United States Department of the Interior

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Environmental Assessment

Dry Fork Mine

Amendment 3

Federal Mining Plan Modification

September 2019

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
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

1.3 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................1-5

1.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Other Agency Plans.........................................1-6

1.5 Public Outreach and Issues.........................................................................................................1-6

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

2.1 Description of Alternatives.........................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Existing Conditions (Conditions Common to the Proposed Action and the No 

Action Alternative).......................................................................................................................2-3

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

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

3.2 Topography and Physiography ...................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Geology, Minerals, and Paleontology........................................................................................3-1

3.4 Air Quality and Climate Change................................................................................................3-2

3.5 Water Resources........................................................................................................................3-10

3.6 Alluvial Valley Floors (AVFs).....................................................................................................3-15

3.7 Wetlands/Aquatic Features.......................................................................................................3-15

3.8 Soils................................................................................................................................................3-16

3.9 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................3-16

3.10 Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................................3-17

3.11 Land Use and Recreation ..........................................................................................................3-19

3.12 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................3-21

3.13 Visual Resources..........................................................................................................................3-21

3.14 Noise..............................................................................................................................................3-21

3.15 Transportation Facilities............................................................................................................3-21

3.16 Hazardous and Solid Wastes....................................................................................................3-21

3.17 Socioeconomics...........................................................................................................................3-21

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

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

4.2 Topography and Physiography....................................................................................................4-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA ii

4.3 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology......................................................................4-3

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

4.5 Water Resources........................................................................................................................4-17

4.6 Alluvial Valley Floors ..................................................................................................................4-23

4.7 Wetlands/Aquatic Features.......................................................................................................4-23

4.8 Soil ..................................................................................................................................................4-24

4.9 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................4-25

4.10 Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................................4-26

4.11 Land Use and Recreation...........................................................................................................4-30

4.12 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................4-30

4.13 Noise..............................................................................................................................................4-31

4.14 Visual Resources..........................................................................................................................4-32

4.15 Transportation Facilities............................................................................................................4-33

4.16 Hazardous and Solid Waste......................................................................................................4-34

4.17 Socioeconomics...........................................................................................................................4-35

4.18 Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity....................................................................4-36

4.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects.....................................................................................................4-36

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

6.0 References and Abbreviations/Acronyms ..........................................................6-1

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

6.2 Abbreviations/Acronyms.............................................................................................................6-9

LIST OF TABLES

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

and Employees for the Current Permit No. PT0599, the No Action 

Alternative, and the Proposed Action, as of December 31, 2018............................2-1

Table 2-2. Mine Life Scenarios for the Proposed Action................................................................2-2

Table 2-3. Summary of Phased Bond Release Acreages associated with the Proposed 

Action .....................................................................................................................................2-6

Table 3-1. Measured NO2 Concentrations (98th Percentile 1-Hour NO2

Concentrations, in ppb) at Selected AQS Monitoring Sites, 2012-2018.................3-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA iii

Table 3-2. Measured O3 Concentrations (4th-Highest 8-hour Maximum Value, in ppm) 

at Selected AQS Monitoring Sites, 2012-2018 ..............................................................3-5

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

(99th Percentile, 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations in ppb) at a Selected AQS 

Monitoring Site, 2012-2018 ...............................................................................................3-5

Table 3-4. Mercury Emissions (Tons) from Power Plants Supplied by DFM, 2012-2017........3-5

Table 3-5. Measured Annual Pb Air Emissions from Three Campbell County Power 

Stations and One Campbell County Coal Mine............................................................3-6

Table 3-6. Estimated Annual PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, Hg, and CO Contributions from 

Combustion of Coal Mined at the DFM, 2012-2018 ...................................................3-7

Table 3-7. Measured Hydrogen Ion (H+) Concentrations at Monitoring Site WY99, 

2012-2017..............................................................................................................................3-7

Table 3-8. Estimated Emissions from Direct and Indirect CO2e Sources at the DFM, 

2012-2018..............................................................................................................................3-9

Table 3-9. Dry Fork Station Reported Emissions, 2012-2017.....................................................3-10

Table 3-10. Campbell County and City of Gillette Population Change, 2010-2017.................3-22

Table 3-11. Wyoming and Campbell County Employment Rate Change, 2012-2018 .............3-23

Table 4-1. Ownership, Permitted Acres, and Production of the Northern Group of 

Mines.......................................................................................................................................4-1

Table 4-2. Ownership and Power Output of Power Plants Near the DFM...............................4-2

Table 4-3. Comparison of DFM Emissions (from Operations Only) to Wyoming 

Particulate Matter Emissions .............................................................................................4-5

Table 4-4. Comparison of Direct to Wyoming SO2, Hg, Pb, and Other Non-GHG 

Emissions................................................................................................................................4-7

Table 4-5. Average Annual Campbell County Air Quality Index Values, 2012-2018.............4-10

Table 4-6. Average Annual Nationwide Air Quality Index Values, 2012-2018........................4-10

Table 4-7. Estimated Annual PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, Hg, and CO Contributions from 

Combustion of Coal Mined at the DFM for 2012-2017 and 2018-2064 

Estimated Annual Average, Compared to Campbell County and U.S. Total 

Emissions..............................................................................................................................4-11

Table 4-8. On-site Mercury (Hg) Emissions (in Tons) from Coal Fired Power Plants 

Using DFM-supplied Coal, 2012-2017 and 2018-2064 Estimated Annual 

Average.................................................................................................................................4-12

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

Action from Coal Mined at the DFM (2012-2018 and 2019-2064 Average)........4-13

Table 4-10. Estimated LOM Federal and State Revenues from Federal Coal Recovery at 

the DFM ...............................................................................................................................4-35
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA iv

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

from the A3 Tract..............................................................................................................4-35

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

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

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Visibility on Clearest and Haziest Days at the Northern Cheyenne Indian 

Reservation, 2003-2017......................................................................................................3-6

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1-1. General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases .........................................................1-2

Map 1-2. Federal Coal Leases Associated with the Dry Fork Mine...........................................1-3

Map 2-1. Dry Fork Mine's Currently Approved Disturbance, Disturbance through 

August 2016, and Reclamation by Bond Release Phase...............................................2-5

Map 3-1. Regional Air Quality Monitoring Sites Associated with the DFM.............................3-4

Map 3-2. Watersheds and Surface Drainages Associated with the DFM ...............................3-11

Map 3-3. Surface Water Monitoring Sites at the DFM...............................................................3-12

Map 3-4. Surface Ownership Within the DFM.............................................................................3-20

Map 4-1. Cumulative Impact Area for Potential Surface and Groundwater Impacts 

and Predicted Drawdowns for the Wyodak-Anderson Coal Seam.......................4-19

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A LEGAL NOTICES for FEDERAL LEASE MODIFICATION APPROVAL 

WYW-0311810

APPENDIX B ERRATA/REVISIONS, PUBLIC SCOPING and NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY 

MAILING LISTS, PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS SUMMARIES, and EA 

REVIEW COMMENT SUMMARIES and RESPONSES

APPENDIX C GENERAL AIR QUALITY DISCUSSIONS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, HG, CO, and CO2e CONTRIBUTIONS from COAL 

COMBUSTION CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX D SURFACE-WATER RIGHTS within 2 MILES of the A3 TRACT and 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS within 2 MILES of the A3 TRACT

APPENDIX E BIOLOGICAL (SOILS, VEGETATION, and WILDLIFE) ASSESSMENTS

RELATED to the A3 TRACT

APPENDIX F STATE and FEDERAL REVENUE CALCULATIONS RELATED to the A3 TRACT
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 1-1

1.0 Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The Dry Fork Mine (DFM) is currently seeking approval from the Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management (ASLM) to recover additional coal associated with federal coal lease 

WYW-0311810. The Dry Fork Mine Amendment 3 Federal Mining Plan Modification 

Environmental Assessment (the Project) has been prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior 

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

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

ASLM regarding federal mining plan modifications (OSMRE 1999). The ASLM will decide whether 

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

outlined in OSMRE’s Directive REG-1, Handbook for Implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (OSMRE 2019a), the DOI’s Departmental Manual (DM) Part 516 (DOI 

1980), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and the DOI’s 

regulations for implementation of NEPA (43 CFR Part 46), OSMRE determined that this EA could 

incorporate by reference the analyses included in the Dry Fork Mine Amendment 2, Tract 1 

Federal Mining Plan Modification Environmental Assessment (A2TR1 EA [OSMRE 2017]) because 

the A2TR1 EA evaluated impacts related to mining federal coal immediately adjacent to the 

Amendment 3 Federal Mining Plan Modification Tract (A3 tract) and because the A2TR1 EA

provides detailed discussions of the history and infrastructure at the DFM. Where appropriate, 

the A2TR1 EA will be incorporated by reference to reduce the length of this EA. Information 

gathered from federal, state, and local agencies, Western Fuels-Wyoming, Inc. (WFW), publicly 

available literature, and in-house OSMRE sources, such as the DFM Permit Application Package 

(PAP), were used in the preparation of this EA.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Site History

The DFM is located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the City of Gillette in Campbell County, 

Wyoming (map 1-1), between Wyoming State Highway (SH) 59 and Garner Lake Road (County 

Road 38N) (map 1-2). The Garner Lake Road currently bisects the tract, but the road will be 

relocated immediately adjacent to the tract prior to disturbance. The relocation was planned prior 

to the initial planning for the A3 tract. According to information provided by WFW, the DFM 

currently recovers coal from five federal coal leases, one state lease, and one private lease, as 

listed below (WFW 2019a). 

1. Federal coal lease WYW-5035

2. Federal coal lease WYW-0271199

3. Federal coal lease WYW-0271200 

4. Federal coal lease WYW-0271201

5. Federal coal lease WYW-0311810

6. State coal lease 0-26652

7. Marshall et al. private coal lease

Map 1-2 shows the federal coal leases associated with the DFM. The A3 tract contains a portion 

of federal coal lease WYW-0311810.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 1-2

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

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 1-3

Map 1-2. Federal Coal Leases Associated with the Dry Fork Mine
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 1-4

The DFM is located in the northern portion of the Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB) region, 

a coal basin that spans from northeast Wyoming to southeast Montana. In 2017, the PRB 

produced 87 percent of the coal mined from federal government-owned coal leases in the U.S

(DOI 2019). The region has also been heavily developed for oil and gas recovery, including coal 

bed natural gas (CBNG). All of the land surrounding the A3 tract is currently leased for coal 

mining (map 1-2). The DFM permit boundary overlaps two other approved mining operations

(Eagle Butte and Woyak mines) and abuts the Rawhide and Synthetic Fuels mine permit areas.

The A3 tract is within the currently approved DFM permit boundary. Several heavy industrial 

facilities are also near A3, including an oilfield wastewater injection business, an activated carbon 

refinery, and a septic waste disposal business. An industrial park is in the process of being 

developed within 0.75 mile of the tract.

Coal is mined at the DFM using truck and loader, multiple bench methods. The coal is transported 

by haul truck to the truck-dump hopper located near the mine silos. From the silos, coal is 

conveyed to the adjacent Dry Fork Station (DFS) power plant silos or to the railroad loadout 

facility, which is within the DFM railroad loop. The DFS power plant has a design capacity of 

422 megawatts (MW). Construction of the plant was completed during 2011, and it began 

accepting coal from the DFM, which currently provides all of the coal for the power plant. The 

DFS is estimated to need approximately 2.0 million tons per year (Mtpy) through the life of the

facility (estimated at 2071). Additionally, the DFM provides coal on the spot market (market in 

which coal is sold for immediate delivery), and coal is shipped to customers via an on-site rail 

spur connected to a BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) main line that can accommodate coal 

shipments to all portions of the U.S. Mining operations are described in detail in chapter 2.

WFW operates the DFM under Permit No. PT0599, issued by Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ)-Land Quality Division (LQD) in accordance with the approved 

Wyoming State Coal Regulatory Program (30 CFR Part 950). Permit No. PT0599 was recently

amended to include the A3 tract. This EA considers potential effects from mining coal within the 

A3 tract and does not reevaluate existing federal mining areas and operations, except in terms of 

cumulative effects.

Based on 2012-2018 annual production numbers, the current optimal mining rate for the DFM is

6.0 Mtpy and coal sales are expected to continue at that rate unless market conditions change. 

Typically, most of the sales are to power plants in the region. The DFM shipped between 86 and 

98 percent of its coal to power plants located in Wyoming during the period between 2012 and 

2018. Since the DFS became fully operational in 2014, over 96 percent of DFM coal has been 

consumed in Wyoming. This trend of primarily selling coal to in-state power plants is expected 

to continue.

1.2.2 Project Background

As seen on map 1-2, the A3 tract is within the DFM permit boundary. Until a decision regarding 

the federal mining plan modification request for the A3 tract is made, WFW would continue to 

mine federal coal from the portions of federal coal leases WYW-0271199, WYW-0271200,

WYW-0271201, WYW-5035, and WYW-0311810, approved in prior ASLM federal mining plan 

revisions in accordance with conditions to Permit No. PT0599.

WFW submitted the Amendment 3 permit revision/permit application package (Amendment 3 

PAP) to Permit No. PT0599 to include the A3 tract (WFW 2018). The Amendment 3 PAP 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 1-5

included modifications to mine additional coal from lease WYW-0311810. WDEQ-LQD 

approved the Amendment 3 PAP on April 17, 2019 (WDEQ-LQD 2019).

DFM also submitted a federal mining plan modification request to OSMRE for federal coal related 

to lease WYW-0311810. Using criteria outlined in OSMRE’s NEPA Handbook, OSMRE 

determined that an EA that incorporates by reference the analyses included in the DFM A2TR1 

EA would be appropriate because the A2TR1 EA evaluated impacts related to mining federal coal 

immediately adjacent to the A3 tract and because the A2TR1 EA provides detailed discussions of 

the history and infrastructure at the DFM.

1.2.3 Statutory and Regulatory Background

The discussions included in section 1.2.3 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the statutory 

and regulatory background associated with the DFM. These details have not changed and are 

incorporated by reference. For existing, approved federal mining plans that are proposed to be 

modified, pursuant to 30 CFR Part 746, OSMRE prepares a federal MPDD for a federal mining 

plan modification. The MPDD recommends approval, disapproval, or approval with conditions of 

a federal mining plan modification (OSMRE 1999). The ASLM reviews the MPDD and decides 

whether or not to approve the federal mining plan modification, and if approved, what, if any, 

conditions may be needed.

In compliance with other federal laws, regulations and executive orders (EOs), OSMRE also 

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

This consultation includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 consultation for 

threatened and endangered species potentially affected by the proposed mining plan under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and Section 106 consultation under the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1976 (NHPA).

OSMRE will not reevaluate all potential impacts previously analyzed as part of the A2TR1 EA, 

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 include in the Amendment A3 PAP for Permit No. PT0599 and new time-sensitive 

information specific to this action.

1.3 Purpose and Need

As described in 40 CFR § 1502.13, the purpose and need statement should briefly specify the 

purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the 

Proposed Action.

1.3.1 Purpose

The purpose of the Proposed Action is established by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) and 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), which requires the evaluation 

of WFW’s proposed federal mining plan modification for the DFM before WFW can conduct 

surface mining and reclamation operations in the A3 tract to develop federal coal lands included 

in federal lease WYW-0311810. OSMRE is the agency responsible for making a recommendation 

to the ASLM to approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the proposed federal mining 

plan modification. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 1-6

1.3.2 Need 

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

granted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under federal coal lease WYW-0311810 to 

access and mine these federal coal reserves associated with the A3 tract at the DFM. ASLM 

approval of the federal mining plan modification is necessary to mine the reserves.

1.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Other Agency Plans

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

requirements for developing federal coal resources:

1. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (MLA),

2. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA),

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

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

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

6. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (SMCRA), 

7. Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, as amended,

8. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA),

9. Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (CAA),

10. Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (CWA),

11. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (SDWA),

12. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA),

13. American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as amended (AIRFA),

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

15. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended, and

16. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (MBTA).

In addition, this EA follows guidance in DOI 516 DM (DOI 1980), which, as outlined in 43 CFR 

Part 46, is the DOI manual guiding the implementation of the NEPA process. An MPDD will be 

prepared and submitted to the ASLM for the reconsidered federal mining plan modification.

1.5 Public Outreach and Issues

Following a review of the A2TR1 EA, OSMRE determined that further analyses related to the A3 

EA were appropriate, based on newly available information and changes to the environmental 

consequences of the Proposed Action that have occurred since the A2TR1 EA analysis. Internal 

discussions within OSMRE identified a preliminary set of issues to be considered during the NEPA 

analysis. OSMRE published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare this EA in the Gillette News 

Record and announced the availability of the EA on their Initiatives webpage (OSMRE 2019b) on 

March 22, 2019 (appendix A). Public outreach and tribal consultation letters were also sent out 

to stakeholders and tribes that could be affected by the Project. The public scoping period was 

conducted between March 22 and April 22, 2019. OSMRE received five written/emailed 

comments. Lists of agencies, tribes, and individuals included on mailing lists are included in 

appendix B. Substantive issues identified during public scoping were considered during the 

document preparation. The further-summarized issues and the number of comments received 

associated with each issue (in parentheses) include:

1. air quality (3),

2. level of NEPA/NEPA process (3),

3. climate change/global warming (3), 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 1-7

4. water quality (2),

5. compliance with current rules/regulations/permits (2),

6. wildlife (2),

7. economy/employment (2), and 

8. transportation (1).

The EA and unsigned FONSI were provided to the public for review and comment for a 30-day 

period, which ended on August 8, 2019. Appendix B presents a summary of the 2,483 comment 

on the EA received during the 30-day public comment period. The comments were evaluated 

and considered before the EA was finalized and the FONSI is signed and will be considered during 

the ASLM approval process.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 2-1

2.0 Proposed Action and 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). 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 Description of Alternatives

Descriptions of the alternatives analyzed by this EA are discussed below and a summary 

comparison of coal production, surface disturbance, mine life, and employees under the No 

Action Alternative and Proposed Action as of December 31, 2018 is provided in table 2-1. The 

No Action Alternative would leave operations as stated in the currently approved federal mining 

plan. The Proposed Action would add coal associated with federal lease WYW-0311810 to the 

federal mining plan. These scenarios are described in greater detail below.

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

Life, and Employees for the Current Permit No. PT0599, the No 

Action Alternative, and the Proposed Action, as of December 31, 2018

1

Includes federal, state, and private coal leases

2 The DFM permit area and affected area have been approved by WDEQ-LQD under the Amendment 3 PAP

2.1.1 Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, OSMRE would prepare a MPDD recommending approval of WFW’s 

federal mining plan modification request to include the mining federal coal within the A3 tract

associated with federal lease WYW-0311810, and the ASLM would approve the federal mining 

plan modification. The mine would use similar mining and reclamation methods to recover the 

coal as described in section 1.2.1. The operations within the proposed 656.4-acre project area 

are estimated to disturb a total of 640.3 acres. 

Item

Current OSMRE Federal 

Mining Plan 

(No Action Alternative) 

Projections Under

Proposed Action

Remaining recoverable leased coal1(Mt) 204.0 262.1

(58.1 added)

Currently approved federal mine plan acres 5,837.5

6,493.9

(656.4 added)

WDEQ-LQD permit acres (PT0599) 7,133.8 7,133.8

(no change2)

Total acres to be disturbed 5,005.1 5,005.1

(no change2)

Estimated average annual production (Mt) 6.0 6.0

(no change)

Remaining years from recovering all leased coal 38.8 48.5 

(9.7 added)

Average number of employees 82 82 

(no change)
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 2-2

Approving the Proposed Action would add approximately 58.1 Mt of recoverable federal coal to 

the mine’s coal reserves. Table 2-2 shows the effects of adding Proposed Action reserves on 

the estimated life of mine (LOM) under 6.0-Mtpy and 15.0-Mtpy scenarios. The 6.0-Mtpy scenario 

is based on current WFW contracts and anticipated demand. The 15.0-Mtpy scenario is included 

in the evaluation since this is the maximum annual production permitted under DFM’s current 

Air Quality Permit No. P0023278.

Table 2-2. Mine Life Scenarios for the Proposed Action

Production Rate 

Scenarios

Current 

Anticipated LOM

Estimated Years 

Extended1

Anticipated LOM 

with the Proposed 

Action

6.0 Mtpy October 2054 9.7 June 2064

15.0 Mtpy July 2031 3.9 May 2035

1 Estimated using 58.1 Mt of additional recoverable coal

2.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed mining plan modification would not be approved 

by the ASLM, and WFW would continue to operate under the currently approved federal mining 

plan. Under this alternative, OSMRE would not recommend approval or approval with conditions 

of the federal mining plan modification, and the ASLM would issue a decision based on the No 

Action Alternative.

If the No Action Alternative is selected, WFW would bypass the coal in the project area, resulting 

in 58.1 Mt of federal coal not being recovered and 640.3 acres of previously undisturbed ground 

not being disturbed. The No Action Alternative would require revisions to the WDEQ-LQD 

approved Permit No. PT0599 and the BLM approved Resource Recovery and Protection Plan 

(R2P2) to modify the reclamation plan, maximum economic recovery conditions, and coal 

recovery plans for areas within the boundaries of Permit No. PT0599 to exclude mining activities 

within the A3 tract. 

2.1.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study

OSMRE considered alternative scenarios to the approval or denial of the federal mining plan 

modification. However, since OSMRE's decision would be limited to approving, approving with 

conditions, or denying the mining plan modification, OSMRE concluded that there are no other 

reasonable action alternatives that would meet the agency’s purpose and need. The discussions 

included in section 2.4.3.1 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the alternatives considered 

but eliminated from detailed analysis. The discussions included reasons the alternatives were 

eliminates from detailed analysis, as summarized below.

2.1.3.1 Underground Mining Alternative

This alternative was not brought forward for analysis because underground mining would not 

respond to the purpose and need for this action, is not in conformance with the maximum 

economic recovery requirements of the federal coal leases and the R2P2, and would result in a 

prohibitive economic burden on the mine. Given these factors, bringing this alternative forward 

for further review would not be reasonable.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 2-3

2.1.3.2 Low or No Pollutant Emitting Equipment

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 

technologically feasible for all equipment at the DFM and would likely have substantially similar 

effects to other alternatives that are being analyzed. Given these factors, bringing this alternative 

forward for further review would not be reasonable.

2.1.3.3 Air Quality Mitigation Alternatives

Alternatives that mitigate air quality impacts, specifically by imposing more stringent emission 

limits at power plants fueled by coal from the DFM and by requiring oil and gas operators in the 

region to reduce their emissions 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 § 1508.8(b) define “indirect effects” as those “which are caused by the action and are 

later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable”. 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 on non-coal operators is beyond OSMRE’s 

authority and its implementation would be highly remote and speculative. Given these factors, 

bringing this alternative forward for further review would not be reasonable.

2.2 Existing Conditions (Conditions Common to the Proposed Action 

and the No Action Alternative)

2.2.1 Mining Plan and Mining Operations

WFW operates the DFM in accordance with WDEQ-LQD-approved Permit No. PT0599. WFW 

owns or controls the surface estate and coal resources within the current DFM permit boundary. 

The surface ownership within the currently approved permit boundary includes 6,269.8 acres of 

private surface, 39.4 acres of federal surface, and 824.5 acres of state surface (WDEQ-LQD 

2019). The coal ownership includes 195.3 acres of private coal, 6,197.9 acres of federal coal, and 

740.7 acres of state owned coal. All mineable coal within the permit boundary is currently leased 

by WFW or affiliates. Surface and mineral estate within the A3 tract is discussed in detail in 

section 3-10.

Environmental studies for the DFM began in 1978. WDEQ-LQD originally approved Permit No. 

PT0599 on April 13, 1989 and mining operations began in 1989. Section 1.2 discusses the various 

additions of other permitted lease areas related to the DFM. Permit renewals approved under 

WDEQ-LQD regulations are for a 5-year permit term and the permit must be updated with new 

information available at that time. Permit No. PT0599 for the DFM has been approved for renewal 

seven times since 1989. The current approved permit term (T7) for operations at the DFM is 

from April 13, 2019 to April 12, 2024. 

The discussions included in section 2.3 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the description 

of mining and reclamation operations in place at the DFM in 2017. These details have not changed 

and are incorporated here by reference. Coal recovery at the DFM is conducted using 

conventional surface mining techniques; vegetation would be removed in new disturbance areas 

in conjunction with topsoil removal; blasting and removal of the overburden, 

overburden/interburden, and coal; pit backfilling; and reclamation.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 2-4

WFW’s overall reclamation objectives are to reclaim the disturbed areas to the approved 

postminning land uses of cropland, livestock grazing, and wildlife habitat. Through December 31, 

2018, mining at the DFM has disturbed approximately 2,194 acres, with a total of 727 acres having 

been backfilled and graded since the start of mining and 726 acres have been soiled and seeded

using approved seed mixes suitable for livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. Revegetation of all 

tracts is monitored until the vegetation establishment meets the approved standards provided in 

the Amendment 3 PAP. In addition to permanent reclamation within the permit boundary, an 

additional 305 acres have been temporarily seeded, which are used by wildlife, with some 

agricultural use. The temporarily seeded areas include long-term topsoil and some seeded 

overburden storage areas and seeded hydrologic control structures. Approximately 1,031 acres 

of permanent reclamation and temporarily reclaimed lands, or about 47 percent of the total 

disturbed area, are available for use as wildlife habitat and for agricultural use.

2.2.2 Current Bonding and Bond Release Status

SMCRA provides that, as a prerequisite for obtaining or modifying a coal mining permit, 

permittees must post a reclamation bond to ensure that the regulatory authority would have 

sufficient funds to reclaim the site if the permittee fails to complete obligations set forth in the 

approved reclamation plan (OSMRE 2016). Reclamation liabilities at the DFM, as calculated by 

WDEQ-LQD as part of the annual report for Permit No. PT0599, are $30,521,892. The DFM 

bonding is guaranteed by a combination of surety and self-bonding. A Surety Bond provides 

$4,566,567, and Basin Electric Power Cooperative and Tri-State Generation and Transmission 

Association self bond for the remainder to cover all reclamation liabilities at the mine (WFW 

2019a).

As outlined in WDEQ-LQD Guideline No. 20 (Bond Release Categories and Submittal 

Procedures for Coal Mines), there are four types of bond release, based on completion of certain 

portions of the reclamation plan (WDEQ-LQD 2014a). These include:

1. Area bond release;

2. Phase 1(Partial Incremental), which includes stream channel reconstruction 

verification and soil depth verification;

3. Phase 2 (Partial Incremental), which includes vegetation establishment verification, 

surficial stability verification, and permanent impoundment 

construction/renovation and State Engineer’s Office (SEO) approval verification;

and

4. Phase 3 (Full Incremental or Final release), which includes mitigation wetlands 

verification, revegetation success verification, and tree establishment verification.

Bond release is successive, meaning that reclaimed land must achieve Phase 1 bond release before 

being eligible for Phase 2 and must achieve Phase 2 bond release before being eligible for Phase 3. 

Each successive phase of bond release is a subset of the previous phase.

WFW has received approval for Phase I bond releases for areas within the DFM permit boundary. 

Map 2-1 shows the reclaimed areas by bond release phase and table 2-3 provides acreages for 

each phase of bond release within the DFM. 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 2-5

Map 2-1. Dry Fork Mine's Currently Approved Disturbance, Disturbance 

through August 2016, and Reclamation by Bond Release Phase.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 2-6

Table 2-3. Summary of Phased Bond Release Acreages associated with the 

Proposed Action

Phased Bond Releases Status1 Mine 

Wide

Percent of 

Total

Specific to 

the A3 Tract

Total acres disturbed 2,194 -- 0

Acres of long-term mining or facilities 759 35 0

Acres of active mining 708 32 0

Acres backfilling and graded 727 33 0

Total areas reclaimed (soiled and seeded/planted) 726 33 0

Acres that have achieved Phase 1 bond release 696 32 0

Acres that have achieved Phase 2 bond release 271 12 0

Acres that have achieved Phase 3 bond release 0 0 0

1 As of December 31, 2018

Source: WFW 2019a

2.2.3 DFM Support Facilities 

Mining activities are supported by existing, permitted facilities located within the DFM permit 

boundary and include facilities buildings, coal handling facilities, and ancillary facilities (roads, 

ponds, power lines, etc.). Other facilities not considered as the main facilities described above 

include the 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.

2.2.4 Existing Stipulations and Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures stipulated for the A3 tract associated with the WYW-0311810 federal coal 

lease, in the context of resource-specific impacts, are summarized in chapter 4. The mitigation 

measures and stipulations presented in the decision record for the A2TR1 EA remain in effect 

and would be carried forward if the federal mining plan modification is approved by the ASLM.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 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 approval of the federal mining plan modification for the DFM. The 

determination of adequacy of the description of baseline conditions in the A2TR1 EA was made 

if conditions have not substantively changed, no new data are available, the resource conditions 

have only been minimally affected as a result of current mining operations, and/or further 

presentation of information would not affect the decision-making process. Baseline information 

in the A2TR1 EA that has not substantively changed is incorporated by reference. Updated 

baseline information is presented in this chapter, when applicable.

3.1 General Setting

The baseline information presented in section 3.1 of the A2TR1 EA relating to the general 

setting has not substantively changed. The tract is located in the PRB, which has a semi-arid, 

high plains environment with relatively large seasonal and diurnal variations in temperature and 

seasonal variation in precipitation.

3.2 Topography and Physiography

The discussions included in section 3.2 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the 

description of topography and physiography associated with the DFM in 2017. The DFM is 

physiographically part of the unglaciated Missouri Plateau section of the Great Plains Province 

(Fenneman 1931). This part of the Great Plains Province is characterized by broad plateaus that

are dissected by incised stream valleys. In the western portion, the plateaus merge with the PRB 

and other broad regional downfolds. These basins are separated by major mountainous uplifts.

3.3 Geology, Minerals, and Paleontology

The general analysis area (northern group of mines) contains the following stratigraphic units 

or layers (in descending order from the surface): Quaternary (most recent) deposits, the 

Eocene-age Wasatch Formation, and the Paleocene-age Fort Union Formation. The 

Paleocene-age Fort Union Formation contains the coal seams that would be mined under the 

Proposed Action. The discussions included in section 3.3.1 of the A2TR1 EA provide details 

regarding the description of geologic units in the general analysis area associated with the DFM

in 2017. The coal to be mined in the A3 tract is within the Wyodak-Anderson coal seam, which 

is the uppermost unit of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation. In the mine 

permit boundary, a claystone and carbonaceous coal lens separate the Wyodak-Anderson seam 

into the upper Anderson coal seam and the lower Canyon coal seam. Any general discussions 

of the coal will imply the Wyodak-Anderson seam. The Wyodak-Anderson coal seam is the 

primary shallow mineral resource associated with the Proposed Action and is ranked as 

sub-bituminous (35 to 45 percent carbon and 8,300 to 11,500 Btu [British thermal unit]/lb. (U.S. 

Department of Energy [USDOE] 2016 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 1993). 

The Wyodak-Anderson coal seam is generally low in sulfur and ash.

The Wyodak-Anderson coal seam, which has been tapped for CBNG development, is the same 

seam that is being mined at the DFM. Conventional oil and gas and CBNG development 

associated with the A3 tract are discussed in section 3.11.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-2

The discussions included in section 3.3.3 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the 

description of the paleontological resources associated with the DFM in 2017. A majority of 

these details have not changed. A locality search showed that no known vertebrate fossil 

localities are recorded from within either the original mine permit boundary or the A3 tract

(WFW 2018). 

3.4 Air Quality and Climate Change

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), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and the Federal 

Operating Permit Program (Title V). These regulatory programs are described in detail in 

section 3.4 of the A2TR1 EA.

Air quality information specific to the DFM is included in DFM’s current Air Quality Permit No. 

P0023278. The discussions included in section 3.4 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding 

the description of the air quality in the general analysis area associated with the DFM in 2017.

The analysis presented herein serves to summarize attainment/nonattainment areas discussions; 

update discussions with recent air quality monitoring findings; summarize revised air quality 

modeling results; and update discussions on carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), lead (Pb), hydrogen 

sulfide (H2S), and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) (specifically mercury [Hg]).

The A3 tract is not in an area that is designated as nonattainment area for any criteria pollutant 

(EPA 2018a). The Proposed Action constitutes a minor permit modification to an existing minor 

source; therefore, PSD permitting is not required. Best Available Control Technology (BACT)

for mining operations in the PRB is subject to categorical control requirements defined in the 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) and other mitigation measures as 

determined by the WDEQ-Air Quality Division (AQD) on a case-by-case basis. All sources 

being permitted in Wyoming must meet state-specific BACT. NSPS are a federal program of 

“end-of-stack” technology-based controls/approaches adopted by reference in the WAQSR. 

