United States Department of the Interior

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Environmental Assessment

Cordero Rojo Mine

Campbell County, Wyoming

Mining Plan Modification

for

Federal Coal Lease WYW174407

November 2017

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of the Interior

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Program Support Division

1999 Broadway, Suite 3320

Denver, CO 80202

PH: 303-293-5000 / FAX: 303-293-5032
Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

1.2.1 Statutory and Regulatory Background............................................................................1-4

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

1.3.1 Purpose..................................................................................................................................1-5

1.3.2 Need.......................................................................................................................................1-5

1.4 Regulatory Framework and Necessary Authorizations .......................................................1-5

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

1.6 Crosswalk of Resource Areas....................................................................................................1-6

1.7 Public Involvement........................................................................................................................1-8

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

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

2.1.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 No Action Alternative........................................................................................................2-2

2.1.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis.............................2-2

2.1.3.1 Underground Mining Alternative .................................................................................2-2

2.1.3.2 Low or No Pollutant Emitting Equipment..................................................................2-3

2.1.3.3 Air Quality Mitigation Alternatives..............................................................................2-3

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

Action Alternative).......................................................................................................................2-4

2.2.1 Mining Plan and Mining Operations.................................................................................2-4

2.2.2 Current Bonding and Bond Release Status ...................................................................2-4

2.2.3 Existing Stipulations and Mitigation Measures...............................................................2-5

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

3.1 Air Quality and Climate Change................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................3-1

3.1.2 Attainment/Non-Attainment Area Designations.........................................................3-2

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

3.1.4 Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Air Quality Summary.....................................................3-3

3.1.4.1 Air Quality-Particulate Matter......................................................................................3-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

ii Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

3.1.4.2 Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX), Ozone (O3), and Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2)...................................................................................................................................3-6

3.1.4.3 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) ..........................................................................3-7

3.1.4.4 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change..................................................3-11

3.2 Water Resources........................................................................................................................3-13

3.2.1 Groundwater......................................................................................................................3-13

3.2.2 Surface Water....................................................................................................................3-15

3.2.3 Water Rights......................................................................................................................3-19

3.3 Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................................3-19

3.3.1 Big Game .............................................................................................................................3-20

3.3.2 Raptors................................................................................................................................3-20

3.3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG)........................................................................................3-20

3.3.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species and Other Species of 

Special Interest...................................................................................................................3-22

3.3.4.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species...................................................3-22

3.3.4.2 Other Species of Special Interest...............................................................................3-23

3.4 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................3-23

3.5 Socioeconomics...........................................................................................................................3-23

3.5.1 Local Economy...................................................................................................................3-24

3.5.2 Population ...........................................................................................................................3-24

3.5.3 Employment........................................................................................................................3-24

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

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

4.1.1 Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts...................4-2

4.2 Topography and Physiography....................................................................................................4-2

4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................................4-2

4.2.1.1 Proposed Action..............................................................................................................4-2

4.2.1.2 No Action Alternative....................................................................................................4-5

4.2.2 Cumulative Effects...............................................................................................................4-5

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................4-5

4.3 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology......................................................................4-5

4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ................................................................................................4-5

4.3.1.1 Proposed Action..............................................................................................................4-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 iii

4.3.1.2 No Action Alternative....................................................................................................4-6

4.3.2 Cumulative Effects...............................................................................................................4-6

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................4-7

4.4 Air Quality and Climate Change................................................................................................4-7

4.4.1 Particulate Matter................................................................................................................4-7

4.4.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................................4-7

4.4.1.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-10

4.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4-10

4.4.2 Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Ozone (O3) ...........................................4-10

4.4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-10

4.4.2.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-12

4.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4-12

4.4.3 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs)............................................................................4-12

4.4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-12

4.4.3.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-14

4.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4-16

4.4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................4-16

4.4.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-16

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

4.4.4.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4-18

4.4.5 Climate Change Cause and Effect..................................................................................4-18

4.4.5.1 Proposed Action/No Action Alternative .................................................................4-18

4.4.5.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-20

4.5 Water Resources........................................................................................................................4-21

4.5.1 Groundwater......................................................................................................................4-21

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

4.5.1.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-24

4.5.1.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4-26

4.5.2 Surface Water....................................................................................................................4-26

4.5.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-26

4.5.2.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-27

4.5.2.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4-28

4.5.3 Water Rights......................................................................................................................4-28
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

iv Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

4.5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-28

4.5.3.2 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................................4-29

4.5.3.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4-30

4.6 Alluvial Valley Floors ..................................................................................................................4-30

4.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-30

4.6.1.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................4-30

4.6.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-31

4.6.2 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................4-31

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-31

4.7 Wetlands (Aquatic Resources) ................................................................................................4-31

4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-31

4.7.1.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................4-31

4.7.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-31

4.7.2 Cumulative Effects:............................................................................................................4-31

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-33

4.8 Soil ..................................................................................................................................................4-33

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

4.8.1.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................4-33

4.8.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-33

4.8.2 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................4-33

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-33

4.9 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................4-34

4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-34

4.9.1.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................4-34

4.9.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-34

4.9.2 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................4-34

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-34

4.10 Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................................4-34

4.10.1 Big Game .............................................................................................................................4-35

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

4.10.1.2 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................4-36

4.10.1.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4-36

4.10.2 Raptors................................................................................................................................4-36
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 v

4.10.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-36

4.10.2.2 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................4-37

4.10.2.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4-37

4.10.3 Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG)........................................................................................4-37

4.10.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-37

4.10.3.2 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................4-38

4.10.3.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4-38

4.10.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species and Other Species of 

Special Interest...................................................................................................................4-39

4.10.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................4-39

4.10.4.2 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................4-40

4.10.4.3 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4-40

4.11 Ownership and Use of Land .....................................................................................................4-40

4.11.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-40

4.11.1.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................4-40

4.11.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-40

4.11.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-40

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-41

4.12 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................4-41

4.12.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-41

4.12.1.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................4-41

4.12.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-41

4.12.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-41

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-41

4.13 Visual Resources..........................................................................................................................4-41

4.13.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-41

4.13.1.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................4-41

4.13.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-42

4.13.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-42

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-42

4.14 Noise..............................................................................................................................................4-42

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

4.14.1.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................4-42
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

vi Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

4.14.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-42

4.14.2 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................4-43

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-43

4.15 Transportation Facilities............................................................................................................4-43

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

4.15.1.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................4-43

4.15.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-44

4.15.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-44

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-44

4.16 Hazardous and Solid Waste......................................................................................................4-44

4.16.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ..............................................................................................4-44

4.16.1.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................4-44

4.16.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-45

4.16.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-45

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-45

4.17 Socioeconomics...........................................................................................................................4-45

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

4.17.1.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................4-45

4.17.1.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................4-46

4.17.2 Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................4-47

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................4-47

4.18 Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity ....................................................................4-47

4.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects.....................................................................................................4-47

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.............................................................................................................6-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Crosswalk of Resources Analyzed in the Maysdorf EIS, SGAC EIS, and the 

Duvall EA................................................................................................................................1-7

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

and Employees for the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action 

Specific to WYW174407....................................................................................................2-1

Table 2-2. Total Mine Disturbance/Reclamation/Bond Release July 1, 2011 through 

June 30, 20161.......................................................................................................................2-5

Table 3-1. Federal and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards...............................................3-2

Table 3-2. Average Annual PM10 Concentrations (μg/m3) for the CRM, 2010 – 2016 ............3-5

Table 3-3. Maximum 24-hr PM10 Concentrations (μg/m3) for the CRM, 2010-2016 ...............3-5

Table 3-4. Measured PM2.5 Concentrations 1at the Belle Ayr Mine (2010-2016) and 

Buckskin Mine (2010-2016) ...............................................................................................3-6

Table 3-5. Estimated Average Annual PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3)..........................................3-6

Table 3-6. Estimated Maximum 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3)....................................3-6

Table 3-7. Measured NO2 Concentrations1in Campbell County, Wyoming, 

2010-2016..............................................................................................................................3-7

Table 3-8. Measured O3 Concentrations1in the PRB, 2009-2016................................................3-9

Table 3-9. Measured SO2 Concentrations in Campbell County, Wyoming, 2011-2016, 

99th Percentile 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations (μg/m3)................................................3-9

Table 3-10. Estimated Annual PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and Hg Contributions from Coal 

Combustion, 2012-2016...................................................................................................3-10

Table 3-11. Measured Hydrogen Ion (H+) Concentrations1 at Monitoring Site WY99, 

2009 – 2015.........................................................................................................................3-10

Table 3-12. Global Warming Potential (as CO2e) Conversion Factors for Selected 

GHGs....................................................................................................................................3-11

Table 3-13. Estimated Equivalent CO2 (CO2e) Emissions 1at the CRM, 2012-2016 ...............3-12

Table 3-14. Campbell County and City of Gillette Population Change, 2000 to 2015............3-26

Table 3-15. Wyoming and Campbell County Employment Rate Change, 2000 to 2015 ........3-26

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

Mines.......................................................................................................................................4-2

Table 4-2. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts....................4-3

Table 4-3. MD-9943 Modification Request Annual Particulate Matter Dispersion 

Modeling Results ..................................................................................................................4-8

Table 4-4. PM10 Concentration Values (24-Hour, First Maximum Value - μg/m3) for 

2009-2016 Associated with the Middle Group2of Mines in the PRB ....................4-10
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

viii Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

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

Combustion of Coal Mined at the CRM for 2009-2016 and 2017-2029, 

Compared to Campbell County and U.S. Total Emissions.......................................4-13

Table 4-6. Average Annual Campbell County Air Quality Index Values, 2012-2016.............4-15

Table 4-7. Estimated Equivalent CO2 (CO2e) Emissions for the Proposed Action at 

the CRM, (2009-2016 and 2017-2029 Average).........................................................4-17

Table 4-8. LOM Federal and State Revenues from Federal Coal Recovery within the 

CRM (millions of dollars) .................................................................................................4-45

Table 4-9. LOM Federal and State Revenues from Federal Coal Recovery within the 

Duvall Tract (millions of dollars)....................................................................................4-46

Table 4-10. Unavoidable Adverse Effects of the Proposed Action...............................................4-48

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

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

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Visibility in the Wind Cave National Park – Site WICA1.........................................3-10

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

Cretaceous, Lower Tertiary, and Recent Geologic Units, PRB, Wyoming ..........3-16

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

Production in Campbell County.....................................................................................3-25

LIST OF MAPS

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

Map 1-2. Cordero Rojo Mine’s Federal Coal Leases....................................................................1-3

Map 3-1. Wind Rose and Air Quality and Meteorological Monitoring Stations at the 

Cordero Rojo Mine .............................................................................................................3-4

Map 3-2. Regional Air Quality Monitoring Sites.............................................................................3-8

Map 3-3. Active Groundwater Monitoring Locations and Water Supply Wells at the 

Cordero Rojo Mine ...........................................................................................................3-14

Map 3-4. Watersheds and Surface Drainages Associated with the Cordero Rojo 

Mine.......................................................................................................................................3-17

Map 3-5. Surface Water Monitoring Sites at the Cordero Rojo Mine....................................3-18

Map 3-6. Raptor Nest Sites, Greater Sage Grouse Leks, And Black Tailed Prairie 

Dog Towns Within And Adjacent To The Cordero Rojo Duvall Tract...............3-21

Map 4-1. Maximum Modeled PM10 NOx Concentrations at the Middle Group of PRB 

Mines for the Years 2017 and 2023.................................................................................4-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 ix

Map 4-2. Predicted drawdowns for the Wyodak-Anderson coal seam..................................4-23

Map 4-3. Cumulative Impact Area for Potential Surface Water and Groundwater 

Impacts..................................................................................................................................4-25

Map 4-4. Wetlands Associated with the Duvall Tract................................................................4-32

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Legal Notices for Federal Lease Modification Approval WYW174407

Appendix B Public Scoping and Notice of Availability Mailing Lists, Public Scoping and Duvall

EA Review Comments Summaries and Duvall EA Review Comment Response 

Log (Individual Letters Received Have Not Been Included)

Appendix C Air Quality Modeling for Cordero Rojo Permit #MD-9943 Redhorse 

Corporation

Appendix D CRM Special Status Species Summary Tables for Federal Lease Modification 

Approval - WYW174407

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

CO2 Contributions from Coal Combustion Calculations, Revenue Calculations

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

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 1-1

1.0 Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Lease 

WYW174407 Mining Plan Modification (Project) has been prepared by the U.S. Department of 

the Interior (DOI) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), Western 

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

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), OSMRE has the authority to 

make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary, Lands and Minerals Management (ASLM) 

regarding federal mining plan modifications (OSMRE 1999). Using criteria outlined in OSMRE’s 

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

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

Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (CEQ 2005), 

OSMRE determined that this EA could tier to, and incorporate by reference, analyses included in 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Maysdorf Coal Lease Application (hereafter 

2007 Maysdorf EIS [BLM 2007]). This EA also tiers to, and incorporates by reference, analyses 

included in the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(hereafter 2009 SGAC EIS [BLM 2009]). Both EIS documents were prepared by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) and OSMRE was a cooperating agency on both documents.

1.2 Background

The Cordero Rojo Mine (CRM), operated by Cordero Mining LLC (CMC), is located 

approximately 15 miles south-southeast of Gillette, Wyoming (map 1-1). The CRM is one of 

several mines located within the Powder River Basin (PRB). CMC was formerly owned by Rio 

Tinto Energy America, and is currently a directly held subsidiary of Cloud Peak Energy Resources 

(CPE). Coal has been mined on a commercial scale at the CRM since 1976. According to 

information provided by OSMRE (OSMRE 2016), the CRM is currently recovering coal under five

distinct state or federal coal leases and various private coal leases, as indicated below. The federal 

leases are shown on map 1-2.

1. State Coal Lease 0-26936A, 

2. Federal Coal Lease WYW8385,

3. Federal Coal Lease WYW23929, 

4. Federal Coal Lease WYW154432, 

5. Federal Coal Lease WYW174407, and 

6. Private Coal Lease (various).

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

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

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

ASLM initially approved the mining of the federal coal associated with coal lease WYW174407 in 

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

continue mining operations (mining, processing, and shipping coal) through approximately 2027.
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

1-2 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

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

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 1-3

Map 1-2. Cordero Rojo Mine’s Federal Coal Leases
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

1-4 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

In anticipation of needed additional coal reserves, CMC filed an application in 2001 with BLM to 

lease federal coal reserves in an area located west of and immediately adjacent to the CRM, under 

leasing by application regulations (also known as LBA regulations) at 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) §3425.1 and the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Government 

Publishing Office [GPO] 1982 and Public Law No: 109-58 2005, respectively). The lease request 

area, which was referred to as the Maysdorf LBA Tract, was assigned case file number 

WYW154432. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance tract for the CRM. 

The Maysdorf tract was applied for as a maintenance tract for the CRM to maintain operation at 

the mine’s current average annual level of production. BLM prepared the 2007 Maysdorf EIS to 

satisfy NEPA requirements for LBAs (BLM 2007). The 2007 Maysdorf EIS analyzed the potential 

impacts associated with approving federal coal lease WYW154432, which would allow CRM to 

continue producing coal at the current rate instead of ceasing production, as recoverable coal 

reserves were nearly exhausted. As stated previously, OSMRE was a cooperating agency on this 

EIS. Based on the NEPA evaluation included in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS, BLM concluded that the 

coal within the tract was acceptable for leasing and that maximum economic recovery of the 

federal coal would be achieved by mining the tract. BLM selected Alternative 3, as described in 

Chapter 2 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. Under Alternative 3, the Maysdorf coal lease application 

area was divided into two tracts, referred to as the North Maysdorf LBA Tract and the South 

Maysdorf LBA Tract. The North Maysdorf LBA Tract associated with lease WYW154432, as 

modified by the BLM, included approximately 446 acres and an estimated 55 Mt of mineable 

federal coal resources. The South Maysdorf LBA Tract associated with lease WYW174407, as 

modified by the BLM, included approximately 2,900 acres and an estimated 288 Mt of mineable 

coal. The CMC was the successful bidder for the federal coal associated with WYW174407 and 

the lease was effective on August 1, 2008. The entire WYW174407 tract, as leased, is shown on

map 1-2.

CMC submitted a permit revision/permit application package (PAP) for Permit 237 to the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)-Land Quality Division (LQD) to 

include the federal coal from the newly acquired lease WYW174407 on August 24, 2009. The 

PAP included modifications to include coal from lease WYW174407. WDEQ-LQD determined 

CMC’s application to be administratively complete on October 27, 2009. Following a public 

comment period during which no comments were received, WDEQ-LQD approved the permit 

revision on March 9, 2011 (WDEQ-LQD 2011).

CMC also submitted a federal mining plan modification request to OSMRE associated with federal 

coal related to lease WYW174407. The federal mining plan modification was initially proposed 

by CMC in 2015. Using criteria outlined in OSMRE’s NEPA Handbook (OSMRE 1989), OSMRE 

determined that a supplemental EA that tiers off the 2007 Maysdorf EIS and the 2009 SGAC EIS 

would fulfill OSMRE’s responsibilities under NEPA for evaluating potential impacts resulting from 

mining the proposed project. 

1.2.1 Statutory and Regulatory Background

For existing approved federal mining plans that are proposed to be modified, pursuant to 30 CFR 

Part 746 (GPO 2001), OSMRE prepares a federal mining plan decision document (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 
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 1-5

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

what, if any, conditions may be needed. OSMRE will prepare and submit a recommendation 

regarding the federal mining plan modification, which will be based, at a minimum, on

1. the PAP, 

2. the Resource Recovery and Protection Plan (R2P2),

3. information prepared in compliance with NEPA, including this EA,

4. documentation demonstrating compliance with the applicable requirements of 

federal laws, regulations, and executive orders other than NEPA,

5. comments and recommendations or concurrence of other federal agencies and 

the public,

6. findings, recommendations, and contractual commitments and requirements of 

BLM with respect to lease WYW174407, the R2P2, and the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920, as amended (MLA),

7. findings and recommendations of WDEQ-LQD with respect to the mine permit 

revision application and the Wyoming State program, and

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

requirements of 30 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter D (30 CFR Parts 740 to 746).

1.3 Purpose and Need

As described in 40 CFR 1502.13, the purpose and need statement will 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 action is established by the MLA and the SMCRA, which requires the 

evaluation of CMC’s proposed mining plan modification for the CRM before conducting surface 

mining and reclamation operations to develop the Duvall Tract federal coal lease WYW174407. 

OSMRE is the agency responsible for making a recommendation to the ASLM to approve, 

disapprove, or approve with conditions the proposed mining plan modification. The ASLM will 

decide whether the mining plan modification is approved, disapproved, or approved with 

conditions.

