - Wyoming’s portion of 2015 + AML Funds (Max out at $75,000,000)

7 WDOR 2016, recalculated using Campbell Co. numbers only

8 CREG 2016

9 Calculated - Maximum per ton rate is $0.55 [(.10)(12750) + (.15)(45487-12750)]

10 IRS 2011

11 Calculated - Rate x 2022 Estimated Production

12 WDWS 2015b

13 WDOE 2013 (This is the most current doc as of March 2106)

14 WDOR 2016b