The discussions included in sections 3.4.4 and 3.4.5 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding 

the BACT methods and NSPS that were in place at the DFM in 2017. As noted in the A2TR1 

EA, these NSPS are typically less stringent than state-level BACT limits. According to Air Quality 

Permit No. MD-11723 (the previous air quality permit issued on September 20, 2011), a PSD 

increment consumption analysis is not necessary and WFW is not required to obtain a Title V

Operating Permit (WDEQ-AQD 2011).

3.4.1 Existing DFM Air Quality Summary

The discussions included in section 3.4.7 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the 

air-quality monitoring background, procedures, and the facilities utilized to monitor air quality 

that were in place at the DFM in 2017. Detailed discussions of the existing air quality for 2012 

through 2018 for the DFM are included in appendix C. 

3.4.1.1 Air Quality-Monitoring Values

DFM currently operates four high-volume PM10 samplers (DF-2, DF-4S, DF-4N, and DF-4M). 

Samplers DF-4N, DF-4M, and DF-4S are collocated and operate on a 1-in-3 day schedule. 

Sampler DF-2 operates on a 1-in-6 day schedule. Appendix C provides details on the historical 

PM10 ambient data for the DFM.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-3

The average annual mean PM10 values documented between 2012 and 2018 ranged between 

4.8 and 14.7 μg/m3, which are between 10 and 29 percent of the WAAQS annual standard of 

50 μg/m3. During the same time period, the 24-hour high PM10 values ranged between 15 and 

72 μg/m3. Thus, these maximum concentrations ranged between 10 and 48 percent of NAAQS

and WAAQS 24-hour standard of 150 μg/m3. Fluctuations in monitoring values occurred but all 

values were below the WAAQS annual standard of 50 μg/m3 and the 24-hour standard of 

150 μg/m3.

Because PM2.5 monitoring is not required by WDEQ-AQD, PM2.5 data were not gathered onsite. 

However, PM2.5 data gathered from three sites in the Wyoming PRB between 2012 and 2018

(map 3-1) were used to assess potential PM2.5 emissions at the DFM. Regional monitoring 

during the period demonstrated that ambient concentrations of PM2.5, as determined by the 98th

percentile 24-hour standard and annual average NAAQS and WAAQS values, were within the 

established 24-hour value (35 μg/m3) and annual value (12 μg/m3).

To further evaluate potential PM2.5 emissions at the DFM, specific PM10 monitoring data from 

the DFM were used to estimate PM2.5 ambient concentrations by application of a 0.2 factor 

(PM2.5 to PM10), as determined by Pace (2005). The data presented in appendix C show that 

the estimated PM2.5 concentrations were below the prescribed 24-hour WAAQS and NAAQS

(35 μg/m3) and the annual WAAQS and NAAQS (12 μg/m3), which supports the findings of 

regional PM2.5 data evaluation.

3.4.1.2 Emissions of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (O3), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Mercury (Hg), 

Lead (Pb), and Carbon Monoxide (CO)

NO2 concentrations (98th percentile, 1-hour) are currently being monitored in Campbell County 

at three Air Quality System (AQS) monitoring sites. These monitoring sites are at distances 

ranging between 17 and 37 miles from the A3 tract. As shown in table 3-1, all monitored NO2

values were well below the NAAQS and WAAQS of 100 parts per billion (ppb).

Table 3-1. Measured NO2 Concentrations (98th Percentile 1-Hour NO2

Concentrations, in ppb) at Selected AQS Monitoring Sites, 2012-2018

AQS Site ID1 Sampler ID 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

560050123 Thunder Basin Grassland Site 11 9 10 8 6 8 7

560050456 South Campbell County 32 32 32 32 28 31 32

560050892 Belle Ayr Ba-4, Ba-5n, and Ba-5s 34 35 35 32 26 28 30

1

See map 3-1 for locations

Source: EPA 2018b

O3 monitoring is not required at the DFM but levels have been monitored at the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland AQS site (560050123), which is located approximately 22 miles north of the 

A3 tract, and at the South Campbell County AQS site (560050456), which is located 

approximately 17 miles south of the A3 tract (map 3-1). According to the NAAQS, an 

exceedance of the O3 8-hour standard occurs if the 4th-highest daily maximum value is above 

the level of the standard (0.075 parts per million [ppm] prior to December 2015 and 0.070 ppm 

after December 2015). Table 3-2 shows that there were no exceedances of the 8-hour 

standard for the NAAQS O3 standards that were in effect at the time of data collection.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-4

Map 3-1. Regional Air Quality Monitoring Sites Associated with the DFM
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-5

Table 3-2. Measured O3 Concentrations (4th-Highest 8-hour Maximum Value, in 

ppm) at Selected AQS Monitoring Sites, 2012-2018

Parameter Measure 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Thunder Basin (560050123)1

4

th

-Highest, 8-hour (ppm)20.071 0.061 0.058 0.059 0.057 0.064 0.064

# of days maximum exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South Campbell County (560050456)1

4

th

-Highest, 8-hour (ppm) 0.069 0.061 0.059 0.062 0.060 0.068 0.055

# of days maximum exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

See map 3-1 for locations

2 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.

Source: EPA 2018b

SO2 concentrations (99th percentile, 1-hour) are currently being monitored in Campbell County 

at one AQS monitoring site. Wyodak Site 4 (56005857) is approximately 7 miles south of the 

A3 tract (map 3-1). All monitored SO2 values are well below the NAAQS and WAAQS of 75 

ppb (table 3-3).

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

(99th Percentile, 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations in ppb) at a Selected 

AQS Monitoring Site, 2012-2018

AQS Site ID1 Sampler ID 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20182

560050857 Wyodak Site 4 39 37 32 16 14 11 *

1

See map 3-1 for location

2

SO2 was not monitored at the site in 2018

Source: EPA 2018b

Annual Hg (a HAP), Pb (a criteria pollutant), and CO (an indirect greenhouse gas [GHG])

monitoring values are not collected specifically for the DFM. For a general discussion on Hg 

emissions, Hg air emissions (stack plus fugitive) from three coal-fired power plants in Campbell 

County were evaluated. In 2011, the EPA announced standards to limit mercury, acid gases, and 

other toxic pollution from coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) with a capacity of 25 

megawatts or greater (EPA 2019a). The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) require 

power plants to apply mercury emission controls measures to comply with these standards. In 

2017, the DFM supplied coal to four power plants (table 3-4). The table shows the Hg air 

emissions for these four power plants and the estimated emissions from coal supplied to the 

plants by the DFM. The 2017 Hg air emissions from DFM-supplied coal were approximately 91 

percent lower than the 2012 emissions.

Table 3-4. Mercury Emissions (Tons) from Power Plants Supplied by DFM, 

2012-2017

Power Plant 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20171

Dry Fork Station (Wyoming) 0.034 0.034 0.025 0.020 0.014 0.015

Dave Johnston Plant (Wyoming) 0.131 0.121 0.089 0.038 0.021 0.021

Laramie River Station (Wyoming) 0.265 0.285 0.110 0.106 0.042 0.034

LCRA Fayette Power Project (Texas) 0.169 0.141 0.091 0.145 0.061 0.048

Basin Electric Leland Olds (North Dakota) 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110

Power Plant Cumulative Total 0.708 0.439 0.224 0.164 0.077 0.069

Hg Emissions from DFM-supplied Coal 0.202 0.098 0.054 0.050 0.022 0.019

1 Most current data available as of May 2019

Source: Calculated from EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program (EPA 2019a)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-6

The Pb stack emissions from three coal-fired power plants and Pb levels recorded at one AQS 

monitoring site in Campbell County as summarized in table 3-5. The Pb values from the 

Thunder Basin Grassland AQS site (the only station reporting in μg/m3) were well below the 

NAAQS and WAAQS of 0.15 μg/m3. 

Table 3-5. Measured Annual Pb Air Emissions from Three Campbell County 

Power Stations and One Campbell County Coal Mine 

Power Station or AQS Site 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Wyodak Plant (pounds) 43.1 35.3 33.2 19.7 27.3

Dry Fork Station (pounds) 9.0 21.0 8.6 14.0 10.0

Neil Simpson Complex (pounds) 60.0 31.0 24.0 24.0 23.0 3 Thunder Basin (56-005-0123) (μg/m )

1 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001

CO is created when carbon-containing fuels are burned incompletely. Through natural 

processes in the atmosphere, it is eventually oxidized to CO2. CO is not monitored in Campbell 

County. 

3.4.1.3 Air Quality Related Values 

Discussions specific to air quality related values (AGRVs) at the DFM are included in section 

3.4.7.3 of the A2TR1 EA in place at the DFM in 2017. A majority of these details have not 

changed. Where appropriate, information has been updated or restated for informational 

purposes. 

3.4.1.3.1 Visibility 

Figure 3-1 shows annual averages for the 20 percent clearest and haziest days, and visibility 

days at the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation monitoring site (the nearest operational 

PSD Class I area, see map 3-1) for 2003 through 2017 (most current data available, Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments [IMPROVE] 2018). Lower deciview (dv) values 

indicate better visibility conditions. As indicated on figure 3-1, the long-term trend in visibility 

at the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation appears to be relatively stable, if not improving 

slightly. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

Haze Index, dv

Haziest Year Clearest

Natural Conditions Haziest Natural Conditions Clearest

Figure 3-1. Visibility on Clearest and Haziest Days at the Northern Cheyenne 

Indian Reservation, 2003-2017 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-7

3.4.1.3.2 Air Quality Related Values Related to Coal Combustion

Emissions that affect AQRVs result from combustion of fossil fuels. Table 3-6 presents the 

estimated PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, Hg, and CO emissions estimates for coal mined at the DFM

that was used for power generation between 2012 and 2018.

Table 3-6. Estimated Annual PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, Hg, and CO Contributions 

from Combustion of Coal Mined at the DFM, 2012-2018

Source: WWC Engineering (WWC) completed the calculations, which are provided in appendix C

3.4.1.3.3 Acidification of Lakes/Acid Deposition

Acid deposition causes acidification of lakes and streams, which has direct impacts on aquatic 

habitats and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevation and many sensitive forest soils 

(EPA 2016). Acid deposition is generally associated with SO2 and NOX emissions from coal-fired 

electric generating stations, which would include the DFS. SO2 and NOX emissions from coal 

produced at the DFM are discussed above. According to the EPA (2002), hydrogen ion (H+) 

concentrations are the primary indicator of precipitation acidity. H

+ monitoring is not required 

at the DFM so measured H

+

concentrations determined at site WY99 (the closest H

+ monitoring 

site to the DFM) are provided in table 3-7. The location of WY99 in relationship to the DFM 

is indicated on map 3-1. As indicated in table 3-7, the 2012-2017 trends in pH and wet 

deposition at monitoring site WY99 appeared to be relatively stable. According to the EPA, 

national monitoring network data show significant improvements in the primary acid deposition 

indicators between 1989 and 2013 (EPA 2016).

Table 3-7. Measured Hydrogen Ion (H+) Concentrations at Monitoring Site 

WY99, 2012-2017

Parameter1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20172

pH 5.8 No Data 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.8

Wet deposition (kg/hectare) <0.01 No Data 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1 Measured as pH and wet-deposition

2 Most current data as of May 2019

Source: National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) 2018

3.4.1.4 Greenhouse Gases (GHG)

Discussions specific to GHG at the DFM are included in section 3.4.7.4 of the A2TR1 EA in 

place at the DFM in 2017. A majority of these details have not changed. Where appropriate, 

information has been updated or restated for informational purposes. According to the EPA, 

GHG include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and several fluorinated species of gas 

(EPA 2018d). The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of 

the global warming impacts of different GHG. Specifically, GWP is a measure of how much 

energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the 

emissions of 1 ton of CO2. For consistency between projects, OSMRE describes GHG emissions 

Source 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Tons of Coal Combusted 6,006,787 5,433,936 5,373,973 6,369,206 6,135,546 6,045,618 6,303,822

PM10 (Tons) 4,173.7 3,775.7 3,734.0 4,425.5 4,263.2 4,141.5 4,318.4

PM2.5 (Tons) 3,218.1 2,911.2 2,879.0 3,412.2 3,287.1 3,238.9 3,377.2

SO2 (Tons) 52,559.4 47,546.9 47,022.3 55,730.6 53,686.0 52,899.2 55,158.4

NOX (Tons) 21,624.4 19,562.2 19,346.3 22,929.1 22,088.0 21,764.2 22,693.8

Hg (Tons) 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02

CO (Tons) 1,501.7 1,358.5 1,343.5 1,592.3 1,533.9 1,511.4 1,576.0
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-8

in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (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 and N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial 

activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. 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 have on climate because of their 

increased incremental levels in the earth’s atmosphere. To allow different gases to be compared 

and added together, emissions can be converted into 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 CO2e emissions that occurred at the DFM from 2012 through 2018 were estimated based 

on annual coal production (table 3-8). The inventories included emissions from direct 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 conveyors); and mining processes (i.e., blasting, 

coal fires caused by spontaneous combustion, and methane released [vented] from exposed 

coal seams). CO2e emissions from indirect sources (transportation of coal via rail and coal 

combustion) were also estimated (see appendix C for CO2e emissions calculations).

As presented in table 3-8, the estimated emissions from DFM direct sources accounted for 

approximately 44,634 metric tons of CO2e in 2018. This equates to approximately 0.4 percent 

of the total 2018 CO2e emissions (10,632,440 metric tons) related to mining and combusting 

approximately 6.3 Mt of DFM coal.

Emissions from transporting the coal via rail to final destinations at power plants and loading 

terminals were calculated using annual average rail miles from the DFM to final destinations. 

The average haul distances were calculated using the weighted average of haul distances from 

the DFM for annual coal sales for 2012 through 2018 (WFW 2019a). As indicated in table 3-8,

approximately 28,904 metric tons of CO2e were produced in 2018 from the rail transport of 

the 4.3 Mt of coal mined at the DFM. The amount of CO2e emitted during the combustion of 

fossil fuels varies according to the carbon content and heating value of the fuel used (EPA 2008). 

Approximately 10,558,902 metric tons of CO2e were produced in 2018 from the combustion 

of the 6.3 Mt of coal mined at the DFM. Therefore, emissions from indirect sources accounted

for approximately 10,587,806 metric tons of CO2e, which is 99.6 percent of the estimated 2018

CO2e emissions related to mining and combusting 6.3 Mt of DFM coal.

Discussions specific to the potential for emissions of dust from coal use/transportation 

produced at the DFM are included in section 3.4.7.4 of the A2TR1 EA in place at the DFM in 

2017. These discussions have not changed and are incorporated here by reference.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-9

Table 3-8. Estimated Emissions from Direct and Indirect CO2e Sources at the DFM, 2012-2018

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Average

General

Mt of coal recovered 6.01 5.43 5.37 6.37 6.14 6.05 6.30 5.95

Mt of coal shipped by conveyor (all to DFS) 2.03 1.99 2.14 2.10 1.83 2.13 1.97 2.03

Mt of coal shipped by rail 3.98 3.44 3.24 4.27 4.30 3.92 4.33 3.93

Average transport miles (one way) 192 250 142 132 141 186 191 176.29

Number of train trips (one way) 257 222 209 276 278 273 280 256.43

Direct emissions sources1

Fuel 19,624 17,752 17,556 20,808 20,026 19,765 20,581 19,445

Electricity consumed in mining process 16,039 14,509 14,349 17,006 16,368 16,154 16,822 15,892

Mining process 6,894 6,237 6,168 7,310 7,035 6,944 7,231 6,831

Total from Direct Sources1 42,557 38,498 38,073 45,124 43,429 42,863 44,634 42,168

Indirect Emissions Sources1

Rail transport226,675 30,030 16,044 19,687 21,199 25,452 28,904 23,999

From coal combustion310,061,368 9,101,843 9,001,405 10,668,420 10,277,040 10,126,410 10,558,902 9,970,770

Total from indirect sources1 10,088,043 9,131,873 9,017,449 10,688,107 10,298,239 10,151,862 10,587,806 9,994,769

Total estimated CO2e emissions1 10,130,600 9,170,371 9,055,522 10,733,231 10,341,668 10,194,725 10,632,440 10,036,936

1

In metric tons - see appendix C for calculations.

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 round-trip mileage to power 

plants. Coal haulage emissions calculations include a loaded train and a returning empty train, per train trip. 

3 Based on 1.675 metric tons CO2e per ton of coal burned for electrical generation (EPA 2008) and calculated by WWC (2019). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-10

3.4.1.5 Emissions Standards at Coal Combustion Sources

As stated in section 1.2.1, the DFM currently supplies the DFS with approximately 2.0 Mtpy 

of coal for power generation. The DFS is located adjacent to the DFM and is operated by Basin 

Electric Power Cooperative. The DFS consists of one coal-fired steam driven EGU with a net 

electric generating capacity of 422 MW. The DFM provides all of the coal utilized at the DFS.

Actual emissions data for DFS are listed in table 3-9.

Table 3-9. Dry Fork Station Reported Emissions, 2012-2017

Emissions 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20171

CO2 (Tons) 3,555,746 3,588,183 3,635,576 3,415,773 3,096,028 3,618,571

NOX (Tons) 619.6 635.6 657.2 672.0 632.1 697.2

SO2 (Tons) 691.5 829.7 884.1 869.7 911.8 1,047

Hg (Tons) 0.034 0.034 0.025 0.020 0.014 0.015

1 Most current data available as of May 2019

Source: SNL Financial 2018 (CO2, NOX, and SO2), EPA 2018b (Hg)

3.5 Water Resources

The discussions included in section 3.5 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the 

description of water resources associated with the DFM in 2017. The analyses included herein 

serve to update discussions with recent surface water and groundwater quality monitoring 

results and update water rights discussions.

3.5.1 Surface Water

The surface water hydrologic system within the A3 tract is dominated by the East Draw drainage 

system (maps 3-2 and 3-3). This drainage systems is a tributary to Dry Fork Little Powder 

River (Dry Fork LPR). Portions of internally drained basin (IDB) #2 and #3 are also associated 

with the tract. According to information presented in Appendix D6 (Hydrology) of Permit No. 

PT0599, East Draw within the tract has ephemeral flows (responds only to rainfall or snowmelt 

events) (WFW 2011). Within the A3 tract, the drainage area of East Draw is approximately

451.0 acres, the drainage area of IDB #2 is approximately 48.0 acres, and the drainage area of 

IDB #3 is approximately 143.6 acres. The remaining 13.8 acres are within the Little Powder 

River Drainage.

The surface water quality varies with stream flow rate within the East Draw drainage; the higher 

the flow rate, the lower the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, but the higher the 

suspended solids concentration.

3.5.2 Groundwater

3.5.2.1 Alluvium

The 2019 Cumulative Hydrological Impact Assessment (CHIA) presented baseline water quality 

analysis from 50 alluvial wells associated with the northern group of mines 

(WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). Not all 50 wells were evaluated for all water quality constituents.

When compared to select parameters with the WDEQ-WQD Class III livestock standards, 

exceedances were observed for selenium (1 well), aluminum (1 well), arsenic (1 well), pH 

(2 wells), boron (5 wells), chromium (9 wells), Pb (12 wells), sulfate (24 wells), TDS (24 wells), 

and Hg (44 wells). TDS concentrations ranged from 300 to 15,636 mg/L, with a median of 

3,859 mg/L. The water quality of the alluvial aquifer generally exhibited the highest TDS 

concentrations among all the monitored aquifers. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-11

Map 3-2. Watersheds and Surface Drainages Associated with the DFM
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-12

Map 3-3. Surface Water Monitoring Sites at the DFM
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-13

Hydraulic gradients were similar to the topographic and valley-bottom slopes on which the 

deposits resided. The alluvial aquifer tests indicated that saturated thicknesses ranged from 

1.6 to 34.2 feet, with a median of 12.4 feet. The hydraulic conductivities in the 30 wells tested

in the alluvial aquifer ranged from 0.42 to 203 feet per day (ft/d), with a median value of 12 ft/d. 

The hydraulic conductivities of wells associated with the alluvial aquifer were generally higher 

when they were in close proximity to the clinker. Additionally, the hydraulic conductivity in the 

alluvial aquifer varied due to the discontinuous nature of the lenses within the sediments.

3.5.2.2 Clinker (Wyoming Porcelanite or Scoria)

The 2019 CHIA presented baseline water quality analysis from 14 clinker wells 

(WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). Not all 14 wells were evaluated for all water quality constituents. 

The analysis showed that the water quality of the clinker was poor, with six parameters 

exceeding the Class III livestock standards, including: chromium (one well), Pb (one well), pH 

(one well), sulfate (two wells), TDS (two wells), and Hg (seven wells). TDS concentrations 

ranged from 530 to 7,930 mg/L, with a median of 2,051 mg/L. A water quality type analysis (piper 

diagram) indicated that the dominant baseline water quality type in the clinker was calcium 

sulfate. 

Aquifer tests were conducted at a total of 17 wells completed in the clinker at the Dry Fork, 

Rawhide, and Synthetic Fuels mines (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). Clinker aquifer tests 

indicated that saturated thickness ranged from 8 to 50 feet, with a median of 28 feet. Hydraulic 

conductivities ranged from 3.0 to 504,000 ft/d, with a median of 414 ft/d. The high hydraulic 

conductivities calculated for the clinker likely incorporated a considerable level of uncertainty 

due to the difficulty of calculating conductivity from the small amount of drawdown measured 

in the observation wells.

3.5.2.3 Wasatch (Overburden) Formation

The 2019 CHIA presented baseline water quality analysis collected from 29 overburden wells 

associated with the northern group of mines (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). Not all 29 wells 

were evaluated for all water quality constituents. When compared to select parameters with 

the WDEQ-WQD Class III livestock standards, exceedances were observed for aluminum 

(1 well), TDS (2 wells), chromium (2 wells), Pb (2 wells), sulfate (2 wells), pH (6 wells), and Hg 

(12 wells). TDS concentrations ranged from 180 to 7,066 mg/L, with a median of 2,057 mg/L. In 

general, TDS concentrations were less variable and lower in concentration than in the alluvial 

wells. A water quality type analysis (piper diagram) indicated that the baseline water type in the 

overburden varied between calcium sulfate, sodium sulfate, and sodium bicarbonate. 

Aquifer tests were conducted at 38 overburden wells associated with the northern group of 

mines (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). Aquifer tests indicated that saturated thicknesses ranged 

from 2 to 236 feet. The median saturated thickness in the overburden was 60 feet. The median 

hydraulic conductivity of the wells was 0.34 ft/d, with a maximum of 103 ft/d and a minimum of 

0.001 ft/d. The variability in conductivity was likely due to the discontinuous nature of the 

sediments and the difficulty in testing wells that were low yielding.

3.5.2.4 Coal Aquifers

The 2019 CHIA presented baseline water quality analysis collected from 79 coal wells associated 

with the northern group of mines (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). Not all 79 wells were 

evaluated for all water quality constituents. When compared to select parameters with the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-14

WDEQ-WQD Class III livestock standards, exceedances were observed for cadmium (1 well), 

aluminum (1 well), boron (2 wells), Pb (3 wells), chromium (4 wells), TDS (5 wells), sulfate 

(6 wells), pH (13 wells), and Hg (30 wells). TDS concentrations ranged from 243 to 7,988 mg/L, 

with a median of 1,181 mg/L. The water quality type in the coal was highly variable as it was 

dependent on several factors including the proximity of a coal well to the clinker and the alluvial 

aquifers, depth of the well, and the local geochemistry.

There were 58 aquifer tests conducted in the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifer by the 6 coal 

mines. Saturated thicknesses in the coal aquifer ranged from 4 to 130 feet, with a median of 93 

feet. The permeability of coal is characterized by cleat permeability (natural opening-mode 

fractures in coal beds) and secondary permeability (related to folding and faulting). The median 

hydraulic conductivity was 1.1 ft/d, with a maximum of 715 ft/d and a minimum of 0.01 ft/d.

3.5.2.5 Backfill Aquifer

The 2019 CHIA presented during mining (1980-2017) water quality analysis collected from

37 deeper backfill wells located within the Dry Fork, Rawhide, Buckskin, Eagle Butte, and 

Wyodak mines. Not all 37 wells were evaluated for all water quality constituents. TDS 

concentrations ranged from 328 to 13,760 mg/L, with a median of 4,562 mg/L. For the entire 

during-mining period, Class III exceedances were noted for chloride (1 well), nitrite as nitrogen 

(1 well), mercury (2 wells), lead (3 wells), selenium (3 wells), chromium (6 wells), sulfate 

(20 wells), TDS (22 wells), and field pH (26 wells). The TDS concentration time-series plots for 

two wells monitored over the long term showed trends of increasing TDS concentrations until 

the mid-1990s and then concentrations generally stabilized. The predominant water quality type 

in the backfill was calcium sulfate or magnesium sulfate. Although calcium and sulfate were the 

dominant ions, significant quantities of bicarbonate, sodium, and magnesium ions were also 

present.

The 2019 CHIA presented water quality analysis collected from five shallow alluvial valley floor 

(AVF) backfill wells associated with the northern group of mines (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). 

TDS concentrations have varied between and within the alluvial backfill wells. TDS 

concentrations exceeded the WDEQ-WQD Class III livestock standard of 5,000 mg/L at 4 of 

the 5 wells. From 2001 to 2013, TDS concentrations at one alluvial backfill well generally 

increased, reaching a maximum value of 31,200 mg/L in 2013 but TDS at this well then slightly 

decreased over the 2013 to 2017 period to 18,800 mg/L. Recent data from two of the alluvial 

backfill wells suggests that water quality was comparable to premining conditions but TDS 

concentrations at two wells were elevated relative to baseline conditions.

There were eight aquifer tests conducted by the mines in the backfill aquifer

(WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). Saturated thicknesses from the aquifer tests ranged from 21 to 

89 feet. The median saturated thickness from all tests was approximately 38 feet. The median 

hydraulic conductivity was 0.07 ft/d, with a maximum of 2.7 ft/d and a minimum of 0.004 ft/d.

3.5.3 Water Rights

The SEO administers water rights in Wyoming, which are granted for both surface water and 

groundwater. SEO records indicate that, as of May 2018, 21 permits for surface-water rights 

were within 2 miles of the A3 tract. Surface-water rights for non-coal applicants are listed in 

appendix D. The breakdown of uses for non-coal surface water rights is as follows:
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-15

• 11 Stock

• 5 Irrigation

• 2 Industrial

• 1 CBNG; Industrial

• 1 CBNG; Irrigation

• 1 Industrial; Stock

SEO records indicate that, as of May 2018, 94 permits for groundwater rights were within 

2 miles of the A3 tract. Valid ground-water rights for non-coal applicants are listed in appendix 

D. The breakdown of uses non-coal ground-water rights is as follows:

• 30 Stock

• 12 Miscellaneous

• 13 Monitoring

• 9 CBNG

• 9 Domestic

• 9 Domestic, Stock

• 5 Industrial

• 2 Industrial, Miscellaneous

• 2 Municipal Groundwater*

• 1 Domestic, Industrial

• 1 Domestic, Miscellaneous

• 1 Domestic, Miscellaneous, Stock

*All for the same well, the City of Gillette Fox Hills #5 well.

3.6 Alluvial Valley Floors (AVFs)

As described in the Amendment 3 PAP, no AVFs have been delineated within the A3 tract

(WFW 2018).

3.7 Wetlands/Aquatic Features

The discussions included in section 3.6 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the 

description of wetlands/aquatic features associated with the DFM in 2017. Where appropriate, 

information regarding wetlands/aquatic features has been updated or restated for informational

purposes.

Aquatic resources within the A3 tract were assessed for wetlands according to the 1987 USACE 

Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2010 Great Plains Regional Supplement (USACE 1987 

and 2010, respectively). Other Waters of the United States were determined according to 

definitions in 33 CFR § 328.3. Potential aquatic resources were identified by examining 

topographic maps and utilizing National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping. All potential 

wetlands identified through those reviews were surveyed in the field from May through 

September 2010. Surveys were also conducted on the remainder of the lands in traverses across 

the study area. Vegetation, hydrology, and soil characteristics of aquatic sites and uplands were 

recorded on field data sheets and locations of observations were plotted on topographic maps. 

Five aquatic features within the A3 tract were evaluated for wetland characteristics in 2016 by 

Intermountain Resources (WFW 2018). Based on the results of the survey, one isolated

stockpond in the A3 tract qualified as a wetland but the 0.3-acre stockpond feature did not 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-16

qualify as a jurisdictional wetland. The USACE determined that Department of Army 

authorization is not required for the coal mining activities within the consolidated DFM permit 

boundary because there would be no discharges of dredge or fill material into waters of the 

United States (USACE 2018).

3.8 Soils

The following discussions on soils resources are summarized from Appendix D7 (Soils) of the 

Amendment 3 PAP (WFW 2018). A detailed discussion of the 11 soil map units (plus disturbed 

lands, reclaimed lands, and water) within the A3 tract is included in appendix E. Soil survey 

information for adjacent and nearby permitted areas was reviewed to determine whether soils 

and their recommended salvage depths were similar to those observed within the A3 tract. 

WDEQ-LQD determined that the soils within the tract were similar to those currently being 

salvaged and utilized for reclamation at the DFM, and these soils have been previously sampled 

a sufficient number of times.

According to information provided on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

website, approximately 55 percent (362 acres) of the soil map units within the A3 tract were 

classified as prime or unique farmlands if irrigated (NRCS 2019).

3.9 Vegetation

The following discussion on vegetation is summarized from Appendix D8 (Vegetation) of the 

Amendment 3 PAP (WFW 2018). The vegetation community types identified on the study area 

included grassland, upland sagebrush, pastureland, hayland, cultivated crops, and disturbed land. 

A detailed discussion of the six vegetation community types associated with the A3 tract is 

included in appendix E.

Threatened or endangered plants or other plant species of special concern, as listed by the 

USFWS and other agencies, were not encountered within the A3 tract (WFW 2018). Habitat 

for the Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) was not found in the area due to the lack of 

suitable wetlands. However, the marginal wetlands were surveyed on August 4, 2016 and no 

Ute ladies'-tresses were found.

The State of Wyoming maintains a list of designated noxious weeds (Wyoming Department of 

Agriculture [WDOA] 2018). This list includes invasive and nonnative plant species that, once 

established, can out-compete and eventually replace native species thereby reducing forage 

productivity and the overall vigor and diversity of existing native plant communities. The 

state-listed noxious weed species that were found within the A3 tract included Canada thistle

(Cirsium arvense), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), 

skeletonleaf bursage (Franseria discolor Nutt.), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) (WFW 

2018). These noxious weeds were not abundant. Selenium indicator species were not common 

on the A3 tract in 2016. Total annual grasses comprised from 0.2 to 7.7 percent of the total 

relative vegetative cover on the 2016 vegetation survey areas. Cheatgrass brome (Bromus 

tectorum) and field brome (Japanese brome [Bromus japonicus]) were the major annual grass 

species encountered during the 2016 vegetation survey (WFW 2018). Cheatgrass brome and 

field brome are not state-designated noxious weeds in Wyoming and not county-designated 

noxious weeds in Campbell County but cheatgreass brome is considered a noxious weed in 

some Wyoming counties.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-17

3.10 Wildlife

The discussions included in section 3.9 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the 

description of wildlife resources associated with the DFM in 2017. The information included in 

A2TR1 EA was derived from the baseline data and the subsequent studies and WDEQ-LQD 

annual reports. Where appropriate, information regarding wildlife has been restated for 

informational purposes and updated from the 2019 Annual Wildlife Report (WFW 2019b). No 

significant changes to wildlife use areas for big game, other mammals, upland game birds 

(excluding the Greater sage-grouse [Centrocercus urophasianus]), other birds, reptiles and 

amphibians, or aquatic species populations have been noted from the previous discussion 

presented. There have been changes in discussions related to raptors; threatened, endangered, 

and candidate (T&E) species; and species of special interest (SOSI). The status of Greater sagegrouse has also changed since publication of the A2TR1 EA. Updated wildlife information is 

provided in Appendix E.

3.10.1 Raptors

Eleven raptor species (northern harrier [Circus cyaneus], ferruginous hawk [Buteo regalis], 

Swainson's hawk [Buteo swainsoni] red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis], golden eagle [Aquila 

chrysaetos], bald eagle [Haliaeetus leucocephalus], prairie falcon [Falco mexicanus], American 

kestrel [Falco sparverius], great horned owl [Bubo virginianus], short-eared owl [Asio flammeus], 

and burrowing owl [Athene cunicularia]) were recorded within the raptor monitoring area during 

DFM baseline inventories. The ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson's hawk, golden 

eagle, burrowing owl, and great horned owl are raptor species common to the region that are 

known to have nested within the DFM raptor monitoring area in the past. The 2019 Annual 

Wildlife Report identified the location and annual status of raptor nests for 2018 (WFW 2019b). 