1.3.2 Need

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

granted by the BLM under federal coal lease WYW174407 to access and mine these federal coal 

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

to mine the reserves. 

1.4 Regulatory Framework and Necessary Authorizations

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

requirements for developing federal coal resources:

1. MLA,

2. NEPA,

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

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

5. Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA),
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

1-6 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

6. SMCRA, 

7. Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960,

8. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),

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

10. Clean Water Act (CWA),

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 46 (GPO 2011), is the DOI manual guiding the implementation of the NEPA process. An 

MPDD will be prepared and submitted to the ASLM for the reconsidered federal mining plan 

modification.

1.5 Outreach and Issues

Following a review of OSMRE’s 2012 federal MPDD, the 2007 Maysdorf EIS, and the 2009 SGAC 

EIS, OSMRE determined that further analyses were appropriate, based on newly available 

information and changes to the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action that have 

occurred since the 2007, 2009, and 2012 analyses mentioned above. Internal discussions within 

OSMRE identified a preliminary set of issues to be considered during the NEPA analysis. OSMRE 

also published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare this EA in the Gillette News Record on August 

4, 2016 and August 20, 2016 (appendix A) initiating a comment period, ending on September 

5, 2016. Substantive issues identified during the public scoping period (August 4, 2016 through 

September 5, 2016) were also considered during the document preparation. The public scoping 

comment letters are summarized in appendix B. The further summarized issues and the number 

of comments received associated with each issue (in parentheses) include

1. water quality (2),

2. air quality (2),

3. wildlife (1),

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

5. reclamation (1),

6. climate change/global warming (2),

7. negative effects (loss of revenue) on economy from any delay or shutdown of 

mining at CRM (1), and

8. pro mining (2).

1.6 Crosswalk of Resource Areas

Table 1-1 identifies the location of resource discussions presented in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS and 

the 2009 SGAC EIS and lists their location in this EA, where present. While all of the resources 

have been considered, not all of the resources have been brought forward for analysis in this EA. 

OSMRE determined that those resources and potential impacts not brought forward for analysis 

were sufficiently documented in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS and the 2009 SGAC EIS or that new 

information would not affect the decision-making process. Information presented in the 2007 

Maysdorf EIS and the 2009 SGAC EIS that adequately described the affected environment for
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 1-7

Maysdorf EIS1 SGAC EIS2 Duvall EA

Resource Affected 

Environment

Environmental 

Consequences

Affected 

Environment

Environmental 

Consequences

Affected 

Environment 

Environmental 

Consequences

General Setting 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 Incorporated by 

reference

Incorporated by 

reference

Topography and 

Physiography 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 Incorporated by reference 4.2

Geology, 

Minerals, and 

Paleontology

3.3.1.1

3.3.2.1

3.3.3.1

3.3.1.2

3.3.2.2

3.3.3.2

3.3.1.1

3.3.2.1

3.3.3.1

3.3.1.2

3.3.2.2

3.3.3.2

Incorporated by 

reference 4.3

Air Quality

3.4.2.1

3.4.3.1

3.4.4.1

3.4.5.1

3.4.2.2

3.4.3.2

3.4.4.2

3.4.5.2

3.4.2.1

3.4.3.1

3.4.4.1.1

3.4.4.2.1

3.4.2.2

3.4.3.2

3.4.4.1.2

3.4.4.2.2

3.1 4.4

Water 

Resources

3.5.1.1

3.5.2.1

3.5.3.1

3.5.1.2

3.5.2.2

3.5.3.2

3.5.1.1

3.5.2.1

3.5.3.1

3.5.1.2

3.5.2.2

3.5.3.2

3.2 4.5

Alluvial Valley 

Floors 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.1 3.6.2 Incorporated by reference 4.6

Wetlands 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.1 3.7.2 Incorporated by

reference 4.7

Soils 3.8.1 3.8.2 3.8.1 3.8.2 Incorporated by 

reference 4.8

Vegetation 3.9 3.9.2 3.9.1 3.9.2 Incorporated by 

reference 4.9

Wildlife 

(Including 

Threatened and 

Endangered and 

Special Status 

Species)

3.10.1.1

3.10.2.1

3.10.3.1

3.10.4.1

3.10.5.1

3.10.6.1

3.10.7.1

3.10.1.2

3.10.2.2

3.10.3.2

3.10.4.2

3.10.5.2

3.10.6.2

3.10.7.2

3.10.1.1

3.10.2.1

3.10.3.1

3.10.4.1

3.10.5.1

3.10.6.1

3.10.7.1

3.10.1.2

3.10.2.2

3.10.3.2

3.10.4.2

3.10.5.2

3.10.6.2

3.10.7.2

3.3 4.10

Land Use and 

Recreation 3.11.1 3.11.2 3.11.1 3.11.2 Incorporated by reference 4.11

Cultural 

Resources 3.12.1 3.12.2

3.12.1

3.12.1.1

3.12.3

3.12.2

3.12.3

Incorporated by 

reference 4.12

Visual Resources 3.13.1 3.13.2 3.13.1 3.13.2 Incorporated by 

reference 4.13

Noise 3.14.1 3.14.2 3.14.1 3.14.2 Incorporated by 

reference 4.14

Transportation 3.15.1 3.15.2 3.15.1 3.15.2 Incorporated by 

reference 4.15

Hazardous and 

Solid Waste 3.16.1 3.16.2 3.16.1 3.16.2 Incorporated by reference 4.16

Socio-Economics

3.17.1.1

3.17.2.1

3.17.3.1

3.17.4.1

3.17.5.1

3.17.6.1

3.17.1.2

3.17.2.2

3.17.3.2

3.17.4.2

3.17.5.2

3.17.6.2

3.17.1.1

3.17.2.1

3.17.3.1

3.17.4.1

3.17.5.1

3.17.6.1

3.17.7.1

3.17.1.2

3.17.2.2

3.17.3.2

3.17.4.2

3.17.5.2

3.17.6.2

3.17.7.2

3.5 4.17

1 Maysdorf EIS (BLM 2007)

2

SGAC– South Gillette Coal EIS (BLM 2009)

Table 1-1. Crosswalk of Resources Analyzed in the Maysdorf EIS, SGAC EIS, and 

the Duvall EA
Chapter 1- Purpose and Need

1-8 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

specific resources are incorporated by reference into this EA in their entirety and are not 

reiterated.

1.7 Public Involvement

On August 4, 2016, OSMRE posted an announcement of the EA on their Initiatives webpage 

(OSMRE 2016). The announcement initiated a comment period that extended from August 4,

2016 through September 5, 2016. OSMRE also published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare this 

EA in the Gillette News Record on August 4, 2016 and August 20, 2016 (appendix A) initiating 

a comment period, ending on September 5, 2016. Public outreach and Tribal consultation letters 

were also sent out to stakeholders and tribes that could be affected by the project. OSMRE 

received written and e-mailed comments from four entities. Lists of agencies, tribes, and 

individuals included on mailing lists, and a summary of the public scoping comment letters received 

are included in appendix B. OSMRE announced the availability of the EA on their Initiatives

webpage (OSMRE 2016) on July 6, 2017 and published a notice of availability (NOA) for the EA 

and unsigned FONSI in Gillette News Record on July 6, 2017. Public outreach and Tribal 

consultation letters were also sent out to interested parties, stakeholders and tribes that could 

be affected by the project. The EA and unsigned FONSI were provided to the public for review 

and comment for a 32-day period, ending on August 7, 2017. The comments were evaluated and 

considered before the EA was finalized and the FONSI was signed. OSMRE prepared responses 

to substantive comments in Appendix B of this EA.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 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).

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

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

from detailed analysis.

2.1 Description of Alternatives

The Proposed Action and No Action Alternative analyzed in this EA reflect the proposal for a 

federal mining plan modification to include adding approximately 852.1 acres to the currently 

approved permit boundary and adding approximately 569.1 acres of federal coal to the federal 

mining plan. This EA also reflects the modified alternative selected by BLM when approving the 

lease of the federal coal associated with lease WYW174407 (BLM 2007) and on WDEQ-LQD’s 

2011 written findings to CMC’s 2008 PAP for a permit revision to include lease WYW174407 

(WDEQ-LQD 2011). Table 2-1 summarizes coal production, surface disturbance, and mine life 

for the CRM the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative 

would leave operations as described in the currently approved federal mining plan. The Proposed 

Action would add additional coal associated with federal lease WYW174407. These scenarios 

are described in greater detail, below.

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

Life, and Employees for the No Action Alternative and Proposed 

Action Specific to WYW174407

Item Projections Under 

No Action Alternative 

Projections Under

Proposed Action

Remaining Recoverable Federal Coal 232.6 Mt 288.4 Mt

Total Area to Be Disturbed 18,348 acres 19,200.1 acres

Estimated Average Annual Production 20 Mt 20 Mt

Remaining Years from Recovering Federal Mine Plan Coal 11.6114.41

Average Number of Employees 383 383

1 Mining of federal coal would be done in sequence with mining other state and private coal 

leases, which extends the estimated LOM beyond the years indicated

2.1.1 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would modify the federal mining plan and authorize CMC to conduct coal 

removal on approximately 569.1 acres of federal coal, with approximately 852.1 acres of surface 

disturbance, to recover approximately 55.8 Mt of federal coal. CMC estimates that at the 

projected average annual production rate of 20 million tons (Mt), mining this coal would extend 

the mine’s life by about 2.8 years. All of the federal coal included in the Proposed Action would 

be shipped to coal-fired power plants in the U.S. (CMC 2016a). In 2016, 100 percent of coal 

mined at the CRM was shipped to U.S. markets.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-2 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Under the Proposed Action, the Cordero Rojo Mine Duvall tract would be mined as an integral 

part of the CRM. Because the Cordero Rojo Mine Duvall tract would be an extension of the 

existing CRM, the facilities and infrastructure would be the same as those identified in Permit 237 

Term 10, as revised on January 2017, and the BLM Resource Recovery and Protection Plan 

(R2P2), which was approved December 2015.

2.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, ASLM would not approve the 2016 federal mining plan 

modification request described above under the Proposed Action. Under this alternative, the 

CRM would mine its remaining 232.6 Mt of recoverable federal coal reserves within the existing 

CRM leases in approximately 11.6 years at an average production rate of approximately 20 million 

tons per year (Mtpy).

The No Action Alternative included in this EA compares the potential environmental and 

economic consequences of not mining the Duvall tract, under the assumption that the additional 

coal within federal coal lease WYW174407 tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if 

the No Action Alternative is selected. Under the No Action Alternative scenario, CMC would 

be limited to recovering the remaining federal coal reserves associated with federal coal leases

WYW8385, WYW23929, WYW154432, and WYW174407 and coal within state and private 

leases. All of the federal coal included in the No Action Alternative would continue to be shipped 

to customers in the U.S. Selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude approval of 

a federal mining plan modification in the future to include the Duvall tract.

2.1.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

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

modification. However, since OSMRE's decision would be limited to recommending approval, 

approval with conditions, or denial of the mining plan modification, OSMRE concluded that there 

are no other reasonable action alternatives to the Proposed Action that would meet the agency’s 

purpose and need. The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed 

analysis. The discussions include reasons the alternatives were eliminated from detailed analysis.

2.1.3.1 Underground Mining Alternative

An alternative to require CMC to use underground mining methods to extract the coal was 

identified in public comments received during the outreach period, considered by OSMRE, and 

eliminated from detailed study because WDEQ-LQD has approved a surface mining permit for 

this project using surface mining techniques, and underground mining is inconsistent with the 

approved permit. The purpose and need for this EA is predicated upon review of a surface mining 

plan included as part of the WDEQ-LQD-approved surface mining permit. An Underground 

Mining Alternative would, thus, be inconsistent with the Purpose and Need for this action.

Also, lease WYW174407 is a surface reserve lease only. The lease was sold by the federal 

government and purchased and held by the CMC with the clear understanding by all parties 

concerned that the lease would be mined by surface mining methods only (BLM 2007).

This alternative is also economically infeasible at current permitted production rates, and the 

economics of initiating an underground longwall mining operation in the CRM are not cost 

effective. The facilities and equipment needed for underground mining are different from surface 

mining. Because the infrastructure for underground mining is not in place at the CRM, new 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 2-3

infrastructure for underground mining would need to be constructed. The capital expenditure to 

develop an underground mine would be prohibitive. In addition, all new surface facilities would 

need to be constructed, including, but not limited to, conveyors, coal stock piles, a wash plant, 

and maintenance and support facilities. In addition, all new underground mining equipment would 

need to be purchased such as, but not limited to, a long wall mining system, conveyor 

systems/drives/power stations, vehicles for transporting employees and supplies, several 

continuous miners, shuttle cars, large and small ventilation fans, and roof bolters.

In addition, approval by WDEQ-LQD of an application for a permit revision would be required 

to authorize underground mining. The process for CMC to design and engineer a new 

underground mine and for WDEQ-LQD to process a new permit application would take a 

number of years. Underground mining methods are inconsistent with the approved R2P2 and 

would result in much lower recovery rates; approximately 75 percent (Kentucky Geological 

Survey 2012) compared to 92 percent (CMC 2016b). These factors also result in this potential 

alternative being economically unreasonable.

This alternative was not brought forward for detailed analysis because underground mining does 

not respond to the purpose and need for this action and the economic burden to shift to 

underground mining would be prohibitive.

2.1.3.2 Low or No Pollutant Emitting Equipment

Public comments suggested considering an alternative that required reduced air emissions at the 

mine by changing or modifying mining related equipment to equipment which would produce 

lower air emissions. The CRM is a relatively small contributor of the emissions related to engine 

combustion (primarily carbon dioxide [CO2] and oxides of nitrogen [NOX]) in the region.

The cost to make the switch to equipment powered by a different fuel (such as natural gas or 

solar powered equipment) for approximately 569 acres of federal coal would be cost prohibitive 

for the minimal benefit to the regional air quality. In addition, the use of natural gas powered 

engines in mining equipment is relatively new and some types of equipment would not be available 

for replacement with natural gas powered engines. The use of solar power to run large equipment 

has not been tested and is not considered technologically feasible at this time. Similarly, 

retrofitting existing equipment with additional emissions control devices would be expensive with 

limited effect on regional air emissions.

OSMRE has not brought forward this alternative for full analysis because requiring natural gas 

and solar powered engine technology and retrofitting existing equipment is not economically or 

technically feasible for all equipment at the CRM, and would likely have substantially similar effects 

to an alternative that is analyzed.

2.1.3.3 Air Quality Mitigation Alternatives

Some public comments suggested that OSMRE consider alternatives that mitigate air quality 

impacts, specifically by imposing more stringent emission limits at power plants fueled by the 

CRM and by requiring oil and gas operators in the region to reduce their emissions. These 

proposals are not alternatives to the mining plan being considered. The effects of coal combustion 

are analyzed in the Proposed Action as well as in the No Action Alternative because they are 

considered to be indirect effects. CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508 (b) define “indirect effects” 

as those which are caused by the proposed action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. These indirect effects would occur as a result of 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-4 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

burning the coal that is mined. The analysis concluded there would not be significant impacts to 

air resources under the Proposed Action and no mitigation was recommended. Any mitigation 

measure proposed by OSMRE imposing more stringent emission limits at generating stations and 

upon oil and gas operators is beyond OSMRE’s authority and its implementation would be highly 

remote and speculative. 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

The CRM is currently permitted to mine coal under the ASLM-approved federal mining plan 

(OSMRE 2012), the WDEQ-LQD-approved Permit 237 Term 10 (WDEQ-LQD 2017a), and the 

BLM-approved R2P2 (BLM 2015). CMC continues to use conventional surface-coal mining 

techniques described in Section 2.1 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. CMC is permitted to mine a 

maximum of 35 Mtpy under WDEQ-AQD P002248 air quality permit (WDEQ-AQD 2017a). 

CMC mined approximately 18.3 Mt of coal in 2016 (Wyoming Department of Workforce 

Services (WDWS 2016a). In 2016, all of the coal mined at the CRM was shipped to customers in 

the U.S. As stated in section 1.2, the CRM currently operates under four federal coal leases, 

one state coal lease, and various private coal leases. Federal coal lease areas are depicted on map 

1-2. Through December 31, 2016, approximately 941,087,652 Mt of federal coal reserves have 

been recovered at the CRM. 

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 will have 

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

approved reclamation plan (OSMRE 2015). The current bond amount for the CRM is $158.7 

million in the form of a Surety bond and was approved by WDEQ-LQD on July 31, 2017.

There are four types of bond release for areas disturbed and coal removed after May 1978 that 

mine operators may apply for to reduce their reclamation bond. As outlined in WDEQ-LQD 

Guideline 20 (Bond Release Categories and Submittal Procedures for Coal Mines [WDEQ-LQD 

2014]), the four bond release types for lands disturbed and coal mined since 1978 are

1. Area Bond Release –Backfilling and rough grading,

2. Phase I – Partial Incremental, which involves finishing of grading,

3. Phase 2 – Partial Incremental, which addresses species composition of vegetation, 

sediment control, and soil productivity, and

4. Phase 3 - Full Incremental or Final release, which means that reclamation meets the 

postmining land use and has passed verifications for surface and ground water, 

wetlands, vegetation, trees, shrubs, wildlife, and final surface stability.

All reclaimed areas are monitored for a minimum of 10 years to evaluate the success of vegetation 

growth and the establishment of a variety of native plant species prior to the Phase 3 final bond 

release of the reclamation bond. It is important not to equate contemporaneous reclamation 

with final bond release. There is a difference between lands that are in various stages of 

reclamation and those that have been reclaimed and released from final bonding requirements. 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 2-5

Final bond release on reclaimed lands indicates that the reclamation meeting permit standards 

has been in place in accordance with permit standards for at least 10 years and that an application 

for final bond release was submitted to the WDEQ. In 2014, the OSMRE Denver Field Division 

(DFD) evaluated reclamation plans of six approved permits in Wyoming during oversight 

inspections and determined that all permits evaluated were in compliance with contemporaneous 

reclamation requirements as defined within the approved permits (OSMRE 2014). According to 

CRM 2016 Annual Report, the mine has disturbed approximately 14,352 acres and has backfilled 

and graded approximately 6,541 acres (CMC 2016b). Approximately 2,962 acres are listed as 

long-term mining or reclamation facilities, which means that the mine has backfilled and graded 

approximately 57 percent of the disturbance that is not required for continued operations.

The acres of reclamation at the CRM from July 2011 through June 2016, by bond release phase, 

are indicated in table 2-2.