Four intact raptor nests (SH-4b, SH-11c/GHO7a, SH11f, and SH11g) were located within the 

A3 tract in 2018 and all four nests are within the proposed disturbance boundary for the tract. 

Two other nests (SH-4c/RTH-18 and Sh-4a) were located immediately adjacent north of the A3 

tract and would likely be impacted as a result of the Proposed Action. Nest SH-4b is a platform 

nest and the other five nests are located in trees associated with a ranch facility and home site 

(WFW 2019b). SH-4c/RTH-18 was successful in 2018 when two red-tailed hawks fledged from 

the nest and SH-11c/GHO7a was successful in 2018, producing two great horned owls. SH-11g, 

a new Swainson’s hawk nest, was active in 2018 but was not successful. The other three nests 

were inactive in 2018. BLM sensitive raptor species that could potentially occur in the area 

include the burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), 

Swainson’s hawk, and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) (appendix E). The Swainson’s hawk is 

the only BLM sensitive raptor species has been documented as nesting within the tract (WFW 

2019b).

3.10.2 Greater Sage-grouse

The project area is not within a core population area, as delineated in the Wyoming Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection strategy and a 2-mile seasonal buffer (March 15 to June 30)

applies to occupied leks within non-core population areas (Office of the Governor 2015). One

historical Greater sage-grouse lek complex (Dry Fork II/IIA) has been documented within 

2 miles of the A3 tract. However, the Dry Fork II lek was destroyed by mining in 2005 and the 

Dry Fork IIA lek was destroyed by mining in 2017. Both leks within this complex had been 

designated as unoccupied by the WGFD. The summary of Greater sage-grouse strutting ground 

inventories included in appendix E indicates that while bird numbers on these leks have 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-18

fluctuated over the past 17 years, the counts from 2000 through 2018 showed that overall lek 

attendance numbers for the monitored leks within 2 miles of the A3 tract had declined to zero.

3.10.3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species and Vertebrate 

Species of Special Interest

The information presented in this section was obtained from the USFWS Information for 

Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system and Natural Resource and Energy Explorer (NREX), 

which is a web GIS-based software tool that supports pre-planning development considerations 

that facilitates the assessment of energy, environmental, cultural, socioeconomic and 

infrastructural assets in Wyoming (NREX 2019).

3.10.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate (T&E) Species

The 2018 USFWS list of T&E species includes the northern long-eared bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis), which is listed as threatened. The analysis area for most T&E species included 

the DFM permit boundary.

Due to the proximity of the DFM to the DFS power plant and due to the fact that some of the 

coal mined from the A3 tract would likely be used at the DFS, the analysis area for the northern 

long-eared bat included the airshed analysis boundary for Hg deposition from mining and coal 

combustion. Additional information was gathered through incidental observations of species 

recorded during other field surveys. No critical habitat for this species has been identified in the 

area (USFWS 2018a).

While USFWS information indicates that the northern long-eared bat could occur in the area, 

habitat (caves and mine shafts as winter habitat and caves, mine shafts, and trees for summer 

habitat, USFWS [2016b]) is not present in the A3 tract to support the threatened northern 

long-eared bat (USFWS 2018a).

3.10.3.2 Vertebrate Species of Special Interest (SOSI)

Information provided on the NREX website was utilized for the determination of SOSI species 

that could occur in the area. For the purposes of this discussion, SOSI include BLM sensitive 

species, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) species of concern (SOC), species 

protected under MBTA, and WGFD species of greatest conservation need (SGCN). USFWS 

T&E species are not included in this category. There is a considerable amount of crossover 

between the species occurrence on the various lists included in SOSI (appendix E). BLM 

sensitive species include those species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA together 

with species designated internally as BLM sensitive in accordance with BLM Manual 6840 (BLM 

2008). WYNDD has developed a list (with supporting documentation) of SOC in Wyoming that 

are rare, endemic, disjunct, threatened, or otherwise biologically sensitive. The MBTA prohibits 

the taking of any migratory birds, their parts, nests, or eggs except as permitted by regulations. 

Except for introduced species and some upland game birds, almost all birds occurring in the 

wild in the United States are protected (50 CFR § 10.13) (USFWS 2018a). WGFD SGCN 

includes wildlife species with low and declining populations that are indicative of the diversity 

and health of the Wyoming’s wildlife (WGFD 2017). The WGFD’s SGCN designation process 

is based upon its Native Species Status (NSS) classification system. The WGFD then places each 

SGCN into one of three tiers of management based on its total score: Tier I (highest priority), 

Tier II (moderate priority), and Tier III (lowest priority).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-19

As determined from the NREX list, 46 terrestrial-vertebrate SOSI have the potential of 

occurring within the project area. As shown in appendix E, 42 WGFD SGCN, 31 species 

protected under the MBTA, 17 WYNDD SOC, 13 BLM sensitive species, and 

2 WGFD designated Tier I terrestrial-vertebrate species have the potential of occurring within 

the project area. According to monitoring results, 15 of these SOSI have been confirmed as 

occurring within or adjacent to the A3 tract during baseline or annual monitoring. Eight of the 

BLM sensitive species and seven the WYNDD SOC have been observed during wildlife surveys 

within the project area. One of the WGFD designated Tier I species (burrowing owl) has been 

observed within the project area.

3.11 Land Use and Recreation

Campbell County completed a comprehensive countywide land use plan in 2013, which provides 

general goals and policies for land use in the county, including countywide coal and mineral 

extraction and its integral part of the overall plan for Campbell County (Campbell County 2013). 

The A3 tract is within an area recognized by Campbell County as a mining land use.

The surface ownership within the DFM permit boundary includes 6,269.8 acres of private 

surface, 39.4 acres of federal surface, and 824.5 acres of state surface (map 3-4). Approximately 

320.0 acres of the 656.4-acre A3 tract are owned by WFW. The remainder is owned by a 

private party who has leased it to WFW for mining. All of the coal reserves associated with the 

A3 tract are federally owned, whereas the remaining subsurface minerals (i.e., oil and gas 

reserves) are privately owned. All oil and gas production infrastructure located in the tract is 

privately owned. As of October 4, 2018, 149 Conventional and CBNG wells had been 

completed within the general analysis area (WOGCC 2018), with 7 conventional wells 

completed within the tract. All of the wells drilled in the tract have been plugged and abandoned. 

No CBNG wells have been drilled in the tract, indicating that there are not sufficient quantities 

of methane in the tract to justify exploratory drilling for CBNG in the tract. Coal mining has 

been ongoing in the A3 tract since 1918 (Wyodak Mine) and coal mining has been the primary 

land use in the general analysis area since the mid-1980s. Secondary land uses include 

pastureland (ranching), dryland cropland, transportation, wildlife habitat, and CBNG 

development.

WFW owns two residences in the A3 tract, which will be vacated by mid-2020. Two other 

currently occupied residences within the tract are privately owned, but the land is being leased 

to WFW for the purpose of mining the land. Provisions for vacating the property and 

opportunity to salvage or relocate structures are included in the surface mining lease and it is 

expected that the houses will be vacated and/or removed prior to 2022 (WFW 2019a).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-20

Map 3-4. Surface Ownership within the DFM
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-21

3.12 Cultural Resources

Information regarding background cultural resources within the A3 tract was summarized from 

Appendix D-2.3 (Historic Cultural Resources Inventory, Amendment 3 Area) of the 

Amendment 3 PAP (WFW 2018). According to information provided in Appendix D-2.3, four

cultural resources sites (48CA1298, 48CA1299, 48CA7245, and 48CA7246) were identified in 

the A3 survey area. All four sites are associated with historic activity (post-1920 era) and are 

ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and do not require further 

investigation (Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] 2018). 

3.13 Visual Resources

The discussions included in section 3.12 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the 

description of visual resources associated with the DFM in 2017. According to Map 3-24 of the 

2015 Buffalo Approved Resource Management Plan, the general analysis area is classified as Visual 

Resource Management (VRM) Class IV because of the industrial nature of the energy 

development and active farming and residential use in the area (BLM 2015). The overall natural 

scenic quality of Class IV area is considered relatively low. Currently, mine facilities and mining 

activities at the Dry Fork Mine are visible from State Highway 59 and the Garner Lake Road.

3.14 Noise

The discussions included in section 3.13 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the 

description of noise associated with the DFM in 2017. A majority of these details have not 

changed. No site-specific noise level data are available for the A3 tract; however, the physical 

setting and general land uses are similar to those at the DFM. The current median noise level is 

estimated to be 40-60 dBA for day and night, with the noise level increasing with proximity to 

the currently active mining operations. Mining activities are characterized by noise levels of 

85-95 dBA in the immediate vicinity of mining operations and activities (BLM 1992). As discussed 

in section 3.11, four residences are currently located within the A3 tract. It is expected that the 

houses will be vacated prior to year 2022 (WFW 2019a).

3.15 Transportation Facilities

The discussions included in section 3.14 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the 

description of transportation facilities associated with the DFM in 2017. A majority of these 

details have not changed. Power lines, utility corridors, and oil and gas pipelines are present within 

and adjacent to the A3 tract. Several overhead power lines run through the tract. 

3.16 Hazardous and Solid Wastes

The discussions included in section 3.15 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the 

description of hazardous and solid wastes associated with the DFM in 2017. Potential sources of 

hazardous or solid waste on the tract include spilled, leaked, or dumped hazardous substances, 

petroleum products, and/or solid waste associated with coal and oil and gas exploration, oil and 

gas development, utility line installation and maintenance, and agricultural activities.

3.17 Socioeconomics

This section describes existing socioeconomic conditions in Wyoming and Campbell County

specific to the local and state economy, population, employment, and environmental justice. The 

discussions included in section 3.16 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-22

socioeconomics conditions associated with the DFM in 2017. Discussions related to housing, 

local government services, and environmental justice have not changed enough to require 

reevaluation in this EA. The following includes updated discussions on the local economy, 

population, and employment.

3.17.1 State and Local Economy

Wyoming’s coal mines produced an estimated 304.2 million tons in 2018, a decrease of about 

162.1 million tons (35 percent) from the record 466.3 million tons produced in 2008 but slightly 

increased from the low of 297.5 million tons sold in 2016. 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 percent of total statewide coal production in 2017 (Wyoming 

Department of Workforce Services [WDWS] 2017). According to coal production numbers 

from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), the coal from Campbell County 

accounted for approximately 44 percent of the coal produced in the U.S. in 2017 (USEIA 2017).

The estimated total fiscal impact from coal production in Campbell County to the State of 

Wyoming in 2018 was calculated based on coal produced from the county in 2017. The sale of 

coal from Campbell County in 2017 resulted in an estimated $457,591,386 of federal revenues 

and $649,266,546 in state revenues for a total of $1,106.9 million (see appendix F for 

calculations).

3.17.2 Population

According to U.S. census data, in 2017 Campbell County had a population of 46,242, which 

ranked it as the third most populous of Wyoming’s 23 counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). 

The majority of the Campbell County mine employees and support services resided in Gillette. 

It is estimated that the total population in the Gillette city limits increased from 29,947 in 2010 

to 30,560 in July 2017, an increase of only 2.0 percent over the period (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). 

Table 3-10 presents the population changes for Campbell County and Gillette. As of July 2017, 

Gillette accounted for roughly 66.1 percent of the county’s residents. Gillette was the fourth 

largest city in the state, following Cheyenne, Casper, and Laramie. 

Table 3-10. Campbell County and City of Gillette Population Change, 2010-2017

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2010-2017 

Increase

2010-2017 

Percent

Change

Campbell 

County 46,233 46,560 47,861 48,051 48,192 49,293 48,800 46,242 9 0.02

City of Gillette 29,947 30,392 31,378 31,637 31,820 32,611 32,290 30,560 613 2.05

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2018

3.17.3 Employment

Table 3-11 presents the employment changes for Wyoming and Campbell County for 2012

through 2018. The statewide total employment force decreased 4.8 percent from 2012 to 2018,

while the employment force in Campbell County decreased 15.7 percent during the same time 

period. The average unemployment rate in Campbell County for 2012 was 4.6 percent and 

4.0 percent for 2018 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2018). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 3-23

Table 3-11. Wyoming and Campbell County Employment Rate Change, 

2012-2018

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20181

Wyoming (number employed) 290,935 292,132 293,657 293,264 285,055 281,016 276,834

Wyoming (number unemployed) 16,337 14,479 12,675 12,752 15,868 12,329 11,335

Wyoming unemployment rate 5.3 4.7 4.1 4.2 5.3 4.2 4.1

Campbell County (number employed) 24,907 24,607 25,376 24,844 22,697 21,945 20,986

Campbell County (number unemployed) 1,212 1,091 878 1,023 1,739 1,138 843

Campbell County unemployment rate 4.6 4.2 3.3 4.0 7.1 4.9 4.0

1 2018 data are preliminary as of February 2019 as of February 2019

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018)

Employment in mining bottomed out in the third quarter of 2016 with slightly fewer than 

18,000 jobs, the lowest level in more than 10 years. Since then, however, mining has seen 

over-the-month increases in each of the 6 months prior to the base period (second quarter of 

2017). Wyoming’s employment is expected to grow by 7,333 jobs (2.7 percent) from the second 

quarter of 2017 to second quarter of 2019, with job growth forecast for all sectors. The largest 

job growth is expected in mining, including oil and gas, at 2,410 jobs (12.5 percent), due to 

favorable oil prices (WDWS 2018).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-1

4.0 Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

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. The environmental consequences have been assessed assuming an estimated 6.0 Mtpy 

production rate, which was provided by WFW based on current contract and anticipated demand 

(WFW 2019a). The estimated annual production is in line with recent (2012-2018) annual 

production.

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) and can be described by their level of significance (i.e., significant, moderate, minor, 

negligible, or no impact). The discussions included in section 4.1 of the A2TR1 EA provide details 

regarding the description of levels of significance and these descriptions have not changed.

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 

are described below. In addition to addressing the specific issues identified in chapter 1, the

environmental consequences analysis reflects changes to the mining operations included in 

chapter 2 and updated descriptions of the affected environment included in chapter 3.

Regarding other relevant regional activity, WDEQ-LQD recently approved the permit renewal 

for Permit No. PT0599 (WDEQ-LQD 2019). The Dry Fork, Rawhide, Buckskin, Eagle Butte, 

Synthetic Fuels, and Wyodak mines (northern group of mines) are adjacent to or in the immediate 

vicinity of the A3 tract (map 1-1). Information regarding ownership, permitted acres, and 2018

coal production from these mines is included in table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Ownership, Permitted Acres, and Production of the Northern Group 

of Mines

Mine Ownership Permitted 

Acres

2018

Production (Mt)

Dry Fork Mine Western Fuels Wyoming, Inc. 7,134 6.3

Rawhide Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC 9,231 9.5

Buckskin Buckskin Mining Company 9,020 13.5

Eagle Butte Contura Coal West, LLC 10,254 17.1

Synthetic Fuels Green Bridge Holdings Inc. 2,370 0.0

Wyodak Wyodak Resources Development Corporation 5,998 4.1

Total 44,007 50.5

Source: WDEQ-LQD 2018 (Permit Acres), WDWS 2017 (2017 Production)

Several heavy industrial facilities are also near the A3 tract, including an oilfield wastewater 

injection business, an activated carbon refinery, and a septic waste disposal business. An industrial 

park is in the process of being developed within 0.75 mile of the tract. These facilities are privately 

owned and there are no publicly accessible data/information available to aid in the discussion of 

cumulative impacts. In addition, three power plants are located adjacent to or in the vicinity of 

the A3 tract (map 3-1). Information regarding ownership and power output of the power plants 

is included in table 4-2. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-2

Table 4-2. Ownership and Power Output of Power Plants Near the DFM

Power Plant Ownership Power Output (MW)

Dry Fork Station Basin Electric Power Cooperative 422

Wyodak Power Plant PacifiCorp 402

Neil Simpson Complex1 Black Hills Corporation 383

1

Includes the Neil Simpson II, Wygen I, Wygen II, and Wygen III units

The environmental and cumulative effects discussions below for the Proposed Action assume 

that the federal mining plan modification to mine coal in the federal coal leases within the A3 

tract would be approved. Coal recovery would continue within the DFM permit boundary at an 

estimated annual rate of 6.0 Mt using coal recovery methods outlined in Permit No. PT0599. The 

recovery of the federal coal would continue for approximately 9.7 additional years beyond the 

No Action Alternative.

Under the No Action Alternative, the mining plan modification to recover the federal coal within 

the A3 tract would not be approved. Currently approved mining operations associated with 

existing coal leases would continue for approximately 36 years within federal coal leases 

WYW-5035, WYW-0271199, WYW-0271200, WYW-0271201, and WYW-0311810, state coal 

lease 0-26652, and Marshall et al. private coal lease.

4.2 Topography and Physiography

4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.2.1.1 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would impact the topography and physiography of lands included in the A3 

tract but these impacts would be similar to those currently occurring on the existing DFM coal 

leases as coal is mined and the mined-out areas are reclaimed. Typically, a direct permanent 

impact of coal mining and reclamation is topographic moderation. After reclamation, the restored 

land surfaces are generally gentler, with more uniform slopes and restored basic drainage 

networks. Following reclamation, the average postminning topography would be slightly lower in 

elevation than the premining topography due to removal of the coal. The removal of the coal 

would be partially offset by the swelling that occurs when the overburden and interburden are 

blasted, excavated, and backfilled. The direct effects on topography and physiography resulting 

from the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate and permanent on the tract. There 

would be no indirect effects under the Proposed Action. 

4.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to topography under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the 

Proposed Action, although the impacts to approximately 640.3 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 substantially different from

those described in the existing DFM federal mining plan. According to the 2019 CHIA, 

approximately 20,247 acres of land have been approved for disturbance within the northern 

group of mines (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). The cumulative effects primarily would be related 

to the northern group of mines. Following surface coal mining and reclamation, topography would 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-3

be modified. The cumulative effects on topography and physiography resulting from the Proposed 

Action and other disturbance associated with the northern group of mines are expected to be 

moderate and permanent.

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for topography and physiography.

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 

substantially different from those described in the A2TR1 EA. The geology from the base of the 

Wyodak-Anderson coal seam to the land surface would be subject to permanent change on the 

areas of coal removal, and mining would substantially alter the resulting subsurface physical 

characteristics of these lands. These impacts are occurring on the existing DFM coal leases as 

coal is mined and the mined-out areas are reclaimed. The Proposed Action would result in the 

recovery of approximately 58.1 Mt of federal coal within the Wyodak-Anderson coal seam. The 

Proposed Action would also result in the loss of CBNG though venting and/or depletion of 

hydrostatic pressure in Wyodak-Anderson coal resulting from mining adjacent areas. 

As described in section 3.11, seven conventional oil and gas wells have been completed within 

the tract. All of the wells drilled in the tract have been plugged and abandoned. No CBNG wells 

were drilled in the tract, indicating that there are not sufficient quantities of methane in the tract 

to justify exploratory drilling for CBNG. 

A locality search for paleontological resources (conducted through geological references and 

paleontological records) that included the A3 tract showed that no known vertebrate fossil 

localities are recorded from within either the original mine permit boundary or the A3 tract. 

However, site specific paleontological ground surveys have not been conducted and the tract lies 

on the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation, which is known to yield significant paleontological 

resources in nearby areas. If vertebrate fossils do exist, they could be negatively impacted by 

mining operations. Potential impacts to vertebrate fossils during construction could be both 

direct and indirect. Ground disturbance of significant fossil beds could result in direct damage to 

or destruction of fossils. Indirect effects during construction include erosion of fossil beds due to 

slope re-grading and vegetation clearing and unauthorized collection of significant fossils by 

construction workers or the public due to increased public access to fossil localities. Lease and 

permit conditions require that should previously unknown, potentially significant paleontological 

sites be discovered, work in that area must stop and measures must be taken to assess and 

protect the site.

The direct and indirect effects on mineral resources and paleontology are expected to be 

moderate and permanent on the tract.

4.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to geology, mineral resources, and paleontology under the No Action Alternative 

would be similar to those under the Proposed Action, although approximately 640.3 acres would

not be disturbed to recover federal coal within the tract and the duration of potential impacts in 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-4

the area would be reduced by approximately 9.7 years. Impacts to CBNG resources could still 

occur as a result of mining activities on adjacent lands.

4.3.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects on geology, mineral resources, and paleontology would primarily be 

related to the northern group of mines. As presented in table 4-1, the combined area of the 

permit boundaries of the northern group of Campbell County mines totals approximately 

68.8 square miles (44,007 acres), or approximately 0.4 percent of the 19,500-mi2

Montana/Wyoming PRB coalfield (WDEQ-LQD 2018 and Luppens et al. 2015). The U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that in 2015 there were approximately 162 billion tons of 

recoverable coal in the Montana/Wyoming PRB, of which, an estimated 25 billion tons were 

considered economically recoverable coal, with a maximum stripping ratio of 10:1 (Luppens et 

al. 2015). Information in table 4-1 shows that 50.5 Mt of coal were recovered at the 6 northern 

mines in 2018, or approximately 0.2 percent of the recoverable coal in the Montana/Wyoming 

PRB.

According to February 2019 information from the WOGCC website, 20,901 CBNG and 

3,282 conventional oil and gas wells have been drilled in Campbell County. The WOGCC records 

indicate that a majority of the Campbell County wells are privately held or state minerals, with 

approximately 53.1 percent of the wells drilled (12,831 of 24,183) being state/private minerals.

The status of these wells includes shut-in, producing, plugged and abandoned, and injection. The 

gas production in Wyoming continues to be significantly lower than the high observed in 2009

and oil production is down from a recent peak in 2015 (WOGCC 2018). As stated above, no 

producing oil or gas wells are located within the A3 tract. Therefore, the Proposed Action would 

not contribute to cumulative impacts on oil and gas wells.

Impacts to paleontological resources as a result of the currently authorized and reasonably 

foreseeable 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.

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, work in the area 

would stop and 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

Direct particulate matter emissions from the Proposed Action would include fugitive dust 

emissions generated from coal excavation and reclamation activities and tailpipe emissions from 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-5

equipment. Fugitive particulate emissions would also result from dust being generated during coal 

haulage, bulldozers, scrapers, loaders, and other equipment operating at the DFM. The DFM 

triennial emission inventory for 2017 was used to estimate direct particulate matter emissions 

for the Proposed Action. Particulate matter emissions for the Proposed Action and the State of 

Wyoming are tabulated in table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Comparison of DFM Emissions (from Operations Only) to Wyoming 

Particulate Matter Emissions

Proposed Action 

(tpy)

2017 Wyoming State Tier 1 

(tons)

Anticipated Percent

Change to State 

Emissions from Proposed 

Action

PM2.5 6.3 38,115 0.02

PM10 290.0 195,180 0.2

Source: WFW 2019a, EPA 2019b

Dispersion modeling was conducted in 2017 to determine if modifications to DFM’s current air 

quality permit would be compliant with short-term and long-term WAAQS for PM10, PM2.5, and 

NO2 (WFA and Redhorse Corporation 2017). Source emissions were based on maximum 

permitted coal production for the worst-case years selected to be analyzed in the DFM modeling 

analysis (2019 and 2025) and were taken from year-by-year emissions calculations for each mine.

The results of this modeling are presented in appendix C.

Based on PM10 dispersion modeling and on historical ambient monitoring at DFM and other mines 

north of Gillette, which have recorded no monitored exceedances of PM10 ambient standards, 

the Proposed Action would be in compliance with short-term and long-term ambient air quality 

standards for PM10. Finally, potential impacts from emissions of PM2.5 will continue to be below 

the ambient PM2.5 standards, based on ambient monitoring data collected at the Buckskin Mine

and on estimated DFM PM2.5 ambient concentrations.

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. Four occupied residences are currently 

within the A3 tract but, as discussed in section 3.11, these residences will be vacated prior to 

2022. The closest public transportation route is the Garner Lake Road, which currently bisects 

the tract, but the road will be relocated immediately adjacent to the tract prior to disturbance. 

The nearest recreational opportunities are within the Gillette city limits, approximately 9,000 feet 

from the A3 tract.

4.4.1.1.2 No Action Alternative

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 9.7 years.

4.4.1.2 Cumulative Effects

The northern group of mines would contribute particulate matter emissions to the surrounding 

area. Cumulative impacts from particulate matter emissions could be higher in the short term in 

this area due to coal mining activities if surface inversions occur in the northern portion of the 

PRB. This would be temporary, lasting only during the inversion event. Air quality impacts would 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-6

cease to occur after mining and reclamation are completed. The effects of particulate matter 

emissions from coal combustion are included in section 4.4.5. Modeling conducted for DFM’s 

current Air Quality Permit No. P0023278 included effects due to the northern group of mines. 

As the revised model indicated, the requested modification to DFM’s federal mining plan would 

not contribute to a violation of the federal annual PM10 WAAQS/NAAQS of 50 μg/m3(WFA and 

Redhorse Corporation 2017). The cumulative effects from particulate matter emissions are 

expected to be moderate and would be extended by approximately 9.7 years.

4.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be implemented for emissions of particulate matter beyond those 

included in the DFM air quality permit (WDEQ-AQD 2018).

4.4.2 Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Ozone (O3)

4.4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.4.2.1.1 Proposed Action

The DFM is not required to monitor NOX or O3 so a direct comparison between current NOX

or O3 at the mine and state or federal standards is not possible. However, NO2 data collected at 

the currently active AQS monitoring sites in Campbell County nearest to the DFM were below 

the 1-hour WAAQS and NAAQS 98th percentile concentration of 100 ppb (188 μg/m3). 

Therefore, ambient air quality within the vicinity of the Proposed Action is currently in 

compliance with the NO2 WAAQS and NAAQS.

Dispersion modeling conducted in 2017 demonstrated that modifications to WFW’s current 

permit would be compliant with short-term and long-term WAAQS for NO2 (WFA and 

Redhorse Corporation 2017). The results of this modeling are presented in appendix C.

Public exposure to NO2 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 residences in the area could also be affected. The closest public transportation 

route is the Garner Lake Road, which currently bisects the tract but will be relocated immediately 

adjacent to the tract prior to disturbance, and occupied dwellings. Four occupied residences are 

currently within the A3 tract but, as discussed in section 3.11, these residences will be vacated 

prior to 2022. The nearest recreational opportunities are within the Gillette city limits, 

approximately 9,000 feet from the A3 tract. The direct and indirect effects from NOX emissions 

resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate and would be extended by 

approximately 9.7 years on the tract.

As indicated in section 3.4.1.2, O3 monitoring is not required at the DFM but O3 levels have 

been monitored at AQS sites 560050123 and 560050456, which are located approximately 

22 miles north and 17 miles south of the A3 tract, respectively (map 3-1). No exceedances of 

the 8-hour O3 standard have occurred at either monitoring site since monitoring began in 2010.

Based on information provided by WFW that mining methods would not be significantly different 

that those currently employed at the mine (WFW 2019a), the direct and indirect effects from O3

emissions resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be minor and would be extended

by approximately 9.7 years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-7

4.4.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

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 9.7 years.

4.4.2.2 Cumulative Effects

The northern group of mines would contribute additional NOX and O3 emissions to the 

surrounding area. Modeling conducted for DFM’s Air Quality Permit P0023278 included effects 

from the northern group of mines. WDEQ-AQD determined that, based on the modeling analysis 

and past monitoring, the Proposed Action would not likely substantially degrade air quality 

(WDEQ-AQD 2018). Cumulative impacts from NOX and O3 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. The cumulative effects from NOX and O3

emissions are expected to be moderate and would be extended by approximately 9.7 years.

4.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be implemented for emissions of NOX or O3 beyond those 

included in the DFM air quality permit.

4.4.3 Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Mercury (Hg), Lead (Pb), and Other

Non-Greenhouse Gases (Non-GHG)

4.4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.4.3.1.1 Proposed Action

Direct air emissions for SO2, Hg, Pb, and other non-GHG from the Proposed Action would 

include emissions generated from coal excavation and reclamation activities and tailpipe emissions 

from equipment. The data presented in section 3.4.1.2 show that SO2, Hg, and Pb in Campbell 

County are in compliance with applicable standards. 

In addition, the DFM triennial emission inventory for 2017 was used to estimate direct SO2, CO, 

and other non-GHG emissions for the Proposed Action. These are compared to emissions 

estimates for the State of Wyoming in table 4-4.

Table 4-4. Comparison of Direct to Wyoming SO2, Hg, Pb, and Other Non-GHG 

Emissions

Source Proposed Action

(tpy)

2017 Wyoming State 

Tier 1 

(tons)

Anticipated % change to 

State Emissions from 

Proposed Action

VOC 5.08 271,481 0.002

HCOH 0.001 NA -

CO 124.98 250,232 0.05

SO2 10.88 52,354 0.02

Other HAPs 0.002 NA -

Total HAPs 0.002 NA -

NA – Not available

Source: WFW 2019a, EPA 2019b
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-8

Under the Proposed Action, coal recovery at the DFM would continue at an estimated annual 

rate of 6.0 Mt. Since the direct emissions from the Proposed Action would be minor when 

compared to Wyoming state emissions and given the results of ongoing SO2, Hg, and Pb 

monitoring in the area that show no exceedances of these parameters, the effects of emissions 

of SO2, Hg, Pb, and other non-GHGs from the Proposed Action would be minor and short-term.

4.4.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

Impacts from non-GHG emissions have resulted from current mining activity and therefore the 

impacts related to non-GHG emissions under the No Action Alternative would be similar to 

those under the Proposed Action but would not be extended for an additional 9.7 years.

4.4.3.2 Cumulative Effects

The northern group of mines would contribute additional non-GHG emissions to the surrounding 

area. Based on past monitoring, the Proposed Action would not likely increase these emissions. 

While cumulative impacts from non-GHG emissions 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 periods of inversions. Air quality impacts from mining 

would cease to occur after reclamation is complete. Therefore, the cumulative effects from nonGHG emissions are expected to be minor and short-term.

4.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures beyond those required by the DFM air quality permit would be required 

for emissions of non-GHGs.

4.4.4 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs)

4.4.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.4.4.1.1 Proposed Action

Visibility

WDEQ-ADQ has determined that the DFM is not a major stationary source, in accordance with 

Chapter 6, Section 4 of the WAQSR (WDEQ-AQD 2011). While the state of Wyoming does 

not require mines to evaluate impacts on Class I areas, OSMRE considers such issues during the 

federal mining plan modification review process.

Because WDEQ does not require an evaluation of visibility impacts on Class I areas, WFW does 

not monitor visibility associated with the DFM. Therefore, a direct comparison with the Wyoming 

standards is not possible. The impacts to visibility from mining the A3 tract have been inferred 

from the currently permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the DFM. The nearest 

Class I area is located approximately 74 miles northwest of the A3 tract at the Northern 

Cheyenne Indian Reservation. As indicated on figure 3-1, the long-term trend in visibility at the 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation appears to be relatively stable, if not improving slightly. 

If the coal within the tract is mined, the tract would be mined as an integral part of the DFM. 

Overburden is similar in thickness in the tract as compared with the current permit boundary. 

Thus, emissions from blasting are not expected to increase substantially. All blasting would be 

conducted in compliance will applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations, including 

WDEQ-LQD Rules and Regulations, Chapter 6. All blasting operations are conducted under the 

direction of a certified blaster. The expected levels of pollutants and particulates that effect 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-9

visibility would be within the limits included in DFM’s Air Quality Permit P0023278. The proposed 

project area is not directly influenced by other air quality regulations (i.e., Class I air shed). The 

direct and indirect effects to visibility resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be 

moderate and would be extended by approximately 9.7 years.

Acidification of Lakes/Acid Deposition

As described in section 3.4.1.3.3, H

+

concentrations are the primary indicator of precipitation 

acidity. H

+ monitoring is not required at the DFM so measured H+

concentrations determined at 

site WY99 (the closest H+ monitoring site to the DFM) were evaluated to estimate the potential 

effects of the Proposed Action on regional acidification of lakes. Nationwide data were also 

evaluated to assess the potential for impacts over a much larger area. As indicated in 

section 3.4.1.3.3, the 2012-2018 trend in H+at monitoring site WY99 appears to be relatively 

stable. According the EPA, national monitoring network data show significant improvements in 

the primary acid deposition indicators between 1989 and 2013 (EPA 2016). Because factors 

affecting H+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 DFM.

Based on the evaluation of the currently available information, the Proposed Action is not 

expected to contribute to increased direct or indirect effects from acidification of lakes or to 

acid deposition that may affect soils. The direct and indirect effects from acid deposition related 

to the Proposed Action would be negligible but would be extended by approximately 9.7 years.

4.4.4.1.2 No Action Alternative

Impacts to AQRVs 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 by 9.7 years.

4.4.4.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative AQRVs would be affected 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 ozone, 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 ozone 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 discussed in section 4.4.4.2 of the A2TR1 EA and are 

incorporated here by reference.

According to information obtained from the AirNow website, for Campbell County 

approximately 98.8 percent of the days between 2012 and 2018 were classified as having a good 

or moderate AQI and no days were classified as very unhealthy or hazardous (table 4-5).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-10

Table 4-5. Average Annual Campbell County Air Quality Index Values, 

2012-2018

Year Days 

Evaluated

Good or

Moderate

Unhealthy for 

Sensitive 

Groups

Unhealthy Very 

Unhealthy Hazardous

2012 366 351 13 2 0 0

2013 365 364 1 0 0 0

2014 365 364 1 0 0 0

2015 365 362 2 1 0 0

2016 366 365 1 0 0 0

2017 365 358 4 3 0 0

2018 365 361 2 2 0 0

Average 365.3 360.7 3.4 1.1 0 0

Percent of Average

Number of Days1

-- 98.7 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0

1

Indicated values may not equal calculated values due to rounding

Source: EPA 2018c

Using nationwide data obtained from the AirNow website, approximately 98.2 percent of the 

days between 2012 and 2018 were classified as having a good or moderate AQI and 0.03 percent 

of the days were classified as very unhealthy or hazardous (table 4-6).

A comparison between tables 4-5 and 4-6 shows that Campbell County AQI values were 

generally better than the U.S. average.

Table 4-6. Average Annual Nationwide Air Quality Index Values, 2012-2018

Year Days 

Evaluated

Good or

Moderate

Unhealthy for 

Sensitive 

Groups

Unhealthy Very 

Unhealthy Hazardous

2012 330,939 320,035 9,139 1,612 99 20

2013 328,133 322,978 4,203 836 70 24

2014 329,018 324,655 3,664 643 25 9

2015 330,622 325,881 3,848 824 36 14

2016 330,536 325,922 3,856 685 35 14

2017 340,954 335,403 4,187 1,148 153 40

2018 211,735 208,512 2,756 384 23 4

Average1 331,700.3 325,812.3 4,816.2 958.0 69.7 20.2

Percent of Average

Number of Days1

-- 98.2 1.5 0.3 0.02 0.01

1

Indicated values may not equal calculated values due to rounding

Source: EPA 2018c

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. The cumulative effects 

on AQRVs are expected to be minor but would be extended by approximately 9.7 years. Impacts 

to AQRVs from mining the federal coal within the A3 tract would cease to occur after mining 

and reclamation are completed.

4.4.4.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be implemented for AQRVs beyond those included in the DFM

air quality permit.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-11

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. Discussions of PM10, 

PM2.5, SO2, NOX, Hg, and CO emissions estimates from combustion of coal mined at the DFM 

used for power generation are included in table 4-7. Appendix C includes details on emissions

estimates. Using information included in appendix C, comparisons can be made between 

combustion emissions from coal mined at the DFM and emissions from coal mined from Campbell 

County. Comparisons to total U.S. emissions are also included.

Table 4-7. Estimated Annual PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, Hg, and CO Contributions 

from Combustion of Coal Mined at the DFM for 2012-2017 and 2018-

2064 Estimated Annual Average, Compared to Campbell County and 

U.S. Total Emissions

Year

Coal 

Combusted

(Mt)

PM10 

(Tons)

PM2.5

(Tons)

SO2

Emissions 

(Tons)

NOx

Emissions 

(Tons)

Hg 

Emissions 

(Tons)

CO 

Emissions 

(Tons)

2012 6.0 4,114.9 3,218.1 52,559.4 21,624.4 0.20 1,501.7

2013 5.4 3,722.5 2,911.2 47,546.9 19,562.2 0.10 1,358.5

2014 5.4 3,681.4 2,879.0 47,022.3 19,346.3 0.05 1,343.5

2015 6.4 4,363.2 3,412.2 55,730.6 22,929.1 0.05 1,592.3

2016 6.1 4,203.1 3,287.1 53,686.0 22,088.0 0.02 1,533.9

2017 6.0 4,141.5 3,238.9 52,899.2 21,764.2 0.02 1,511.4

2012-2017 Average 5.9 4,037.8 3,157.7 51,574.1 21,219.0 0.07 1,473.5

Estimated 

2018-2064 Annual 

Average

6.0 4,110.3 3,214.4 52,500.0 21,600.0 0.07 1,500.0

Average 

2012-2017 

Campbell County1

349.6 239,519.6 187,316.6 3,059,360.2 1,258,708.2 14.5 87,410.3

2018-2064 Annual 

Average Percent of 

Campbell Co.

-- 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 0.48 1.72

Total U.S. 

Emissions (2017)

824.8 573,077.7 448,176.2 7,216,720.0 2,969,164.8 34.2 206,192.0

2018-2064 Annual 

Average Percent of 

U.S.

-- 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.20 0.73

1 Based on average of 2012 through 2017 production

Source: WWC 2019, calculations provided in appendix C

Impacts to air quality related to coal combustion under the Proposed Action would be similar to 

the conditions currently experienced. When compared to Campbell County emissions, direct 

and indirect effects would be minor (less than 2 percent of the Campbell County average 

emissions) but would be extended by approximately 9.7 years.

Power plants can release trace metals, such as Hg, during the combustion of coal to generate 

electricity. Hg is a heavy metal that is a known persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) 

substance that occurs naturally in coal and air releases of Hg are associated with a variety of 

important environmental and human health consequences (CEC 2011). The estimated on-site Hg 

emissions from combustion of DFM-supplied coal are indicated in table 4-8.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-12

Table 4-8. On-site Mercury (Hg) Emissions (in Tons) from Coal Fired Power 

Plants Using DFM-supplied Coal, 2012-2017 and 2018-2064 Estimated 

Annual Average

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2018-2064

Annual 

Average

Dry Fork Station (Wyoming) 0.034 0.034 0.025 0.020 0.014 0.015 0.023

Dave Johnston Plant (Wyoming) 0.131 0.121 0.089 0.038 0.021 0.021 0.070

Laramie River Station (Wyoming) 0.265 0.285 0.110 0.106 0.042 0.034 0.140

LCRA Fayette Power Project (Texas) 0.169 0.141 0.091 0.145 0.061 0.048 0.109

Basin Electric Leland Olds (North Dakota) 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110

Power Plant Cumulative Total 0.708 0.439 0.224 0.164 0.077 0.069 0.280

Emissions from DFM-supplied Coal10.202 0.098 0.054 0.050 0.022 0.019 0.074

Percent of Hg Emissions from DFM 28.5 22.3 24.1 30.5 28.6 27.5 26.4

1 Based on percent of coal combusted at the power plant that came from the DFM, calculations provided in appendix C

Source: EPA 2017

Based on the average of 2012 through 2017 emissions from the power plants using coal from the 

DFM (average coal use of 5.9 Mtpy), the estimated Hg emissions resulting from DFM-produced 

coal would contribute approximately 0.074 ton of Hg emissions per year (WWC 2019). As 

indicated in table 4-8, Hg emissions from the five power plants supplied by DFM have been 

steadily decreasing over the 2012-2017 time period. The DFM provides all of the coal utilized at 

the DFS. The Proposed Action would not increase Hg emissions from power plants using 

DFM-supplied coal but would extend the emissions by approximately 9.7 years.

4.4.5.1.2 No Action Alternative

The air quality impacts directly resulting from coal combustion under the No Action Alternative 

would be less than those under the Proposed Action and would not be extended by 

approximately 9.7 years.

4.4.5.2 Cumulative Effects

In 2018, approximately 95 percent of coal mined at the DFM was burned at three Wyoming 

power plants (WFW 2019a). Therefore, the majority of the cumulative effects area would be 

related to coal combustion within the state of Wyoming. 

The Proposed Action would not increase cumulative Hg emissions but would extend the 

emissions from coal-fired power plants by approximately 9.7 years. When compared to emissions 

from these Wyoming power plants, cumulative effects from the Proposed Action would be minor 

but would be extended by approximately 9.7 years.

4.4.5.3 Mitigation Measures

A majority (approximately 99.7 percent) of the GHG identified in this EA are from non-mining 

activities, not controlled by WFW (e.g., rail transportation to and combustion at power plants). 

The DOI generally 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 DFM and Wyoming Power Plants) and 

other states’ 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.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-13

4.4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.4.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action

4.4.6.1.1 Proposed Action

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 CO2e emissions. WFW estimated 2012-2018 and 2019-2064 CO2e emissions 

from direct emissions sources based on known and estimated annual coal recovery and variables. 

As shown in table 4-9, the 2019-2064 annual emissions estimations from direct sources account 

for approximately 0.42 percent of the total emissions. Indirect effects from GHG emissions would 

occur as a result of emissions from indirect sources such as transporting and burning coal that is 

mined at the DFM. As shown in table 4-9, the 2019-2064 annual emissions estimations from 

indirect sources account for approximately 99.58 percent of the total emissions. 

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

Action from Coal Mined at the DFM (2012-2018 and 2019-2064

Average)

2012-2018 2019-2064

General

Mt of coal recovered 5.95 6.00

Mt of coal shipped by conveyor (all to 

DFS)

2.03 2.00

Mt of coal shipped by rail 3.93 4.00

Average transport miles (one way) 176 204

Number of train trips (one way) 256 259

Direct emissions sources1 Avg. % of Total Avg. % of Total

Fuel 19,445 0.19% 19,601 0.19%

Electricity consumed in mining process 16,111 0.16% 16,021 0.16%

Mining process 6,925 0.07% 6,886 0.07%

Total from Direct Sources 42,481 0.42% 42,508 0.42%

Indirect Emissions Sources1 Avg. % of Total Avg. % of Total

Rail transport223,999 0.24% 28,444 0.28%

From coal combustion39,970,770 99.34% 10,050,000 99.30%

Total from indirect sources1 9,994,768 99.58% 10,078,444 99.58%

Total estimated CO2e emissions 10,037,249 100.00% 10,120,952 100.00%

1

In metric tons based on 1.683 metric tons CO2e per ton of coal burned for electrical generation (EPA 2008) and calculated by WWC (2019)

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 

round-trip mileage to power plants. Coal haulage emissions calculations includes a loaded train and a returning empty train, per train trip. 

2017-2053 Rail distance calculated as the average 2011-2016 rail miles

Source: WWC 2019, calculations are provided in appendix C

The Proposed Action would result in combined direct and indirect estimated average annual 

CO2e emissions of 10.1 million metric tons for an additional 9.7 years. According to the EPA 

(2018) in 2016 (the most recent year of available CO2 data at this time), CO2e emissions in the 

U.S. totaled 6,511.3 million metric tons. Using the 2016 U.S. estimate for comparison purposes, 

the estimated CO2e contribution from the DFM coal would be approximately 0.16 percent of 

the U.S. total CO2e emissions. The direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action on annual 

CO2e emissions would be moderate and short-term.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-14

4.4.6.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts from GHG emissions under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those 

under the Proposed Action but would not be extended by approximately 9.7 years. While annual 

CO2e emissions would remain the same as the Proposed Action for approximately 39 years, the 

LOM CO2e emissions would decrease by approximately 25 percent as a result of the No Action 

Alternative, based primarily on 9.7 fewer years of combustion of DFM 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 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

A majority (approximately 99.6 percent) of the GHG identified in this EA are from non-mining 

activities, not controlled by WFW (e.g., rail transportation to and combustion at power plants). 

The DOI generally 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 DFM and Wyoming Power Plants) and 

other states’ 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 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.4.7.1.1 Proposed Action

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 the resulting 

environmental impacts. Since it is not currently possible to associate any particular action with 

the creation or mitigation of any specific climate-related environmental effects, including the 

costs-benefits of an action, the GHG emissions are calculated as a relative indicator to allow 

comparison of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative based on their potential 

contribution to climate change.

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 (2018) in 2016 (the most recent year of available CO2 data at this time):

1. CO2 emissions represent approximately 82 percent of the total 2016 U.S. GHG

emissions.

2. Estimated CO2 emissions in the U.S. totaled 5,310.9 million metric tons in 2016, 

which was a 13.2 percent decrease from the estimated high emissions in 2007.

3. Estimated CO2e emissions from fossil-fuel combustion consumption in the U.S. 

totaled 4,966.0 million metric tons in 2016.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-15

4. Estimated CO2 emissions from the electric power sector totaled 1,809.3 million 

metric tons, or approximately 34 percent of total U.S. energy-related CO2

emissions in 2016.

Approximately 626.5 Mt of coal were used to generate electricity in the U.S. in 2016, of which 

approximately 46.5 percent was produced in Wyoming (USEIA 2017). Approximately 97 percent 

of the coal mined in Wyoming in 2016 came from the PRB (WDWS 2016). Therefore, coal 

production from the Wyoming PRB coal represented approximately 45.1 percent of the coal 

used for power generation in 2016. Applying this percentage to the estimated 1,809.3 million 

metric tons of total U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel electric power generation, Wyoming PRB 

surface coal mines were responsible for approximately 816 million metric tons of CO2 emissions 

from coal power generation in 2016. The DFM produced 6.1 Mt of coal in 2016, which represents 

approximately 2.1 percent of the Wyoming PRB coal used for power generation in 2016, or about 

17.7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. In 2018, approximately 95 percent of coal mined at 

the DFM was burned in Wyoming power plants (WFW 2019a). 

Section 4.4.7.1 of the A2TR1 EA provides general discussions of the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) 

associated with GHG emissions associated with the DFM. A protocol to estimate SCC associated 

with GHG emissions was developed by a federal Interagency Working Group (IWG) to assist 

agencies in addressing EO 12866, which 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). However, EO 13783, 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 GHG emissions resulting from regulations, agencies 

follow the guidance contained in Circular A-4 (Office of Management and Budget 2003). It was 

determined that a federal agency should ensure that its consideration of the information and 

other factors relevant to its decision be consistent with applicable statutory or other authorities, 

including requirements for the use of cost-benefit analysis.

In any event, NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis (40 CFR § 1502.23) or the 

presentation of the SCC estimates; therefore, 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 an SCC 

analysis would be unbalanced, potentially inaccurate, and not useful.

Given the uncertainties associated with assigning a specific and accurate SCC estimate resulting 

from 9.7 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 U.S. GHG emission inventories, as discussed in section 4.4.6.

4.4.7.1.2 No Action Alternative

The climate change cause and effect on the No Action Alternative would be similar to the cause 

and effect on the Proposed Action but would not be extended by approximately 9.7 years. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-16

4.4.7.2 Cumulative Effects 

USGS predicted GHG 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 could include:

1. annual maximum temperature increases of up to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 

2. annual minimum temperature increases of up to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit,

3. annual mean precipitation increases of up to 0.1 inch per month, 

4. annual mean snowfall decreases of up to 0.1 inch per year,

5. annual mean soil water storage decreases of up to 0.1 inch per year,

6. annual mean evaporation deficit increase of up to 0.3 inch per month, and 

7. annual mean runoff does not change. 

For analysis purposes, this EA assumes that the maximum annual mean values would be realized 

during the life of the mine. 

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 

9.7-year life of the project, natural variations result in dryer or wetter years. Considering the 

overall long-term climate change timeframe, 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 9.7 years, mine dewatering may 

compensate for climate change-related streamflow reduction or may have no additional influence 

on streamflow. Therefore, there will 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 impacts to 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 640.3 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 would be extended by approximately 9.7 years. The USGS climate 

viewer does not predict any significant annual mean changes to runoff so there would be negligible 

impacts from climate change on soils. 

Greater Sage-grouse

The Proposed Action is consistent with Executive Order 2015-4 guidance (Office of the 

Governor 2015) and BLM’s Approved Resource Management Plan (BLM 2015), which take into 

account potential climate change. Impacts from climate change on the Greater sage-grouse during 

the life of the project are anticipated to be negligible.

Reclamation

The post-reclamation land use would consist of vegetation cover of grasses and shrubs, which 

would be suitable as wildlife habitat and grazing. Potential changes to the natural environment, as 

listed above, could result in the need to consider different plant species during reclamation to 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-17

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 (e.g., 

seed mix) at the DFM 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.

4.4.7.3 Mitigation Measures

A majority (approximately 99.6 percent) of the GHG identified in this EA are from non-mining 

activities, not controlled by WFW (e.g., rail transportation to and combustion at power plants). 

The DOI generally 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 DFM and Wyoming power plants) and other 

states’ 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.

4.5 Water Resources

4.5.1 Surface Water

4.5.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.5.1.1.1 Proposed Action

Changes in surface runoff characteristics and sediment discharges would occur during mining on

the A3 tract because of disturbance to 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. Because the A3 tract would be mined as extension of the 

existing DFM, there would not be a significant increase in the size of the area that is disturbed at 

any given time. According to WDEQ LQD Rules and Regulations (WDEQ-LQD 2012), 

reclamation would be ongoing and concurrent with mining.

As stated in Addendum MP-T (Permit Application for Industrial Solid Waste Landfill) of Permit

No. PT0599, the coal combustion byproduct (CCB) facility (discussed in section 3.15 of the 

A2TR1 EA) is not expected to have a detrimental effect on surface water quality (WFW 2011). 

There are no surface water intake structures located within 1,000 feet of the facility. The potential 

impacts to local surface water systems will be minimized through proper engineering design of 

the landfill and associated storm water controls, as discussed in Addendum MP-T of the 

Amendment 3 PAP (WFW 2018).

The overall results of the 2019 CHIA stated that material damage has not occurred to surface 

water quality outside the mine permit areas (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). The additional mining 

proposed for the A3 tract is not expected to change the potential for material damage to surface 

water quality. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects to surface water would not be significantly 

different from those described in the existing DFM federal mining plan and are expected to be 

moderate but would be extended by approximately 640.3 acres. The increased timeframe of 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-18

mining does not serve as reasonable timeframe for recovery of hydrologic resources as the 

hydrologic system takes time to recover post-reclamation.

4.5.1.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to surface water (disturbance to and reconstruction of drainage channels) under the 

No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action but the extent of 

surface water feature removal would be reduced by approximately 640.3 acres. Since there are 

no stream channels, jurisdictional wetlands, or other aquatic features in the A3 tract, the 

implementation of the No Action Alternative would have negligible effect on reducing the 

magnitude of impacts to surface water features.

4.5.1.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impact area for potential surface water impacts includes proposed LOM 

disturbance areas within local drainage basins associated with the northern group of mines 

(map 4-1). Cumulative mining-related impacts to surface water resources within the Little Powder 

River cumulative impacts area (CIA) were analyzed in the 2019 CHIA (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019).

According to the 2019 CHIA, the postminning water quality in the CIA should be similar to 

premine water quality and the potential for material damage to water rights downstream of the 

mines is therefore minimal (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). 

Mining-related cumulative impacts to surface water are expected to be measurable in the short 

term within and below mined area drainages but would be moderate and would diminish with 

reclamation and distance downstream.

4.5.1.3 Mitigation Measures

The WDEQ-LQD Environmental Protection Performance Standards 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 boundary. WFW is required to be in compliance 

with Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) Permit WY-0032964 issued 

by the WDEQ-WQD.

4.5.2 Groundwater

4.5.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.5.2.1.1 Proposed Action

The general impacts to groundwater as a result of surface coal mining include the following:

1. The removal of the alluvial, clinker, overburden, and coal aquifer would continue, 

as would the replacement of these aquifers with backfilled overburden material. 

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 boundary. 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.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-19

Map 4-1. Cumulative Impact Area for Potential Surface and Groundwater 

Impacts and Predicted Drawdowns for the Wyodak-Anderson Coal 

Seam
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-20

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.

Alluvial, clinker, overburden, and Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifers would be removed during coal 

recovery associated with the A3 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. Overall, the permeability and porosity of the spoils within the tract are expected to be 

greater than the original material. The reclaimed spoil aquifer could provide adequate water 

quantity for stock wells. Predicted drawdowns for the Wyodak-Anderson coal seam resulting 

from mining the A3 tract are presented on map 4-1. 

According to the 2019 CHIA, when the backfill aquifer is saturated to the premining groundwater 

levels, the groundwater gradients should return to the premining condition. Until that time, the 

pit and the backfill aquifer act as groundwater sinks that will have an impact on the hydrologic 

balance of the aquifer system. The ability of the backfill aquifer within the permit boundary to 

store and transmit water will determine how productive the backfill aquifer will be to support 

the postminning land use (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). 

As stated in the Addendum MP-T of Permit No. PT0599 (WFW 2011), the CCB from the facility 

is not expected to have a detrimental effect on groundwater quality. The single stock watering 

well within the A3 tract is permitted by WFW. The potential impacts to local groundwater 

systems will be minimized through proper engineering design of the landfill and associated storm 

water controls, as discussed in Addendum MP-T of Permit No. PT0599.

Overall, evaluation of the three material damage indicators (physical characteristics, water level 

recovery, and water quality of the backfill aquifer) suggests that there is limited potential for the 

A3 tract development to cause material damage to the native aquifers outside the coal mine 

permit boundaries (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). Therefore, the direct and indirect effects to 

groundwater resources resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate but 

would be extended by approximately 640.3 acres. The increased timeframe of mining does not 

serve as a reasonable timeframe for recovery of hydrologic resources as the hydrologic system 

takes time to recover post-reclamation.

4.5.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to groundwater under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under 

the Proposed Action but the extent of groundwater aquifers removal would be reduced by 

approximately 640.3 acres. Impacts to groundwater aquifers have already occurred within the 

tract related to coal recovery on adjacent federal coal leases, as approved by Permit No. PT0599, 

as well as impacts from mining the adjoining mines. Therefore, implementation of the No Action 

Alternative would slightly reduce the magnitude of impacts to groundwater features.

4.5.2.2 Cumulative Effects

The effects of removal of the alluvial, clinker, overburden, and coal aquifers and replacing them 

with backfilled overburden are the primary groundwater concerns regarding cumulative effects. 

Mining of the A3 tract would increase the cumulative size of the backfill area in the northern 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-21

group of mines. The extent of water level drawdown in the coal and shallower aquifers in the 

area surrounding the mines is expected to increase slightly from the predicted impacts without 

mining the tract. Impacts will increase slightly due to changes related to the recovery of additional 

coal resulting from the previously planned relocation of Garner Lake Road. Impacts are also 

considered from pumping from the adjacent Rawhide, Buckskin, Eagle Butte, Synthetic Fuels, and 

Wyodak mines, causing additional water level declines due to concurrent operations. 

As described in the 2019 CHIA, CBNG dewatering in the CIA has caused drawdown of water 

levels in the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifer within the CIA (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). This 

has made 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 as the coal seams dip below the water table. Therefore, the effect of this predicted 

mining induced drawdown on the Wyodak-Anderson coal seam is likely negligible.

The cumulative effects to groundwater resources resulting from the Proposed Action are 

expected to be moderate and would be extended by approximately 640.3 acres. The increased 

timeframe of mining does not serve a as reasonable timeframe for recovery of hydrologic 

resources as the hydrologic system takes time to recover post-reclamation.

4.5.2.3 Mitigation Measures

WDEQ-LQD Environmental Protection Performance Standards 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 WDEQ-LQD Environmental Protection 

Performance Standards 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 mine and reclamation plan is designed to enhance or restore the premine hydrologic 

conditions and minimize adverse impacts to the hydrologic balance in the permit boundary and 

in adjacent areas (WDEQ-LQD 2012).

Surface water control structures associated with the CCB facility will be used to divert surface 

water flows around active landfill areas (run-on control), and to collect and contain surface water 

run-off from active landfill areas (run-off control).

Materials from overburden or alluvial aquifer that are critical to the area’s hydrologic balance 

(restoration of the essential hydrologic functions can only be achieved by reestablishment of the 

aquifer) may be selectively salvaged and replaced.

4.5.3 Water Rights

4.5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.5.3.1.1 Proposed Action

Impacts to water rights would be similar to those described in Section 4.5.3 of the A2TR1 EA.

Prior to energy development in the area, water appropriations (both groundwater and surface 

water) were typically for livestock use. However, mining companies hold the majority of the 

water rights. According to Wyoming Statue (W.S.) 35-11-415(b) (xii), WFW must replace 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 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-22

surface source where the supply has been affected by contamination, diminution or interruption 

resulting from the surface coal mine operation.

Numerous livestock water wells have been removed in the general area over the years to 

facilitate mining operations, but no effects to domestic supplies have been reported. No material 

damage has been identified outside the DFM permit boundary and, based on hydrologic analyses, 

no material damage to water rights is anticipated (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019).

In general, the Proposed Action would contribute to additional, more extensive mining 

disturbance that may impact surface-water and groundwater rights in the DFM area. As stated in 

section 3.5.2, current groundwater conditions have already changed in the DFM area as a result 

of CBNG development and ongoing mining operations at the northern group of mines. Therefore, 

the Proposed Action would not result in substantial declines in the groundwater availability due 

to reduced groundwater quantity and quality over what is currently being experienced. In 

addition, only a slight reduction in streamflow downstream of the DFM during mining is expected 

because runoff is currently being controlled within the DFM as a result of mining unrelated to 

the Proposed Action. Since, impacts to groundwater and surface-water rights have already 

occurred from mining within the DFM and from CBNG development, implementation of the 

Proposed Action would have negligible additional impacts on water rights.

4.5.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to surface and groundwater rights under the No Action Alternative would be similar 

to those under the Proposed Action but the extent of surface water feature and groundwater 

aquifers removal would be reduced by approximately 640.3 acres. Impacts to water rights have 

already occurred within the tract related to coal recovery on adjacent federal coal leases, as 

approved by Permit No. PT0599 and OSMRE’s prior federal MPDDs. In addition, currently 

approved state and federal mining plans include disturbance of lands adjacent to the A3 tract for 

recovery of Wyodak Mine coal. Therefore, implementation of the No Action Alternative would 

have negligible effect on reducing the magnitude of impacts on water rights.

4.5.3.2 Cumulative Effects

The approval of the Proposed Action would contribute to additional surface feature and

groundwater aquifer disturbance in the Dry Fork, Rawhide, Buckskin, Eagle Butte, Synthetic Fuels, 

and Wyodak mine areas. However, only minor additional cumulative water rights impacts would 

occur because groundwater systems have already been affected by CBNG removal and ongoing 

mining and because runoff is currently being controlled within the northern group of mines.

4.5.3.3 Mitigation Measures

WDEQ-LQD Environmental Protection Performance Standards 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. Therefore, no additional mitigation 

measures are required to protect water rights.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-23

4.6 Alluvial Valley Floors

4.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.6.1.1 Proposed Action

The direct and indirect effects to AVFs would not be significantly different from those described 

in Section 4.6.1 of the A2TR1 EA. According to Appendix D11 (Alluvial Valley Floor Assessment 

of the Amendment 3 PAP), there are no unconsolidated stream-laid deposits and no AVFs have 

been delineated within the A3 tract (WFW 2018). The ephemeral drainages within the A3 tract 

contribute an insignificant amount of runoff to the Dry Fork LPR, so there would be no direct or 

indirect effects to AVFs from the Proposed Action.

4.6.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to AVFs under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the 

Proposed Action because no AVFs have been delineated within the tract.

4.6.2 Cumulative Effects

The identified AVFs for all coal mines in the PRB Coal Review study area are described in the 

updated 2012 Task 1D Report and are based on individual mine state decision documents (BLM 

2012). The formal AVF designation and related regulatory programs described above are specific 

to coal mining operations; however, other development-related activities in the study area would 

potentially impact AVF resources. The portions of the PRB Coal Review study area that lie 

outside of the mine permit areas have generally not been surveyed for the presence of AVFs; 

therefore, the locations and extent of the AVFs outside of the mine permit areas have not been 

determined. Since no AVFs are present in the A3 tract, the Proposed Action would not 

contribute to the cumulative effects to area AVFs.

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for AVFs.

4.7 Wetlands/Aquatic Features

4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.7.1.1 Proposed Action

No jurisdictional wetlands features are present within the A3 tract so there would be no direct 

or indirect effects to jurisdictional wetlands from the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action 

would result in the loss of approximately 0.3 acre of aquatic features. Disturbed non-jurisdictional 

aquatic features would be replaced during the reclamation phase of mining. The direct and indirect 

effects to aquatic features are expected to be minor and short term. WDEQ-LQD Environmental 

Protection Performance Standards require postmine reclamation plans that restore wetlands 

(WDEQ-LQD 2012). There would be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands resulting from the 

Proposed Action and impacts to non-jurisdictional wetlands/aquatic resources would be minor.

4.7.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to wetlands and aquatic features under the No Action Alternative would be similar 

to those under the Proposed Action, although 0.3 acre of non-jurisdictional wetlands or aquatic

features would not be disturbed to recover federal coal within the tract.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-24

4.7.2 Cumulative Effects

No jurisdictional wetlands have been delineated within the A3 tract and the Proposed Action 

would not contribute to the cumulative effects to area jurisdictional wetlands. In addition, 

disturbed jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional features would be restored as required by the 

authorized federal, state, or private surface landowner, as specified in the mining permits, which 

are approved by WDEQ-LQD before mining operations would be conducted. Therefore, there 

would be no net loss of jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional features, and cumulative impacts would 

be negligible.

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for wetlands or aquatic resources beyond the 

WDEQ-LQD requirement to replace non-jurisdictional aquatic features during reclamation.

4.8 Soil

4.8.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.8.1.1 Proposed Action

Approximately 640.3 acres of soil resources within the tract would be altered under the 

Proposed Action. The direct and indirect effects to soils would similar to those described in 

Section 4.8.1 of the A2TR1 EA. Following reclamation, the replaced topsoil should support a 

stable and productive native vegetation community adequate in quantity and quality to support 

planned postmining land uses (i.e., rangeland, cropland, and wildlife habitat). Currently approved 

and proposed disturbance would be progressively reclaimed according to contemporaneous 

reclamation requirements by planting appropriate vegetation species to restore soil productivity 

and prevent soil erosion. As discussed in section 3.8, approximately 362 acres of soil types 

within the tract have a rating of “prime farmland if irrigated.” Vegetation mapping shows that 

approximately 186 acres of hayland/cultivated land are within the A3 tract but none of the areas 

are irrigated and no surface-water or groundwater irrigation rights within the A3 tract are 

designated with an irrigation use. An indirect effect of the Proposed Action on soils would be 

impacts from acid deposition resulting from coal combustion, but these impacts would be 

negligible (see section 4.4.4.1.1). The direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action 

on soils would be moderate and short term.

4.8.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to soils resources under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under 

the Proposed Action, but 640.3 acres of soil resources would not be disturbed to recover federal 

coal within the tract.

4.8.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at the northern group of mines. According 

to the 2019 CHIA, approximately 20,247 acres of land have been approved for disturbance within 

the northern group of mines (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). Following reclamation, the replaced 

topsoil should support a stable and productive native vegetation community adequate in quantity 

and quality to support planned postminning land uses (i.e., rangeland, cropland, and wildlife 

habitat). Areas within active mines are progressively disturbed and are progressively reclaimed. 

This sequence of disturbance/reclamation would maintain a relatively constant amount of 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-25

disturbance over time. The cumulative effects related to soils would be moderate and would be 

extended by approximately 9.7 years.

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures

Prompt seeding as well as the building of sediment control structures to trap eroded soil would 

reduce wind erosion. Topsoil would also be protected from acid or toxic materials and would

be preserved in a usable condition for sustaining vegetation when placed over affected land 

(WDEQ-LQD 2012). These measures are required by 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

The direct and indirect effects to vegetation would not be significantly different from those 

described in Section 4.9.1 of the A2TR1 EA. Short-term impacts associated with the removal of 

vegetation from the A3 tract would include increased soil erosion and habitat loss for wildlife and 

livestock. Potential long-term 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.

Reclamation of disturbed lands within the DFM permit boundary is performed according to 

WDEQ-LQD Rules and Regulations (WDEQ-LQD 2012). Reclamation 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, WFW would plan to reestablish 

vegetation types during the reclamation operation that are similar to the premine types. 

Reestablished vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in the reclamation seed 

mixtures approved by WDEQ-LQD. The reclamation plan for the DFM includes steps to control 

invasion by weedy (invasive nonnative) plant species. The direct and indirect effects related to 

the Proposed Action on vegetation would be moderate and would be extended by approximately 

9.7 years.

4.9.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to vegetation under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the 

Proposed Action, although approximately 640.3 acres of vegetation would not be disturbed to 

recover federal coal within the tract.

4.9.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at the northern group of mines. According 

to the 2019 CHIA, approximately 20,247 acres of land have been approved for disturbance within 

the northern group of mines (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). The overall contribution to 

cumulative impacts to vegetation under Proposed Action would be minor due to the localized 

effects and the improved vegetation productivity on mined lands that have been reclaimed.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-26

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures beyond the normal vegetation husbandry required in the DFM Permit 

No. PT0599 would be necessary for vegetation resources.