Table 2-2. Total Mine Disturbance/Reclamation/Bond Release July 1, 2011

through June 30, 2016

1

Year

Total 

Disturbance

Facility 

Disturbance

Active 

Mining 

Area

Available 

for 

Seeding

Soiled 

& 

Seeded

Area 

Bond

Phase 

1

Phase 

2

Phase 

3

2011-2012 13,011 4,248 4,166 299 4,298 4,597 2,275 223 223 

Ratio of Total -- 33% 32% 2% 33% 35% 17% 2% 2%

2012-2013 13,352 3,028 4,697 900 4,728 5,628 3,923 222 222 

Ratio of Total -- 23% 35% 7% 35% 42% 29% 2% 2%

2013-2014 13,684 2,851 4,934 700 5,199 5,899 3,923 222 222 

Ratio of Total -- 21% 36% 5% 38% 43% 29% 2% 2%

2014-2015 14,137 2,962 4,985 495 5,695 6,190 3,923 222 1,159

Ratio of Total -- 21% 35% 4% 40% 44% 28% 2% 8%

2015-2016 14,352 2,962 4,659 310 6,231 6,541 3,923 222 1,159

Ratio of Total -- 21% 32% 2% 43% 46% 27% 2% 8%

1

2012 through 2016 Annual Mining Reports for the CRM for Permit 237 Term 10. Total 

disturbance includes the Facility Disturbance, Active Mining Area, and the area Available for 

Seeding

2.2.3 Existing Stipulations and Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures stipulated for WYW174407 federal coal lease, in the context of resourcespecific impacts, are summarized in chapter 4. The mitigation measures and stipulations 

presented in the ROD for the 2007 Maysdorf EIS remain in effect and would be carried forward 

if the federal mining plan modification is approved by the ASLM.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 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 CRM. For the 

purpose of this analysis, the project area is considered the CRM Permit Area and a surrounding 

study area. Study areas vary by resource and are described below. Elements of the environment 

specified by statute, regulation, Executive Order, or the Standards for Public Land Health are 

described and analyzed in this section except where the 2007 Maysdorf EIS previously concluded 

they were not present, which has been verified during this EA process.

Baseline information presented in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS that has not substantively changed is 

incorporated by reference. Updated information pertaining to the baseline data is presented in 

this chapter when applicable. Unless otherwise noted below, the baseline conditions described in 

the 2007 Maysdorf EIS as related to lease WYW174407 have not substantively changed, no new 

data are available, or the condition has only been minimally affected as a result of current mining 

operations and further presentation of information would not affect the decision-making process. 

3.1 Air Quality and Climate Change

Air Quality regulations applicable to surface coal mining may include the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS), and 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). These regulatory programs were described in 

section 3.4.1.1 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. Additional air quality regulations applicable to surface 

coal mining include the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(HAPs), Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and the Federal Operating Permit Program 

(Title V).

Air quality information specific to the CRM is included in CMC’s P0022480 air quality permit 

(WDEQ- AQD 2017b). Section 3.4 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS includes detailed discussions of air 

quality issues related to the leasing and mining of coal related to lease WYW154432. The analysis 

presented herein serves to summarize attainment/nonattainment areas discussions; update 

discussions with recent air quality monitoring findings; revise air quality modeling results; and 

update discussions on carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

ozone (O3), fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), lead (Pb), and HAPs (specifically mercury 

[Hg]). Other common HAPs include xylene, n-hexane, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3 

butadiene, formaldehyde, Ethylbenzene, Toluene. CRM’s air quality permit limits annual coal 

production to 35 Mtpy. 

According to EPA (IPCC 2014), there is scientific evidence that increased atmospheric 

concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) and land use changes are contributing to increases in 

average global temperatures. GHG are not currently regulated pollutants (not subject to NAAQS 

or WAAQS regulations). GHG discussions are included in section 3.1.4.4 and section 4.4.

3.1.1 National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

As summarized by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Air Act (CAA)

requires the EPA to establish NAAQS to protect public health and welfare (EPA 2016a). These 

standards define the maximum level of air pollution allowed in the ambient air. The CAA 

established NAAQS for six pollutants, known as “criteria” pollutants, which “... cause or 

contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare and the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-2 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

or stationary sources” (U.S. Senate 2015). The six, present-day criteria pollutants are Pb, NO2, 

SO2, CO, O3, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), where PM10 is coarse particulate matter,

with mean aerodynamic diameters less than 10 microns, and PM2.5 is fine particulate matter, with 

aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 microns.

The CAA allows states to promulgate additional ambient air standards that are at least as 

stringent, or more stringent, than the NAAQS (U.S. Senate 2015). The NAAQS and WAAQS

(established by the WDEQ-LQD /Air Resources Management Bureau [ARMB]) for the six criteria 

pollutants are listed in table 3-1. WAAQS also include hydrogen sulfide (H2S).

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

Emissions

Averaging

Period

Wyoming

Standard

(WAAQS)

Federal

Standard

(NAAQS)

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour

8-hour

35 ppma

9 ppma

35 ppma

9 ppma

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

1-Hour

3-hour

75 ppbd

0.50 ppma

75 ppbd

0.50 ppma

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

1-Hour

annual

100 ppba

53 ppbb

100 ppbi

53 ppbf

Ozone (O3) 8-hour 0.075 ppme 0.070 ppme

PM10

24-hour

annual

150 μg/m3a

50 μg/m3f

150 μg/m3c

--

PM2.5

24-hour

annual

35 μg/m3g

15 μg/m3f

35 μg/m3i

12 μg/m3h

Lead (Pb) 90-Day 0.15 μg/m3h 0.15 μg/m3b

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1-Hour 70/40 μg/m3j --

a Not to exceeded more than once per calendar year

b Not to be exceeded rolling 3-month average

c Violation when exceeded more than once per calendar year, averaged over 3 years

d 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years

e Annual 4th-highest daily max. 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years

f Annual mean

g 98th percentile of 24-hour daily average concentration

h Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 

i 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

j 1⁄2-hour average not to be exceeded more than 2 times per year/1⁄2-hour average not to be exceeded more than 2 times in any five consecutive 

days 

-- Values not included in NAAQS.

Source: (EPA 2016b) and WDEQ-AQD (2016)

3.1.2 Attainment/Non-Attainment Area Designations

Pursuant to the CAA, EPA developed a method for classifying existing air quality in distinct 

geographic regions, known as air basins, air quality control regions, and/or metropolitan statistical 

areas. For each federal criteria pollutant, each air basin (or portion of a basin or statistical area) 

is classified as in “attainment” if the area has complied with the adopted NAAQS for that 

pollutant, as “nonattainment” if the levels of ambient air pollution exceed the NAAQS for that 

pollutant, or as “unclassifiable” if the area that cannot be classified on the basis of available 

information as meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality 

standard for the pollutant.

Through the State Implementation Plan (SIP) process, which is approved by EPA, states use the 

EPA method to designate areas within their borders as being in “attainment”, “nonattainment”, 

or “unclassifiable” with the NAAQS. The CRM LBM tract is in an area that is designated as an

attainment area for all pollutants (EPA 2016c). However, the town of Sheridan, Wyoming, located 

about 90 miles northwest of the project area, is a nonattainment area for PM10.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-3

It should be noted that WDEQ-AQD has requested that the Wyoming Air Quality Advisory 

Board consider a request to review the State of Wyoming’s Request for Redesignation and Limited 

Maintenance Plan for the Attainment in the Particulate Matter (PM10) Moderate Nonattainment Area in 

Sheridan (WDEQ-AQD 2017b). The request is based on the fact that WDEQ-AQD has 

submitted over 25 years of monitoring data demonstrating that the Sheridan nonattainment area 

has attained the PM10 NAAQS for over 25 years. Upon review and completion of a finalized draft, 

the request will be submitted to EPA. The final determination has not been made at this time.

3.1.3 Background

Information regarding background air quality for the CRM was included in section 3.4.1 of the 

2007 Maysdorf EIS, in CMC’s P0022480 air quality permit, and is summarized below. 

Regulated air pollutants associated with coal extraction and processing activities and coal 

combustion include:

1. particulates generated from mining activities such as blasting, excavating, loading 

and hauling of overburden and coal, and wind erosion of disturbed and

unreclaimed mining areas, 

2. NO2 produced from overburden and coal blasting, 

3. CO, NOX, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), SO2, and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) from gasoline and diesel vehicle tailpipe emissions,

4. NO2 and PM10 emissions from railroad locomotives used to haul coal, and

5. SO2, NOX, VOCs, CO, PM10, ammonia (NH3), HAPS (Hg, etc.) produced from 

power plants and regulated under the CAA (the closest coal-fired power plants 

are the Neil Simpson plants, Wygen Station, and Wyodak Power Plant all located 

about 15 miles north of the Duvall tract, although coal mined at the CRM was not 

shipped to these power plants).

3.1.4 Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Air Quality Summary

Baseline air quality data for the surface facilities area for the CRM are found in the sections 3.4.2, 

3.4.3, and 3.4.4 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. The following discussions include updated (2008-2016) 

air quality monitoring results.

3.1.4.1 Air Quality-Particulate Matter

CMC has monitored particulate matter levels around the mine throughout the life of the 

operation. The mine expressed particulate matter utilizing TSP concentrations until 1987. This 

measurement included all particulates generally less than 100 microns in diameter. In 1987, the 

form of the standard was changed from TSP to PM10 to better reflect human health effects. PM2.5

monitoring at the CRM is not required by WDEQ-LQD and is not conducted at this time. 

Current, air monitoring consists of four samplers at three sites that monitor concentrations of 

PM10 and a meteorological site (map 3-1). 

Tables 3-2 and 3-3 list the current annual mean and annual high PM10 concentrations for the 

CRM. The average annual PM10 concentrations for the 2010-2016 time period ranged between 

8.3 and 30.9 μg/m3. These concentrations ranged from about 17 to 62 percent of the annual 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-4 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Map 3-1. Wind Rose and Air Quality and Meteorological Monitoring Stations at 

the Cordero Rojo Mine
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-5

Table 3-2. Average Annual PM10 Concentrations (μg/m3) for the CRM, 2010 –

2016

Site Name 1 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CRC-E10 21.2 20.7 29.0 22.7 21.0 19.7 13.6

CRC-E10A 22.2 23.9 30.9 22.9 18.9 21.7 15.9

CRM-S11 ** 19.3 18.8 15.3 14.6 13.4 8.3

CRM-W11 ** 19.7 20.4 17.7 15.5 12.6 8.7

Site W 21.0 14.1   **  ** **

HV3/PM3 13.8 8.7   **  ** **

1

See map 3-1 for site locations

** Indicates that the site is inactive

Source: Annual - U.S. EPA AirData (EPA 2016d)

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

33 and 108 μg/m3. Thus, these maximum concentrations have ranged from approximately 22 to 

72 percent of WDEQ-AQD 24-hour standard of 150 μg/m3. Since PM2.5 monitoring is not 

required by WDEQ-LQD, data were not gathered onsite. Therefore, data from PM2.5 monitors 

located at the Belle Ayr Mine (approximately 3 miles north of CRM) and the Buckskin Mine 

(approximately 30 miles north of CRM) were used to estimate PM2.5 emissions at the mine. PM2.5

data from Belle Ayr BA-4 (#56-005-0892) gathered between 2010 and 2016 and from Buckskin 

Mine North Site (#56-005-1899) gathered between 2010 and 2016 were utilized to assess PM2.5

levels (table 3-4). Exceptional events (if observed) are noted in the data acquired from the EPA 

database. Exceptional events are defined as occasional instances where a natural and exceptional 

occurring event impacts monitoring, causing a reading that is in exceedance with the NAAQS 

(GPO 1998). In the case that this occurs, the Final “Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional 

Events” Rule (40 CFR §50.14) allows the state to request a data flag and justify the flag by 

submitting documentation showing that NAAQS exceedance would not have occurred in the 

absence of a natural/exceptional event. Monitoring during the period of 2010-2016 demonstrated 

that ambient concentrations of PM2.5, as determined by the 98th Percentile 24-hour NAAQS and 

WAAQS and annual WAAQS average values, were within established short-term (24-hour) and 

long term (annual) NAAQS values indicated in table 3-1.

Site Name 1 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CRC-E10 62 83 95 64 59 88 50

CRC-E10A 66 64 108 68 67 78 50

CRM-S11 ** 47 68 41 46 56 35

CRM-W11 ** 66 63 55 60 51 33

Site W 83 53   **  ** **

HV3/PM3 54 27   **  ** **

1

See map 3-1 for site locations

** Indicates that the site is inactive

Source: U.S. EPA AirData (EPA 2016d)

Table 3-4 presents the available EPA data for these site and shows there were no exceedances 

of the PM2.5 standard between 2008 and 2015 for either site.

EPA referenced emission factors are available for use in estimating PM2.5 values based on PM10

values (Pace 2005). Generally accepted estimates consistently presented emission fractions of

PM2.5 values at a range of 0.1 to 0.15 of PM10 values for unpaved roadways and 0.15 to 0.2 for

wind erosion from industrial and construction sites (Pace 2005). CRM-specific PM10 monitoring 

data were used to estimate PM2.5 ambient concentrations for annual mean and annual maximum

24-hour concentrations by applying a 0.2 factor (tables 3-5 and 3-6, respectively). These data 

Table 3-3. Maximum 24-hr PM10 Concentrations (μg/m3) for the CRM, 2010-2016
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-6 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

indicate that projected PM2.5 ambient design concentrations should be below the prescribed 

NAAQS, which supports the findings of Sheridan PM2.5 data evaluation presented in table 3-5.

Table 3-4. Measured PM2.5 Concentrations 1at the Belle Ayr Mine (2010-2016)

and Buckskin Mine (2010-2016)

Site ID Year 24-hour (μg/m3) Annual (μg/m3)

2010318.4 6.6

2011320.4 5.3

2012213.5 6.4

Belle Ayr Mine (BA-4) 201335.2 10.1

201427.9 3.5

2015317.5 5.0

2016312.2 3.4

2010310 4.6

2011315.5 4.8

2012317.9 5.9

Buckskin Mine North 2013313.7 4.8

2014312.2 5.5

2015221 2.2

2016311.6 1.8

1 The 24-hour standard is met when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined by Appendix N of 40 CFR 50 is less than or 

equal to 35 μg/m3. The annual standard is met when the arithmetic mean concentration, as determined by Appendix N of 40 CFR part 50 

is less than or equal to 12 μg/m3.

2 Exceptional event included

3 Exceptional events excluded

Source: U.S. EPA AirData (EPA 2016d). 

Table 3-5. Estimated Average Annual PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3)

Site Name 1 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CRC-E10 4.2 4.1 5.8 4.5 4.2 3.9 2.7

CRC-E10A 4.4 4.8 6.2 4.6 3.8 4.3 3.2

CRM-S11 ** 3.9 3.8 3.1 2.9 2.7 1.7

CRM-W11 ** 4.0 4.1 3.5 3.1 2.5 1.7

Site W 4.2 2.8   **  ** **

HV3/PM3 2.8 1.7   **  ** **

1

See map 3-1 for site locations

** Indicates that the site is inactive

Source: U.S. EPA AirData (EPA 2016d), (Pace 2005)

Table 3-6. Estimated Maximum 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3)

Site Name 1 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CRC-E10 12.4 16.6 19.0 12.8 11.8 17.6 10.0

CRC-E10A 13.2 12.8 21.6 13.6 13.4 15.6 10.0

CRM-S11 ** 9.4 13.6 8.2 9.2 11.2 7.0

CRM-W11 ** 13.2 12.6 11.0 12.0 10.2 6.6

Site W 16.6 10.6   **  ** **

HV3/PM3 10.8 5.4   **  ** **

1

See map 3-1 for site locations

** Indicates that the monitoring site is inactive

Source: U.S. EPA AirData (EPA 2016d), (Pace 2005)

3.1.4.2 Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX), Ozone (O3), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Gases that contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts are referred to as nitrogen oxides, 

or NOX. One type of NOX is NO2, which is a highly reactive, reddish-brown gas that is heavier 

than air and has a pungent odor that is a product of incomplete combustion of gasoline and diesel 

fuel. NO2 is by far the most toxic of several species of NOX. NO2 can combine with atmospheric 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-7

moisture to form nitric acid and nitric oxide. Because several NOX species can be chemically 

converted to NO2 in the atmosphere, NO2 emissions control is focused on all NOX species, while 

the ambient standard is expressed in terms of NO2. Ozone (O3) has been included in discussions 

on emissions of NOX since NOX is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of

ground-level O3. Ground-level O3 is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical 

reactions between NOX and VOCs (precursors) in the presence of sunlight.

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

at two active Air Quality System (AQS) monitoring sites near CRM (table 3-7). These 

monitoring sites are the closest to the CRM with distances from the Duvall tract between 3 and 

13 miles (map 3-2). As shown in table 3-7, all monitored NO2 values are well below the 

WAAQS of 100 ppb.

AQS Site 

ID

Sampler

ID 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

56-005-0011 Hilight-Reno Junction Gas Plant   37 42 44 32.8 ** 

56-005-0456 Campbell County 26 26 26 26 26 26 24

56-005-0892 Belle Ayr Ba-4 27 29 27 28 28 26 21

1 98th Percentile 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations (ppb)

** Indicates the monitoring site was inactive

Source: U.S. EPA AirData (EPA 2016d)

Under the CAA, EPA has set protective health-based standards for O3. Prior to May 27, 2008, 

the NAAQS 8-hour standard for O3 was 0.080 ppm (157 μg/m3at standard temperature and 

pressure [STP]). On March 27, 2008 (effective May 27, 2008), EPA revised the 8-hour standard 

to 0.075 ppm (148 μg/m3at STP). EPA revised the 8-hour standard for O3 again on October 26, 

2015 (effective on December 28, 2015) to 0.070 ppm (138 μg/m3at STP). O3 monitoring is not 

required at the CRM but levels have been monitored at the Campbell County AQS monitoring

sites 056-005-0123 and 56-005-0456), which are located approximately 44 and 10 miles north of 

the Duvall tract (map 3-2). 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 ppm from 2008 to December 2015

or 0.070 ppm in 2016). Table 3-8 shows no exceedances of the 8-hour of the NAAQS O3

standard have occurred at during the 2010-2016 monitoring period.

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

at one AQS monitoring site (table 3-9). This monitoring site is approximately16 miles north the 

Duvall tract (map 3-1). As shown in table 3-9, all monitored SO2 values are well below the 

NAAQS and WAAQS of 75 ppb.

3.1.4.3 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs)

AQRVs as related to the WYW174407 were discussed in sections 3.4.5 and 3.4.6 of the 2007 

Maysdorf EIS. Updated information regarding AQRVs is included below. AQRVs are evaluated by 

the land management agency responsible for a PSD Class I area, according to the agency’s level 

of acceptable change (LAC). These AQRVs include potential air pollutant effects on visibility and

the acidification of lakes and streams. The AQRVs, and the associated LAC, are applied to PSD 

Class I and Class II areas and are the land management agency’s policy and are not legally 

enforceable as a standard. WDEQ-AQD WAAQS do include a standard for visibility. Class I areas

Table 3-7. Measured NO2 Concentrations1in Campbell County, Wyoming, 

2010-2016
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-8 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Map 3-2. Regional Air Quality Monitoring Sites
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-9

Table 3-8. Measured O3 Concentrations1in the PRB, 2009-2016

Monitor Site2 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Thunder Basin Grassland 56-005-0123 0.062 0.063 0.061 0.071 0.061 0.058 0.059 0.057

South Campbell County 56-005-0456 0.060 0.061 0.062 0.069 0.061 0.059 0.062 0.060

1 4th-highest daily maximum value. The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average 

concentrations above 0.12 ppm (235 μg/m3) is equal to or less than 1, as determined by Appendix H of 40 CFR Part 50.

2

See map 3-2 for site locations

Source: EPA (2017b)

Table 3-9. Measured SO2 Concentrations in Campbell County, Wyoming, 2011-

2016, 99th Percentile 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations (μg/m3)

AQS Site ID1 Sampler ID 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

56-005-0857 Wyodak Site 4 37 39 37 32 16 14

1

See map 3-1 for location

Source: EPA (2017b)

are afforded specific AQRV protection under the CAA. The Class I designation allows very little 

deterioration of air quality. The nearest Class I area is located approximately 100 miles east of the 

Duvall tract at Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota. The AQRVs associated with this action 

include visibility and acidification of lakes.

3.1.4.3.1 Visibility

Surface coal mines are not considered to be major emitting facilities in accordance with the 

WDEQ Rules and Regulations (chapter 6, section 4). Therefore, the State of Wyoming does not 

require mines to evaluate their impacts on Class I areas, though the BLM does consider such 

issues during leasing. The current visibility discussions have been inferred from the currently 

permitted mining activities related to the existing coal leases at the CRM. Visibility can be defined 

as the distance one can see and the ability to perceive color, contrast, and detail. Particulates 

finer that 2.5 microns in effective diameter (PM2.5) are the main cause of visibility impairment. 

Visibility impairment is expressed in terms of deciview (dv). The dv index was developed as a 

linear perceived visual change (Pitchford and Malm 1994), and is the unit of measure used in the 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule to achieve the National Visibility Goal. A change in visibility of 1.0 dv 

represents a “just noticeable change” by an average person under most circumstances. Increasing 

dv values represent proportionately larger perceived visibility impairment. Figure 3-1 shows the 

clearest days, the haziest days, and the natural conditions (i.e. the visibility conditions) as they 

were before human activities for the Wind Cave monitoring site (the nearest PSD Class I area) 

for 1999 through 2015, increasing dv values represent proportionately larger perceived visibility 

impairment (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Environments [IMPROVE] 2016). As indicated 

on figure 3-1, the long-term trend in visibility at Wind Cave National Park appears to be 

relatively stable, if not improving slightly.

3.1.4.3.2 Air Quality Related Values Related to Coal Combustion

Emissions that affect air quality also result from combustion of fossil fuels. Table 3-10 presents 

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

was utilized for power generation. CO is created when carbon-containing fuels are burned 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-10 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Figure 3-1. Visibility in the Wind Cave National Park – Site WICA1

Table 3-10. Estimated Annual PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and Hg Contributions from 

Coal Combustion, 2012-2016

Source 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Tons of Coal Recovered 39.2 36.7 34.8 22.9 18.3

PM10 (Tons) 27,240.8 25,479.9 24,186.6 15,892.3 12,737.7

PM2.5 (Tons) 8,308.5 7,771.4 7,376.9 4,847.1 3,885.0

SO2 Emissions (Tons) 343,041.4 320,866.4 304,579.6 200,129.8 160,405.4

NOX Emissions (Tons) 141,137.1 132,013.6 125,312.8 82,339.1 65,995.4

Hg Emissions (Tons) 1.6 1.5 1.4 0.9 0.8

Source: WWC (2017), calculations are provided in appendix E

incompletely. Through natural processes in the atmosphere, it is eventually oxidized to 

CO2.Carbon monoxide concentrations are both short-lived in the atmosphere and spatially 

variable (EPA 2017b). CO is not monitored in Campbell County.

3.1.4.3.3 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 2016e). According to the EPA (2002), hydrogen ion (H+) concentrations are the primary 

indicator of precipitation acidity. Table 3-11 provides the measured hydrogen ion 

concentrations as determined at the Site WY99 in Newcastle, WY, the closest site to the CRM 

for the years 2009 through 2015 (approximately 60 miles east of CRM). The location of WY99

in relationship to the CRM is depicted on map 3-2.

Table 3-11. Measured Hydrogen Ion (H+) Concentrations1 at Monitoring Site 

WY99, 2009 – 2015

Parameter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

pH 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.8 No Data 5.7 6.9

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

1 Measured as pH and wet deposition

Source: NADP 2010-2016
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-11

As indicated in table 3-10, the 2009-2015 trend in H+ at monitoring site WY99 appears to be 

relatively stable.

3.1.4.4 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change

According to the EPA, GHGs include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and several 

fluorinated species of gas (EPA 2016f). 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. Fluorinated gases are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a 

variety of industrial processes. CO2 and other GHGs are naturally occurring gases in the 

atmosphere; their status as a pollutant is not related to their toxicity, but instead is due to the 

added long-term impacts they have on climate because of their increased incremental levels in 

the earth’s atmosphere. Because they are non-toxic and non-hazardous at normal ambient 

concentrations, CO2 and other naturally occurring GHGs do not have applicable ambient 

standards or emission limits under the major environmental regulatory programs. Each GHG has 

a different lifetime in the atmosphere and a different ability to trap heat in the atmosphere. To 

allow different gases to be compared and added together, emissions can be converted into carbon 

dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions. This measure is used to compare the capacity of each GHG 

to trap heat (Global Warming Potential, or GWP) in the atmosphere relative to that of CO2, 

which is used as a reference gas. The CO2e for a gas is derived by multiplying the amount of gas 

emitted by its 100-year GWP conversion factor (CEC 2011). The GWP conversion factor for 

the three primary GHGs are provided in table 3-12.

GHG Conversion Factor

Carbon dioxide CO2 1

Methane CH4 28

Nitrous oxide N2O 265

The CO2e emissions that occurred at the CRM from 2012 through 2015 have been estimated, 

based on estimated annual coal production (table 3-13). The inventories included emissions 

from all sources, including all types of carbon fuels used in the mining operations; electricity used 

on site (i.e., lighting for facilities, roads, and operations and electrically powered equipment and 

conveyors); and mining processes (i.e., blasting, coal fires caused by spontaneous combustion, and 

methane released [vented] from exposed coal seams). CO2e emissions generated by transporting

the coal to power plants are also estimated, using an average of 1,060 rail miles from the CRM

to destination power plants.

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). As indicated in table 3-13, 

approximately30.7 million metric tons of CO2e were produced in 2016 from the combustion of 

18.3 million tons of coal (WWC 2017).

Approximately 98 percent of the coal mined in 2015 in the PRB was used to generate electricity 

by coal-fired power plants in the United States (U.S. Energy Information Administration [USEIA] 

2016a).

Table 3-12. Global Warming Potential (as CO2e) Conversion Factors for Selected 

GHGs
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-12 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average

General

Mt of Coal Recovered 39.4 38.5 39.5 39.2 36.7 34.8 22.9 18.3 33.7

Average Transport Miles 

(One Way) 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060

Number of Train Trips (One 

Way) 2,546 2,489 2,550 2,534 2,370 2,250 1,478 1,185 2,175

Direct Emissions Sources

Fuel 128,654 125,775 128,897 128,078 119,799 113,718 74,720 59,889 109,941

Electricity Consumed in 

Mining Process 105,151 102,798 105,350 104,681 97,914 92,944 61,070 48,948 89,857

Mining Process 45,198 44,186 45,283 44,995 42,087 39,950 26,250 21,040 38,624

Total Direct Emissions 279,002 272,760 279,531 277,754 259,799 246,612 162,041 129,877 238,422

Indirect Emissions Sources

Rail Transport2

1,457,498 1,424,886 1,460,259 1,450,975 1,357,181 1,288,292 846,497 678,473 1,245,508

From Coal Combustion3

65,963,115 64,487,180 66,088,113 65,667,934 61,423,004 58,305,246 38,310,561 30,706,177 56,368,916

Total Indirect Emissions 67,420,612 65,912,066 67,548,373 67,118,910 62,780,185 59,593,538 39,157,058 31,384,650 57,614,424

Total Estimated CO2e 

Emissions 67,699,615 66,184,825 67,827,904 67,396,664 63,039,984 59,840,150 39,319,099 31,514,527 57,852,846

1

In metric tons - see appendix E 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 one-way mileage 

to power plants. Coal haulage emissions calculations includes a loaded train and a returning empty train, per train trip. 

3 Based on 1.683 metric tons CO2e per ton of coal burned for electrical generation (EPA 2008) and calculated by WWC (2017) 

Table 3-13. Estimated Equivalent CO2 (CO2e) Emissions 1at the CRM, 2012-2016
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-13

The potential for emissions of dust can be an environmental concern for coal use/transport 

projects due to the large volumes of coal transported to large generating stations (Ramboll 

Environ 2016). Coal dust and fines blowing or sifting from moving, loaded rail cars has been linked 

to railroad track stability problems resulting in train derailments and to rangeland fires caused by 

spontaneous combustion of accumulated coal dust (BLM 2009). While no specific studies of coal 

dust impacts have been conducted in the PRB, BNSF has been involved in research regarding the 

impacts of coal dust escaping from loaded coal cars on rail lines in the PRB. BNSF has determined 

that coal dust poses a serious threat to the stability of the track structure and the operational 

integrity of rail lines in, and close to, the mines in the PRB.

3.2 Water Resources

Section 3.5 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS included detailed discussions of water resources related to 

lease WYW174407. The analysis included herein serves to update discussions with recent 

groundwater and surface-water quality monitoring findings and update groundwater and surfacewater rights discussions.

There are three major shallow geologic units related to lease WYW174407 containing 

groundwater that could be impacted by coal mining. These shallow units are the Quaternary 

alluvium, Wasatch Formation overburden, and the Wyodak coal seam and are described in figure 

3-2.

3.2.1 Groundwater 

Groundwater resources are discussed in depth in section 3.5.1 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. Current 

groundwater monitoring well locations are depicted on map 3-3. Monitoring wells are identified 

by well number and completion aquifer, such as Quaternary alluvium (three wells), Wasatch 

Formation overburden (seven wells), clinker (four wells), underburden (two wells), Wyodak coal 

(five wells), and backfill (15 wells).

According to the groundwater quality monitoring results included in the CRM 2015-2016 Annual 

Hydrology Report submitted to WDEQ-LQD, groundwater quality analyzed during the July 

1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 reporting period generally tracked with historical levels.

(CMC 2016b). In addition, backfill water quality monitoring data from four backfill wells show 

that between 2011 and 2015, total dissolved solids (TDS) levels ranged between 1,780 mg/L and 

6,150 mg/L (Hydro-Engineering 2011). A comparison of the median concentrations of the major 

ions in backfill aquifers evaluated in the 2011 CHIA to the other shallow aquifers in the area 

shows the water quality in the backfill aquifer is similar to the water quality in the alluvial, clinker, 

and the Wasatch aquifers (Ogle et al. 2011).

Water quality can be highly variable depending on the source aquifer; however, groundwater 

across the CRM is classified as Class III, suitable for livestock. As the groundwater moves 

downward through the Wasatch Formation overburden and into the Wyodak coalbed aquifers, 

the water becomes less mineralized, which is due mainly to cation exchange (softening and sulfate 

reduction) mechanisms. According to the 2011 CHIA, the median concentrations of major ions 

in backfill aquifers generally meet the livestock water quality standards (Ogle et al. 2011).

Based on the 2011 Middle Powder River Basin CHIA, the flow direction of the groundwater 

system is from recharge zones east of the mine toward northwest. Current groundwater 

conditions have changed in the CRM area as a result of CBNG development and ongoing mining 

operations at the CRM and neighboring mines. A continuous cone of depression 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-14 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Map 3-3. Active Groundwater Monitoring Locations and Water Supply Wells at 

the Cordero Rojo Mine
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-15

currently exists around the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines due to their 

closeness to each other and the cumulative drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby 

CBNG discharges (Hydro-Engineering 2011). Because CBNG production requires the reduction 

of pressure head, pumping produced substantial, widespread water level decline in coal aquifers 

in the PRB. The monitored coal wells at the CRM show water levels in the coal aquifer have 

stabilized as CBNG production has declined (CMC 2016b).

Properties of coal and overburden aquifers, such as hydraulic conductivity and the capacity to 

store water, are changed in the process of removing overburden strata and returning it as spoil 

to mined-out pits. The relatively homogenous spoil backfill has a more uniform hydraulic 

conductivity in contrast to undisturbed, bedded lithology where vertical conductivity is usually 

lower than horizontal conductivity. Dewatering and removal of aquifers during mining has caused 

temporary modifications of flow direction in the vicinity of the mine pits as groundwater moves 

toward depressed water levels in the pit area (Hydro-Engineering 2011).

3.2.2 Surface Water 

Surface water conditions related to lease WYW174407 were thoroughly discussed in section 

3.5.2 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. The Duvall tract is located within the Belle Fourche River 

watershed, a tributary of the Mississippi River. Local watersheds are shown on map 3-4. The 

main surface water features within and adjacent to the area proposed for mining activities include 

the Belle Fourche River, Coal Creek, and Caballo Creek, which are perennial streams. The

tributary stream flows in the Belle Fourche River, Coal Creek and Caballo Creek watershed 

basins are ephemeral, occurring only in direct response to rainfall or snowmelt runoff events. 

Snowmelt runoff events can last for several days or more but rarely have large peak flows. Most 

of the peak annual flow events occur during the late spring and summer as a result of precipitation 

events.

Streamflow and surface-water quality associated with the CRM are currently being monitored at 

10 monitoring sites (map 3-5). Four surface-water monitoring sites (BF-1, BF-2, CC-3 and 

Kicken Draw) have been removed and five sites (BF-5, BF-6, BF-7, BF-8, and BF-9) have been 

added to the WDEQ-LQD-approved existing surface-water monitoring network of five stations 

(Upper Belle Fourche River Station [UBFR], Lower Belle Fourche River Station [LBFR], BF-3, BF4, and CC-4) for the CRM since the publication of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. 

Baseline water quality data are discussed in section 3.5.2.1 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. Monitoring 

focuses on the local Belle Fourche River and Coal Creek. Surface water quality fluctuates with 

seasonal flow patterns and varies with significant rainfall events as streamflow increases, TDS 

concentration decreases, while TSS concentration increases. Conversely, as streamflow 

decreases, the TDS concentration increases, while the TSS concertation decreases. Due to the 

sparse vegetative cover and the infrequent occurrence of surface runoff in this semi-arid 

environment, high TSS concentrations can be expected, especially from floods caused by 

thunderstorms. In general, laboratory results are within the typical ranges established by longterm monitoring. Ongoing testing is being conducted regarding selenium as requested by WDEQ. 

Monitoring sites UBFR, LBFR, BF-5, BF-7, BF-8, BF-3, BF-4, BF-9, and CC-4 all reported below 

the detection limit for selenium when sampled in the fall of 2016 (IML 2016). Surface water quality 

are depicted graphically in the 2015-2016 Annual Report (CRM 2016b). Reservoirs on Bengal 

Draw and Butte Draw discussed in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS were removed during the mining 

process approved under WDEQ-LQD Permit No. 237 T10.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-16 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

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

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

Wyoming
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-17

Map 3-4. Watersheds and Surface Drainages Associated with the Cordero Rojo 

Mine
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-18 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Map 3-5. Surface Water Monitoring Sites at the Cordero Rojo Mine
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-19

3.2.3 Water Rights 

The Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO) administers water rights in Wyoming. Water rights 

are granted for both groundwater and surface water appropriations. Prior to development of 

water resources associated with energy development, water appropriations (either groundwater 

of surface water) in the PRB were typically for livestock use. Currently, mining companies and 

CBNG development companies hold the majority of water rights in the general analysis area. 

Records of the SEO were searched for surface-water and groundwater rights within a 2-mile 

radius of the Duvall tract to update water-rights information.

SEO records indicate that as of November 2016 (SEO 2016), there were 25 surface-water rights 

within the 2-mile search area, of which 20 were owned by coal mining companies and were

related to industrial or stock uses. Of the other five non-coal mine-related, permitted surface 

water rights, four were permitted for livestock and one is without a listed use. 

SEO records indicate that, as of November 2016, there were 494 permitted groundwater wells 

within 2-mile search area, of which, 390 are owned by coal mining companies. The other 104 

non-coal mine related, permitted water wells are permitted for the following uses:

1. 47 CBNG

2. 17 CBNG, Miscellaneous

3. 3 CBNG, Miscellaneous, Stock

4. 9 CBNG, Stock

5. 1 Domestic, Stock

6. 3 Industrial

7. 3 Miscellaneous

8. 2 Monitoring

9. 19 Stock 

Subcoal aquifers continue to be utilized for municipal, industrial, and domestic water supply by 

the city of Gillette, residential subdivisions, and other nearby coal mines.

3.3 Wildlife

The initial wildlife baseline inventory for the CRM was conducted in 1974, with additional baseline 

inventories conducted periodically since that time to accommodate permit expansion. Annual 

monitoring was initiated in 1978 and continues at present. The information included in the 2007 

Maysdorf EIS was derived from the baseline data and the subsequent studies and WDEQ-LQD

Annual Reports. The occurrence of wildlife related to the mining of the federal coal within the 

Cordero Rojo LBA tracts was thoroughly discussed in section 3.10 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. No 

significant changes to wildlife use areas for other mammals, upland game birds (excluding the 

Greater sage-grouse [GRSG] [Centrocercus urophasianus]), other birds, reptiles and amphibians, 

and aquatic species populations have been noted from the discussion presented in the 2007 

Maysdorf EIS. There have been changes in discussions related to big game; raptors; threatened, 

endangered, and candidate (T&E) species; and other species of special interest (SOSI-federal Birds 

of Conservation Concern and Species of Greatest Conservation Concern). The status of GRSG 

has also changed since publication of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. Therefore, these species discussions 

have been updated in this EA.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-20 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

3.3.1 Big Game

Extensive discussions of big game species (primarily pronghorn [Antilocapra americana] and mule 

deer [Odocoileus hemionus]) were included in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS and in subsequent annual 

wildlife monitoring reports. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) recognizes no 

crucial big game habitat or migration corridors within the Duvall tract. 