4.10 Wildlife

The direct and indirect effects to wildlife would not be different from those described in Section 

4.10 of the A2TR1 EA. Impacts to wildlife that would result from mining the A3 tract have been 

addressed by the WGFD and WDEQ-LQD when Permit No. PT0599 was amended to include 

the tract. The environmental consequences related to mining the A3 tract for big game and other 

mammals; upland game birds (excluding the Greater sage-grouse); other birds; and amphibians, 

reptiles, and aquatic species are not significantly different from those presented in existing DFM 

federal mining plan and are not presented herein. Updated discussions for raptors, Greater 

sage-grouse, T&E species, and SOSI are included below.

4.10.1 Raptors

4.10.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.10.1.1.1 Proposed Action

Four intact raptor nests (SH-4b, SH-11c/GHO7a, SH11f, and SH11g) were located within the A3 

tract in 2018 and all four nests are within the proposed disturbance boundary for the tract

(appendix E). WFW has an approved Raptor Management Plan in place to minimize impacts to 

nesting raptors and ensure proper reclamation techniques are implemented to enhance habitat 

in the postmine landscape for raptors and their primary prey species. Based on WFW’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 would be extended by 

approximately 9.7 years.

4.10.1.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, disturbance related impacts to raptors in the area would be reduced.

4.10.1.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects on regional raptor populations would be moderate and would be extended

by approximately 9.7 years.

4.10.1.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to raptors are necessary. The approved Raptor Management 

Plan and general reclamation practices for establishing or enhancing post‐mine wildlife habitat at 

the DFM described in the Reclamation Plan of Permit No. PT0599 are in place. WFW also has 

developed plans and procedures to minimize impacts to nesting raptors and ensure proper 

reclamation techniques are implemented to enhance habitat in the postmine landscape for raptors 

and their primary prey species.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-27

4.10.2 Greater Sage-grouse

4.10.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.10.2.1.1 Proposed Action

There are no occupied Greater sage-grouse leks within 2 miles of the A3 tract. Additionally, the 

A3 tract is located outside the Greater sage-grouse core area. One historical Greater 

sage-grouse lek complex (Dry Fork II/IIA) has been documented within 2 miles of the A3 tract. 

However, the Dry Fork II lek was destroyed by mining in 2005 and the Dry Fork IIA lek was 

destroyed by mining in 2017. Using mapping included in Executive Order 2015-4, it has been 

determined that the closest core area to the A3 tract is over 10 miles distant. 

Long-term results from annual lek monitoring suggest that Greater sage-grouse populations in 

the DFM annual monitoring area are cyclic, with periodic peaks and declines. These data suggest 

that the DFM area may only support larger groups of Greater sage-grouse when regional 

populations are especially high (WFW 2019b).

WDEQ-LQD Permit No. PT0599 contains multiple monitoring and protection plans that include 

specific protection measures for Greater sage-grouse 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 been successfully met prior to full bond release. 

Potential impacts to Greater sage-grouse would likely be limited primarily to indirect influences 

resulting from habitat disturbance, though loss of individual birds may occur at times. Ongoing 

DFM operations may adversely impact individual Greater sage-grouse 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 

Greater sage-grouse would be moderate and long term.

Executive Order No. 2015-4 is applicable to activities inside the Greater sage-grouse core 

population areas. The A3 tract is outside any core population area and since there are no intact 

leks within 2 miles of the A3 tract, non-core area stipulations contained in Executive Order 

2015-4 are also not applicable The WGFD evaluated the Proposed Action as it relates to 

Executive Order 2015-4 and found that it was in compliance with the executive order (WGFD 

2018a). 

4.10.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to Greater sage-grouse under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those 

under the Proposed Action, although approximately 640.3 acres of potential habitat would not 

be disturbed to recover federal coal within the tract and the duration of potential impacts would 

be reduced by approximately 9.7 years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-28

4.10.2.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at the northern group of mines. As described 

in the updated 2012 Task 1D Report, substantial areas of habitats have been altered from their 

natural conditions as a result of past and on-going human activities in the Wyoming PRB study 

area (BLM 2012). Human disturbances include, but are not limited to, agriculture, mining, roads, 

urban areas, and oil and gas development. Potential temporary impacts arise from habitat removal 

and disturbance associated with a project’s development and operation (e.g., coal mines and 

CBNG wells) 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 and rail lines). The severity 

of both temporary and long-term impacts to Greater sage-grouse 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 Greater sage-grouse population in the Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group 

area (including the A3 tract) appears to follow a 10-year cycle (Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse 

Working Group 2014). WGFD information indicated that over 2,030 male sage grouse were 

recorded 2018 in Wyoming, based on counts of 383 leks. The average number of male grouse 

per lek was 5.3, which was down from the 7.6 males per lek observed in 2017 (WGFD 2018b).

The cumulative effects related to the Proposed Action on regional Greater sage-grouse

populations would be moderate and long term.

4.10.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to Greater sage-grouse are necessary. The general reclamation 

practices for establishing or enhancing postmine wildlife habitat at the DFM described in the 

Reclamation Plan of WDEQ-LQD Permit No. PT0599 are in place. Shrub seedlings will be planted 

in shrub pockets to improve the potential beneficial effects of shrub reestablishment for wildlife.

4.10.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species and Species of Special 

Interest

4.10.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.10.3.1.1 Proposed Action

As discussed in section 3.10.3.1, the northern long-eared bat, which is listed as threatened, is 

the only vertebrate T&E wildlife species with the potential of occurring in the area. There are no 

critical habitats for this T&E species within the A3 tract or within Campbell County. According

to the USFWS, the primary threat to the northern long-eared bat is white-nose syndrome, a 

disease caused by the cold-loving fungus (Pseudogymnoascus destructans) (USFWS 2016). The 

northern long-eared bat is also threatened by the loss and degradation of summer habitat, by 

collision with or barotrauma (injury to the lungs due to a change in air pressure) caused by wind 

turbines, and mine closures and vandalism of winter roosts and hibernacula. No wind turbines 

are within the general area and, as described in section 3.10.3.1, preferred roosting and 

reproductive habitats are limited in the DFM permit area and surrounding 1.0-mile monitoring 

area. However, potential foraging areas are present throughout the permit area and surrounding 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-29

monitoring area. No northern long-eared bat populations have been documented within the DFM

survey area (permit area and 1.0-mile perimeter) (WFW 2019b).

The discussions included in sections 3.9.3.1 and 4.10.4.1.1 of the A2TR1 EA provide details 

regarding the effects of Hg deposition on long-eared bats near the DFM in 2017. A majority of 

these details have not changed and are incorporated here by reference. A portion of the A3 tract

falls within the area of influence; therefore, OSMRE has complied with the programmatic 

biological opinion and fulfilled the Section 7 consultation requirements under the ESA through 

submission of the Northern Long-eared Bat 4(d) rule streamlined consultation form to the 

USFWS, Wyoming Ecological Field Services Office.

A discussion of SOSI that could potentially occur in the area is included in section 3.10.3.2 and 

a list of these species is included in appendix E. This impacts assessment related to the Proposed 

Action will focus on WGFD SGCN and the WGFD tier ranking. Of the 46 SOSI that could occur 

in the DFM area, 42 are SGCN, of which 7 have been observed in the area. Two of the WGFD 

SGCN (burrowing owl and mountain plover) are classified as Tier I species and both of these 

species have been observed in the area. The burrowing owl has been documented as nesting in 

the area, while the mountain plover nesting has not been recorded.

If present, these T&E species and SOSI would be temporarily displaced but current mining and 

reclamation practices in place at the DFM would protect species, if present, and promote the 

return of these species once reclamation has been completed. Specifically, the mine typically strips 

topsoil each year after species breeding/nesting periods, which significantly reduces the potential 

for taking species protected under the MBTA, including the two Tier I species observed in the 

area. In an effort to approximate premining conditions, WFW would plan to reestablish 

vegetation types during the reclamation operation that are similar to the premine types. The 

direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action on T&E species and SOSI would be 

moderate and short term (extended by approximately 9.7 years).

4.10.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, disturbance-related impacts to T&E species and SOSI would continue, but 

the duration of impacts would be reduced by approximately 9.7 years.

4.10.3.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects on regional T&E species and SOSI populations would be related to 

disturbance at the northern group of mines and would be moderate and short-term.

4.10.3.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to T&E species and SOSI are necessary. General reclamation 

practices for establishing or enhancing post‐mine wildlife habitat at the DFM described in the 

Reclamation Plan of WDEQ-LQD Permit No. PT0599 are in place. In addition, bald eagles and 

golden eagles are also both protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 

MBTA. WFW will consider the USFWS recommended conservation measures for actions that 

may affect the northern long-eared bat: conduct tree removal activities outside of the northern 

long-eared bat pup season (June 1 to July 31). This will minimize impacts to pups at roosts not 

yet identified. Conservation recommendations are discretionary activities to minimize or avoid 

adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement 

recovery plans, or to develop information for conservation of the species (USFWS 2019).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-30

4.11 Land Use and Recreation

4.11.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.11.1.1 Proposed Action

Surface ownership in the area includes federal, state, and private lands and the proposed coal 

removal area is managed by the BLM, the State of Wyoming, and WFW. The primary adverse 

environmental consequences of mining the A3 tract on land use would be reduction of livestock 

grazing, loss of wildlife habitat, and curtailment of other mineral development on about 

640.3 additional acres during active mining. Wildlife and livestock would be displaced while the 

tract is being mined and reclaimed. Hunting on the tract is currently not allowed by the 

landowners and would continue to be disallowed during mining and reclamation. Approximately 

166 acres of the project area are identified as hayland or cropland. The production from these 

lands would be lost during mining. Following reclamation, the land would be suitable for wildlife 

uses and livestock grazing, which are the historic land uses. Hayland/cropland would not be 

replaced according to DFM WDEQ-LQD Permit No. PT0599. The direct and indirect effects 

related to the ownership and use of the land would be moderate and would be extended by 

approximately 9.7 years.

4.11.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to ownership and use of the land under the No Action Alternative would be similar 

to those under the Proposed Action, although approximately 640.3 acres would not be disturbed 

to recover federal coal within the tract and the duration of potential impacts would be reduced 

by approximately 9.7 years.

4.11.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at the northern group of mines. According 

to the 2019 CHIA, approximately 20,247 acres of land have been approved for disturbance within 

the northern group of mines (WDEQ LQD/Lidstone 2019). The cumulative impacts on 

ownership and use of the land would be similar to the direct and indirect impacts, discussed 

above.

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to ownership and use of the land are necessary.

4.12 Cultural Resources

4.12.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.12.1.1 Proposed Action

Information regarding background cultural resources within the current WDEQ-LQD Permit 

No. PT0599 boundary was summarized from Appendices D-2.2 (Historic Cultural Resources 

Inventory, Amendment 3 Area) and D-3.2 (Prehistoric and Paleontological Resources Inventory, 

Amendment 3 Area) of the Amendment 3 PAP. According to information provided in these 

documents, four cultural resources sites (48CA1298, 48CA1299, 48CA7245, and 48CA7246)

were identified in the overall A3 survey area, which includes the A3 tract. In accordance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA, the Wyoming SHPO was consulted. All four sites are associated with 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-31

historic activity (post-1920 era), are ineligible for listing on the NRHP, and do not require further 

investigation (SHPO 2018). The direct and indirect effects on cultural resource from the 

Proposed Action would be negligible but long term.

4.12.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to cultural resources under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those 

under the Proposed Action, although approximately 640.3 acres would not be disturbed to 

recover federal coal within the tract.

4.12.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at the northern group of mines. According 

to the 2019 CHIA, approximately 20,247 acres of land have been approved for disturbance within 

the northern group of mines (WDEQ-LQD/Lidstone 2019). The overall contribution to 

cumulative impacts to cultural resources under Proposed Action would be negligible through 

avoidance of sensitive site types and through data recovery for all unavoidable disturbance to 

NRHP eligible sites. The cumulative impacts on cultural resource as a result of the Proposed 

Action would be negligible but long term.

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to cultural resources are necessary other than avoidance of 

sensitive site types and through data recovery for all unavoidable disturbance to NRHP eligible 

sites.

4.13 Noise

4.13.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.13.1.1 Proposed Action

Existing noise sources associated with the A3 tract area include coal mining activities; rail traffic;

traffic on nearby federal and state highways, county, and access roads; natural gas compressor 

stations; and wind. Four occupied residences are currently within the A3 tract but, as discussed 

in section 3.11, these residences will be vacated prior to 2022. The Garner Lake Road, which 

currently bisects the tract, will be relocated immediately adjacent to the tract prior to disturbance. 

Noise levels in wildlife habitat adjacent to the A3 tract might increase, but anecdotal observations 

indicate wildlife can adapt to mine noise, especially since similar mining operations have been 

conducted in the area for many years. No increase in average daily railroad traffic or railroad 

noise would occur under the Proposed Action.

Given the distance from active mining, direct and indirect noise effects to residences from the 

Proposed Action would be moderate and short term. Impacts to people using the Garner Lake 

Road would increase over current conditions but would be minor considering the short duration 

of noise exposure.

4.13.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts from noise under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the 

Proposed Action, although the duration of potential impacts would be reduced by approximately 

9.7 years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-32

4.13.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at the northern group of mines. Potential 

sources of noise disturbances include, but are not limited to, agriculture, mining, roads, urban 

areas, and oil and gas development. 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 hear mining-related noise, but this has not been reported 

to cause a substantial impact. The cumulative impacts related to noise as discerned by the public 

would be moderate but short term.

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to noise impacts are necessary.

4.14 Visual Resources

4.14.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.14.1.1 Proposed Action

Mining would affect landscapes classified by the BLM as visual resource management Class IV, 

where the overall natural scenic quality of that class rating is considered relatively low. Impacts 

of coal mining on visual resources in the general analysis area would be minor and short term. 

Mining activities would be visible from Garner Lake Road, though the extent and duration of 

visibility would vary under the Proposed Action. The Garner Lake Road, which currently bisects 

the tract, will be relocated immediately adjacent to the tract prior to disturbance. No unique visual 

resources have been identified in or near the A3 tract 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 DFM would not change if the 

federal mining plan modification is approved. Current BACT measures for particulates that could 

contribute to impaired visibility would continue to be employed. While the direct and indirect 

effects related to the visual resources on the general area would be minor due to the ongoing 

mining activities in the area, the direct and indirect effect specific to the project area would be 

moderate but long term.

4.14.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to visual resources under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under 

the Proposed Action, although approximately 640.3 acres would not be disturbed to recover 

federal coal within the tract.

4.14.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative visual resources effects would be related to disturbance at the northern group of 

mines. 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 and CBNG wells) 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. The cumulative effects related to the visual resources would 

be moderate but long term.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-33

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to visual resources are necessary.

4.15 Transportation Facilities

4.15.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.15.1.1 Proposed Action

Major roads and railroads in the general area of the A3 tract are presented on maps 1-1 and 1-2. 

Existing transportation facilities, including roads, railroads, coal conveyors, and overhead

electrical transmission lines associated with the A3 tract would continue to be used under the 

Proposed Action. Those existing facilities on the tract will be abandoned prior to mining. The 

Garner Lake Road, which currently bisects the tract, will be relocated immediately adjacent to the 

tract prior to disturbance. The power line serving northern industrial and residential facilities will 

be relocated as the mine encroaches upon it. Several abandoned pipelines and one active pipeline 

run through the A3 tract. If still in use at the time of disturbance, the active pipeline will also be 

relocated.

Based on an estimated annual rate of 4 Mt of coal shipped by rail and an estimated 15,470 tons 

of coal per train, the Proposed Action would result in approximately 260 one-way train trips per 

year. The variation in coal destinations and multiple rail transportation routes make it speculative 

to analyze the potential impacts to the entire rail corridor in detail. Under the Proposed Action, 

the number of trains shipping coal from DFM would not change, but the duration would be 

extended by 9.7 years.

Employees and vendors travel the Garner Lake Road to access the mine. No traffic count data 

are available for the road but the Proposed Action would not result in increased mine-related 

traffic. Therefore, mining the A3 tract would not increase the current level of traffic on the 

Garner Lake Road or the BNSF railroad.

The potential for emissions of coal dust from the large volumes of coal transported to large 

generating stations can be an environmental concern (Ramboll Environ 2016). The discussions

included in section 4.15.1.1 of the A2TR1 EA provides details regarding the potential for 

emissions of coal dust during coal transportation. These details have not changed and are 

incorporated here by reference. WFW has cooperated with BNSF in implementing dust 

controlling modifications at its load out system. The mine also operates a coal topper facility that 

sprays a BNSF-approved dust control agent on each car as specified in the individual coal 

contracts.

The addition of mining coal within the A3 tract would extend the time period over which WFW

would produce coal, which would extend the period of time coal would be transported from the 

mine. The added direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action on transportation would be 

minor but would be extended by approximately 9.7 years.

4.15.1.2 No Action Alternative

The impacts to transportation under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under 

the Proposed Action, although the impacts would be reduced by approximately 9.7 years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-34

4.15.2 Cumulative Effects

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 

northern group of mines are already in place and coal production and employment levels would 

not change with the Proposed Action. 

Coal extracted from the existing surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB is transported in rail 

cars along the BNSF and UP rail lines. The coal mines north of Gillette, including the DFM, ship 

most of their coal via the east-west BNSF rail line that runs through Gillette for destinations in 

the Midwest. The coal mines south of Gillette 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 Union Pacific (UP) mainlines for destinations in the Midwest. The 

Proposed Action would extend the duration of mining by approximately 9.7 years at the DFM 

and the duration of utilization of the BNSF rail line would be extended by that amount. The added 

cumulative impacts related to transportation would be minor but would be extended by 

approximately 9.7 years.

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to transportation are necessary.

4.16 Hazardous and Solid Waste

4.16.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.16.1.1 Proposed Action

The direct and indirect effects to hazardous and solid waste would not be different from those 

described in Section 4.17.1 of the A2TR1 EA. Non-hazardous, hazardous, and universal wastes 

are generated during mining operations at the DFM. Under the Proposed Action hazardous and 

solid waste would not increase but generation would be extended by 9.7 years. Direct and 

indirect effects on hazardous and solid wastes would be minor and short term. No hazardous 

wastes are transported to the municipal landfill or any onsite solid waste pits. The DFM operates

an onsite landfarm for treatment of oil- or glycol-contaminated soils at the DFM. While coal 

mining and associated coal processing under 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. No increase in direct or indirect effects from hazardous and 

solid waste are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action. The direct and indirect effects of 

the Proposed Action from hazardous wastes would be minor but would be extended by 

approximately 9.7 years.

4.16.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, hazardous and solid wastes would continue to be generated 

at the DFM, but the duration of the impacts would be reduced by approximately 9.7 years.

4.16.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative hazardous and solid wastes effects would be related to mining at the northern group 

of mines. The Proposed Action would extend the duration of mining by approximately 9.7 years 

at the DFM and, thus, the duration of effects from hazardous and solid wastes would be extended.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-35

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to hazardous and solid wastes are necessary.

4.17 Socioeconomics

4.17.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.17.1.1 Proposed Action

The State of 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 related to the production of federal coal, including coal mined

at the DFM. Such revenues include ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, royalty payments, sales 

and use taxes on equipment and other taxable purchases, portions of required contributions to 

the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program, and the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. A summary 

of federal and state revenues generated from recovery of federal coal within the DFM, including 

federal coal within the A3 tract, is provided in table 4-10. Table 4-11 provides an estimate of 

the revenues derived from recovering the federal coal specific to the A3 tract.

Table 4-10. Estimated LOM Federal and State Revenues from Federal Coal 

Recovery at the DFM

Revenue Source Total $ Collected

(Million $)

Federal Revenue

(Million $)

State Revenue

(Million $)

Federal Mineral Royalties 454.7 227.3 227.3

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 81.5 40.7 40.7

Severance Tax 188.2 --

1

188.2

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues2--

1

--

1

--

1

Ad Valorem Tax 153.5 --

1

153.5

Black Lung 12.3 12.3 --

1

Sales and Use Tax 23.2 --

1

23.2

Totals 913.4 280.3 632.9

1 No revenues disbursed

2 No bonus bid revenues collected after 2016

Source: WWC 2019, calculations provided in appendix F.

Table 4-11. Estimated LOM Federal and State Revenues from Federal Coal 

Recovery from the A3 Tract

Revenue Source Total Revenue

Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 90.8 45.4 45.4

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 16.3 8.1 8.1

Severance Tax 36.0 --

1

36.0

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues2--

1

--

1

--

1

Ad Valorem Tax 30.7 --

1

30.6

Black Lung 2.4 2.4 --

1

Sales and Use Tax 4.6 --

1

4.7

Totals 180.8 55.9 124.8

1 No revenues disbursed

2 No bonus bid revenues collected after 2016

Source: WWC 2019, calculations provided in appendix F

Under the Proposed Action, LOM Wyoming revenues could be increased by approximately 

$124.8 million and federal revenues could be increased by $55.9 million. The primary difference 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Effects

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 4-36

between state and federal revenues is related to the fact that severance 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.

Mining the federal coal associated with the A3 tract would not directly create new jobs; 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.

No additional changes in the current socioeconomic situation are anticipated. Direct and indirect 

effects on socioeconomics under the Proposed Action would be moderate and would be 

extended by approximately 9.7 years.

4.17.1.2 No Action Alternative

In terms of coal conservation, the No Action Alternative would mean that approximately 58.1 Mt

of federal coal within the A3 tract would not be recovered. Wyoming revenues of approximately 

$124.8 million and federal revenues of approximately $55.9 million related to this coal would not 

be realized over the LOM. The selection of the No Action Alternative would likely not result in 

direct job losses, but any revenue, state program funding, AML fees, and black lung fees that might 

otherwise be generated by extending the LOM by 9.7 years would not be collected. In addition, 

the duration of employment for current employees would be reduced by 9.7 years. The No 

Action Alternative would result in moderate direct and indirect socioeconomic effects.

4.17.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to socioeconomic conditions in Campbell County. 

Cumulative impacts related to the Proposed Action are not significantly different from 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. The cumulative effects on socioeconomics are expected to be 

moderate and long term.

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to socioeconomic impacts are needed.

4.18 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

This section relates to the balance or trade-off between short-term uses and long-term 

productivity for each resource in relation to the Proposed Action. The discussions contained

throughout this environmental consequences chapter, in the existing DFM federal mining plan, 

and in the A2TR1 EA provide adequate analyses and relationships of short-term 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. Details regarding these impacts for the Proposed 

Action have been presented in the preceding resource sections and in the existing DFM federal 

mining plan.
Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 5-1

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5.1 Public Comment Process 

OSMRE developed a project-specific website that provided legal notices, outreach notice letters, 

mailing address, and an email address for comments to be sent. The website was activated on

July 10, 2019 and was available at:

https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/dryForkMine/dryForkMineA3EA.shtm.

OSMRE published the legal NOI in the Gillette News Record on March 22, 2019 and published 

the notice of availability (NOA) on July 12, 2019. Public outreach letters describing the EA and 

soliciting scoping and EA comments were mailed on March 22, July 11, 2019, respectively, to 

tribes/tribal representatives, city governments, adjacent landowners, and other interested parties. 

Appendix B presents a summary of the scoping comments received during the 30-day scoping 

period and a summary of the comment on the EA received during the 30-day public comment 

period. A total of five comment letters were received during the public scoping period. A total 

of 2,483 comment letters received during the public review period for this EA. The comment 

letters received during the public review period for this EA will be considered during the ASLM 

approval process.

5.2 Preparers and Contributors

OSMRE personnel that contributed to the development of this EA are listed in table 5-1.

Table 5-1. OSMRE Personnel

Name Organization Project Responsibility

Logan Sholar/Gretchen Pinkham OSMRE Project Lead/Project Coordination

Gretchen Pinkham OSMRE Air Quality

Roberta Martinez Hernandez OSMRE Hydrology

Ed Vasquez OSMRE Ecology

Stephanie Hamlett OSMRE Environmental Protection Specialist

Jeremy Iliff OSMRE Cultural/Historical/Paleontological

Third party contractors who contributed to the development of this EA are identified in

table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Third-party Contractor Personnel

Name Organization Project

Responsibility Education/Experience

John Berry WWC Engineering Project Manager, Primary Author B.S. Wildlife Management

Jack Fritz WWC Engineering Quality Assurance/Quality Control B.S. Chemical Engineering

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/dryForkMine/dryForkMineA3EA.shtm.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 6-1

6.0 References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

6.1 References

AirNow, 2016, Outdoor Air Quality Data. Air Quality Index Report. Available on the Internet

on the Internet as of April 2019: https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/airquality-index-report.

BNSF 2016, BNSF Railway Statement on STB Coal Dust Decision. Available on the Internet as 

of April 2017: http://www.bnsf.com/customers/what-can-i-ship/coal/coal-dust.html.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1992, Final West Rocky Butte Coal Lease Application 

Environmental Impact Statement, FES 92-1. Electronic copy only. Available on request 

from OSMRE.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2008, BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species 

Management. Available on the Internet as of December 2018: 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual6840.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2009. Environmental Impact Statement for the South 

Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, 

WYW161248. Available on the Internet as of April 2019: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplfrontoffice/eplanning/legacyProjectSite.do?methodName=renderLegacyProjectSite&projectId=

67025.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2012, Powder River Basin Coal Review, Task 1D, Prepared 

for the BLM State Office and BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office. Available on the

Internet as of April 2019: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/nepa/64842/78267/88468/06Task1D-EnvConditions.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2015, Record of Decision and Approved Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for the Rocky Mountain Region, Including the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions. Available on the Internet as of April 2019: 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPa

geId=48300.

Campbell County, 2013, Campbell County, Wyoming 2013 Comprehensive Plan. Available on 

the Internet as of April 2019: https://www.ccgov.net/DocumentCenter/View/227/2013-

Comprehensive-Plan.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), 2011, North American Power Plant Air 

Emissions. Available on the Internet as of April 2017:

http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/10236-north-american-power-plant-airemissions-en.pdf.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 6-2

Fenneman, Nevin M., 1931, Physiography of Western United States, McGraw-Hill, pages 54-60.

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Environments (IMPROVE), 2018, Data Acquired from 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments. Available on the Internet as 

of January 2019: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/. 

Luppens, J.A., Scott, D.C., Haacke, J.E, Osmonson, L.M., and Pierce, P.E., 2015, Coal geology and 

assessment of coal resources and reserves in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and 

Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1809, 218 p. Available on the 

Internet as of January 2019: http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1809.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), 2018, National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program Publications. Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, University of WisconsinMadison, WI. Available on the Internet as of January 2019:

https://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/lib/dataReports.aspx.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2019, Web Soil Survey (WSS) database. 

Available on the Internet as of as of April 2019:

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

Natural Resource and Energy Explorer (NREX), 2019, Mapping Tool for Wyoming. Available on 

the Internet as of April 2019: https://nrex.wyo.gov/.

Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group, 2014, Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan Addendum. Available on the Internet as of January 2019:

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Sage%20Grouse/SG_NE_CON

SERVPLAN.pdf.

Office of the Governor, 2015, State of Wyoming Executive Department Executive Order 2015-

4, Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection, July 29, 2015, Available on the Internet

as of January 2017: http://psc.state.wy.us/pscdocs/dwnload/SageGrouseExecOrder2015-

7.pdf.

Office of Management and Budget, 2003, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. Washington, DC. 

Available on the Internet as of June 2019: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/OMB/inforeg/2003_c

ost-ben_final_rpt.pdf.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 1999, REG-31 881-

Preparation of Mining Plan Decision Documents. Available on the Internet as of January 

2017: http://www.osmre.gov/lrg/directives.shtm. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 2016, Reclamation 

Performance Bonds: Bonding Overview. Available on the Internet as of January 2017:

https://www.osmre.gov/resources/bonds/bondsoverview.shtm.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 6-3

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 2019a, Handbook on 

Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Available 

on the Internet as of April 2019: 

https://www.osmre.gov/LRG/docs/directive490_NEPAHandbook.pdf.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 2019b, Initiatives – Dry Fork 

Mine. Available on the Internet as of March 8 2019: 

https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/dryForkMine/dryForkMineA3EA.shtm.

Pace, Thomas G., 2005, Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust 

Emissions from PM10. Available on the Internet as of May 2016:

http://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei14/session5/pace_pres.pdf.

Ramboll Environ, 2016, Coal Dust from Rail Transport. Available on the Internet as of April 

2017: https://ngskmc-eis.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NGS-KMC-Railroad-CoalDust-White-Paper-2016.1.16.pdf.

SNL Financial, 2018, Dry Fork Station Plant Environmental Profile. Electronic copy only. 

Available on request from OSMRE.

Shelanski, H., M. Obstfeld. 2015. Estimating the Benefits from Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

Reductions. Available on the Internet as of September 2019: 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/07/02/estimating-benefits-carbondioxide-emissions-reductions.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 

Manual, by the Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Waterways 

Experiment Station. Available on the Internet as of April 2017:

https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p266001coll1/id/4530.

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 December 2018:

https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p266001coll1/id/7613.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2018, Dry Fork Mine A3 NWI Delineated Wetlands. 

Available on the Internet as of December 2018:

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2018, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 

2017. Available on the Internet as of April 2017: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml.

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2019, Web 

Soil Survey (WSS) database. Available on the Internet as of May 2019:

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 6-4

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), 2016, National Energy Technology Laboratory. Coal and 

Biomass Coal Ranks. Available on the Internet as of February 2017:

https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/coal.

U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), 1980, Department of the Interior Departmental Manual 

Part 516. Available on the Internet as of Aril 2019:

https://www.fws.gov/r9esnepa/DOINEPAProced/516dmCh6.PDF.

U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), 2019, Natural Resources Revenue Data. Available on the 

Internet as of April 2019: https://revenuedata.doi.gov/explore/.

U.S. Department of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018, Employment Status of the Civilian 

Noninstitutional Population, 1976 to 2016 Annual Averages, Available on the Internet 

as of February 2017: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2017, Annual Coal Distribution Report 2017. 

Available on the Internet as of October 2018:

https://www.eia.gov/coal/distribution/annual/pdf/acdr_fullreport2016.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2018, API Query Browser, EIA Data SetsCoal-Average price by rank-Subbituminous. Available on the Internet as of January 2019: 

https://www.eia.gov/opendata/qb.php?sdid=COAL.PRICE_BY_RANK.PRB-SUB.A.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993, Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 

Section 1.1 Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal Combustion, April 1993. Electronic 

copy only. Available on request from OSMRE.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002, Latest Findings on National Air Quality, 

2002 Status and Trends. Available on the Internet as of January 2017: 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-

11/documents/trends_brochure_2002.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2008, Direct Emissions from Stationary 

Combustion Sources. Available on the Internet as of January 2017:

https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2014. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories. Available on the Internet as of April 2017:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/emission-factors_2014.xlsx.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016, Report on the Environment, Acid Rain. 

Available on the Internet as of January 2017: https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator.cfm?i=1.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program. 

Available on the Internet on the Internet as of January 2017: https://www.epa.gov/toxicsrelease-inventory-tri-program. 
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 6-5

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018a, Current Nonattainment Counties for All 

Criteria Pollutants, Available from the website as of December 2018:

https://www.epa.gov/green-book.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018b, Monitor Values Report, Available from the 

website as of December 2018: https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitorvalues-report.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018c, Air Quality Index Report, Available from 

the website as of December 2018: https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/airquality-index-report.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018d. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:

1990 – 2016. Available on the Internet as of December 2018:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-

01/documents/2018_complete_report.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019a, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, Basic 

Information about Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Available from the website as of 

May 2019: https://www.epa.gov/mats/basic-information-about-mercury-and-air-toxicsstandards.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019b, State Average Annual Emissions Trends. 

Available on the internet as of May 2019: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2016, Endangered Species Midwest Region Fact Sheet:

Northern Long-Eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis, Available on the Internet as of January 

2017: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nlebFactSheet.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2018a, 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. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2018b, Endangered Species Midwest Region Fact Sheet:

Northern Long-Eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis, Available on the Internet as of January 

2017: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nlebFactSheet.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2019, Northern Long-eared Bat Consultation for Dry 

Fork Mine Amendment 3 Environmental Assessment. Electronic copy only, available on 

request from OSMRE.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. National Climate Change Viewer (NCCV). Available on 

the Internet as of May 2019: https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/nccv.asp.

Western Fuels-Wyoming Inc. (WFW), 2011, Dry Fork Mine WDEQ-LQD Permit No. PT0599. 

Electronic copy only. Available on request from OSMRE.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 6-6

Western Fuels-Wyoming Inc. (WFW), 2018, Dry Fork Mine Permit No. PT0599 Permit 

Revision/Permit Application Package. Electronic copy only. Available on request from 

OSMRE. Includes WFW 2011. 

Western Fuels-Wyoming Inc. (WFW), 2019a, Information provided by Dry Fork Mine. 

Electronic copy only. Available on request from OSMRE.

Western Fuels-Wyoming Inc. (WFW), 2019b, 2019 Annual Wildlife Report Report-Permit 599. 