3.3.2 Raptors

Raptors that could potentially occur in the area include the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia),

great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco 

sparverius), ret-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), ferruginous

hawk (Buteo regalis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) 

(appendix D). 

The 2015-2016 Annual Report identified the location and annual status of raptor nests for 2015-

2016 (CMC 2016b). The location and status of raptor nests monitored at the CRM are included 

on map 3-6. No intact raptor nests are located within the boundaries of the Duvall tract; two 

active nests (GE11 and SH6C/RTH23/GHO17) are located west of the Duvall tract. 

CMC has developed a general management plan regarding SOSI that are known to or could occur 

in the vicinity of the mine. The intent of this SOSI monitoring and management plan is to provide 

broad, long-term direction for

1. monitoring populations of SOSI within the CMC wildlife study area boundary,

2. eliminating, minimizing, or mitigating potential impacts to these species due to 

mine operations, and

3. maintaining, enhancing, and/or reclaiming habitats upon which such species 

depend.

3.3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG)

On September 22, 2015, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that listing the GRSG 

as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (Act) was not 

warranted (USFWS 2015). Recent documents regarding GRSG include the Wyoming Greater 

Sage-Grouse Amendment (BLM 2015a), the Approved Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Buffalo Field Office Planning Area (Buffalo RMP/FEIS) 

(BLM 2015b), and the State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor, Executive Order 2015-4 (Office 

of the Governor 2015). The documents include management procedures to consolidate GRSG 

protection within the State of Wyoming in light of the federal government’s recent decision not 

to list the GRSG under the ESA.

Executive Order 2015-4 established sage-grouse core area protection on state trust lands (Office 

of the Governor 2015). The sage-grouse core area protection concept came about because of 

work by the Sage-Grouse Implementation Team. The implementation team developed a core 

population strategy for the state “to maintain habitats and viable populations of sage-grouse in 

areas where they are most abundant.” As part of that effort, the team delineated approximately 

40 areas of state trust lands around Wyoming with a goal of maintenance and enhancement of 

GRSG habitats and populations within the core areas. Using mapping included in the Executive 

Order, it has been determined that the closest core area is approximately 9 miles east of the 

Duvall tract.

Three GRSG leks, the Edwards Lek, Belle Fourche South Lek, and Belle Fourche North Lek 

historically occurred in the southern and northern portions of the CRM permit area. These leks 

were destroyed over 20 years ago by mining activities. One GRSG lek complex (Belle Ayr 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-21

Map 3-6. Raptor Nest Sites, Greater Sage Grouse Leks, And Black Tailed Prairie 

Dog Towns Within And Adjacent To The Cordero Rojo Duvall Tract
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-22 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

I-II leks) also occurred about 0.5-mile west of the former CRM permit area and is located within 

the adjacent Belle Ayr Mine Permit Area. Another lek, the Stowe Lek, was identified by the Belle 

Ayr Mine on their permit area in 2000, west of the current CRM permit area. The Belle Ayr I-II 

and Stowe leks have been impacted by mining activities from the adjacent Belle Ayr Mine and 

these two leks are considered abandoned. The Cordero Mine Lek, which has been classified as 

unoccupied (has not been active during a period of 10 consecutive years), is located 

approximately 4 miles south of the Duvall tract and outside of the CRM permit area. There are 

no occupied GRSG leks (active during at least one strutting season within the prior ten years)

within 4 miles of the Duvall tract. The nearest occupied GRSG lek (Thrush Lek) is 5.8 miles to 

the southeast of the Duvall tract, as shown on map 3-6.

3.3.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species and Other Species of Special 

Interest

3.3.4.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

The USFWS maintains a list of T&E species, and designated critical habitats on their official 

website for each county in Wyoming (USFWS 2016). The USFWS also provides the Information 

for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system to evaluate the potential of encountering USFWS 

trust resources, including T&E species, related to a specific project area. The agency updates 

those species lists annually, or more frequently if any listing changes occur.

Vertebrate T&E species were discussed in section 3.10.8 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS, which included 

evaluations of bald eagles and black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). The bald eagle was removed 

from the federal list of T&E species on August 9, 2007 (USFWS 2011). The current USFWS list 

of T&E species that may occur in Campbell, County, Wyoming includes the black-footed ferret,

the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and the Ute Ladies’-tresses (ULT) (Spiranthes 

diluvialis) (USFWS 2016). Habitat suitable for the black-footed ferret, the northern long-eared 

bat, and the ULT is not present on the permit area (CRM 2016b). In addition, the USFWS has 

not designated any “critical” habitat for these species in the vicinity of the CRM at this time 

(USFWS 2016). 

On March 6, 2013, the USFWS issued a letter acknowledging ‘block clearance’ for the State of 

Wyoming in response to a request from the WGFD. This letter provides acknowledgement that 

the likelihood of identifying wild ferrets in Wyoming, outside of those resulting from 

reintroductions, is distinctly minimal. Consequently, the USFWS no longer recommends surveys 

for the black-footed ferrets in either black- or white-tailed prairie dog towns in the State of 

Wyoming (USFWS 2016b). Prairie dog towns, which provide habitat for black-footed ferrets, are 

not found within the Duvall tract. 

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 [2016c]) is not present in the Duvall tract to support the threatened northern 

long-eared bat. No northern long-eared bat populations have been documented within Campbell 

County and the area of the proposed project as defined in this EA does not fall within the area 

of influence (AOI) for the northern long-eared bat (USFWS 2017).

The ULT is a threatened plant species with an affinity for wetlands. Surveys at CRM for this plant 

species are conducted in suitable habitats within one year of disturbance of those habitats. 

Surveys were not completed in 2016 as no disturbance in suitable habitat is planned to occur 

during that year. No ULTs have been found during previous surveys within the permit area or 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-23

adjacent areas. Habitat for ULT within the permit area is considered to be poor to unsuitable 

(CRM 2016b)

3.3.4.2 Other Species of Special Interest

The Duvall tract provides habitat for wildlife species that are classified as SOSI. Watch was kept 

during all surveys and site visits for species that are listed as SOSI. 

For the purposes of this discussion, other SOSI include federal birds of conservation concern and 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) species of concern. The USFWS has identified 

birds of conservation concern as species, subspecies, and populations of migratory and nonmigratory birds that “...without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates 

for listing under the Endangered Species Act” (USFWS 2008). As defined by the USFWS, bird 

species considered for inclusion on lists of birds of conservation concern include nongame birds, 

gamebirds without hunting seasons, candidate and proposed endangered or threatened species, 

and recently delisted species (USFWS 2008). These species represent the USFWS’s highest 

conservation priorities beyond those species already designated as T&E species. The conservation 

concerns may be related to population declines, small range or population sizes due to natural 

or human-caused influences, threats to habitat, or other factors.

The most current list of birds of conservation concern is presented in appendix D. The bald 

eagle is present on the study area as a migrant and winter resident. The Brewer’s sparrow is 

common during the spring and summer as a breeder. The ferruginous hawk is a seasonal resident 

and breeder on the CRM. The golden eagle is a yearlong resident and was observed on the CRM

raptor study area in 2016. The prairie falcon has previously been observed at the CRM but was 

not observed in 2016. The Swainson’s hawk was present as a spring and summer breeder and 

nested within the CRM tract in 2016. The grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), 

loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), short-eared owl,

burrowing owl, GRSG, long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), McCown’s longspur (Calcarius 

mccownii), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), and upland sandpiper (Bartramia 

longicauda) have been recorded within the CRM wildlife study area. The American bittern

(Botaurus lentiginosus), dickcissel, mountain plover, pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), 

western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis), and Sprague’s pipit have not been recorded on the 

study area, as habitat for most of these species does not occur on the study area.

3.4 Cultural Resources

Information regarding background cultural resources within the current Permit 237 Term 10

permit boundary was included in section 3.12 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. A Class III cultural 

resource survey that included the Duvall tract was performed in 2005. According to information 

provided in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS, six cultural resource sites and nine isolated finds are located 

in the Duvall tract. A prehistoric isolated find is defined by the Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (2012) as 14 or fewer spatially associated artifacts where no buried cultural 

materials or features are thought to exist and a historic isolated find is 49 or fewer spatially 

associated artifacts where no buried cultural material or features are thought to exist. No 

mitigation measures are necessary for isolated finds. Of the six cultural resource sites, three are 

lithic scatter and three are open campsites. None of the sites in the Duvall tract have been 

designated as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP).

3.5 Socioeconomics

Information regarding socioeconomics was included in section 3.17 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. 

Discussions related to housing, local government services, and environmental justice have not 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-24 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

significantly changed enough to require reevaluation in this EA. Updated discussions on the local 

economy, population, and employment are included below.

3.5.1 Local Economy

Wyoming’s coal mines produced an estimate 375.7 million tons in 2015, a decrease of about 

90.6 million tons (19%) over the record 466.3 million tons produced in 2008. Coal produced 

from 14 active mines in Campbell County accounted for approximately 97% of total statewide 

coal production in 2015 (WDWS 2015). According to coal production numbers from the USEIA, 

the coal from Campbell County accounted for approximately 41 percent of the coal produced in 

the U.S. in 2015 (USEIA 2016a).

The estimated total fiscal impact from coal production in Campbell County to the State of 

Wyoming in 2016 was calculated by including half of the bonus bid payments, half of the federal 

mineral royalties based on current prices, a designated portion the Abandoned Mine Land Fund 

(AML) fees, and all of the ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, and sales and use taxes for coal 

produced in Campbell County in 2015. The Wyoming tax revenue results in an estimated $922.5

million, or $2.48 per ton (figure 3-3).

Recent (2015) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) calculations for Wyoming indicate that the 

minerals industry (mining and oil and gas) accounted for about 23 percent of the state’s total 

GDP of $38.6 billion, which made it the largest sector of the Wyoming economy. The 

contribution of mining was nearly 1.4 times that of government, the next largest sector, and two

times more than the contribution of the real estate industry, the next largest private sector. In 

2015, mining accounted for 22 percent of the Wyoming GDP (WDAI/EAD 2016).

In 2015, Wyoming’s economy was exposed to a substantial decline in the price of oil and coal 

and an extended period of low natural gas prices (WDWS 2016b). This trend continued into 

2016. As well as direct effects to oil and gas and mining employment, the effects of the reduced 

demand for these natural resources also effects the required support industries for the mining 

and quarrying of minerals and for the extraction of oil and gas.

3.5.2 Population

According to U.S. census data, in 2015 Campbell County had a population of 49,220 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2016a). As of the 2010 census, Campbell County’s population ranks it as the third most 

populous of Wyoming’s 23 counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2016b).

The majority of the Campbell County mine employees and support services reside in Gillette. 

The total population in the Gillette city limits increased from 19,646 in 2000 to 32,649 in 2015, 

an increase of 66.2 percent over the period (U.S. Census Bureau 2016). Table 3-14 presents 

the population changes for Campbell County and Gillette. As of 2015, Gillette accounted for 

roughly 66 percent of the county’s residents. Gillette is the fourth largest city in the state, 

following Cheyenne, Casper, and Laramie (U.S. Census Bureau 2016a).

3.5.3 Employment

Table 3-15 presents the employment changes for Wyoming and Campbell County. The 

statewide total employment increased by 4,243 jobs (1.5 percent) from 2011 to 2015 while the 

employment in Campbell County increased by 338 (1.4 percent) during the same time period 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015). The average unemployment rate in Campbell County for 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 3-25

Source – WWC 2017

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

Production in Campbell County
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3-26 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Table 3-14. Campbell County and City of Gillette Population Change, 2000 to 

2015

2000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2000-2015 

Increase

2000-2015 

% Change

Campbell County 33,698 46,600 47,881 48,121 48,243 49,220 14,478 43.0

City of Gillette 19,646 30,432 31,423 31,732 31,920 32,649 13,003 66.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2016a)

Table 3-15. Wyoming and Campbell County Employment Rate Change, 2000 to 

2015

2000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 August

2016

Wyoming (Number Employed) 256,414 289,019 291,076 292,157 294,207 293,262 287,084

Wyoming (Number Unemployed) 10,394 17,796 16,349 14,414 12,726 12,750 14,686

Wyoming Unemployment Rate 3.9 5.8 5.3 4.7 4.1 4.2 5.5

Campbell County (Number Employed) 17,975 24,605 24,919 24,609 25,423 24,943 23,446

Campbell County (Number Unemployed) 830 1,267 1,213 1,087 882 987 1,708

Campbell County Unemployment Rate 3.4 4.9 4.6 4.2 3.4 3.8 6.8

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015

2011 was 4.9 percent and 3.8 percent for 2015 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015). Between the 

second quarter of 2014 and the second quarter of 2016, the mining sector was projected to lose 

approximately 1,644 jobs (WDWS 2015b). The Natural Resources and Mining sector in Campbell 

County experienced an approximate 14.7 percent decline in employment between June 2015 and 

June 2016 (WDWS 2016b).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-1

4.0 Environmental Consequences/Cumulative impacts

4.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed 

Action and the No Action Alternative, as described in chapter 2. The discussion is organized by 

the affected resource in the same order as they are described in chapter 3 and then by 

alternative.

An impact, or effect, is defined as a modification to the environment brought about by an outside 

action. Impacts vary in significance from no change, or only slightly discernible change, to a full 

modification or elimination of the resource. Impacts can be beneficial (positive) or adverse 

(negative). Impacts are described by their level of significance (i.e., significant, moderate, minor, 

negligible, or no impact). For purposes of discussion and to enable use of a common scale for all 

resources, resource specialists considered the following impact levels in qualitative terms.

Significant Impact: Impacts that potentially could cause irretrievable loss of a resource; 

significant depletion, change, or stress to resources; or stress within the social, cultural, and 

economic realm.

Moderate Impact: Impacts that potentially could cause some change or stress to an 

environmental resource but the impact levels are not considered significant.

Minor Impact: Impacts that potentially could be detectable but slight.

Negligible Impact: Impacts in the lower limit of detection that potentially could cause an 

insignificant change or stress to an environmental resource or use.

No Impact: No discernible or measurable impacts.

Direct impacts are defined as those impacts which are caused by the action and occur at the 

same time and place (40 CFR 1508.8(a)). Indirect impacts are those that are caused by the action 

and occur later in time or are farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable 

(40 CFR 1508.8(b)). Cumulative impacts are those impacts that result from incremental effects 

of an action when added to other past and present actions, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency or other entity undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts occur over a given time period. The time period for cumulative effects 

includes the time period when the impacts of past and present actions and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions overlap with the time period when project impacts would occur (including the coal 

recovery and reclamation phases).

Impacts can be short term meaning these impacts generally occur over a short period during a 

specific point in the mining process and these changes generally revert to pre-disturbance 

conditions at or within a few years after the ground disturbance has taken place. Long-term 

impacts are defined as those that substantially would remain beyond short-term grounddisturbing activities. Long-term impacts would generally last the life of the federal mining plan 

modification approval and beyond.

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 

are comparable to those described in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS, except as noted herein. In addition 

to addressing the specific issues identified in chapter 1, this updated environmental 

consequences analyses reflect changes to the mining operations presented in chapter 2 and any 

updated descriptions of the affected environment presented in chapter 3 that have taken place 

since the 2007 Maysdorf EIS and the 2012 federal mining plan modification were approved.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-2 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Regarding relevant regional activity, the Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines 

make up the middle group of mines in the PRB, as shown on map 1-1. Information regarding 

ownership, permitted areas, and 2015 coal production from these mines is included in

table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Ownership, Permitted Acres, and Coal Production of the Middle 

Group of Mines

Mine Ownership Permitted 

Acres

2016

Production 

(Mt)

Caballo Peabody Caballo Coal, LLC 21,269 11.2

Belle Ayr Contura Coal West, LLC 12,091 14.8

Cordero Rojo Cloud Peak Energy LLC 22,537 18.3

Coal Creek Thunder Basin Coal Co. 9,741 8.1

Total 64,786 52.4

The environmental and cumulative effects discussions below assume that under the Proposed 

Action, the federal mining plan modification to mine coal in the remaining federal coal lease 

WYW174407 would be approved. Coal recovery is projected to continue within the CRM permit 

boundary at an estimated annual rate of 20 Mt, which is consistent with the 2015-2016 average 

annual recovery rate. The recovery of the remaining federal coal would continue for 

approximately 2.8 additional years over the No Action Alternative. New mine facilities, associated 

surface disturbances, and subsidence repairs would not be required in connection with the 

Proposed Action.

Under the No Action Alternative, the mining plan modification to allow mining of the federal coal 

within the Duvall tract would not be approved. Currently approved mining operations associated 

with federal coal would continue for approximately 11.6 years within federal leases WYW8385, 

WYW23939, WYW154432 and WYW174407 (232.6 Mt), at a rate of approximately 20 Mtpy.

The newly approved WDEQ-LQD Permit to Mine allows disturbance of the entire Duvall tract 

even if the No Action Alternative is selected. The disturbance would be similar to those under 

the Proposed Action although the impacts to approximately 852.1 acres to recover federal coal 

within the Duvall tract would not occur. 

4.1.1 Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts

A summary comparison of the direct and indirect environmental impacts is included in table 4-

2 and in Table 2-2 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS.

4.2 Topography and Physiography

4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.2.1.1 Proposed Action

The direct and indirect effects to topography and physiography would not be different than those 

described in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. The Proposed Action would impact the topography and 

physiography of the remaining portions of lands included in lease WYW174407 but these impacts 

would be similar to those currently occurring on the existing CRM coal leases as coal is 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-3

Resource Name Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Added Recoverable Coal (Mt) 55.8 0.0

Added disturbance 852.1 Acres 0 Acres

Topography and Physiography Moderate, permanent on the Duvall tract. Local 

impacts only.

Moderate, permanent on the Duvall tract due to 

mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Local 

impacts only.

Geology, Minerals and Paleontology Moderate, permanent on the Duvall tract. 

Recovery of 55.8 Mt of Wyodak coal and CBNG 

within Wyodak coal. While CBNG is not part of 

the Proposed Action, there would be a loss of 

CBNG through venting and/or depletion of 

hydrostatic pressure in Wyodak-Anderson coal

resulting from mining adjacent areas. However, 

CBNG recovery has been greatly reduced in the 

area. Local impacts only.

Moderate, permanent on the Duvall tract due to 

mine related activity authorized under a revised 

state mine permit and federal mining plan. 

Approximately 55.8 Mt of coal would not be 

removed on the CMC but loss of CBNG would 

occur though venting and/or depletion of 

hydrostatic pressure in Wyodak coal resulting 

from mining adjacent areas. Local impacts only.

Air Quality and Climate Change Negligible to moderate and short to long term 

from full mining on the Duvall tract. Primarily 

local impacts, with the potential for regional and 

global impacts from transportation and 

combustion of coal.

Moderate, short term on the Duvall tract due to 

mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Primarily 

local impacts, with the potential for regional and 

global impacts from transportation and 

combustion of coal.

Water Resources – Surface Water Moderate, short term (extended by 2.8 years) on 

the Duvall tract from full mining. Primarily local 

impacts, with the potential for regional impacts.

Moderate, short term on the Duvall tract due to 

mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Primarily 

local impacts, with the potential for regional 

impacts.

Water Resources-Groundwater Moderate, short and long term on the Duvall

tract due to aquifer (alluvial, overburden, and 

coal) removal. Local impacts only.

Moderate, short and long term on the Duvall

tract due to mine related activity authorized 

under a state mine permit and federal mining 

plan. Local impacts only.

Alluvial Valley Floors No impact – Not present Same as Proposed Action

Wetlands Moderate, short term to non-jurisdictional 

wetlands on the Duvall tract from full mining. 

Local impacts only. No impacts to jurisdictional 

wetlands

Moderate, short term to non-jurisdictional 

wetlands on the Duvall tract due to mine related 

activity authorized under a state mine permit and 

federal mining plan. Local impacts only. No 

impacts to jurisdictional wetlands.

Table 4-2. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-4 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Table 4-2. Continued

Resource Name Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Soils Moderate, short term (2.8 years) on the Duvall

tract from full mining. Local impacts only.

Moderate, short term on the Duvall tract due to 

mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Local 

impacts only.

Vegetation Moderate, short term (extended by 2.8 years) on 

the Duvall tract from full mining. Local impacts 

only.

Moderate, short term on the Duvall tract due to 

mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Local 

impacts only.

Wildlife Moderate, short term (extended by 2.8 years) on 

the Duvall tract from full mining. Local impacts 

only.

Moderate, short term on the Duvall tract due to 

mine related activity authorized under a revised 

state mine permit and federal mining plan. Local 

impacts only.

Ownership and Use of Land Moderate, short term (extended by 2.8 years) on 

the Duvall tract from full mining. Local impacts 

only.

Moderate, short term on the Duvall tract due to 

mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. 

Cultural Resources Negligible, long term on the Duvall tract from full 

mining. Local impacts only.

Negligible, long term on the Duvall tract due to 

mine related activity authorized under a revised 

state mine permit and federal mining plan. NRHP 

sites would not be disturbed. Local impacts only.

Visual Resources Moderate, short term (extended by 2.8 years) on 

the Duvall tract from full mining. Local impacts 

only.

Moderate, short term on the Duvall tract due to 

mine related activity authorized under a state 

mine permit and federal mining plan. Local 

impacts only.

Noise Minor to moderate, short term (extended by 2.8 

years) on the Duvall tract from full mining. The 

moderate effects would attenuate rapidly due to 

the reduction effect related to distance Local 

impacts only.

Minor to moderate, short term on the Duvall

tract due to mine related activity authorized 

under a state mine permit and federal mining 

plan. Local impacts only.

Transportation facilities No impact Same as Proposed Action

Hazardous and Solid Waste No impact Same as Proposed Action

Socioeconomics Moderate, beneficial, short and long term 

(extended by 2.8 years) on the Duvall tract from 

full mining. LOM State and Federal revenues from 

tract coal would be $280.9 million. Local and 

regional impacts.

Moderate, beneficial short term on the Duvall

tract due to mine related activity authorized 

under a revised state mine permit and federal 

mining plan. LOM State and Federal revenues 

reduced by $280.9 million, compared to 

Proposed Action. Local and regional impacts.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-5

mined and the mined-out areas are reclaimed. After mined-out areas are reclaimed, the land 

surfaces are typically gentler, with more uniform slopes and restored basic drainage networks.

The direct effects on topography and physiography resulting from the Proposed Action are 

expected to be moderate and permanent on the Duvall tract. There would be no indirect effects 

under the Proposed Action.

4.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The impacts to topography 

under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action although 

the impacts to approximately 852.1 acres to recover federal coal within the Duvall tract would 

not occur.

4.2.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impacts to topography and physiography would not be significantly different than 

those described in the 2009 SGAC EIS. The cumulative effects would primarily be related to the 

existing Caballo, Bell Ayr, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo Mines (the middle group of mines).

Following surface coal mining and reclamation, topography would be modified within the permit 

boundary of these mines. The cumulative effects on topography and physiography resulting from 

the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate and permanent on the Duvall tract.

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for topography.

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 

different than those described in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. The geology from the base of the 

Wyodak coal seam to the land surface would be subject to permanent change on the areas of 

coal removal and mining would substantially alter the resulting subsurface physical characteristics 

of these lands. As described in Section 3.3.1.2.1 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS, the replaced 

overburden and interburden would be a relatively homogeneous (compared to the premining 

layered overburden and interburden) and partly recompacted mixture. These impacts are 

occurring on the existing CRM coal leases as coal is mined and the mined-out areas are reclaimed. 

The Proposed Action would result in the recovery of approximately 55.8 Mt of federal coal within 

the Wyodak coal seam. The direct and indirect effects on geology and coal resources are 

expected to be moderate and permanent on the Duvall tract.

According to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), as of November

2016, 254 CBNG wells and 135 oil and gas wells had been permitted within 2 miles of the Duvall 

tract (including 24 CBNG wells within the Duvall tract (WOGCC 2016). There are 12 CBNG 

wells completed within the Duvall tract and one of those wells is currently producing gas. As of 

November 2016 there are 13 oil and gas wells (excluding CBNG) permitted within the Duvall 

tract, three of the wells are currently producing oil and one is an active injector. Conventional 

oil and gas wells and CBNG wells located on the Duvall tract will be abandoned and mined 

through as mining progresses. CBNG would be recovered from the Wyodak coal seam within 

the Duvall tract until mining approaches near enough to the wells to result in loss through venting 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-6 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

and/or depletion of hydrostatic pressure. CBNG reserves not recovered from the Wyodak coal 

seam prior to mining would be vented to the atmosphere. The direct effects on CBNG resources 

resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate and permanent for CBNG on 

the Duvall tract due to the loss of any remaining CBNG within the Wyodak coal seam. Current 

conventional oil and gas drilling techniques (horizontal drilling) allow extraction of oil and gas 

from areas not available using vertical drilling techniques (USEIA 2016b). Therefore, the effects 

would be minor and short term for conventional oil and gas due to the surface disturbance that 

could prohibit recovery of the resource.

Section 3.3.3 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS provides a detailed discussion of paleontological resources

associated with the Duvall tract (BLM 2007). No unique or significant paleontological resources 

have been identified or are suspected to exist on the CRM. The likelihood of encountering 

significant paleontological resources is very small. While vertebrate fossils appear to be very 

scarce, should previously unknown, potentially significant paleontological sites be discovered, 

BLM imposed lease and permit conditions require that work in the area would stop and measures 

would be taken to assess and protect the site. The direct effects on paleontological resources 

resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate and permanent on the Duvall

tract.

4.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. Impacts to the geological 

resources have resulted from current mining activity in adjacent lands and therefore under this 

alternative, impacts to geological resources in the area would be similar to those under the 

Proposed Action. Impacts to the geological and paleontological resources, excluding CBNG, 

would be approximately 852.1 acres less than the Proposed Action. Impacts to CBNG resources 

will be moderate and permanent as a result of mining activities in adjacent lands. 

4.3.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impacts to geology, mineral resources, and paleontology would not be significantly 

different than those described in the 2009 SGAC EIS. The PRB coalfield encompasses an area of 

about 12,000 square miles. The USGS estimate that there are approximately 162 billion tons of 

recoverable coal in the PRB, of which, an estimated 25 billion tons are considered economically 

recoverable coal, with a maximum stripping ratio of 10:1 (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2013). 

The cumulative effects would primarily be related to the existing CRM and the adjacent Caballo, 

Belle Ayr, and Coal Creek mines. 

According to October 17, 2016 information from the WOGCC website, 21,360 CBNG wells 

have been drilled in Campbell County. The WOGCC records indicate that a majority of the wells 

are privately held or state minerals, with approximately 36.7 percent of the wells (7,846 of 

21,360) being federal minerals. Status of these wells includes shut-in, producing, plugged and 

abandoned, and injection. Currently, one of the 254 CBNG wells permitted in the analysis area 

is considered to be in production. The pace of CBNG development in Wyoming has recently 

slowed considerably (WOGCC 2016).

Impacts to paleontological resources as a result of the already-approved cumulative energy 

development occurring in the PRB consist of losses of plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate fossil 

material for scientific research, public education (interpretive programs), and other values. Losses 

have and would result from the destruction, disturbance, or removal of fossil materials as a result 

of surface-disturbing activities, as well as unauthorized collection and vandalism. A beneficial 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-7

impact of surface mining can be the exposure of fossil materials for scientific examination and 

collection, which might never occur except as a result of overburden removal, exposure of rock 

strata, and mineral excavation.

The cumulative effects on the geology, mineral resources, and paleontology are expected be 

moderate and permanent.

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for geology or mineral resources. Should significant 

paleontological resources be encountered as a result of the Proposed Action, the appropriate 

agencies would be consulted.

4.4 Air Quality and Climate Change

4.4.1 Particulate Matter

4.4.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.4.1.1.1 Proposed Action

CMC projects that the annual coal production is expected to average 20 Mt with mining the 

remaining federal coal within the Duvall tract. CRM’s air quality permit (P0022480) limits annual 

coal production to 35 Mt of coal. According to CMC, production would continue at an average 

rate of 20 Mtpy for approximately 2.8 additional years under the Proposed Action. Public 

exposure to particulate emissions from surface mining operations is most likely to occur along 

publicly accessible roads and highways that pass through the area of the mining operations. 

Occupants of residences in the area could also be affected. As indicated on Figure 3-8 of the 2007 

Maysdorf EIS, the closest residence is located approximately 11,000 feet from the Duvall tract 

disturbance and the closest public transportation route is the Haight Road, which bisects the

Duvall tract. 

WDEQ-AQD issued air quality permit MD-9943 for the CRM on August 3, 2010. This air quality 

permit was issued based on an analysis using emission factors, estimation methods, and model 

selection consistent with WDEQ-LQD policy. In November 2016, CRM submitted an application 

to modify MD-9943 to update pit progression areas to include the Duvall lease reserves, update 

the mining schedule, revise the lands necessary to conduct mining (LNCM) to accommodate new 

pit progression areas, and reduce the permitted coal production totals from 65 Mtpy to 35 Mtpy. 

The modification request included an emissions inventory based on the above-mentioned 

operating parameters. On July 18, 2017 WDEQ-AQD issued air quality permit number P0022480 

for the CRM. This occurred during the public comment on this EA and as such the EA has been 

updated to reflect the conditions within air quality permit P0022480. 

PM10 inventories for the mining activities at CRM were prepared for all years in the currently 

anticipated LOM. Two years were then selected for worst-case dispersion modeling of PM10

based on mine plan parameters and emission inventories. Fugitive emission sources and point 

sources were modeled using the Industrial Source Complex 3 Long-Term (ISCLT3) dispersion

model. This model is recommended by WDEQ for use with modeling coal mine impacts in 

Wyoming (Redhorse 2016). 

Modeling indicates the currently projected mine activities would be in compliance with the annual 

PM10 ambient air standard for the life of the CRM. Based on mine plan parameters and highest 

emissions inventories, the years 2017 and 2023 were selected as the worst-case years for 

evaluation, since those years had the highest modeled PM10 concentrations. Coal production in
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-8 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

both years was modeled at the proposed maximum production level of 35 Mt (Redhorse 2016).

The results of annual dispersion modeling are included in table 4-3. The locations of the modeled 

PM10 annual concentrations for 2017 and 2023 are shown on map 4-1. Under the modified 

mining plan proposed, the CRM would not cause or contribute to a violation of the annual PM10

WAAQS of 50 μg/m3(Redhorse 2016).

Table 4-3. MD-9943 Modification Request Annual Particulate Matter Dispersion 

Modeling Results

Pollutant Averaging

Period

Modeled 

Concentrationa 

(μg/m3)

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3)

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3)

WAAQS

(μg/m3)

2017 Mine Year

PM10 Overall Maximum 26.06 9.50 35.56 50 c

CRM Maximum 21.70 9.50 31.20 50 c

2023 Mine Year

PM10 Overall Maximum 15.58 9.50 25.08 50 c

CRM Maximum 15.58 9.50 25.08 50 c

PM10 modeled concentrations include the emissions from Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo Mines plus the regional background 

concentration (Caballo Mine’s emissions are not included per Redhorse 2016) a Violation occurs with more than one expected 

exceedance per calendar year, averaged over 3-years 

Compliance with the 24-hour PM10 ambient air quality standard has been demonstrated by 

ambient air monitoring conducted at CRM and other nearby mines. A discussion of PM10

monitoring results for the CRM is included in section 3.1.4.1. 

As shown in table 3-2, there have been no recorded exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 

or WAAQS or annual PM10 WAAQS at the CRM, and 2016 ISCLT3 modeling conducted for the 

current CRM permit predicted no future exceedances of the annual PM10 WAAQS at a 35-Mtpy 

production rate (Redhorse 2016). At the estimated average annual production rate of 20 Mt 

there would be an extension of approximately 2.8 years in the time the mine would produce and 

there would be an increase in overburden thickness but fugitive dust emissions are projected to 

remain within daily NAAQS and WAAQS and annual WAAQS limits. The direct and indirect 

effects from particulate matter emissions resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be 

moderate and short term on the Duvall tract because modeled particulate matter emissions 

would be below the NAAQS and WAAQS thresholds and particulate matter emissions related 

to the Proposed Action would only occur for 2.8 years. It is expected that there will be no impact 

to the Sheridan non-attainment area for PM10 due to mining of the Duvall tract. The effects of 

particulate matter emissions from coal combustion are included in section 4.4.3.

4.4.1.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. Impacts from particulate 

matter emissions have resulted from current mining activity and therefore under this alternative, 

particulate matter emission impacts in the area would be similar to those under the Proposed 

Action but would not be extended for an additional 2.8 years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-9

Map 4-1. Maximum Modeled PM10 NOx Concentrations at the Middle Group of 

PRB Mines for the Years 2017 and 2023
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-10 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

4.4.1.2 Cumulative Effects

The locations of PM10 and PM2.5 emission monitoring samplers within Coal Mine Subregion 2 (Belle 

Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines) are depicted on map 3-1. Monitoring during 

the 2009-2016 period demonstrated that ambient concentrations of PM10 were within established 

short-term (24-hour) presented in table 4-4. During this period, no exceedances of the PM10

standards were reported at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, or Cordero Rojo mines. The 

highest 24-hour average concentration reported from any individual station during the 2009-2016

monitoring period was 122 μg/m3, recorded at Caballo/C-8A/B (56-005-0886). This site is 

approximately 6 miles northeast of the Duvall tract.

Table 4-4. PM10 Concentration Values (24-Hour, First Maximum Value - μg/m3) 

for 2009-2016 Associated with the Middle Group2 of Mines in the PRB

Location/Site Name/AQS Site ID3 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

South Campbell County/Campbell 

County/56-005-0456 43 36 41 71 39 52 135 34

Belle Ayr/BA-1/56-005-0802 28 29 51 45 27 28 49 44

Belle Ayr/BA-3/56-005-0893 25 31 46 48 34 38 52 27

Belle Ayr/BA-4/56-005-0892 50 55 69 54 39 43 66 38

Caballo/C-8A/B/56-005-0886 117 122 98 99 84 55 80 52

Caballo/C-9/56-005-0908 72 67 69 76 64 54 72 76

Coal Creek/CCM 7-1/56-005-0841 24 26 32 45 30 21 51 20

Coal Creek/Site 26/56-005-0890 32 44 38 49   **  **

Coal Creek/Site 3/56-005-0303   **  65 56 39 51 31

Cordero/CRC-E10A/56-005-0885 86 66 83 108 68 67 88 52

Cordero Rojo/CRM-W11 Hilight Road/56-005-

1003 ** ** 66 63 55 60 51 35

Cordero Rojo/Site W/56-005-0883 83 83 53   **  ** **

Cordero/Hv-3/PM-3/56-005-0889 54 54 27   **  ** **

Cordero Rojo/CRM-S11/56-005-1009   47 68 41 46 56 57

1 The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3

, as 

determined in Appendix K, 40 CFR Part 50, is equal to or less than 1

2 Belle Ayr, Caballo, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines (See map 3-1)

3

See map 3-1 for site locations

**  Indicates that the site is inactive

Source: WDEQ-AQD (2016)

The cumulative effects from particulate matter emissions are expected to be moderate and short 

term because modeled PM10 emissions would be below NAAQS and WAAQS thresholds and 

they would be extended by approximately 2.8 years.

4.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures beyond those required by the CRM air quality permit would be required 

for emissions of particulate matter.

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

CMC projects that the annual coal production is expected to average 20 Mt with mining of the 

remaining federal coal associated with the Duvall tract. CRM’s currently approved air quality 

permit from WDEQ-LQD limits annual coal production to 35 Mt of coal. According to CMC, 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-11

the recovery of federal coal would continue at an average rate of 20 Mtpy for approximately 2.8

additional years under the Proposed Action.

As presented in table 3-7, NO2 data collected at the currently active AQS monitoring sites in 

Campbell County nearest to the CRM were below the 1-hour NAAQS 98th percentile 

concentration of 100 ppb (188 μg/m3, as indicated in table 3-1) and below the 1-hour WAAQS

98th percentile concentration of 188 μg/m3indicated in table 3-1. Therefore, ambient air quality 

within the vicinity of the proposed action is currently in compliance with the NO2 WAAQS and 

NAAQS.

CRM did include modeled results for NOX emissions for 2016 through 2035 as a part of the MD9943 air quality permit modification request. As with particulate matter modeling, the years 2017

and 2023 were selected as the worst-case years, since those years had the highest modeled NOX

concentrations. NOX modeling closely followed many of the same procedures used in the PM10

analysis. Emissions were apportioned in a similar manner and the same meteorological data set 

was used. Area source, haul road, and point source information for the Caballo, Belle Ayr, 

Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines and information for railroads, roads, power plants, and 

regional sources provided by WDEQ-LQD ARMB were included in the model. The amount of 

NOX emissions from blasting is related to the amount of ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) 

blasting agent utilized. NOX emission rates for the middle group of mines 2017 and 2023 are 

expected to be 7,516 tpy and 6,278 tpy, respectively. The locations of the maximum-modeled 

NOX concentrations along the CRM ambient air boundary for 2017 and 2023 are shown on 

map 4-1. Public exposure to NOX 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 Haight Road, which currently runs through the Duvall tract and there is 

an occupied residence located approximately 11,000 feet east of the Duvall tract. Estimated NOX

emissions determined from modeling would be below the NAAQS and WAAQS thresholds and 

would only be extended by 2.8 years (Redhorse 2016). The direct and indirect effects from NOX

emissions resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be moderate and short term on 

the Duvall tract.