Submitted to WDEQ-LQD. Electronic copy only. Available on request from OSMRE.

Western Fuels Association (WFA) and Redhorse Corporation, 2017, Air Quality Application to 

Modify the Dry Fork Mine Wyoming Air Quality Division Permit #MD-11723 Technical 

Support Document, June 2017. Electronic copy only. Available on request from OSMRE.

WWC Engineering (WWC), 2019. GHG, Air Quality, and Revenue Calculations located in 

Appendices C and F.

Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG), 2018, Wyoming State Government 

Revenue Forecast Fiscal Year 2019 – Fiscal Year 2024. Available on the Internet on the 

Internet as of January 2017: http://eadiv.state.wy.us/creg/GreenCREG_Oct18.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDOA), 2018, Wyoming Weed & Pest Control Act, 

State Designated Weeds and Pests. Available on the Internet as of November 2018:

https://wyoweed.org///wp-content/uploads/2018/07/StateDesignatedList_2018.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), 2011,

Permit No. MD-11723. Electronic copy only. Available on request from OSMRE.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), 2012, FY 

2012 Annual Inspection of the Dry Fork Station. Electronic copy only. Available on 

request from OSMRE.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), 2018, Air 

Quality Permit P0023278. Electronic copy only. Available on request from OSMRE.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2012, 

Chapter 4: Environmental Protection Performance Standards. Available on the Internet

as of February 2017:

https://rules.wyo.gov/DownloadFile.aspx?source_id=8882&source_type_id=81&doc_typ

e_id=110&include_meta_data=Y&file_type=pdf&filename=8882.pdf&token=0001180840

27017224239034070171243090224018229100

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2014a, 

Guideline No. 20 - Bond Release Categories and Submittal Procedures For Coal Mines. 

Available on the Internet as of February 2017:

http://deq.wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Land%20Quality/Guidelines/Guidelines20_Coal-Bond-Release-guide-20.pdf.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 6-7

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2018, 

WDEQ-LQD Mine Information. Electronic copy only. Available on request from 

OSMRE.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2019, 

Approval of Amendment for Western Fuels WY, Inc., Dry Fork Mine, PT0599, TFN 6 

4/207, Amendment No. 3, Change No. 20. Electronic copy only. Available on request 

from OSMRE.

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

/Lidstone and Associates, 2019, Cumulative Hydrological Impact Assessment of Coal 

Mining in the Northern Powder River Basin, Wyoming (WDEQ-CHIA-), WDEQ-LQD, . 

Electronic copy only. Available on request from OSMRE.

Wyoming Department of Revenue (WDOR), 2018a, State of Wyoming Department of 

Revenue, 2018 Annual Report. Available on the Internet as of December 2018:

https://sites.google.com/a/wyo.gov/wy-dor/dor-annual-reports.

Wyoming Department of Revenue (WDOR), 2018b, Total Distribution by Major Business Class 

and by County. Available on the Internet as of December 2018:

http://revenue.wyo.gov/tax-distribution-reports/major-industry-code-by-month-year-1.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2012, Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming, Year Ending December 31, 2012. Available on the

Internet as of December 2018:

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/_docs/mines/ar/2012.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2013, Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming, Year Ending December 31, 2013. Available on the

Internet as of December 2018:

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/_docs/mines/ar/2013.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2014, Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming, Year Ending December 31, 2014. Available on the

Internet as of December 2018:

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/_docs/mines/ar/2014.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2015, Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming, Year Ending December 31, 2015. Available on the

Internet as of December 2018:

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/_docs/mines/ar/2015.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2016, Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming, Year Ending December 31, 2016. Available on the

Internet as of December 2018:

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/_docs/mines/ar/2016.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2017, Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming, Year Ending December 31, 2017. Available on the
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 6-8

Internet as of October2018:

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/_docs/mines/ar/2017.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2018, Wyoming Labor Force Trends, 

May 2018. Available on the Internet as of December 2018:

https://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/trends/0518/0518.pdf.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 2017, Wyoming Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need – Introduction. Available on the Internet as of December 2018:

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/SGCN-Introduction.pdf.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 2018a, State of Wyoming's Sage Grouse 

Executive Order 2015-4 Compliance Letter. Electronic copy only. Available on request 

from OSMRE.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 2018b, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Unpublished Data – 2009-2018 Annual Lek Monitoring. Electronic copy only, available 

on request from OSMRE.

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), 2018. Well Data Search. 

Available on the Internet as of October 2018: 

http://pipeline.wyo.gov/legacywogcce.cfm.

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO), 2018, e-Permit Application and Water Rights 

Database. Available on the Internet as of December 2018:

https://sites.google.com/a/wyo.gov/seo/.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 6-9

6.2 Abbreviations/Acronyms

A3 Amendment 3

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act

AML Abandoned Mine Lands

ANFO ammonium nitrate and fuel oil

AQI air quality index

AQRVs air quality related values

AQS Air Quality System

ASLM Assistant Secretary, Land and Mineral Management

AVF alluvial valley floor

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BNSF BNSF Railway Company

Btu British thermal unit

CBNG coal bed natural gas

CAA Clean Air Act

CCB coal combustion byproduct

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

CHIA Cumulative Hydrological Impact Assessment

CIA cumulative impacts area

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e Equivalent CO2

CWA Clean Water Act 

dBA adjusted decibels, a logarithmic unit of sound levels

DFM Dry Fork Mine

DFS Dry Fork Station

DL disturbed land

DM Department Manual

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

dv deciview

EA Environmental Assessment

EGU electric generating unit

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FCLAA Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment, 1976

FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GDP gross domestic product

GHG greenhouse gas 

GWP Global Warming Potential
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 6-10

ft/d feet per day

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

H

+

hydrogen ion

H2S hydrogen sulfide

Hg mercury

IDB internally drained basin

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

in. inches

IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation

ISCLT3 Industrial Source Complex Long Term 3

IWP Interagency Working Group

lb. pounds

LNCM lands necessary to conduct mining

LOM life of mine

LPR Little Powder River

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

MATS Mercury and Air Standards

MBCY million-bank cubic yards

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended

mg/L milligrams per liter

MLA Mineral Leasing Act (1920)

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

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOA notice of availability

NOI notice of intent

NOX oxides of nitrogen

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

NSS Native Species Status

O3 ozone

OSMRE Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

PAP Permit Application Package

Pb lead

PBT persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic 

pH power of hydrogen

PM2.5 fine particulates less than 2.5 microns

PM10 fine particulates less than 10 microns
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA 6-11

PRB Wyoming Powder River Basin

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

PRPA Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

R2P2 Resource Recovery and Protection Plan

RL reclaimed land

SCC social cost of carbon

SEO State Engineer’s Office 

SGCN species of greatest conservation concern

SH State Highway

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP State Implementation Plan

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977)

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOC species of concern

SOSI species of special interest

STP standard temperature and pressure

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

T&E threatened and endangered

TDS total dissolved solids

tpy tons per year

TRI Toxic Release Inventory

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

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

WDOA Wyoming Department of Agriculture

WDWS Wyoming Department of Workforce Services

WFW Western Fuels-Wyoming, Inc.

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

WRS Wyoming Revised Statutes

W.S. Wyoming Statue

WYNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

WYPDES Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A LEGAL NOTICES for FEDERAL LEASE MODIFICATION APPROVAL 

WYW-0311810

APPENDIX B ERRATA/REVISIONS, PUBLIC SCOPING and NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY 

MAILING LISTS, PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS SUMMARIES, and EA 

REVIEW COMMENT SUMMARIES and RESPONSES

APPENDIX C GENERAL AIR QUALITY DISCUSSIONS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, HG, CO, and CO2e CONTRIBUTIONS from COAL 

COMBUSTION CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX D SURFACE-WATER RIGHTS within 2 MILES of the A3 TRACT and 

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS within 2 MILES of the A3 TRACT

APPENDIX E BIOLOGICAL (SOILS, VEGETATION, and WILDLIFE) ASSESSMENTS

RELATED to the A3 TRACT

APPENDIX F STATE and FEDERAL REVENUE CALCULATIONS RELATED to the A3 TRACT
APPENDIX A

LEGAL NOTICES

for FEDERAL LEASE MODIFICATION APPROVAL

WYW-0311810
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA A-1

Public Notice

Dry Fork 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 Dry Fork Mine’s (DFM) mining plan modification for federal coal lease WYW-0311810 

(the Project). 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. Western Fuels-Wyoming Inc. 

(WFW) operates the DFM under Permit No. PT0599 issued by Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) Land Quality 

Division (LQD) in accordance with the approved Wyoming State Coal Regulatory Program (30 

CFR Part 950). Permit No. PT0599 is in the process of being amended to include the A3 Tract. 

If approved, the revised federal mining plan would include the condition that WFW could not 

mine coal from the federal coal within the A3 Tract prior to receiving approval from the ASLM.

OSMRE is preparing an EA to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the Project, 

pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The 

DFM is located approximately 4.5 miles north of Gillette, Wyoming. The DFM uses a truck and 

loader mining method. The amount of remaining recoverable federal coal authorized for removal 

within the currently approved federal mining plan is approximately 204 million tons (Mt). The 

Project proposes to add approximately 640.3 acres and 58.1 Mt of federal coal to the approved 

federal mining plan. The annual production rate used to calculate the environmental impacts 

resulting from the Proposed Action will be 6.0 million tons per year (Mtpy), which is the estimated 

future annual production rate suggested by DFM and is below the maximum permitted 

production rate of 15 Mtpy set by WDEQ/AQD air quality permit P0023278. DFM started 

operation in 1990 and the mine will continue to operate until 2054 under the current, approved 

mining plan. Using the estimated 6.0 Mtpy production rate, the Project would extend the life of 

the mine by approximately 9.7 years, to 2064.

The EA will update, clarify, and provide new and additional environmental information for the 

Project. As a result of the EA process, OSMRE will determine whether or not there are significant 

environmental impacts. An environmental impact statement will be prepared if the EA identifies 

significant impacts. If a finding of no significant impact is reached, and pursuant to 30 CFR 746.13, 

OSMRE will prepare and submit to the ASLM a mining plan decision document recommending 

approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of the mining plan modification. The ASLM will 

approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve the mining plan modification, as required under 

the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.

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: Dry Fork Mine A3 EA

C/O: Gretchen Pinkham, 

OSMRE Western Region 

1999 Broadway, Suite 3320 

Denver, CO 80202-3050
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA A-2

Comments may also be emailed to: osm-nepa-wy@osmre.gov, ensure the subject line reads: 

ATTN: OSMRE, Dry Fork Mine A3 EA. Comments should be received or postmarked no later 

than April 22, 2019 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 

the Project may be obtained from Logan Sholar, telephone number (303) 293-5036 and the 

Project website provided below. When available, the EA and other supporting documentation 

will be posted at:

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/DryForkMineAmendment3.shtm. Comments should be 

received or postmarked no later than 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 and will be available for public inspection. Additional information 

regarding the project may be obtained from Logan Scholar, telephone number (303) 293-5036

and the project website provided below. When available, the EA and other supporting 

documentation will be posted at:
United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Western Region

1999 Broadway St., Suite 3320

Denver, CO 80202-3050 

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA A-3

March 22, 2019

Dear Stakeholders and Interested Parties, 

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 Dry Fork 

Mine’s (DFM) mining plan modification for federal coal lease WYW-0311810 (the Project). 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. Western Fuels-Wyoming Inc. (WFW) operates the DFM under 

Permit No. PT0599 issued by Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ) Land Quality Division (LQD) in accordance with the approved 

Wyoming State Coal Regulatory Program (30 CFR Part 950). Permit No. PT0599 is in the process of 

being amended to include the A3 Tract. If approved, the revised federal mining plan would include the 

condition that WFW could not mine coal from the federal coal within the A3 Tract prior to receiving 

approval from the ASLM.

OSMRE is preparing an EA to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the Project, pursuant to 

the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The DFM is located 

approximately 4.5 miles north of Gillette, Wyoming. The DFM uses a truck and loader mining method. 

The amount of remaining recoverable federal coal authorized for removal within the currently approved 

federal mining plan is approximately 204 million tons (Mt). The Project proposes to add approximately 

640.3 acres and 58.1 Mt of federal coal to the approved federal mining plan. The annual production rate 

used to calculate the environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Action will be 6.0 million tons 

per year (Mtpy), which is the estimated future annual production rate suggested by DFM and is below the 

maximum permitted production rate of 15.0 Mtpy set by WDEQ-Air Quality Division (AQD) air quality 

permit P0023278. DFM started operation in 1990 and the mine will continue to operate until 2054 under 

the current, approved mining plan. Using the estimated 6.0 Mtpy production rate, the Project would extend 

the life of the mine by approximately 9.7 years, to 2064.

The EA will update, clarify, and provide new and additional environmental information for the Project. 

As a result of the EA process, OSMRE will determine whether or not there are significant environmental 

impacts. An environmental impact statement will be prepared if the EA identifies significant impacts. If a 

finding of no significant impact is reached, and pursuant to 30 CFR § 746.13, OSMRE will prepare and 

submit to the ASLM a mining plan decision document recommending approval, disapproval, or 

conditional approval of the mining plan modification. The ASLM will approve, disapprove, or 

conditionally approve the mining plan modification, as required under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.

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:
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA A-4

Comments may also be emailed to: osm-nepa-wy@osmre.gov, ensure the subject line reads: 

ATTN: OSMRE, Dry Fork Mine A3 EA. Comments should be received or postmarked no later 

than April 22, 2019 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 the Project may be obtained from Logan Sholar, telephone number (303) 293-5036 

and the Project website provided below. When available, the EA and other supporting 

documentation will be posted at:

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/DryForkMineAmendment3.shtm.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Shaeffer, 

Manager

Field Operations Branch

Attachment: Location Map
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA A-5
APPENDIX B

ERRATA/REVISIONS, 

PUBLIC SCOPING and NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY MAILING LISTS,

PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS SUMMARIES,

and

EA REVIEW COMMENT SUMMARIES and RESPONSES

(INDIVIDUAL LETTERS RECEIVED HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED)
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA B-1

Errata/Revisions Revised Text

Section 1.5, page 1-7 The text in the 1st paragraph on page 1-7 has been revised to 

update the discussion on public review comments.

Section 4.4.1.1.1, page 4-5 The text in the 1st paragraph on page 4-5 has been revised to 

remove “dragline operation” since draglines are not used at the 

DFM to recover coal.

Section 4.4.2.1.1, page 4-6 A period has been added to the end of the 3rd sentence of the 3rd

paragraph.

Section 4.4.4.2, page 4-10 The text in the 1st paragraph on page 4-10 has been revised to 

change “date” to “data”.

Section 4.4.5.1.2, page 4-12 The text in the 1st paragraph of this section has been revised to 

add the word “from” after “directly resulting”

Section 4.10.3.3, page 4-29 The text has been added to the end of the 1st paragraph to add 

discussions of mitigation measures for the northern long-eared 

bat.

Section 5.1, page 5-1 The text in section 5.1 has been revised to update the discussion 

on public review comments.

Appendix B Appendix B has been revised to add an Errata/Revisions table 

and to add a summary of public review comments.
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA B-2

Mailing List

Name Title Agency

Vernon Hill Chairman Eastern Shoshone Business Council

Dean Goggles Chairman Northern Arapaho Business Council

Shaun Chapoose Chairperson The Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation

Harold C. Frazier Chairman Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Government

Roxanne Sazue Chairwoman Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

Wanda Wells Cultural Affairs Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

Anthony Reider President Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe

Michael Jandreau Chairman Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

Clair Green Cultural Resources/Public Affairs Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

John Yellow Bird Steele President Oglala Sioux Tribal Council

William Kindle President Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

Garryl Rousseau Sr. Vice-Chairman or Acting Chairman Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribes

Robert Flying Hawk Chairman Yankton Sioux Tribe

Lyman Guy Tribal Chairman Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

Lisa Martin Tribal Council Coordinator Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma

Wallace Coffey Chairman Comanche Nation Tribe

Amber Toppah Lady Chairman Kiowa Business Committee

Roger Trudell Chairman Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska

Mark Fox Chairman MHA Nation Tribal Council, Three Affiliated Tribes 

Dave Archambault II Chairman Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Vernon Finley Chairman Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation

Floyd Azure Chairman Ft. Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes

Harry Barnes Chairman Blackfeet Tribal Business Council

Darrin Old Coyote Chairman Crow Tribal Council

Llevando “Cowboy” Fisher Sr. President Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council 

Blaine Edmo Chairman Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation

Doug Miyamoto Director Wyoming Department of Agriculture

Todd Parfitt Director Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Mark Rogaczewski District 3 Supervisor WDEQ Land Quality Division 

David Waterstreet Manager WDEQ Watershed Protection Section 

Scott Talbott Director Wyoming Department of Game and Fish

Mary Hopkins SHPO Wyoming Historic Preservation Office

Darin J. Westby Director Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources

Stephanie Pyle Senior Administrator Wyoming Department of Public Health
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA B-3

Name Title Agency

Jenifer Scoggin Director Office of State Lands and Investment

Bill Crapser State Forester Wyoming Forestry Division

Maj. Gen. Luke Reiner Director Wyoming Department of Transportation

Brian Lovett Administrator Wyoming Industrial Siting Agency

Erin Campbell Director/State Geologist Wyoming Geological Survey

Dan Noble Director Wyoming Department of Revenue

Mark W. Watson Director Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

Patrick T. Tyrrell State Engineer Wyoming State Engineer’s Office

Domenic Bravo Division Administrator Wyoming State Parks, Historic Sites & Trails Division

Harry C. LaBonde Director Wyoming Water Development Commission

Wyoming Office of the Governor

Robin Sessions Cooley Director Wyoming Department of Workforce Services

Diane Shober Executive Director Wyoming Office of Tourism Board

Kara B. Fornstrom Chairman Wyoming Public Service Commission

Economic Analysis Division Wyoming Department of Administration and Information

Curt Meier Wyoming State Treasurer Office of the State Treasurer

Nancy Vehr Air Quality Administrator WY DEQ Air Quality Division 

Kyle Wendtland LQD Administrator Wyoming LQD - DEQ 

Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners

Tony Glover Manager WY Dept of Workforce Services, Research & Planning

Chris Wichmann Manager Wyoming Dept of Agriculture - Natural Resources & Policy Section

Mark Christensen Campbell County Commissioners

DG Reardon Campbell County Commissioners

Bob Maul Campbell County Commissioners

Rusty Bell Campbell County Commissioners

Del Shelstad Campbell County Commissioners

Campbell County Airport 

Keith Bowar Chief Building Official Campbell County Building Division

Megan Nelms AICP, County Planner & Zoning Administrator Campbell County Planning & Zoning Division 

David King CCEMA Coordinator Campbell County Emergency Management 

Bill Shank Fire Chief Campbell County Fire Department

Dave McCormick Executive Director Campbell County Parks and Recreation

Kevin King, P.E. Director Campbell County Department of Public Works

Kevin F. Geis, P.E. Executive Director Campbell County Road & Bridge

Quade Schmelzle Director Campbell County Weed & Pest

Campbell County Conservation District

Campbell County School District 1
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA B-4

Name Title Agency

Executive Director Campbell County Economic Development Corporation

Campbell County Public Land Board

Tom Langston Gillette Department of Commercial Development

Louise Carter-King Mayor City of Gillette

Shawn Neary City Council City of Gillette

Tim Carsrud City Council City of Gillette

Nathan McLeland City Council City of Gillette

Bruce Brown City Council City of Gillette

Billy Montgomery City Council City of Gillette

Shay Lundvall City Council City of Gillette

Ry Muzzarelli Development Services Director City of Gillette

Sawley Wilde Public Works Director City of Gillette

Mike Cole Director of Utilities City of Gillette

Jim Hloucal Chief of Police City of Gillette

Pam Boger Administrative Services Director City of Gillette

Patrick Davidson City Administrator City of Gillette

Hon. Mark Gordon Governor Wyoming Governor

Representative Scott Clem District HD31 Wyoming Legislature

Representative Roy Edwards District HD53 Wyoming Legislature

Representative Bill Pownall District HD52 Wyoming Legislature

Senator Ogden Driskill District SD01 Wyoming Legislature

Senator Michael Von Flatern District SD24 Wyoming Legislature

Darryl LaCounte Director Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs

Carlie Ronca Area Manager Wyoming Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation

Wyoming Regulatory Office, US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha 

District

Mary Jo Rugwell State Director Wyoming State Office, Bureau of Land Management

Rick Miller Acting District Manager High Plains District Office, Bureau of Land Management

Mitchell Leverette Chief, Solid Minerals Bureau of Land Management

Todd Yeager Field Manager Buffalo Field Office, Bureau of Land Management

Lonny Bagley Field Manager Casper Field Office, Bureau of Land Management

Library, Bureau of Land Management

Coal Coordinator Wyoming State Office, Bureau of Land Management

Lawrence S. Roberts Acting Assistant Secretary Bureau of Indian Affairs

Environmental Division US Air Force Headquarters/CEVP

National Park Service

National Park Service Air Resources Division
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA B-5

Name Title Agency

National Park Service 2310

U.S. Department of Energy

Doug Benevento Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Tyler Abbott Field Supervisor Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Dennis Jaeger Forest Supervisor's Office Thunder Basin National Grassland, USDA Forest Service

Devils Tower National Monument, National Park Service

Astrid Martinez State Conservationist Wyoming State Office, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Marcello Calle

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Program Support Division, Field Operations Branch

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

US Army Corps of Engineers

US Environmental Protection Agency

Ecological Services US Fish and Wildlife Service

BLM Cooperator Lead USDA-FS Douglas Ranger District

USGS Water Resources Division

US Geological Survey

Michael Enzi US Senate Gillette Office

John Barrasso US Senate Casper Office

Liz Cheney US House of Representatives Casper Office

BTU Western Resources, Inc.

Mark Thrall Belle Ayr Mine

Mitchell J. Reneau VP Land, Bill Barrett Corporation

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

BNSF Railway Company

Casper Star Tribune

Amy M. Atwood Center for Biological Diversity

Converse County Commission

Dr. Dan Espelan Converse County School District #1

Kirk M. Hughes Converse County School District #2

Paul W. Musselman Converse County, Special Projects

Defenders of Wildlife

Matt Adelman Publisher, Douglas Budget

Environmental Policy and Culture Program

Federation for North American Wild Sheep

Energy Reporter Gillette News-Record

Steve Bullock Governor of Montana

Greg Julian Mineral Management Service
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA B-6

Name Title Agency

Hal Quinn National Mining Association

National Wildlife Federation

Natural Resources Defense Council

Shannon Anderson Powder River Basin Resource Council

Phil Dinsmoor Powder River Coal Company 

Bob Comer Rocky Mtn Region Solicitor

Peter Morgan Sierra Club

Ralph Kingan Mayor, Town of Wright

Roger Miller President, Trout Unlimited

Lance Fritz President, Chief Executive Officer, Union Pacific Railroad

US West Communications (Qwest Corp.)

Jason M. Ryan Business Analytics Director, US Western Surface Operations

Wendi Chatman UW Libraries

Taylor Jones WildEarth Guardians

Brady Lewis WWC Engineering

WY Business Council

Bill Schilling Wyoming Business Alliance

Travis Deti Wyoming Mining Association 

Gary Wilmont Wyoming Outdoor Council

Niels Hansen Wyoming Stock Growers Assoc

Steve Kilpatrick Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Amy Wallop-Hendrickson Wyoming Wool Growers Association, Executive Director

Mike McCraken Publisher Wyoming-Tribune Eagle

Katie Parker Yates Petroleum Corp et al

Green Bridge Holdings Inc

Green Bridge Holdings Inc

Macintosh Property Group Inc

Jackie and Michael Burkhardt

Basin Electric Power Coop & Tri-State Generation & Transmission
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA B-7

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA Substantive Public Scoping Comments

Commenter Comment

Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department

"The staff of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (Department) has reviewed the proposed Scoping for Dry Fork Mine Mining Plan Modification for Federal Coal Lease 

WYW-031 1810 (Amendment 3) located in Campbell County."

"We have no wildlife or habitat concerns with this amendment within the Dry Fork Mine permit boundary."

"We have no aquatic concerns pertaining to this mining plan modification."

Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners

"We believe the EA should discuss how the Amendment 3 area is environmentally suitable for surface mining and how Amendment 3 tract is well suited to maximum recovery of 

the reserves since it is surrounded by mining and industrial development."

"The EA should document the importance Wyoming coal mines and power plants to Campbell County."

"The OSMRE should not use the controversial social cost of carbon (SCC) in the EA."

Wyoming Mining Association "Below are items we suggest be discussed in the document.

-That the reserve area is environmentally suitable for surface mining.

-That the mine is in compliance with all rules and regulations applicable to mining.

-The myriad of federal and state permits already approved for this project.

-The employment and tax implications of the project.

-In this case, the project should also discuss the implications of employment at the attached mine mouth power plant."

"Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions should be handled by estimating direct emissions generated during mining of the coal."

"The OSMRE should not use the controversial social cost of carbon (SCC) in the EA."

Sierra Club

WildEarth Guardians

Center for Biological 

Diversity

"OSMRE must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) in order to adequately disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed mining plan modification."

"OSMRE must fully analyze and assess the impacts of mining at the Dry Fork mine. We impress upon the agency to fully analyze and assess the impacts of mining in relation to the 

following issues:"

-Impacts to rare imperiled fish, wildlife, and plants,

-Impacts to surface and ground water quality,

-Impacts to air quality,

-Transport impacts connected to coal production,

-OSMRE must analyze the cumulative climate and non-climate impacts of similar mining proposals,

-OSMRE must provide the public with a thorough, objective, and transparent accounting of the climate impacts of expanded mining at Dry Fork,

-OSMRE must disclose scientific consensus on the urgent need to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and

-OSMRE must evaluate the significance of greenhouse gas emissions by using available methodologies.
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA B-8

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA Review Public Comments

Comment 

Topic

Water 

Quality

Air 

Quality Wildlife

Level of 

NEPA/

NEPA 

Process

Reclamation/

Environmental 

Stewardship

Climate 

Change

Social 

Cost of 

Carbon

Cost/

Benefits of 

mining

Cultural 

Resources

Economy/

Contribution 

to 

Community

Reliable 

Power 

Supply

Pro 

Mining/

Approve 

EA

Against 

Coal 

Mining

# of 

Comments

# Commenters

(Form Letters 

Counted as One 

Commenter)

# Commenters

(Counting 

Each 

Commenter)

2 1 9 11 10 2 1 1 1 12 6 13 0 69 14 2,482

Pro Mining 13 2,482

Against 

Mining 0 0

Neutral 1 1

Total 13 2,483
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA B-9

Dry Fork Mine A3 EA Substantive Public Review Comments/Responses

Commenter Comment Comment Response

Western Fuels Association 

(Beth Goodnough) 

Comments were related to the economic benefits of mining, adequacy of the EA (NEPA process), climate change, 

socioeconomics, and affirming that discussions on the social cost of carbon are not needed nor appropriate.

Noted. No changes made

Campbell County Board of Commissioners The Commissioners were supportive of the application. The comments were related to the economic benefits of 

mining the coal evaluated in the EA, the importance of the DFM to the community in general, the mine's commitment 

to reclamation and safety, and the adequacy of the EA (NEPA process).

Noted. No changes made

Wyoming Infrastructure Authority 

(Jason Begger)

The commenter encouraged approval of the mine plan modification. The comments were related to the economic 

benefits of mining the coal evaluated in the EA, the importance of the DFM as a source of coal to a reliable supply of 

coal for local power plants, the mine's commitment to reclamation and safety, and the adequacy of the EA (NEPA 

process).

Noted. No changes made

Wyoming Rural Electric Association (Shawn 

Taylor)

The commenter encouraged approval of the mine plan modification. The comments were related to the economic 

benefits of mining the coal evaluated in the EA, the importance of the DFM as a source of coal to a reliable supply of 

coal for local power plants, the mine's commitment to reclamation and safety, and the adequacy of the EA (NEPA 

process).

Noted. No changes made

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(Amanda Withroder)

No terrestrial or aquatic wildlife concerns Noted. No changes made

Brent Helms The commenter encouraged approval of the mine plan modification. Regulations are in place to protect the 

environment and technology is advancing to reduce the impacts of CO2.

Noted. No changes made

James Arbogast The commenter encouraged approval of the mine plan modification. The comments were related to the economic 

benefits of mining the coal evaluated in the EA, the mine's commitment to reclamation and safety, the importance of 

the DFM as a source of coal to a reliable supply of coal for local power plants, and the adequacy of the EA (NEPA 

process).

Noted. No changes made

Bob Burnham The commenter encouraged approval of the mine plan modification. The coal would be mined in a safe, 

environmentally sound manner in compliance with federal regulations.

Noted. No changes made

Dakota Coal Company 

(Dean Bray)

The commenter encouraged approval of the mine plan modification. The comments were related to the economic 

benefits of mining the coal evaluated in the EA, the importance of the DFM as a source of coal to a reliable supply of 

coal for local power plants, the mine's commitment to reclamation and safety, and the adequacy of the EA (NEPA 

process).

Noted. No changes made

Energy Capital 

(Phil Christopherson)

The commenter was supportive of the application and encouraged approval in a timely manner. The comments were 

related to the economic benefits of mining the coal evaluated in the EA, the importance of the DFM to the community 

in general, the importance of the DFM as a source of coal to a reliable supply of coal for Wyoming power plants, the 

mine's commitment to reclamation and safety, and the adequacy of the EA (NEPA process).

Noted. No changes made

Dry Fork Mine Support Letters Pro mining form letters from multiple individuals with comments about the Social Cost of Carbon and global climate 

change wording in EA. These letters also have general comments regarding the permitting process, water and air 

quality, reclamation and the positive effects on the economy.

Noted. No changes made

I Support the Dry Fork Mine Letters Contains multiple letters from individuals - general pro mining. The letters address the economic contributions, state 

that the EA adequately evaluates the impacts.

Noted. No changes made

Laramie River Station Support Letters Contains multiple letters from individuals - general pro mining. The comments were related to the economic benefits 

of mining the coal evaluated in the EA, the importance of the DFM to the community in general, and the adequacy of 

the EA (NEPA process).

Noted. No changes made
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA B-10

Commenter Comment Comment Response

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Contains multiple letters from individuals - general pro mining. The comments were related to the economic benefits 

of mining the coal evaluated in the EA, the importance of the DFM to the community in general, the importance of 

the DFM as a source of coal to a reliable supply of coal for Wyoming power plants, the mine's commitment to 

reclamation and safety, and the adequacy of the EA (NEPA process). The letters state that the modification is 

reasonable given the currently approved federal mining plan. 

Noted. No changes made
APPENDIX C

GENERAL AIR QUALITY DISCUSSION

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

(Completed by WWC Engineering)

PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, Hg, CO, and CO2e CONTRIBUTIONS from COAL COMBUSTION 

CALCULATIONS

(Completed by WWC Engineering)
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-1

Existing DFM Air Quality Summary

Air Quality-Monitoring Values

Table C-1 lists the current estimated annual mean, annual high, and high-second high PM10

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) recorded at the four PM10 sites associated with the DFM. 

Table C-1. Historical PM10 Ambient Data (μg/m3) and Production (PM10 WAAQS:

50 μg/m3 Annual, 150 μg/m324-Hour), 2012-2018

Year Site #1

Annual 

Arithmetic 

Mean

Highest 

24-Hour 

Reading

2

nd Highest 

24-Hour 

Reading

Mt Coal 

Produced

MBCY3

Overburden

DF-2 14.3 52 49

DF-3M and DF-3N2 5.6 15 14

2012 DF-3S2 4.8 15 10 6.01 9.33

DF-4N and 4M 13.0 43 40

DF-4S 13.5 39 38

DF-2 14.7 57 39

2013 DF-4N and 4M 8.2 23 21 5.43 8.74

DF-4S 7.3 20 17

DF-2 12.0 28 22

2014 DF-4N and 4M 7.8 30 23 5.38 8.74

DF-4S 6.9 16 15

DF-2 13.7 61 41

2015 DF-4N and 4M 9.6 54 31 6.34 8.06

DF-4S 9.2 53 29

DF-2 12.1 36 30

2016 DF-4N and 4M 6.7 21 19 6.14 9.61

DF-4S 7.8 24 20

DF-2 14.7 50 48

2017 DF-4N and 4M 10.3 72 49 6.05 8.91

DF-4S 9.1 38 31

DF-2 13.4 48 33

2018 DF-4N and 4M 9.2 40 24 6.30 9.37

DF-4S 8.6 39 22

1

See map 3-1 for locations

2 Monitoring at DF-3M, DF-3N, and DF-3S was discontinued in 2013 and moved to DF-4M, DF-4N, and DF-4S

3 MBCY - Million bank cubic yards

Source: WFW 2019a
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-2

Table C-2 shows the regional results for monitoring during the 2012-2018 period.