As indicated in section 3.1.4.2, O3 monitoring is not required at the CRM and O3 emissions 

were not modeled for the air quality permit MD-9943 modification request. However, as shown 

in table 3-8, O3 levels have been monitored at AQS Sites 56-005-0123 and 56-005-0456 since 

2009. No exceedances of the 8-hour O3 standard in place at the time have occurred at the 

monitoring sites since monitoring began in 2010. Based on information provided by CMC that 

mining methods would not be significantly different that those currently employed at the mine 

(CMC 2016b) and coal recovery would continue at the estimated annual rate of 20 Mt, which is 

consistent with the 2015-2016 average annual recovery rate, the direct and indirect effects from 

O3 emissions resulting from the Proposed Action are expected to be minor and short term.

4.4.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. Impacts from NOX and O3

emissions have resulted from current mining activity and therefore the impacts related to NOX

and O3 emissions under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed 

Action but would not be extended for an additional 2.8 years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-12 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

4.4.2.2 Cumulative Effects

The adjacent middle group of mines would contribute additional NOX and O3 emissions to the 

surrounding area. Modeling for NOX conducted for the CRM air quality permit includes the

effects of the adjacent middle group of mines. As discussed in section 4.4.1.1.1, CRM recently 

submitted an application to WDEQ-AQD to modify air quality permit MD-9943 to reduce to 

permitted tons of coal removal from 65 Mtpy to 35 Mtpy. This permit has since been issued by

WDEQ-AQD on July 18, 2017 and CRM is currently permitted to mine 35 Mtpy. The most 

recent modeling for NOX conducted by Redhorse was based on mining at the rate of 35 Mtpy,

which is more than the 20 Mtpy rate discussed throughout this EA (Redhorse 2016). The 

modeling results and past monitoring results show that mining at a rate of 35 Mtpy would not 

result in exceedances of WAAQS/NAAQS (Redhorse 2016). Cumulative impacts from NOX

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. Impacts from NOX related to the Proposed Action would cease to occur after mining 

has been complete. Therefore, the cumulative effects from NOX emissions are expected to be 

moderate and they would be extended by approximately 2.8 years.

O3 monitoring at AQS sites 56-005-0123 and 56-005-0456 (map 3-2) has been conducted since 

2009. Monitoring at these sites provide an estimate of cumulative O3 emissions effects. No 

exceedances of the 8-hour O3 standard in place at the time have occurred at the monitoring sites 

since at least 2009. Coal recovery is projected to continue within the CRM permit boundary at 

an estimated annual rate of 20 Mt, which is consistent with the 2015-2016 average annual 

recovery rate. Therefore, the cumulative effects from O3 emissions resulting from the Proposed 

Action are expected to be minor and short term and they would be extended by approximately 

the 2.8 years.

4.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures beyond those required by the CRM air quality permit would be required 

for emissions of NOX or O3.

4.4.3 Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs)

4.4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.4.3.1.1 Proposed Action

Visibility

WDEQ-LQD has determined that the CRM is not a major stationary source, in accordance with 

Chapter 6, Section 4 of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations. Therefore, the state 

of Wyoming does not require mines to evaluate impacts on Class I areas; however, OSMRE 

considers such issues during the federal mining plan modification review process.

Because WDEQ does not require the CRM to evaluate visibility impacts on Class I areas, the 

mine does not monitor visibility. Therefore, a direct comparison with the Wyoming standards is 

not possible. The impacts to visibility from mining the Duvall tract have been inferred from the 

currently permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the CRM. The nearest Class I 

area is located approximately 100 miles east of the Duvall tract at the Wind Cave National Park 

in South Dakota. As indicated on figure 3-1, the long-term trend in visibility at the Wind Cave 

National Park appears to be relatively stable, if not improving slightly. If the coal within the Duvall

tract is mined, the Duvall tract would be mined as an integral part of the CRM. The average 

annual coal production for the mine is anticipated to be approximately 20 Mt if the federal mining 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-13

plan modification is approved to include the remaining federal coal in the Duvall tract. Impacts to 

visibility under the Proposed Action would be minor but they would be extended by 

approximately 2.8 years.

Overburden is generally thicker in the Duvall tract than the other lease areas currently being 

mined; therefore, state-of-the-art methods to minimize any increases in blast sizes and/or blasting 

agents would be employed. Thus, emissions from blasting are not expected to increase 

significantly, notwithstanding the increased thicknesses of overburden that would be excavated 

in the Duvall tract. The expected levels of pollutants and particulates that effect visibility would 

be within the approved air quality permit P0022480. 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 short term 

because and they would be extended by approximately 2.8 years.

Air Quality Related Values Related to Coal Combustion

Emissions that affect air quality also result from combustion of fossil fuels. Table 4-5 presents 

the estimated 2017-2029 PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2, Hg, and CO emissions for coal mined at the

CRM that would be utilized for power generation in comparison with 2010 through 2016 values. 

Emission estimates for 2017 through 2029 are also provided based on the projected average coal 

recovery for the time period. Using information from table 4-5, comparisons can be made 

between combustion emissions from coal mined CRM and emissions from coal mined from 

Campbell County. Total U.S. emissions are also included in the table.

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

from Combustion of Coal Mined at the CRM for 2009-2016 and 2017-

2029, Compared to Campbell County and U.S. Total Emissions

Year Mt Coal 

Recovered

PM10 

(Tons)

PM2.5

(Tons)

SO2

Emissions 

(Tons)

NO2

Emissions 

(Tons)

Hg

Emissions 

(Tons)

CO

Emissions 

(Tons)

2009 39.4 27,363.3 8,345.8 344,583.4 141,771.5 1.6 9,845.2

2010 38.5 26,751.0 8,159.1 336,873.3 138,599.3 1.6 9,625.0

2011 39.5 27,415.1 8,361.6 345,236.4 142,040.1 1.6 9,863.9

2012 39.2 27,240.8 8,308.5 343,041.4 141,137.1 1.6 9,801.2

2013 36.7 25,479.9 7,771.4 320,866.4 132,013.6 1.5 9,167.6

2014 34.8 24,186.6 7,376.9 304,579.6 125,312.8 1.4 8,702.3

2015 22.9 15,892.3 4,847.1 200,129.8 82,339.1 0.9 5,718.0

2016 18.3 12,737.7 3,885.0 160,405.4 65,995.4 0.8 4,583.0

2017-2029 Annual 

Average 20.0 13,896.7 4,238.5 175,000.0 72,000.0 0.8 5,000.0

Total Campbell 

County1

386.2 13,896.7 4,238.5 175,000.0 72,000.0 0.8 5,000.0

2017-2029 Average 

Percent of Campbell 

Co.

--

268,345.3 81,845.3 3,379,250.0 1,390,320.0 16.0 96,550.0

Total U.S. Coal

Emissions (2015) -- 573,077.7 174,788.7 7,216,720.0 2,969,164.8 34.2 206,192.0

2017-2029 Average 

Percent of U.S. -- 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4%

1 Based on an estimated production of 386.2 Mt (average of 2011 through 2016 production)

Source: WWC 2017, calculations provided in appendix E.

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 (approximately 5.2 percent of the Campbell County average 

emissions) but they would be extended by approximately 2.8 years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-14 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Hg is a heavy metal that is a known persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substance that 

occurs naturally in coal. Air releases of Hg are associated with a variety of important 

environmental and human health consequences (CEC 2011). Power plants can release trace 

metals, such as Hg, during the combustion of coal to generate electricity. The Hg emissions from 

CRM supplied coal-fired power plants are indicated in table 4-5.

Based on an average of 20 Mtpy, the estimated Hg emissions resulting from the proposed action 

would contribute approximately 0.8 tons of Hg emissions per year for an additional 2.8 years 

(WWC 2017). Therefore, the Proposed Action would not increase Hg emissions but would 

extend the emissions by approximately 2.8 years.

Impacts to air quality related to coal combustion under the Proposed Action would be similar to 

the conditions currently experienced and the anticipated future production at the CRM is 

consistent with the 2009 through 2016 average annual recovery rate. In addition, when compared 

to emissions from Campbell County mines, direct and indirect effects would be minor 

(approximately 5.2 percent of the Campbell County average emissions) but they would be 

extended by approximately 2.8 years.

Acidification of Lakes/Acid Deposition

Because the CRM is not required by WDEQ to monitor H2S, a direct comparison to WAAQS 

standards is not possible. Because factors affecting H2S emissions would not change as a result of 

the Proposed Action, the direct and indirect effects have been inferred from the currently 

permitted impacts of mining the existing coal leases at the CRM. As indicated in table 3-10, the 

2011-2015 trend in H+ at monitoring site WY99 appears to be relatively stable. Coal recovery 

is projected to continue within the CRM permit boundary at an estimated annual rate of 20 Mt, 

which is consistent with the 2015-2016 average annual recovery rate. Based on this comparison 

of the current information available, the Proposed Action is not expected to contribute to 

increased direct or indirect effects to acidification of lakes or acid deposition that may impact 

soils and therefore, the effects would be negligible.

4.4.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. Impacts to air quality related 

values have resulted from current mining activity and therefore the impacts related to AQRVs

under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action but would 

not be extended for an additional 2.8 years.

4.4.3.2 Cumulative Effects

Mines in Campbell County would affect the cumulative AQRVs. 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.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-15

The six categories of health concern are:

Good - Number of days in the year having an AQI value 0 through 50, indicating that air quality 

is considered satisfactory, and air pollution poses little or no risk.

Moderate - Number of days in the year having and AQI value 51 through 100, which means that 

air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate health concern 

for a very small number of people who are unusually sensitive to air pollution.

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups - Number of days in the year having an AQI value 101 through 

150, where members of sensitive groups may experience health effects. The general public is not

likely to be affected.

Unhealthy - Number of days in the year having an AQI value 151 through 200. Everyone may 

begin to experience health effects; members of sensitive groups may experience more serious 

health effects.

Very Unhealthy - Number of days in the year having an AQI value 201 or higher. This category 

is a health alert: everyone may experience more serious health effects.

Hazardous - Number of days in the year having an AQI greater than 300. This would trigger a 

health warning of emergency conditions with the entire population more likely to be affected.

According to information obtained from the AirNow Website, approximately 98.8 percent of 

the days between 2012 and 2016 were classified as having a good or moderate AQI and no days 

were classified as very unhealthy or hazardous (table 4-6).

Days 

With 

AQI

Good Moderate

Unhealthy for 

Sensitive 

Groups

Unhealthy Very 

Unhealthy Hazardous

2012 366 130 221 13 2 0 0

2013 365 222 142 1 0 0 0

2014 365 262 102 1 0 0 0

2015 365 252 110 2 1 0 0

20161274 195 79 0 0 0 0

Average -- 212.2 130.8 3.4 1.0 0 0

Percent of Total 

Average -- 61.2% 37.7% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

1 Annual statistics for 2016 are not final until May 1, 2017

Source: AirNow (2017)

Mercury is a heavy metal that is a known persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) substance 

that occurs naturally in coal. Air releases of mercury are associated with a variety of important 

environmental and human health consequences (CEC 2011). Power plants can release trace 

metals, such as mercury, during the combustion of coal to generate electricity.

The Proposed Action would not increase Hg emissions but would extend the emissions by 

approximately 2.8 years. Based on an average of 20 Mtpy, which is consistent with the 2015-2016 

average annual recovery rate, the estimated Hg emissions resulting from the burning of the coal 

recovered under the Proposed Action would contribute approximately 0.8 ton of Hg emissions 

per year (from table 4-5) for an additional 2.8 years (WWC 2017). 

Table 4-6. Average Annual Campbell County Air Quality Index Values, 2012-

2016
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-16 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

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 and short term because estimated emissions would be 

below the NAAQS and WAAQS thresholds and cumulative effects would only be extended by 

approximately 2.8 years. Impacts to AQRVs from mining the federal coal within the Duvall tract 

would cease to occur after mining and reclamation are completed.

4.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures beyond those required by the CRM air quality permit would be required 

for visibility.

4.4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.4.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.4.4.1.1 Proposed Action

CRM estimated emissions from combined sources based on annual coal recovered from 2012 

through 2016 and known production and variables used to calculate CO2e emissions, and for the 

2017-2029-time period using estimated production and estimated variables (table 4-7). CO2e 

emissions are projected to remain constant at the CRM for the LOM. The Proposed Action 

would not increase annual production but would extend the life of the mine by approximately 

2.8 years. The direct and indirect effects from GHG emissions at the mine resulting from the 

Proposed Action are expected to be minor but they would be extended by approximately 2.8 

years. OSMRE has elected to quantify direct and indirect GHG emissions and evaluated these 

emissions in the context of Wyoming and national GHG emission inventories, as discussed in 

section 4.4.5.1. Because emissions would remain constant and because 2017-2029 emissions 

are estimated to represent only 0.59 percent of the projected 2020 U.S. CO2 emission, impacts 

would be potentially detectable but slight, meeting the definition of “minor” as described in the 

EA.

As presented in table 4-7, the combustion of the coal is the primary contributing factor related 

to CO2e emissions from the Proposed Action, accounting for approximately 99.6 percent of the 

emissions. Based on estimated average annual CO2e emissions of 34,381,898 metric tons (34.4

million metric tons) from coal mined from 2017 through 2029, the total estimated CO2e 

emissions at the CRM (including coal combustion) resulting from the Proposed Action would be 

446,694,675 metric tons (446.69 million metric tons). The direct and indirect effects from GHG 

emissions when rail transport to final destinations at power plants and loading terminals and coal 

combustion are included are expected to be moderate and they would be extended by 

approximately 2.8 years.

4.4.4.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The impacts directly resulting 

from GHG emissions under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the 

Proposed Action but would not be extended by approximately 2.8 years. While annual CO2e 

emissions would remain the same as the Proposed Action for approximately 11.6 years, the LOM 

CO2e emissions would decrease by approximately 22 percent as a result of the No Action 

Alternative, based on 2.8-fewer years of combustion of CRM coal.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-17

Table 4-7. Estimated Equivalent CO2 (CO2e) Emissions for the Proposed Action at the CRM, (2009-2016 and 

2017-2029 Average)

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2029 

Average

General

Mt of Coal Recovered 39.4 38.5 39.5 39.2 36.7 34.8 22.9 18.3 20.0

Average Transport Miles (One 

Way) 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060

Number of Train Trips (One 

Way) 2,546 2,489 2,550 2,534 2,370 2,250 1,478 1,185 1,293

Direct Emissions Sources

Fuel 128,654 125,775 128,897 128,078 119,799 113,718 74,720 59,889 65,338

Electricity Consumed in 

Mining Process 105,151 102,798 105,350 104,681 97,914 92,944 61,070 48,948 53,402

Mining Process 45,198 44,186 45,283 44,995 42,087 39,950 26,250 21,040 22,954

Total Direct Emissions 279,002 272,760 279,531 277,754 259,799 246,612 162,041 129,877 141,694

Indirect Emissions Sources

Rail Transport2

1,457,498 1,424,886 1,460,259 1,450,975 1,357,181 1,288,292 846,497 678,473 740,204

From Coal Combustion3

65,963,115 64,487,180 66,088,113 65,667,934 61,423,004 58,305,246 38,310,561 30,706,177 33,500,000

Total Indirect Emissions 67,420,612 65,912,066 67,548,373 67,118,910 62,780,185 59,593,538 39,157,058 31,384,650 34,240,204

Total Estimated CO2e 

Emissions 67,699,615 66,184,825 67,827,904 67,396,664 63,039,984 59,840,150 39,319,099 31,514,527 34,381,898

1

In metric tons - see appendix E 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 one-way mileage 

to power plants. Coal haulage emissions calculations includes a loaded train and a returning empty train, per train trip. 

3 Based on 1.683 metric tons CO2e per ton of coal burned for electrical generation (EPA 2008) and calculated by WWC (2017)
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-18 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

4.4.4.2 Cumulative Effects

The analyses provided above include direct and indirect effects analysis for GHG emissions. Due 

to the global nature of climate change, and the difficulty therefore of predicting climate change 

impacts caused by an incremental increase in GHG emissions from specific actions separately or 

together, a separate cumulative impacts analysis for GHG emissions is not appropriate.

4.4.4.3 Mitigation Measures

A majority (approximately 99.6 percent) of the GHG emitted identified in the EA are from nonmining activities, not controlled by CMC (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 (for emissions at the CRM) 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.

4.4.5 Climate Change Cause and Effect

4.4.5.1 Proposed Action/No Action Alternative

Although the effects of GHG emissions and other contributions to climate change in the global 

aggregate are estimable, it is currently not feasible to determine what effect GHG emissions in a 

specific area resulting from a specific activity might have on climate change and resulting 

environmental impacts. It is therefore not currently possible to associate any particular action 

with the creation or mitigation of any specific climate-related environmental effects.

Historically, the coal mined in the PRB has been used as one of the sources of fuel to generate 

electricity in power plants located throughout the U.S. Coal-fired power plant emissions include 

CO2, which has been identified as a principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas. According to the 

EPA (2016g) in 2014 (the most recent year of available CO2 data at this time):

1. CO2 emissions represent approximately 81 percent of the total 2014 U.S. 

greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Estimated CO2 emissions in the U.S. totaled 6,870.5 million metric tons in 2014, 

which was a 3.1 percent decrease from 2012.

3. Estimated CO2e emissions from energy-related consumption in the U.S. totaled 

5,556 million metric tons in 2014.

4. Estimated CO2 emissions from the electric power sector totaled 2,080.7 million 

metric tons, or approximately 37 percent of total U.S. energy-related CO2

emissions in 2014.

5. Estimated CO2 emissions from electric power generation from coal totaled 1,570

million metric tons, or about 28.3 percent of total U.S. energy-related CO2

emissions in 2014.