Table C-2. Measured PM2.5 Concentrations in Campbell County, Wyoming,

2012-2018

Site ID1 Year 24-hour (μg/m3) Annual (μg/m3)

2012 16 4.9*

Btm-36-2 2013 14 4.2*

(Black Thunder Mine) 2014 10 3.9

(560050891) 2015 22 4.9*

2016 12 3.3*

2017 26 5.5*

2018 19 4.4

2012 22 7.9*

2013 14 6.4*

Belle Ayr Ba-4,5n,5s 2014 10 5.2

(560050892) 2015 18 5.0

2016 14 4.6*

2017 23 5.4

2018 18 2.7

2012 18 5.9*

2013 14 4.8

Buckskin Mine North Site 2014 12 5.5

(560051899) 2015 21 2.2

2016 10 2.5*

2017 26 5.6

2018 21 4.7

1

See map 3-1 for locations

* Indicates the mean does not satisfy minimum data completeness criteria

Source: EPA 2018b

To further evaluate potential PM2.5 emissions at the DFM, specific PM10 monitoring data from the 

DFM were used to estimate PM2.5 ambient concentrations by application a 0.2 factor (PM2.5 to 

PM10), as determined by Pace (2005). The estimated annual high 24-hour and annual mean PM2.5

values are included in tables C-3 and C-4, respectively.

Table C-3. Estimated Annual Highest 24-Hour STP PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3)

(PM2.5 Annual, 24-hour WAAQS: 35 μg/m3), 2012-2018

Site Name1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

DF-2 10.4 11.4 5.6 12.2 7.2 10.0 9.6

DF-4N and 4M 8.6 4.6 6 10.8 4.2 14.4 8.0

DF-4S 7.8 4 3.2 10.6 4.8 7.6 7.8

1

See map 3-1 for site locations

Source: Calculated (PM10 annual highest 24-hour values from table C-1 multiplied by 0.2)

Table C-4. Estimated Annual Mean STP PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3) (PM2.5

Annual Mean, NAAQS and WAAQS: 12 μg/m3), 2012-2018

Site Name1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

DF-2 2.9 2.9 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.9 2.7

DF-4N and 4M 2.6 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.3 2.1 1.8

DF-4S 2.7 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.7

1

See map 3-1 for site locations

Source: Calculated (PM10 annual mean values from table C-1 multiplied by 0.2)
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-3

DFM Air Quality Modeling Discussions

The following information is from the 2017 Western Fuels Association, Dry Fork Mine Air 

Quality Permit Application (WFA and Redhorse Corporation 2017).

The permitted coal production limit will remain at 15 Mtpy and coal preparation plant equipment 

specifications and controls will remain as currently permitted under MD-11723. Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) is achieved at DFM through a comprehensive dust control program, 

point source control, and best mining practices. The mine has mitigation procedures in place and 

an action plan for ambient air quality standard exceedances at the four ambient monitoring sites 

at the mine for PM10 and has in place mitigation procedures to control coal fires.

Emission calculations estimates indicate that DFM will emit 238 tpy of PM10 during 2019

operations and 514 tpy of PM10 during 2025 operations. These emissions include those from all 

mine-associated activities (including overburden and coal removal, scraper and dozer operation, 

blasting, haul road travel and maintenance, coal dumping, and wind erosion of disturbed and unreclaimed areas). The 2025 PM10 emissions estimate represents the highest value of any year in 

the mine plan, which includes mine years 2017 through 2065. PM10 emissions occurring from all 

North Group mines (Dry Fork Mine, Eagle Butte Mine, Wyodak Mine, Rawhide Mine, Buckskin 

Mine) as well as the Atlas Carbon facility for 2019 and 2025 were calculated to be 3,979 tpy and 

1,277 tpy, respectively. Table C-5 presents total projected particulate and gaseous emissions 

for 2017 through 2065. The emissions totals in table C-5 include point, fugitive, non-road, and 

mobile sources.

Table C-5. Dry Fork Mine 15 Mtpy Mine Plan Emissions Summary

Year PM10

(tpy)

PM2.5

(tpy)

NOx

(tpy)

SO2

(tpy)

CO

(tpy)

VOC

(tpy)

GHG (CO2e)

(tpy)

2017 238 54 564 91 101 30 24,989

2018 236 54 564 91 101 30 24,972

2019 238 54 567 92 101 30 25,105

2020 256 58 615 101 110 32 27,558

2021 276 63 679 112 121 35 30,683

2022 281 64 690 115 123 35 31,265

2023 279 63 675 112 120 35 30,570

2024 282 63 668 111 119 34 30,204

2025 514 120 1,432 251 249 70 67,680

2026 505 118 1,401 245 244 68 66,198

2027-2030 107 28 331 40 72 22 12,525

2031-2035 212 54 709 101 135 39 32,616

2036-2040 237 59 782 114 147 42 36,225

2041-2045 217 55 720 103 137 39 33,220

2046-2050 253 63 834 124 156 45 38,832

2051-2055 287 71 930 141 172 49 43,552

2056-2060 200 51 674 94 129 37 30,971

2061-2065 213 54 705 100 134 39 32,485

The NO2 analysis includes emissions from all mines in the northern group of mines plus other 

regional NOX sources located within the northern group of mines analysis extents. Mine years 
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-4

2019 and 2025 were also used for the NO2 modeling analysis. These mine years represent the 

highest DFM and cumulative projected NOX emissions. Maximum modeled NO2 concentrations 

at all model receptors were below the annual NO2 NAAQS/WAAQS of 100 μg/m3(WFA and 

Redhorse Corporation 2017).

Table C-14. DFM Particulate Matter Dispersion Modeling Results (μg/m3)

Pollutant Averaging

Period

Modeled 

Concentration 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS/NAAQS

2015 Mine Year

PM10 Annuala38.4 b11.4 49.8 50 c

2019 Mine Year

PM10 Annuala37.7 b12.0 49.7 50 c

a Violation occurs with more than one expected exceedance per calendar year, averaged over 3 years

b Highest modeled value

c Violation occurs when the 3-year average of the arithmetic means over a calendar year exceeds the value. EPA revoked the annual PM10

standard effective December 17, 2006.

WDEQ-AQD has determined that the DFM is not a major stationary source, in accordance 

with Chapter 6, Section 4 of the WAQSR (WDEQ-AQD 2011); therefore, a PSD increment 

consumption analysis was not necessary.
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-5

GHG Calculations Assumptions 

Direct Emissions Variables

Indirect Emissions Assumptions

Train: 130 Cars/Train, 1/2 aluminum rotary, 1/2 aluminum bottom dump (From DFM)

23 Tons/car empty - 1/2 are 21 tons and 1/2 are 25 tons (BNSF 2016)

119 Tons of Coal/Car (BNSF 2016)

15,470 Tons of Coal/Train (calculated)

200 Tons/locomotive – four per train (BNSF 2016)

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: EPA 2014

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 2014

DFM Production, 2012-2018

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Average

Production (Tons) 6,006,787 5,433,936 5,373,973 6,369,206 6,135,546 6,045,618 6,304,022 5,952,727

Source: WDWS 2012 through 2018

Source CO2e/Mt Coal Mined

FUEL subtotal 3,267

ELECTRICITY subtotal 2,670

PROCESS subtotal 1,148

Source: SGAC Calculations (BLM 2009)
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-6

Estimated 2012 DFM Equivalent CO2e

Source Quantity

Direct

Fuel (Metric Tons) 19,624

Electricity (Metric Tons) 16,039

Mining Process (Metric Tons) 6,894

Total Direct (Metric Tons) 42,557

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2012 Coal Production (Short Tons) 6,006,787

2012 Coal to DFS (Short Tons) 2,027,692

2012 Coal Shipped by Rail (Short Tons) 3,979,095

Tons Coal/Train (Short Tons) 15,470

Empty Train Tons (Short Tons) 3,790

Loaded Train Tons (Short Tons) 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 257

# Empty Trains/year 257

Rail miles to power plant 192

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 4,386,008

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 22,288,791

Kg CO2e/year Total 26,674,799

Total Metric Tons CO2e/year 26,675

Combustion (CO2e) 10,061,368

Total Indirect CO2e 10,088,043

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 10,130,600

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-7

Estimated 2013 DFM Equivalent CO2e

Source Metric Tons

Direct

Fuel (Metric Tons) 14,509

Electricity (Metric Tons) 6,237

Mining Process (Metric Tons) 17,752

Total Direct (Metric Tons) 38,498

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2013 Coal Production (Short Tons) 5,433,936

2013 Coal to DFS (Short Tons) 1,993,629

2013 Coal Shipped by Rail (Short Tons) 3,440,307

Tons Coal/Train (Short Tons) 15,470

Empty Train Tons (Short Tons) 3,790

Loaded Train Tons (Short Tons) 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 222

# Empty Trains/year 222

Rail miles to power plant 250

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 4,937,659

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 25,092,167

Kg CO2e/year Total 30,029,826

Total Metric Tons CO2e/year 30,030

Combustion (CO2e) 9,101,843

Total Indirect CO2e 9,131,873

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 9,170,371

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-8

Estimated 2014 DFM Equivalent CO2e

Source Quantity

Direct

Fuel (Metric Tons) 17,556

Electricity (Metric Tons) 14,349

Mining Process (Metric Tons) 6,168

Total Direct (Metric Tons) 38,073

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2014 Coal Production (Short Tons) 5,373,973

2014 Coal to DFS (Short Tons) 2,138,037

2014 Coal Shipped by Rail (Short Tons) 3,235,936

Tons Coal/Train (Short Tons) 15,470

Empty Train Tons (Short Tons) 3,790

Loaded Train Tons (Short Tons) 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 209

# Empty Trains/year 209

Rail miles to power plant 142

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 2,637,984.0

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 13,405,692.0

Kg CO2e/year Total 16,043,676.0

Total Metric Tons CO2e/year 16,044

Combustion (CO2e) 9,001,405

Total Indirect CO2e 9,017,449

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 9,055,522

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-9

Estimated 2015 DFM Equivalent CO2e

Source Quantity

Direct

Fuel (Metric Tons) 20,808

Electricity (Metric Tons) 17,006

Mining Process (Metric Tons) 7,310

Total Direct 45,124

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2015 Coal Production (Short Tons) 6,369,206

2015 Coal to DFS (Short Tons) 2,097,518

2015 Coal Shipped by Rail (Short Tons) 4,271,688

Tons Coal/Train (Short Tons) 15,470

Empty Train Tons (Short Tons) 3,790

Loaded Train Tons (Short Tons) 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 276

# Empty Trains/year 276

Rail miles to power plant 132

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 3,237,109

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 16,450,323

Kg CO2e/year Total 19,687,432

Total Metric Tons CO2e/year 19,687

Combustion (CO2e) 10,668,420

Total Indirect CO2e 10,688,107

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 10,733,231

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-10

Estimated 2016 DFM Equivalent CO2e

Source Quantity

Direct

Fuel (Metric Tons) 20,026

Electricity (Metric Tons) 16,368

Mining Process (Metric Tons) 7,035

Total Direct (Metric Tons) 43,429

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2016 Coal Production (Short Tons) 6,135,546

2016 Coal to DFS (Short Tons) 1,829,403

2016 Coal Shipped by Rail (Short Tons) 4,306,143

Tons Coal/Train (Short Tons) 15,470

Empty Train Tons (Short Tons) 3,790

Loaded Train Tons (Short Tons) 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 278

# Empty Trains/year 278

Rail miles to power plant 141

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 3,485,712

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 17,713,669

Kg CO2e/year Total 21,199,381

Total Metric Tons CO2e/year 21,199

Combustion (CO2e) 10,277,040

Total Indirect CO2e 10,298,239

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 10,341,668

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-11

Estimated 2017 DFM Equivalent CO2e

Source Quantity

Direct

Fuel (Metric Tons) 19,765

Electricity (Metric Tons) 16,154

Mining Process (Metric Tons) 6,944

Total Direct (Metric Tons) 42,863

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2017 Coal Production (Short Tons) 6,045,618

2017 Coal to DFS (Short Tons) 2,126,452

2017 Coal Shipped by Rail (Short Tons) 3,919,166

Tons Coal/Train (Short Tons) 15,470

Empty Train Tons (Short Tons) 3,790

Loaded Train Tons (Short Tons) 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 253

# Empty Trains/year 253

Rail miles to power plant 186

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 4,184,952

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 21,267,066

Kg CO2e/year Total 25,452,018

Total Metric Tons CO2e/year 25,452

Combustion (CO2e) 10,126,410

Total Indirect CO2e 10,151,862

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 10,194,725

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-12

Estimated 2018 DFM Equivalent CO2e

Source Quantity

Direct

Fuel (Metric Tons) 20,581

Electricity (Metric Tons) 16,822

Mining Process (Metric Tons) 7,231

Total Direct (Metric Tons) 44,634

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2018 Coal Production (Short Tons) 6,303,822

2018 Coal to DFS (Short Tons) 1,969,647

2018 Coal Shipped by Rail (Short Tons) 4,334,175

Tons Coal/Train (Short Tons) 15,470

Empty Train Tons (Short Tons) 3,790

Loaded Train Tons (Short Tons) 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 280

# Empty Trains/year 280

Rail miles to power plant 191

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 4,752,517

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 24,151,315

Kg CO2e/year Total 28,903,832

Total Metric Tons CO2e/year 28,904

Combustion (CO2e) 10,558,902

Total Indirect CO2e 10,587,806

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 10,632,440

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-13

Estimated Annual 2019-2064 DFM Equivalent CO2e

Source Quantity

Direct

Fuel 19,601

Electricity 16,021

Mining Process 6,886

Total Direct 42,508

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2017-2065 Coal Production (Short Tons/Year) 6,000,000

2017-2065 Coal to DFS (Short Tons/ Year) 2,000,000

2017-2065 Coal Shipped by Rail (Short Tons/Year) 4,000,000

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 35

Loaded Train Tons 15,505

# Loaded Trains/year 259

# Empty Trains/year 259

Rail miles to power plant 204

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.8

Kg CO2e/year Empty 4,676,962

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 23,767,358

Kg CO2e/year Total 28,444,320

Total Metric Tons CO2e/year 28,444

Combustion (CO2e) 10,050,000

Total Indirect CO2e 10,078,444

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 10,120,952

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-14

Summary of Estimated Annual Average DFM 2012-2018 and 2019-2064 CO2e Emissions

(in metric tons)

CO2e Source 2012 - 2018 2019 - 2064

Avg.

Percent of 

Total Avg.

Percent From 

Indirect

Direct Emissions

Fuel 19,445 0.19 19,601 0.19

Electricity 16,111 0.16 16,021 0.16

Mining Process 6,925 0.07 6,886 0.07

Total Direct 42,481 0.42 42,508 0.42

Indirect Emissions

Rail Transport 23,999 0.24 28,444 0.28

Power Plant Combustion 9,970,770 99.34 10,050,000 99.30

Total Indirect Emissions 9,994,768 99.58 10,078,444 99.58

Total Emissions 10,037,249 100.00 10,120,952 100.00
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA C-15

Annual CO2e Emissions Values

CO2e Source

Year

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Avg.

2019-2064 

Avg.

Direct Emissions (tons)

Fuel 18,853 19,624 17,752 17,556 20,808 20,026 19,765 20,581 19,445 19,601

Electricity 15,409 16,039 14,509 14,349 17,006 16,368 16,154 16,822 15,892 16,021

Mining Process 6,623 6,894 6,237 6,168 7,310 7,035 6,944 7,231 6,831 6,886

Combustion at DFS

Total Direct Emissions 40,886 42,556 38,498 38,073 45,124 43,429 42,862 44,634 42,168 42,508

Indirect Emissions (tons)

Rail Transport 60,693 26,675 30,030 16,044 19,687 21,199 25,452 28,904 23,999 28,444

Power Plant Combustion 9,666,365 10,061,368 9,101,843 9,001,405 10,668,420 10,277,040 10,126,410 10,558,902 9,970,770 10,050,000

Total Indirect Emissions 9,727,058 10,088,043 9,131,873 9,017,448 10,688,107 10,298,239 10,151,862 10,587,806 9,994,768 10,078,444

Total Emissions (tons) 9,767,943 10,130,599 9,170,370 9,055,521 10,733,231 10,341,668 10,194,725 10,632,439 10,036,936 10,120,953
APPENDIX D

SURFACE-WATER RIGHTS within 2 MILES of the A3 TRACT

GROUNDWATER RIGHTS within 2 MILES of the A3 TRACT
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA D-1

Surface-water Rights within 2 Miles of THE A3 Tract

Permit No. Priority Twn Rng Sec Qtr-Qtr Applicant FacilityName Status Stream Source Uses

P4492.0S 3/6/1962 050N 071W 4 NW1/4NW1/4 EUGENE SPRINGEN CHRIS STOCK RESERVOIR Complete Chris Draw STO

P4493.0S 3/6/1962 050N 071W 4 SE1/4SW1/4 EUGENE SPRINGEN KENIS STOCK RESERVOIR Complete Garner Lake Draw STO

P2618.0S 1/19/1959 050N 071W 8 NW1/4SW1/4 O. H. KENITZER SPRING STOCK RESERVOIR Complete Spring Draw STO

P5275.0S 5/27/1963 050N 072W 1 NW1/4SE1/4 BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOP RATTLESNAKE STOCK RESERVOIR Complete Rattlesnake Draw STO

P1697.0S 11/19/1956 050N 072W 12 NW1/4SE1/4 BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOP DUBOIS STOCK RESERVOIR Complete Little Powder River STO

P12840.0S 1/21/1997 050N 072W 13 SW1/4NW1/4 DUTTON FAMILY LIVING TRUST DUTTON NO. 1 Complete Dutton Draw STO

P13002.0R 8/2/2007 050N 072W 13 NW1/4SE1/4 L & J OPERATING KLUVER RESERVOIR Complete Dutton Draw CNG; IRR

P8887.0S 6/25/1981 050N 072W 14 SW1/4NE1/4 JAMES A. AND DOROTHY 

VAUGHN VAUGHN STOCK RESERVOIR Complete Vaughn Draw STO

P7235.0S 5/2/1972 051N 071W 1 NE1/4SE1/4 COW CREEK RANCH I, LLLC AMOCO STOCK RESERVOIR Complete Green Hill Draw STO

P5725.0S 10/12/1966 051N 071W 27 NW1/4SW1/4 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ELMORE #1 STOCK RESERVOIR Complete Elmore Draw STO

P6529.0S 11/28/1969 051N 071W 28 NW1/4NE1/4 ELMORE LIVESTOCK ELMORE #5 STOCK RESERVOIR Complete Elmore Draw STO

P13782.0R 4/12/2010 051N 071W 32 SE1/4NE1/4 LANDRICA DEVELOPMENT 

COMPANY FACILITIES AREA SEDIMENT POND #7 RESERVOIR Complete Facilities Area Draw IND

P13783.0R 4/19/2010 051N 071W 32 SE1/4NW1/4 LANDRICA DEVELOPMENT 

COMPANY RAILROAD LOOP SEDIMENT POND #6 RESERVOIR Complete Railroad Loop Draw IND

P8898.0R 8/22/1984 051N 071W 32 SE1/4NW1/4 LANDRICA DEVELOPMENT CO. RAILROAD LOOP TS-1 CONTAINMENT RESERVOIR Complete Railroad Loop Draw 

(Drainage of)

CNG; 

IND

P8020.0R 3/27/1979 051N 071W 33 NE1/4NW1/4 GREEN BRIDGE HOLDINGS INC FT. UNION SEDIMENT POND NO. 4 RESERVOIR Complete Little Prairie Creek IND; STO

P5798.OR 1/11/1967 051N 071W 34 NW1/4NE1/4 EUGENE D AND PHYLLIS 

SPRINGEN BLACK BUTTE STOCK RESERVOIR Fully Adjudicated Elmore Draw STO

P24541.0D 1/16/1975 052N 072W 1 SW1/4SE1/4 D HOLLER D.C.H. SPREADER SYSTEM NO. 1 Complete Little Powder River IRR

P24542.0D 1/16/1975 052N 072W 1 SW1/4SE1/4 D HOLLER D.C.H. SPREADER SYSTEM NO. 2 Complete Little Powder River IRR

75736.0 09/06/1890 052N 072W 25 NW1/4SW1/4 MIKE ELMORE PRESTON RESERVOIR IRR

P11700.0D 2/3/1913 052N 072W 25 SE1/4NW1/4 LYDIA ELMORE ELMORE PIPE LINE Complete Elmore Spring IRR

75735.0D 09/06/1890 052N 072W 25 NW1/4SW1/4 MIKE ELMORE PRESTON DITCH IRR

Source: SEO 2018
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA D-2

Primary search was conducted on SEO database as of May 2018. Water rights with a Status Code of ELI (Eliminated), ABA 

(Abandoned), CAN (Cancelled) or REJ (Rejected) have been removed from the listing provided above, as they do not 

represent a valid current right. Record suffixes are denoted as follows:

"A" Indicates adjudicated or finalized water rights and unless the right is a territorial appropriation, there will be a match in 

the reference column from one of the following permit types for the unadjudicated portion of the water right.

"D" signifies a ditch or pipeline permit.

"E" signifies an enlargement of a ditch or pipeline permit. 

"S" signifies a stock reservoir permit.

"R" signifies a reservoir permit. 

ABBREVIATIONS FOR USES:

CNG Coal Bed Natural Gas

DOM Domestic

IND Industrial

IRR Irrigation

MIS Miscellaneous

MON Monitoring

MUN Municipal

STO Stock
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA D-3

Groundwater Rights within 2 Miles of the A3 Tract

Permit No. Priority Twn Rng Sec Qtr-Qtr Applicant Facility Name Status Uses Yield

(GPM)

TD 

(Feet)

P101307.0W 11/13/1995 051N 071W 32 SW1/4SE1/4 GREEN BRIDGE 

HOLDINGS INC. KFX-4

Fully 

Adjudicated MIS 200 1,747

P101309.0W 1/5/1996 051N 071W 32 NW1/4NE1/4 GREEN BRIDGE 

HOLDINGS INC. MED #3 Fully Adjudicated MIS 25 144

P102453.0W 5/16/1996 050N 072W 13 SE1/4NW1/4 JOHN/JUDY MCCORMICK MAC #3 Complete DOM_GW 20 824

P104994.0W 2/6/1997 050N 072W 1 SW1/4SW1/4 JIMS WATER SERVICE, INC FORT UNION LTD 1-14-

1

Complete CBM 27 329

P107571.0W 7/28/1997 050N 072W 12 NE1/4SW1/4 JIMS WATER SERVICE, INC FORT UNION LTD. 4-

23-12 Complete CBM 24 178

P107573.0W 7/28/1997 050N 072W 12 NW1/4NE1/4 JIMS WATER SERVICE, INC FORT UNION LTD. 5-

31-12 Complete CBM 23.5 305

P107574.0W 7/28/1997 050N 072W 12 NE1/4NW1/4 JIMS WATER SERVICE, INC FORT UNION LTD. 2-

21-12 Complete CBM 26 275

P107664.0W 9/17/1997 051N 071W 32 NW1/4SE1/4 GREEN BRIDGE 

HOLDINGS INC. ENL KFX-4

Fully 

Adjudicated

IND_GW; 

MIS 20 1,747

P107860.0W 10/15/1997 051N 071W 28 SE1/4NE1/4 BELLE FOURCHE PIPELINE 

CO. ER-1 Complete MON 0 20.24

P107861.0W 10/15/1997 051N 071W 28 SE1/4NE1/4 BELLE FOURCHE PIPELINE 

CO. ER-2 Complete MON 0 20.25

P107862.0W 10/15/1997 051N 071W 28 SE1/4NE1/4 BELLE FOURCHE PIPELINE 

CO. ER-3 Complete MON 0 20.24

P107863.0W 10/15/1997 051N 071W 28 NE1/4SE1/4 BELLE FOURCHE PIPELINE 

CO. ER-4 Complete MON 0 20.27

P108708.0W 5/6/1996 050N 072W 13 SE1/4NE1/4 CITY OF GILLETTE FOX HILLS NO. 5 WELL Fully 

Adjudicated MUN_GW 600 4,170

P108950.0W 2/20/1998 051N 071W 32 SW1/4NE1/4 GREEN BRIDGE 

HOLDINGS, INC KFP-1 Complete MON 0 136.9

P111735.0W 9/9/1998 050N 072W 13 SE1/4SW1/4 LONNY & BONNIE 

BARTLETT Bud #1 Complete DOM_GW; STK 160

P111736.0W 9/9/1998 050N 072W 13 NE1/4SW1/4 John M. Kluver Milo #2 Complete DOM_GW; 

STK 7 106

P115023.0W 3/29/1999 050N 072W 13 NW1/4SW1/4

STEVEN J/RACHEL A 

DUTTON, TRUSTEES OF 

THE DUTTON FAMILY 

REVOCABLE LIVING 

TRUST, DATED JUNE 16, 

1994

PT-6 Incomplete DOM_GW; 

MIS; STK 25 212

P124047.0W 3/16/2000 050N 072W 13 NW1/4NE1/4 KEVAN FRALICK FRALICK #1 Complete DOM_GW 20 980

P130125.0W 9/28/2000 052N 072W 25 SE1/4NW1/4 REDSTONE RESOURCES 

OF WYOMING INC. TRITON 14C-1922 Complete CBM 25 426

P130688.0W 11/3/2000 051N 071W 31 NW1/4NE1/4 RMG I, LLC WALLS 31-31-A Complete CBM 25 398

P131854.0W 12/29/2000 051N 071W 31 NW1/4NE1/4 RMG I, LLC ENL Walls 31-31-A Complete CBM 75 398

P131855.0W 12/29/2000 051N 071W 31 SW1/4NE1/4 RMG I, LLC ENL Walls 31-32-A Complete CBM 75 453

P131856.0W 12/29/2000 051N 071W 31 NW1/4SE1/4 RMG I, LLC ENL Walls 31-33 Complete CBM 75 571

P131974.0W 1/17/2001 052N 072W 25 SE1/4NW1/4 LEGACY RESERVES 

OPERATING LP ROURKE # 1 Complete IND_GW 0 2,525
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA D-4

Permit No. Priority Twn Rng Sec Qtr-Qtr Applicant Facility Name Status Uses Yield

(GPM)

TD 

(Feet)

P14810.0W 7/21/1972 051N 071W 28 NE1/4SE1/4 Amoco Production Co. SPRINGEN RANCH 

WATER SUPPLY #2

Fully 

Adjudicated IND_GW 450 3,620

P170569.0W 9/27/2005 050N 072W 13 NW1/4SW1/4 THE DUTTON FAMILY 

REOCABLE LIVING TRUST DUTTON #1 Incomplete DOM_GW; MIS 20 585

P182018.0W 4/25/2007 051N 071W 29 NE1/4NW1/4 BASIN ELECTRIC POWER 

COOPERATIVE

LANCE-FOX HILLS 

MONITOR #1 Complete MON 0 3754

P182039.0W 8/18/2006 051N 071W 29 SE1/4NW1/4 BASIN ELECTRIC POWER 

COOPERATIVE

LANCE-FOX HILLS NO. 

2 WELL

Fully 

Adjudicated

IND_GW; 

MIS 525 3,628.3

P190131.0W 4/15/2009 050N 072W 13 SE1/4NE1/4 CITY OF GILLETTE ENL FOX HILLS NO. 5 

WELL

Fully 

Adjudicated MUN_GW 25

P191997.0W 12/21/2009 050N 071W 10 NW1/4NW1/4 CRYSTAL PLUMB PLUMB #1 STOCK 

WELL Complete STK 15 565

P193976.0W 9/24/2010 050N 071W 10 NW1/4NW1/4 CRYSTAL PLUMB ENL PLUMB #1 STOCK 

WELL Complete STK 0

P197516.0W 2/17/2012 051N 071W 32 NW1/4NE1/4

QUALITY 

ENVIRONMENTAL TECH 

SOLUTIONS, LLC

QE #1 Incomplete MIS 25

P199713.0W 10/4/2012 052N 072W 25 SE1/4NW1/4 LEGACY RESERVE 

OPERATING, LP

OVERFILINGING OF 

ROURKE #1 Complete STK 0 2,525

P20318.0W 3/13/1973 050N 072W 11 SW1/4SE1/4 ROBERT MAUL MAUL #1 Complete DOM_GW 20 420

P204916.0W 11/17/2015 050N 071W 3 NE1/4NE1/4 ERIC FALLON FALLON #1 Incomplete DOM_GW; 

STK 25

P20536.0W 4/3/1973 050N 072W 14 NW1/4NE1/4 PETER WAYNE JODOZI JODOZI #1 Complete DOM_GW 20 290

P205754.0W 6/17/2016 050N 072W 13 SE1/4SE1/4 RTFO PROPERTIES RTFO PROPERITES Incomplete MIS 15 380

P21638.0P 1/10/1973 050N 071W 18 SW1/4NW1/4 CHARLES S. KENITZER OTTO #1 Complete DOM_GW; 

STK 25 206

P21674.0P 3/31/1955 050N 071W 5 SW1/4NW1/4 Arthur J. & Edna E. 

Burkhardt JINGLES #1 Complete STK 10 80

P21675.0P 12/31/1943 051N 071W 33 SE1/4SW1/4 Arthur J. & Edna E. 

Burkhardt JINGLES #3 Complete STK 4 230

P21676.0P 12/31/1925 050N 071W 5 SW1/4NW1/4 Arthur J. & Edna E. 

Burkhardt JINGLES #2 Complete DOM_GW; STK 15 60

P21677.0P 9/30/1943 050N 071W 5 NW1/4SW1/4 Arthur J. & Edna E. 

Burkhardt CORRAL #1 Complete STK 4 100

P2267.0W 7/26/1968 051N 071W 32 SW1/4SW1/4 GLENN M. GROVES GROVES #1 Complete DOM_GW; 

STK 18 738

P22983.0P 7/31/1963 050N 071W 3 NW1/4SE1/4 PHYLLIS A. SPRINGEN SPRINGEN #1 Complete STK 10 420

P22984.0P 8/31/1960 051N 071W 34 NE1/4NW1/4 PHYLLIS A. SPRINGEN SPRINGEN #2 Complete STK 10 52

P22985.0P 12/31/1944 051N 071W 28 NE1/4NW1/4 PHYLLIS A. SPRINGEN SPRINGEN #3 Complete STK 15 85

P22986.0P 12/31/1944 051N 071W 33 NW1/4NW1/4 PHYLLIS A. SPRINGEN SPRINGEN #4 Complete STK 15 100

P22987.0P 12/31/1944 050N 071W 4 SE1/4NW1/4 PHYLLIS A. SPRINGEN SPRINGEN #5 Complete STK 15 90

P22988.0P 12/31/1955 051N 071W 28 SE1/4NW1/4 PHYLLIS A. SPRINGEN SPRINGEN #6 Complete DOM_GW; 

STK 15 25

P22989.0P 12/31/1953 051N 071W 28 SE1/4NW1/4 PHYLLIS A. SPRINGEN SPRINGEN #7 Complete DOM_GW 15 25
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA D-5

Permit No. Priority Twn Rng Sec Qtr-Qtr Applicant Facility Name Status Uses Yield

(GPM)

TD 

(Feet)

P22990.0P 12/31/1943 051N 071W 27 NW1/4NE1/4 PHYLLIS A. SPRINGEN SPRINGEN #8 Complete STK 7.5 5

P22991.0P 12/31/1955 051N 071W 29 SE1/4NE1/4 PHYLLIS A. SPRINGEN SPRINGEN #9 Complete STK 7.5 130

P24358.0W 9/10/1973 050N 071W 6 NE1/4NW1/4 JEAN M. RYAN JEAN M RYAN #2 Complete STK 5 50

P24605.0W 6/28/1973 050N 071W 18 SW1/4NW1/4 COUNTRY SIDE WATER 

USERS COMPANY

COUNTRY SIDE 

WATER USERS CO #1

Fully 

Adjudicated MIS 150 1,190

P24662.0P 9/10/1973 050N 071W 6 SW1/4NE1/4 JOE KAWULOK JAY KAY #1 Complete STK 10 250

P24663.0P 9/10/1973 050N 071W 6 SE1/4SE1/4 JOE KAWULOK JAY KAY #2 Complete STK 3 240

P24664.0P 9/10/1973 050N 071W 6 SW1/4SE1/4 JOE KAWULOK JAY KAY #3 Complete STK 2 80

P25069.0W 12/11/1973 050N 072W 13 NE1/4SW1/4 JOHN M. KLUVER MILO #1 Complete DOM_GW; 

STK 3 140

P26526.0W 4/29/1974 051N 071W 33 NE1/4NE1/4 REX L. MONAHAN

SPRINGEN RANCH 

MUDDY FORMATION 

UNIT BATTERY #1

Complete IND_GW 250 -1

P26527.0W 4/29/1974 051N 071W 32 NE1/4SE1/4 REX MONAHAN

SPRINGEN RANCH 

MUDDY FORMATION 

UNIT BATTERY #2

Complete IND_GW 300 -1

P27745.0W 8/15/1974 051N 071W 30 NW1/4NE1/4 PEABODY T H C Expired MIS 0 171

P27917.0W 9/12/1974 050N 072W 14 NW1/4NE1/4

MCKENNEY SUBDIVISION 

HOMEOWNER'S 

ASSOCIATION

MCKENNEY #1 

(DEEPENDED) Complete DOM_GW 25 900

P28762.0W 12/24/1974 052N 072W 1 SW1/4NE1/4 D. C. HOLLER HOLLER #1 Complete STK 25 50

P30792.0W 7/31/1975 050N 072W 14 NW1/4NE1/4 GENE PARNELL CP #1 Complete DOM_GW 20 314

P31460.0W 11/6/1975 050N 071W 6 SE1/4NE1/4 JOE KAWULOK BINKY #1 Complete DOM_GW; 

STK 20 700

P31775.0W 12/30/1975 050N 071W 16 NW1/4NE1/4 Wyo State Board of Land 

Commissioners EG-13B Complete MON 0 305

P3188.0P 4/30/1943 052N 072W 1 SW1/4NE1/4 60 Bar Ranch 60 BAR 4 Complete STK 2 70

P32378.0P 3/3/1976 050N 071W 10 SE1/4NW1/4 WANDA L. BRICKER BRICKER #1 Complete STK 5 235

P33655.0W 6/4/1976 050N 071W 7 NE1/4NE1/4 Carter Oil Co. TCOC #201 Complete STK 25 292

P34327.0W 7/16/1976 050N 072W 11 SW1/4SE1/4 SHELDON ANDERSON WRIGHT #1 Complete DOM_GW 20 168

P35602.0W 11/24/1976 050N 072W 13 SW1/4NW1/4

STEVEN J/RACHEL A 

DUTTON TRUSTEES OF 

THE DUTTON FAMILY 

REVOCABLE LIVING 

TRUST

CARTER M-4-SC Complete MON 0 360

P36701.0W 3/23/1977 050N 071W 17 NW1/4NE1/4 Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. WELL #17 Complete STK 8 320

P40362.0W 8/29/1977 050N 071W 5 SE1/4NW1/4 Arthur Burkhardt JACK #1 Complete STK 10 300

P41682.0W 1/18/1978 050N 072W 14 NE1/4SE1/4 PAUL & PATTY MCGEE NORTHLAND VILLAGE 

#1

Fully 

Adjudicated MIS 45 2,100
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA D-6

Permit No. Priority Twn Rng Sec Qtr-Qtr Applicant Facility Name Status Uses Yield

(GPM)

TD 

(Feet)

P42656.0W 3/31/1978 050N 072W 13 NW1/4SW1/4

STEVEN J/RACHEL A 

DUTTON TRUSTEES OF 

THE DUTTON FAMILY 

REVOCABLE LIVING 

TRUST

CARTER M-24-C Complete MON 0 365

P43849.0W 6/13/1978 051N 071W 33 NW1/4NW1/4 GREEN BRIDGE 

HOLDINGS, INC EP 01A Complete MON 0 75

P43853.0W 6/13/1978 051N 071W 28 NW1/4NW1/4 Fort Union Ltd. EP 04 Complete MON 0 35

P43860.0W 6/13/1978 051N 071W 29 SE1/4NE1/4 Fort Union Ltd. EP-10 Complete MON 0 30

P43861.0W 6/13/1978 051N 071W 33 SE1/4SE1/4 GREEN BRIDGE 

HOLDINGS, INC EP-11 Complete MON 0 140

P5227.0W 4/10/1970 051N 071W 28 SE1/4SE1/4 N. C. GINTHER GASOLINE 

PLANTS GINTHER #1 Incomplete DOM_GW; IND_GW 10 578

P56344.0W 8/11/1980 051N 071W 28 NW1/4NW1/4 ELMORE LIVESTOCK 

COMPANY FT UNION #2 E Complete STK 25 22

P56727.0W 5/6/1981 050N 071W 18 SW1/4SE1/4 LEMASTER ENTERPRIZES LEMASTER 

ENTERPRIZES 10 Complete STK 20 380

P6523.0P 12/31/1949 051N 071W 31 SW1/4SE1/4 GLENN M. GROVES SHAW #1 Complete STK 2 180

P6524.0P 12/11/1959 051N 071W 32 SW1/4SW1/4 GLENN M. GROVES SHAW #2 Complete STK 2 311

P6525.0P 8/21/1968 051N 071W 31 SW1/4SW1/4 JEAN RYAN RYAN #1 Complete STK 10 19

P6536.0W 9/18/1970 050N 071W 5 NW1/4SW1/4 ARTHUR J. BURKHARDT JINGLES #1 Complete STK 3 744

P66935.0W 4/12/1984 050N 072W 11 SW1/4SE1/4 WALLY & GEORGIA CASH CASH #1 Complete DOM_GW 24 1,228

P69075.0W 10/31/1984 050N 072W 14 NE1/4SE1/4 PAUL & PATTY MCGEE NORTHLAND VILLAGE 

#2

Fully 

Adjudicated MIS 75 1,040

P69918.0W 7/14/1977 050N 071W 18 NE1/4SW1/4 COUNTRYSIDE WATER 

USERS INC

COUNTRYSIDE WATER 

USERS NO. 3 WELL

Fully 

Adjudicated MIS 100 1,256

P69919.0W 7/13/1978 050N 071W 18 SW1/4NW1/4 COUNTRYSIDE WATER 

USERS INC

ENL COUNTRYSIDE 

WATER USERS CO 

WELL NO. 1

Fully 

Adjudicated MIS 0

P70505.0W 6/27/1985 050N 072W 11 SW1/4SE1/4 WALLY & GEORGIA CASH ENL CASH #1 Complete STK 0 1,228

P76017.0W 11/19/1987 051N 071W 32 NW1/4SE1/4 GREEN BRIDGE 

HOLDINGS INC. ENERGY BROTHERS #1 Fully Adjudicated MIS 45 843

P9787.0W 7/15/1971 050N 071W 18 SE1/4SW1/4 GILLETTE STOCK CAR 

RACING ASSN.

THUNDER SPEEDWAY 

#1 Incomplete MIS 25 380

P9928.0W 7/26/1971 051N 071W 33 NE1/4NE1/4 GREEN BRIDGE 

HOLDINGS INC.

SPRINGEN RANCH 

WATER SUPPLY WELL 

NO. 1

Fully 

Adjudicated IND_GW 510 3,685

Source: SEO 2018
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA D-7

Notes:

GPM – Gallons per minute

Primary search was conducted on SEO database as of May 2018. Water rights with a Status Code of ABA 

(Abandoned), A&C (Abandoned & Cancelled), CAN (Cancelled) or EXP (Expired) have been eliminated 

from the listing provided above, as none of these well codes represent a current valid right. Record 

suffixes are denoted as follows:

ABBREVIATIONS FOR USES:

CBM Coal Bed Methane

DOM Domestic

IND Industrial

MIS Miscellaneous

MON Monitoring

MUN Municipal

STK Stock
APPENDIX E

BIOLOGICAL (SOILS, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE) ASSESSMENTS RELATED to the A3

TRACT
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-1 

Soils

The following discussions on soils resources are summarized from Appendix D7 (Soils) of the 

Amendment 3 PAP (WFW 2018).

The soil resources of the A3 tract (the analysis area) were investigated by Jim Nyenhuis, Certified 

Professional Soil Scientist/Soil Classifier, during the spring and summer of 2016 (table E-1, 

map E-1). All lands within the area were mapped at the Order 1-2 level of intensity. The entire 

area was traversed on foot. Soil map unit boundaries were delineated by observing surface 

conditions, vegetation, slope position, and soil profiles exposed using a sharpshooter shovel 

and/or bucket auger. Soil survey information for adjacent and nearby permitted areas was 

reviewed to determine whether soils and their recommended salvage depths were similar to 

those observed within the A3 tract. WDEQ-LQD determined that the soils within the tract were 

similar to those currently being salvaged and utilized for reclamation at the DFM, and these soils 

have been previously sampled a sufficient number of times.

According to information provided on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

website, approximately 55 percent (362 acres) of the soil map units within the A3 tract were 

classified as prime or unique farmlands if irrigated (NRCS 2019).

Table E-1. List of Soil Map Units and Topsoil Salvage Depths for the A3 Tract

Map Unit 

Symbol Map Unit Name Total Soil Depth (in.)

Total Salvage 

Depth (in.) Limitations to Deeper Salvage

2-1

Aeric Haplaquepts, 

0 to 6 percent slopes (Felix clay) 60+ 60

Heavy clay texture >40 percent, 

possible saline-sodic at depth, 

wetness (hydric soil)

2-6

Bowbac loam, 

3 to 6 percent slopes 20-40 30 Heavy clay texture below 24"

2-12 Fort Collins loam, 3 to 6 

percent slopes 60+ 40 Low organic matter content below 40"

2-13 Haverson loam, 

0 to 3 percent slopes 60+ 40 No major limitations

2-18 Renohill clay loam, 

3 to 6 percent slopes 20-40 30 Weathered bedrock at depth

2-21 Shingle-Thedalund complex, 

6 to 30 percent slopes

Sh: 10-20, 

Th: 20-40

Sh: 12"

Th: 30"

Avg. = 15

Weathered bedrock

2-22 Tassel fine sandy loam, 

3 to 15 percent slopes Ta: 10-20 18 Weathered bedrock

2-26 Tullock variant sandy loam, 

10 to 30 percent slopes 20-40 30 Weathered bedrock, loamy sand texture at depth

2-27 Ulm clay loam,

0 to 6 percent slopes 60+ 35 Heavy clay texture and low organic matter content below 36"

2-29 Vona sandy loam, 

6 to 15 percent slopes 60+ 36

Low organic matter content and 

possible loamy sand or sand textures 

below 33"

DL Disturbed Land -- 0 No soil salvage

RL Reclaimed Land -- 18 No more topsoil to salvage

W Water -- 0 No soil salvage

412AB

Potts Variant (PV)-Wibaux (Wi), 

0 to 6 percent slopes, 

10 percent rock outcrop

PV: 20-40, 

Wi: 5-18 18 High percent of scoriafragments, scoria bedrock
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E2

Source: WFW 2018

Map E-1. Soil Types Associated with the A3 Tract
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-3

Vegetation

The following discussions on vegetation are summarized from Appendix D8 (Vegetation 

Assessment) of the Amendment 3 PAP (WFW 2018).

The field mapping of the area was completed in 2016 by Intermountain Resources. This 2016 

survey was designed to map vegetation types, prepare a plant species list, and collect sampling 

data. Cover data associated with the A3 tract was collected in late June and early July for the 

grassland, sagebrush shrubland, pastureland, as well as a reference area. Shrub density sampling 

was completed on the grassland, upland sagebrush, and pastureland community types. Vegetation 

types were determined through identification of major plant species, approximate coverage of 

these species, dominant ground cover classes, and percentage of bare ground.

The vegetation community types identified on the study areas included grassland, upland 

sagebrush, pastureland hayland, cultivated crops, and disturbed land (map E-2).

Vegetation Community Types

Grassland – Needleandthread (Stipa comata) was the dominant plant species recorded on this 

vegetation type, followed by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia),

crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Annual 

grass species made up 7.4 percent of the total absolute vegetation cover for the grassland 

vegetation type. The shrub density data for the area showed that silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana) 

was the most dominant subshrub species associated with this vegetation type, while fringed 

sagewort (Artemisia frigida) was the most dominant subshrub species. Other common shrub 

species recorded on this type included big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and Woods rose (Rosa 

woodsia). Other commonly recorded subshrubs on this type included broom snakeweed

(Gutierrezia sarothrae), and Louisiana sagebrush (Artemisia ludoviciana).

Pastureland - Crested wheatgrass was the dominant plant species recorded on this vegetation 

type, accounting for approximately 78.6 percent of the total vegetation cover. Other plant species 

were also recorded but in lower numbers. Perennial forb species made up 3.4 percent of the 

total absolute vegetation cover for the pastureland vegetation type. Silver sagebrush was the most

dominant shrub species recorded on this vegetation type and fringed sagewort was the most 

dominant subshrub species recorded in shrub density transects. Other shrub and subshrub 

species were also recorded but were observed in limited numbers. 

Hayland – This type is managed specifically for the production of grass hay but may be mixed with 

alfalfa (Medicago sativa) on some sites. Dominant plant species were crested wheatgrass, alfalfa, 

and a small amount of smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Shrub density sampling was not conducted 

for this vegetation type since shrub species have been removed by hay production operations. 
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-4

Map E-2. Vegetation Map Units (Community Types) Associated with the A3 

Tract
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-5

Disturbed Land - This type is typically paved roads, gravel roads, dwellings, and ranch operations. 

These sites were not sampled during the 2016 vegetation survey because of the limited amount 

of vegetation present on those areas.

Cultivated Crops – This type was planted to barley (Hordeum vulgare) during the 2016 vegetation 

survey period. In various prior years, plantings included oats (Avena sativa), wheat (Triticeum 

aestivum), or other crops.

Water/Wetland - This type is discussed in detail in sections 3.5 and 3.7 and consists of 

stockponds, playas, and small depressions.

Trees

The trees found within the A3 tract were typically associated with dwellings and ranch facilities. 

The most abundant trees observed were Siberian elm (Ulus pumila), followed by the plains 

cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and juniper (Juniper spp.).

Plant Special Status Plant Species

Threatened or endangered plants or other plant species of special concern, as listed by the 

USFWS and other agencies, were not encountered within the A3 tract (WFW 2018). Habitat for 

the Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) was not found in the area due to the lack of suitable 

wetlands. However, the marginal habitats were surveyed on August 4, 2016 and no Ute 

ladies'-tresses were found.

The State of Wyoming maintains a list of designated noxious weeds (Wyoming Department of 

Agriculture [WDOA] 2018). This list includes invasive and nonnative plant species that, once 

established, can out-compete and eventually replace native species thereby reducing forage 

productivity and the overall vigor and diversity of existing native plant communities. The following 

30 plant species are currently designated as noxious weeds by the State of Wyoming:

1. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis),

2. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense),

3. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula),

4. Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis)

5. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens),

6. Hoary cress (Cardaria draba),

7. Perennial pepperweed (giant whitetop) (Lepidium latifolium),

8. Ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum),

9. Skeletonleaf bursage (Franseria discolor Nutt.),

10. Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens),

11. Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris),

12. Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica),

13. Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium),

14. Musk thistle (Carduus nutans),

15. Common burdock (Arctium minus),

16. Plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides),
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-6

17. Dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria),

18. Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale),

19. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa),

20. Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa),

21. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria.),

22. Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.),

23. Common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum),

24. Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare),

25. Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia.),

26. Black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger),

27. Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus),

28. Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis),

29. Ventenata (Ventenata dubia), and

30. Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae).

In addition to those listed above, the following four plant species are currently designated as 

noxious weeds by Campbell County:

1. Buffalobur (Solanum rostratum),

2. Common cocklebur (Iva xanthifolia),

3. Poison hemlock (Conium maculatumand), and

4. Jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrical).

The state listed noxious weed species that were found within the A3 tract included Canada 

thistle, Scotch thistle, dalmatian toadflax, skeletonleaf bursage, and field bindweed (WFW 2018). 

These noxious weeds were not abundant. Selenium indicator species were not common on this 

amendment area in 2016.

Total annual grasses comprised from 0.2 to 7.7 percent of the total relative vegetative cover on 

the 2016 vegetation survey areas. Cheatgrass brome (Bromus inermis) and field brome (Japanese 

brome [Bromus japonicus]) were the major annual grass species encountered during the 2016 

vegetation survey (WFW 2018). Cheatgrass brome and field brome are not state designated 

noxious weeds in Wyoming and not county-designated noxious weeds in Campbell County but 

cheatgreass brome is considered a noxious weed in some Wyoming counties.
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-7

Wildlife

The discussions included in section 3.9 of the A2TR1 EA provide details regarding the description 

of wildlife resources associated with the DFM in 2017. A majority of these details have not 

changed and are incorporated here by reference. Where appropriate, information has been 

updated or restated for informational purposes. In addition, the following discussions on wildlife 

resources are summarized from Appendix D9.2 (Wildlife) of the Amendment 3 PAP (WFW 

2018).

Raptors

Eleven raptor species (northern harrier [Circus cyaneus], ferruginous hawk [Buteo regalis], 

Swainson's hawk [Buteo swainsoni] red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis], golden eagle [Aquila 

chrysaetos], bald eagle [Haliaeetus leucocephalus], prairie falcon [Falco mexicanus], American kestrel 

[Falco sparverius], great horned owl [Bubo virginianus], short-eared owl [Asio flammeus], and 

burrowing owl [Athene cunicularia]) were recorded within the raptor monitoring area (map E-3) 

during DFM baseline inventories. The ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson's hawk, golden 

eagle, burrowing owl, and great horned owl are raptor species common to the region that are 

known to have nested within the DFM raptor monitoring area in the past. The 2017 Annual 

Wildlife Report identified the location of and annual status of raptor nests for 2017 (WFW ). The 

location and status of raptor nests as of 2017 are included on map E-3. Two intact raptor nests 

(SH-4b and SH-11f) are located within the A3 tract. Nest SH-4b is located on an artificial platform 

but it has not been utilized since at least 2006. SH-11f, located in a tree associated with a ranch 

facility home site, was active in 2017, producing three young. As shown on map E-3, Nest SH4C/RTH-18 is located immediately adjacent (north) of the A3 tract and this nest was active in 

2017, producing two young. BLM sensitive raptor species that could potentially occur in the area 

include the burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), 

Swainson’s hawk, and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). None of these species has been 

documented as nesting within the tract (WFW 2019b).

Greater Sage-grouse

The project area is not within a core population area, as delineated in the Wyoming Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection strategy and a 2-mile seasonal buffer (March 15 to June 30) 

applies to occupied leks within non-core population areas (Office of the Governor 2015). One

historical Greater sage-grouse lek complex (Dry Fork II/IIA) has been documented within 2 miles 

of the A3 tract. However, the Dry Fork II lek was destroyed by mining in 2005 and the Dry Fork 

IIA lek was destroyed by mining in 2017. Both leks within this complex have been designated as 

unoccupied by the WGFD. The summary of Greater sage-grouse strutting ground inventories 

for leks near the A3 tract shown in table E-3 indicates that while bird numbers on these leks 

have fluctuated over the past 17 years, the counts from 2000 through 2018 showed that overall 

lek attendance numbers for the monitored leks had declined to zero.
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-8

Map E-3. Wildlife Use Associated with the A3 Tract 
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-9

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species, and Vertebrate Species 

of Special Interest 

The information presented in this section was obtained from the USFWS Information for Planning 

and Consultation (IPaC) system and Natural Resource and Energy Explorer (NREX), which is a 

web GIS-based software tool that supports pre-planning development considerations 

andfacilitates the assessment of energy, environmental, cultural, socioeconomic and 

infrastructural assets in Wyoming (NREX 2019).

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate (T&E) Species

The 2018 USFWS list of T&E species includes the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), 

which is listed as threatened. The analysis area for most T&E species included the DFM permit 

boundary.

Due to the proximity of the DFM to the DFS power plant and due to the fact that some of the 

coal mined from the A3 tract would likely be used at the DFS, the analysis area for the northern 

long-eared bat included the airshed analysis boundary for Hg deposition from mining and coal 

combustion. Additional information was gathered through incidental observations of species 

recorded during other field surveys. No critical habitat for this species has been identified in the 

area (USFWS 2018a).

While USFWS information indicates that the northern long-eared bat could occur in the area, 

habitat (caves and mine shafts as winter habitat and caves, mine shafts, and trees for summer 

habitat, USFWS [2016d]) is not present in the A3 tract to support the threatened northern 

long-eared bat (USFWS 2018b).

Vertebrate Species of Special Interest (SOSI)

Information provided on the NREX website was utilized for the determination of SOSI species 

that could occur in the area. For the purposes of this discussion, SOSI include BLM sensitive 

species, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) species of concern (SOC), species 

protected under MBTA, and WGFD species of greatest conservation need (SGCN). USFWS T&E 

species are not included in this category. There is a considerable amount of crossover between 

the species occurrence on the various lists included in SOSI (table E-4). BLM sensitive species 

include those species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA together with species 

designated internally as BLM sensitive in accordance with BLM Manual 6840 (BLM 2008). 

WYNDD has developed a list (with supporting documentation) of SOC in Wyoming that are 

rare, endemic, disjunct, threatened, or otherwise biologically sensitive. The MBTA prohibits the

taking of any migratory birds, their parts, nests, or eggs except as permitted by regulations. Except 

for introduced species and some upland game birds, almost all birds occurring in the wild in the 

United States are protected (50 CFR § 10.13) (USFWS 2018a). WGFD SGCN includes wildlife 

species with low and declining populations that are indicative of the diversity and health of the 

Wyoming’s wildlife (WGFD 2017). The WGFD’s SGCN designation process is based upon its 

Native Species Status (NSS) classification system. The WGFD then places each SGCN into one 

of three tiers of management based on its total score: Tier I (highest priority), Tier II (moderate 

priority), and Tier III (lowest priority).
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-10

As determined from the NREX list, 46 terrestrial-vertebrate SOSI have the potential of occurring 

within the project area. As shown in table E-4, 42 WGFD SGCN, 31 species protected under 

the MBTA, 17 WYNDD SOC, 13 BLM sensitive species, and 2 WGFD-designated Tier I 

terrestrial-vertebrate species have the potential of occurring within the project area. According 

to monitoring results, 15 of these SOSI have been confirmed as occurring within or adjacent to 

the A3 tract during baseline or annual monitoring. Eight of the BLM sensitive species and seven

the WYNDD SOC have been observed during wildlife surveys within the project area. One of 

the WGFD designated Tier I species (burrowing owl) has been observed within the project area.
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-11

Table E-2. Raptor Production Summary for Nests Located within and Adjacent to the A3 Tract, 2014-2018

Year

Species/ Nest 

No. Nest Substrate Status 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

SH-4a Tree Intact ALT ALT ALT ALT ALT

SH-4b Platform C-M/1995 Intact ALT ALT ALT ALT ALT

SH-4c Tree Intact RTH-18 RTH-18 RTH-18 RTH-18 RTH-18

SH-11a Tree D-N/2000

SH-11b Tree D-N/2003

SH-11c Tree Intact -- -- -- -- GHO-7a

SH-11d Tree D-N/2014 GHO-7b

SH-11e Power Pole Intact -- -- -- -- A-T

SH-11f Tree Intact -- -- A,2+,2+ A,3,3 I

SH-11g Tree Intact -- -- -- -- A,0,0

GHO-7a Tree Intact -- -- -- -- A,2,2

GHO-7b Tree D-N/2014 A,0,0/D-N

RTH-18 Tree Intact A,3,3 A,2,2 A,2+,2 A,2,2 A,2,2

Species: SH – Swainson’s hawk

GHO – Great horned owl

RTH – Red-tailed hawk

Status: -- Status unknown

I – Inactive nest

A – Nest active, # young hatched, # young fledged

A-T – Nest tended but no incubating birds were observed

ALT - Alternate nest site for a breeding pair (nest inactive)

D-N - Nest destroyed by natural causes/year nest was last intact

C-M – Nest created as mitigation/year created
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-12

Table E-3. Greater Sage-grouse Lek Survey Results (Maximum Male Attendance) for Leks Near the A3 Tract1, 2000-2018

Lek Year

2000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018

Dry Fork I -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Dry Fork II2 20 15 15 6 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Dry Fork IIA2 * * * * * 6 6 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -- --

Schiermiester2 12 12 7 8 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

Lek locations are shown on map E-3

2 WGFD currently classifies the lek as unoccupied

* Lek not in existence

-- Lek destroyed by mining

Source: WGFD 2018b
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-13

Table E-4. Vertebrate Species of Special Interest Associated with the Proposed Action

Common Name Scientific Name Status Under Protected Under Listed as a BLM Listed as a WGFD Observed

the ESA the MBTA Sensitive 

Species

WYNDD 

SOC SGCN NNS Tier in the Area

Western tiger salamander Ambystoma mavortium Yes NSS4(Bc) III

Great plains toad Anaxyrus cognatus Yes NSSU(U) II

Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens NW Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II

Plains spadefoot Spea bombifrons Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Yes Yes NSSU(U) II

Baird's sparrow Ammodramus bairdii NW Yes Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II Yes

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II Yes

Great blue heron Ardea herodias Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II Yes

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Yes Yes Yes Yes NSSU(U) I Yes

Redhead Aythya americana Yes

Canvasback Aythya valisineria Yes

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Yes Yes NSSU(U) II Yes

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis NW Yes Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Cb) II Yes

Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Yes Yes NSSU(U) II Yes

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Yes Yes

Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II

Greater Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus NW Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II Yes

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus NW Yes Yes Yes Yes NSSU(U) I

Black tern Chlidonias niger Yes Yes Yes NSS3(Bb) II

Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii Yes Yes NSS3(Bb) III

Merlin Falco columbarius Yes Yes NSSU(U) III

American kestrel Falco sparverius Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) III Yes

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) III

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus DM Yes Yes Yes Yes NSS3(Bb) II Yes

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Yes Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II Yes

Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Yes Yes Yes Yes NSS3(Bb) II Yes

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II Yes

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Yes Yes Yes Yes NSS3(Bb) II

Virginia rail Rallus limicola Yes Yes NSSU(U) III

Dickcissel Spiza americana Yes Yes NSSU(U) II

Brewer's sparrow Spizella breweri Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Bc) II Yes
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA E-14

Table E-4. Vertebrate Species of Special Interest Associated with the Proposed Action

Common Name Scientific Name Status Under Protected Under Listed as a BLM Listed as a WGFD Observed

the ESA the MBTA Sensitive 

Species

WYNDD 

SOC SGCN NNS Tier in the Area

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus NW Yes Yes Yes NSS4(Cb) II

Sagebrush vole Lemmiscus curtatus Yes NSS4(Cb) II

Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus UR Yes NSS3(Bb) II

Olive-backed pocket mouse Perognathus fasciatus Yes NSS4(Cb) III

Western painted turtle Chrysemys picta bellii Yes NSS4(Bc) III

Prairie rattlesnake Crotalus viridis Yes NSS4(Bc) III

Plains hog-nosed snake Heterodon nasicus Yes NSSU(U) II

Western milksnake Lampropeltis gentilis Yes NSS3(Bb) II

Plains gartersnake Thamnophis radix Yes NSSU(U) III

USFWS: ESA – status as a T&E species: NW-not warranted for listing, DM-delisted, UR-petition for listing under review

BCC – status as a USFWS bird of conservation concern 

MBTA – protected under the Migratory Birds Treaty Act

BLM: Listed as a sensitive species by BLM

WYNDD: Determined to be a species of concern

WGFD: SGCN – species of greatest conservation need, which is based upon the NSS classification system

Source: NREX 2019

Vertebrate Species of Special Interest Summary

Amphibians 4 31 MBTA

Birds 32 13 BLM Sensitive

Mammals 5 17 WYNDD SOC Highest Priority - Tier I 2

Retiles 5 42 WGFD SGCN Moderate Priority - Tier II 30

Total 46 42 NSS Lowest Priority - Tier III 10

NSSU 11 NSSU 11 Undetermined

NSS1 0 NSS1 0 Imperiled/Extreme

NSS2 0 NSS2(Ba) 0 Vulnerable/Extreme

NSS3 7 NSS3(Bb) 7 Vulnerable/Severe

NSS4 24 NSS4(Bc) 20 Vulnerable/Moderate

NSS4(Cb) 4 Stable/Severe
APPENDIX F

STATE and FEDERAL REVENUE CALCULATIONS RELATED to the A3 TRACT
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA F-1

Estimated 2018 Fiscal Revenue from 2017 Coal Production in Campbell Co. (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 477.5 238.8 238.8

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 85.6 57.6 28.0

Severance Tax 196.1 196.1

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 161.2 161.2

Black Lung 161.3 161.3

Sales and Use Tax 25.3 25.3

Totals 1106.9 457.6 649.3

$/Ton $2.05

Total Future Revenues from DFM (No Action Alternative) (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 363.9 181.9 181.9

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 65.2 32.6 32.6

Severance Tax 152.2 152.2

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 122.81 122.8

Black Lung 9.81 9.8

Sales and Use Tax 18.6 18.6

Totals 732.5 224.3 508.1

$/Ton $2.18

Future Revenues added by the A3 tract only (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 90.8 45.4 45.4

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 16.3 8.1 8.1

Severance Tax 36.0 0.0 36.0

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 30.7 0.0 30.6

Black Lung 2.4 2.4 0.0

Sales and Use Tax 4.6 0.0 4.7

Totals 180.8 55.9 124.8

$/Ton $2.25

Total Future Revenues from DFM (existing mine plus A3 tract) (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 454.7 227.3 227.3

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 81.5 40.7 40.7

Severance Tax 188.2 0.0 188.2

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 153.5 0.0 153.5

Black Lung 12.3 12.3 0.0

Sales and Use Tax 23.2 0.0 23.2

Totals 913.4 280.3 632.9

$/Ton $2.18
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA F-2

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 90.8 45.4 45.4

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 16.3 8.1 8.1

Severance Tax 36.0 0.0 36.0

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 30.6 0.0 30.6

Black Lung 2.4 2.4 0.0

Sales and Use Tax 4.7 0.0 4.7

Totals 180.8 56.0 124.8

Estimated 2022 Campbell Co. Fiscal Revenue (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 438.2 219.1 219.1

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 78.5 39.3 39.3

Severance Tax 173.7 173.7

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 147.9 147.9

Black Lung 11.8 11.8

Sales and Use Tax 22.4 22.4

Totals 872.4 270.2 602.3

$/Ton $2.15

All revenues were calculated using variables presented below.
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA F-3

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

2017 Wyoming 295,805,879 $2,879,630,622 9.73 59.910 $172,518,671 0.5832 0.07 201,574,144 $0.6814

2017 Campbell Co. 270,867,980 $2,458,928,638 9.08 59.554 $146,439,036 0.5406 0.07 172,125,005 $0.6355

2017 Wyoming 314,755,317 $2,995,345,054 9.52 62.462 $187,095,243 0.5944 0.07 209,674,154 $0.6661

2017 Campbell Co. 292,994,954 $2,592,159,599 8.85 59.610 $154,518,634 0.5274 0.07 181,451,172 $0.6193

Source: WDOR 2017 and 2018

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
Dry Fork Mine A3 EA F-4

Revenue Calculations Variables

Coal Production Values Campbell Wyoming

2017 Tons Produced1 292,994,954 314,755,317

2022 Tons Produced (Estimated) 280,430,000 290,000,000

% From Campbell Co. 93.09

DFM Tract2 Tons Minable Tons Recoverable

No Action Alternative 250,401,075 232,873,000

Added by Proposed Action 67,119,133 58,128,000

Average 2017 Sales Price ($/ton)

2017 PRB Subbituminous Coal $12.522 $12.503

2017 Price without BLT4 $12.48 $12.46

Federal Royalties Federal Royalties3 $457,804,615.63

Wyoming Share = 0.5 x FR $228,902,307.81

Abandoned Mine Lands Funds5 AML From Campbell County Total $82,038,587.12

WY Share6 $28,000,000.00

Severance Taxes7 Campbell ST Rate/Ton $0.6193

2017 Severance Taxes8 $194,927,319.95

Lease Bonus Bids (2017 Payments) Total 2017+ Bonus Bid Payments $0.00

WY share $0.00

Campbell Ad Valorem Taxes (AVT)7 AVT Rate/ton $0.53

AVT (Total) $154,150,547.03

Black Lung 2017 BLT Rate/Ton9 $0.528

2017 BLT Collected10 $154,602,548.14

Future BLT Rate/Ton11 $0.52682

Future BLT Collected $147,736,111.11

2017 Campbell Co. Employment (mining)12 Buckskin 202

Belle Ayr 244

Eagle Butte 271

Cordero Rojo 366

Antelope 526

Caballo 160

NARM 1,364

Rawhide 113

Black Thunder 1,220

Coal Creek 155

Dry Fork 79

Wyodak 63

Total 4,763

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 $6,197.23

Fed Tax $29,517,409.88

Fiscal Year 2017 Sales and Use Tax14 Coal Mining $25,262,023.00

$/ton $0.0803

1

Source: WDWS 2017

2 USEIA 2018

3 Calculated – 2017 Tons produced x 2017 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 CREG 2018

6 Calculated - Wyoming’s portion of 2017+ AML Funds (Max out at $75,000,000)

7 WDOR 2018a, recalculated using Campbell Co. numbers only 

8 CREG 2018

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 2017

13 WDOE 2015 (This is the most current document as of January 2019)

14 WDOR 2018b