Approximately 98 percent of the 394.6 Mt coal mined in 2014 in Wyoming was used to generate 

electricity by coal-fired power plants in the U.S. (USEIA 2016a). Coal production from Wyoming 

represented approximately 46.9 percent of the coal used for power generation in 2014, which 

means that, using a simple calculation (CO2 emissions from item number 5 above multiplied by 

46.9 percent), Wyoming surface coal mines were responsible for approximately 736.3 million 

metric tons of CO2 emissions from coal power generation in 2014. If a more accurate method 

of calculating CO2 emissions is used, based on the tons of CO2 emissions per ton of coal 

combusted (EPA 2008), the emissions from burning 386.7 Mt of Wyoming coal were 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-19

approximately 647.7 million metric tons in 2014 (see appendix E). The CRM produced 34.8 Mt 

of coal in 2014, which represents approximately 8.8 percent of the coal produced in Wyoming 

in 2014, or about 58.3 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from coal power generation and 

approximately 9.0 percent of the CO2 produced from Wyoming coal. In 2016, 100 percent of 

coal mined at the CRM was burned in U.S. power plants (CMC 2016b). 

As stated above, estimated CO2 emissions in the U.S. decreased 3.1 percent from 2012 through 

2014 (EPA 2016g). Under the Proposed Action, CMC anticipates producing the coal included in 

the Duvall tract at 20 Mtpy levels, using existing production and transportation facilities. This 

would extend the mine’s current GHG emissions by approximately 2.8 years and combustion of 

Duvall tract federal coal in coal-fired power plants would also continue for approximately 2.8

additional years. Because CO2 emissions have been declining in recent years and because CO2

from coal mined at the CRM would remain at or only slightly above current levels, climate impacts 

associated with direct/indirect emissions from the Duvall tract from mining, transportation, and 

combustion would be moderate but short term (2.8 years). The impacts would diminish after the 

life of the mine.

A protocol to estimate what is referenced as the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) associated with 

GHG emissions was developed by a federal Interagency Working Group (IWG), to assist agencies 

in addressing Executive Order (EO) 12866. That EO required federal agencies to assess the cost 

and the benefits of intended regulations as part of their regulatory impact analyses. The SCC 

protocol was also developed for use in cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations that could 

impact cumulative global emissions (Shelanski and Obstfeld 2015).

Notably, the SCC protocol does not measure the actual incremental impacts of a project on the 

environment and does not include all damages or benefits from carbon emissions. The SCC 

protocol estimates economic damages associated with an increase in carbon dioxide emissions -

typically expressed as a one mt increase in a single year - and includes, but is not limited to, 

potential changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, and property damages from 

increased flood risk over hundreds of years. The estimate is developed by aggregating results 

“across models, over time, across regions and impact categories, and across 150,000 scenarios” 

(Rose et al. 2014). The dollar cost figure arrived at based on the SCC calculation represents the 

value of damages avoided if, ultimately, there is no increase in carbon emissions.

A recent EO entitled, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” issued March 

28, 2017, directed that the IWG be disbanded and that technical documents issued by the IWG 

be withdrawn as no longer representative of federal policy. The 2017 EO further directed that 

when monetizing the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations, 

agencies follow the guidance contained in OMB Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003. In all cases, 

a Federal agency should ensure that its consideration of the information and other factors 

relevant to its decision is consistent with applicable statutory or other authorities, including 

requirements for the use of cost-benefit analysis.

Based on emission estimates for coal combustion, SCC calculations can quickly rise to large 

values; however, specific threshold levels for the determination of significance can vary depending 

on numerous project factors. OSMRE has elected not to specifically quantify the SCC in its 

assessment of the CRM mining plan modification. NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis 

(40 C.F.R. § 1502.23) or the presentation of the SCC cost estimates quantitatively in all cases, 

and that analysis was not undertaken here. Without a complete monetary cost-benefit analysis, 

which would include the social benefits of energy production to society as a whole and other 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-20 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

potential positive benefits, inclusion solely of a SCC analysis would be unbalanced, potentially 

inaccurate, and not useful. 

Given the uncertainties associated with assigning a specific and accurate social cost of carbon 

resulting from 2.8 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. and State/County GHG emission inventories as discussed in Section 4.4.4

of the EA. 

Further, any increased economic activity, in terms of revenue, employment, labor income, total 

value added, and output, that is expected to occur with the proposed action is simply an economic 

impact, rather than an economic benefit, inasmuch as such impacts might be viewed by another 

person as negative or undesirable impacts due to potential increase in local population, 

competition for jobs, and concerns that changes in population will change the quality of the local 

community. Economic impact is distinct from “economic benefit” as defined in economic theory 

and methodology, and the socioeconomic impact analysis required under NEPA is distinct from

cost-benefit analysis, which is not required.

To summarize, this EA does not undertake an analysis of SCC because 1) it is not engaged in a 

rulemaking for which the protocol was originally developed; 2) the IWG, technical supporting 

documents, and associated guidance have been withdrawn; 3) NEPA does not require cost-benefit 

analysis and the agency did not undertake one here; and 4) because the full social benefits of coalfired energy production have not been monetized, quantifying only the costs of GHG emissions 

would provide information that is both potentially inaccurate and not useful. 

4.4.5.2 Cumulative Effects 

The analyses provided above include direct and indirect effects analysis for GHG emissions. Due 

to the global nature of climate change, and the difficulty therefore of predicting climate change 

impacts caused by an incremental increase in GHG emissions from specific actions separately or 

together, a separate cumulative impacts analysis for GHG emissions is not appropriate.

4.4.5.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects on the Proposed Action/No Action Alternative

USGS predicted potential impacts between 2025 and 2049 using the conservative climate change 

scenario (RCP8.5), which assumes no new climate change regulations or reductions would be 

implemented (USGS 2016). According to the USGS National Climate Change Viewer 

(USGS 2016), potential climate change impacts in Campbell County, Wyoming could include: 

1. annual mean temperature increases of up to 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit, 

2. annual mean precipitation increases of up to 0.4 inch per day, 

3. annual mean snowfall decrease of up to 0.1 inch per year,

4. annual mean soil water storage decrease of up to 0.1 inch per year,

5. annual mean evaporation deficit increase of up to 0.2 inch per month, and 

6. annual mean runoff increases up to 0.1 inch per month. 

For analysis purposes, the EA assumes that the maximum annual mean values would be realized 

during the life of the mine. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-21

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 

2.8-year life of the project, natural variations results in dryer or wetter years. Considering the 

overall climate change timeframe of centuries, it is possible that decreased snowpack may be 

observable locally, or may not during the project timeframe. Likewise, decreases in streamflow 

may be observed, but during the mining dewatering timeframe of 2.8 years, mine dewatering may 

compensate for climate change related stream flow 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 852.1 acres. As 

described in section 4.8.1.1, the direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action to 

soils would be moderate and they would be extended by approximately 2.8 years on the Duvall

tract. However, the USGS climate viewer does not predict any annual mean changes to runoff so 

there would be negligible impacts from climate change on soils. 

Reclamation

The post-reclamation land use would be wildlife habitat and grazing, consisting of vegetation cover 

of grasses and shrubs. Potential changes to the natural environment, as listed above, could result 

in the need to consider different plant species during reclamation to account for the higher 

temperatures and increased precipitation levels. WDEQ-LQD regulates surface coal mining 

operations and the surface effects of underground coal mining on federal lands within the state 

of Wyoming. Federal coal leaseholders in Wyoming must submit a permit application package to 

OSMRE and WDEQ-LQD for any proposed revisions to reclamation operations on federal lands 

in the state. Therefore, any change to reclamation practices (i.e., seed mix) at the CRM would 

require the approval of WDEQ. Climate change impacts on reclamation during the life of the 

project would be negligible. Reestablishment of wildlife and vegetation in areas that have been 

disturbed is reliant on the reclamation process which would be negligibly impacted by climate 

change; therefore, climate change impacts to wildlife and vegetation in reclaimed areas would be 

negligible and long-term.

4.5 Water Resources

4.5.1 Groundwater

4.5.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.5.1.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding groundwater can be found in sections 3.5.1.1 and 3.5.1.2 of the 

2007 Maysdorf EIS. Additional discussions can also be found in the groundwater portion of the 

CHIA for the Middle Powder River Basin (Ogle et al. 2011). The existing federal leases at the 

CRM include approximately 15,330.8 acres, including the WYW174407 federal lease tract. Under 

the Proposed Action, continued mining of the Duvall tract would extend the area of coal removal 

on approximately 569.1 acres. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-22 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

The general impacts to groundwater as a result of surface coal mining include the following:

1. The removal of the coal aquifer and any overburden and alluvial aquifers within 

the areas that are mined would continue, as would the replacement of these 

aquifers with backfilled overburden material. under provisions of WDEQ-LQD 

Permit 237 T10, alluvial materials have been salvaged, which will be replaced when 

the Belle Fourche River is reconstructed.

2. A lowering of static water levels in the coal and overburden aquifers around the 

mine would continue due to dewatering associated with removal of these aquifers 

within the mine boundaries. This reduction in static water levels would not be 

permanent, and recharge to the backfill and adjacent undisturbed aquifers would 

occur as mined areas are reclaimed. Based on groundwater modeling results, 

groundwater elevations in the coal aquifer will recover 25 percent within the first 

5 years after mining ceases, 75 percent within 75 years, and 100 percent within 

300 years (Ogle et al. 2011).

3. Other groundwater impacts may or may not occur, or may occur only at specific 

locations, include changes in water quality (usually deterioration) outside the area 

that is mined and reclaimed. This would result from communication between the 

reclaimed aquifer and the unmined aquifer, and changes in recharge-discharge 

conditions and/or groundwater flow patterns.

Additional alluvium, overburden, and Wyodak coal aquifers would be removed in the Duvall tract

during the mining process. These aquifers would be replaced with backfilled overburden and 

interburden materials. The physical characteristics of the reclaimed backfill material are 

dependent upon mining methods and premining overburden lithology. Information provided in 

the 2011 CHIA for the Middle Powder River Basin states that the backfill aquifers will likely have 

hydraulic conductivities at least that of the overburden and possibly even greater than the 

fractured coal (Ogle et al. 2011). In addition, permeability and porosity of the backfill within the 

CRM are expected to be greater than the original material. Data compiled and analyzed for backfill 

aquifer from the middle PRB coal mines for the period from 1977 to 2011 shows that the median 

concentration of the major ions and TDS concentrations are below the WQD livestock water 

standards of 3,000 mg/l for sulfate (SO4) and 5,000 mg/l for TDS (Ogle et al. 2011). Based on 

existing groundwater quality monitoring, it is anticipated that TDS concentrations will not exceed 

premine conditions, and the water will be suitable for the post-mine land use after reclamation 

and recovery are complete (Ogle et al. 2011). Therefore, the reclaimed spoil aquifer could 

provide adequate water quality for stock wells. Predicted drawdowns for the Wyodak coal seam 

included in the 2016 Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization (GAGMO) report is 

presented on map 4-2 (Hydro-Engineering 2016). According to the 2011 CHIA, the 

groundwater migrating from the backfill aquifer in the future is not expected to cause material 

damage to the coal aquifer (Ogle et al. 2011). This statement is supported by the results of backfill 

well monitoring, discussed in section 3.2.1. Therefore, mining the Duvall tract is not expected 

to change the potential for material damage to groundwater quality. 

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 

Duvall tract at the CRM to cause material damage to the native aquifers outside the coal mine 

permit boundaries (Ogle et al. 2011). As discussed in section 3.2.1, that while the physical 

characteristics of the backfill is different from premine conditions, backfill recharge has been 

documented. In addition, as discussed in section 3.2.1 and in the 2011 CHIA (Ogle et al. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-23

Map 4-2. Predicted drawdowns for the Wyodak-Anderson coal seam
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-24 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

2011), backfill water quality is generally suitable for livestock use and wildlife habitat, which are 

the planned post-mining land uses. These water quality values are consistent with premine water 

quality discussions presented in Section 3.5.1.1 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS (BLM 2007). Therefore, 

the direct and indirect effects to groundwater resources resulting from the Proposed Action are 

expected to be moderate and short and long term on the Duvall tract due to aquifer removal.

4.5.1.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The impacts to groundwater 

under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action but the 

extent of Wyodak coal aquifer removal would be reduced by approximately 569.1 acres. Impacts 

to Wasatch Formation overburden aquifers have already occurred within the Duvall tract related 

to coal recovery on adjacent federal coal leases (overstripping and highwall backsloping, etc.), as 

approved by CMC’s WDEQ-LQD Permit 237 T10 and OSMRE’s 2012 federal MPDD. Impacts 

to the Wyodak coal aquifer have also already occurred within the Duvall tract related to CBNG 

recovery. In addition, as discussed in section 3.2.1, a continuous cone of depression currently 

affects the overburden and coal aquifers around the CRM due to ongoing mining activities; its 

proximity to the Coal Creek, Caballo, and Belle Ayr mines; and the cumulative drawdown effects 

from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges (Hydro-Engineering 2011). Therefore, 

implementation of the No Action Alternative would have negligible effect on reducing the extent 

of these impacts.

4.5.1.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impact analysis area (CIAA) for potential surface water impacts includes proposed 

LOM disturbance areas for the adjacent middle group of mines within local drainage basins (map 

4-3). The 5-foot drawdown area was selected as the CIAA for groundwater since this limit would 

detect the extent of minor groundwater impacts. The effects of removal of the coal and 

overburden aquifers and replacing them with backfilled overburden are the foremost 

groundwater concern regarding cumulative effects. Continued mining of the Duvall tract would 

increase the cumulative size of the backfill area in the middle group of mines in the PRB. The 

extent of water level drawdown in the coal and shallower aquifers in the area surrounding the 

mines also would be expected to increase slightly as a result of continued mining in the Duvall

tract and from dewatering the active mine pits. Where the effects of pumping from Caballo, Belle 

Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines overlap, additional water level declines result from 

concurrent operations.

As described in the 2011 CHIA for the middle group of mines, CBNG dewatering in the CIAA 

has caused drawdown of water levels in the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifer within the CIAA, 

making it difficult to accurately distinguish the impacts caused by mining and to estimate 

groundwater recovery rates. However, the saturated thickness of the coal seams increases to 

the west 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 minor. According to the 

2011 CHIA, modeling conducted for the Cordero Rojo Mine predict that the coal aquifers are 

expected to achieved 25 percent recovery within 5 years of cessation of mining and would be 75 

percent recovered within 75 years (Ogle et al. 2011).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-25

Map 4-3. Cumulative Impact Area for Potential Surface Water and Groundwater 

Impacts
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-26 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Studies in the PRB show that the backfill water quality is similar to premine overburden water 

quality (Van Voast and Hedges 1975 and Davis et al. 1978). Van Voast (1974) indicated that the 

first groundwater to enter a backfill aquifer will dissolve a high percentage of the available salts,

but the quality of groundwater will be less mineralized. This less mineralized water probably

results from the clay content of the backfill causing reduction and cation exchange (Ogle et al.

2011). Other studies found that chemical equilibrium within backfill aquifers was reached very 

quickly (Davis et al. 1978). 

As discussed in section 4.5.1.1.1, while the physical characteristics of the backfill is different from 

premine conditions, backfill recharge has been documented at the CRM. In addition, backfill water

quality is generally suitable for livestock use and wildlife habitat, which are the planned postmining land uses. Similar groundwater quality and quantity results have been noted within the 

CIAA (Ogle et al. 2011). Information from the Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS) shows 

that average monthly CBNG water production in the PRB had declined by 72 percent over 2006 

when water production reached peak levels (WSGS 2017), which has likely reduced effects on 

groundwater. Therefore, cumulative effects to groundwater resources resulting from the 

Proposed Action are expected to be moderate but long term and they would be extended by 

approximately 2.8 years on the Duvall tract due to aquifer removal.

4.5.1.3 Mitigation Measures

WDEQ-LQD Rules and Regulations require surface coal mine permittees to replace any 

domestic, agricultural, industrial, or any other legitimate use groundwater supplies if, as a result 

of mining, a supply is diminished, interrupted, or contaminated, to the extent of precluding use 

of the water. The WDEQ-LQD Rules and Regulations also require surface coal mine permittees 

to enhance or restore the hydrologic conditions of disturbed land surfaces and minimize adverse 

impacts to the hydrologic balance. The recharge capacity of the reclaimed lands will be restored 

to a condition which minimizes disturbance to prevailing hydrologic balance in the permit area 

and in adjacent areas (WDEQ-LQD 2012).

Under provisions of WDEQ-LQD Permit 237 T10, CRM is required to monitor water levels and 

water quality in the overburden, coal, interburden, underburden, and backfill. Operational 

groundwater monitoring programs are dynamic and modified through time as wells are removed 

by mining, discontinued from monitoring to eliminate redundancy, or added to replace those 

removed by mining and to facilitate monitoring of future mine expansion areas as mining has 

progressed. Additional wells have also been installed in the reclaimed backfill to monitor 

recovering, postmine groundwater conditions. Many groundwater monitoring wells installed by 

CRM within and around its current permit area have been used to evaluate groundwater 

conditions associated with the mine and continue to be monitored to reveal a long-term record 

of groundwater conditions. Also under provisions of WDEQ-LQD Permit 237 T10, alluvial 

materials have been salvaged, which will be replaced when the Belle Fourche River is 

reconstructed.

4.5.2 Surface Water

4.5.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.5.2.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding surface water can be found in sections 3.5.2.1 and 3.5.2.2 of the 

2007 Maysdorf EIS. Additional discussions can be found in the Surface Water portion of the CHIA 

for the CRM (Ogle et al. 2011). As discussed in section 3.2.2, surface water quality monitored 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-27

by the CRM fluctuates with seasonal flow patterns and varies with significant rainfall events. In 

general, laboratory results are within the typical ranges established by long-term monitoring.

Changes in surface runoff characteristics and sediment discharges would occur during mining on 

Duvall tract because of the mining and reconstruction of drainage channels as mining progresses 

and because of the use of sediment control structures to manage discharges of surface water 

from the mine permit areas. Since the Duvall tract would be mined as extension of the existing 

CRM there would not be a significant increase in the size of the area that is disturbed at any given 

time. Reclamation would be ongoing and concurrent with mining. In accordance with SMCRA 

and Wyoming State Statutes, the Belle Fourche River channel would be restored after surface 

mining operations are completed on the Maysdorf LBA Tract. Surface water flow, quality, and 

sediment discharge would approximate premining conditions. The drainages that intersect the 

permit area would be reclaimed to exhibit channel geometry characteristics similar to the 

premining characteristics. The Belle Fourche River would be restored in approximately the same 

location as the natural channel and its hydrologic functions, including the alluvial groundwatersurface water interaction and the premining pools and runs features would be restored. The 

direct and indirect effects to surface water would not be significantly different than those 

described in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS and are expected to be moderate and short term.

4.5.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The impacts to surface water 

under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action since

impacts to surface water features have already occurred within the Duvall tract related to coal 

recovery on adjacent federal coal leases, as approved by CMC’s WDEQ-LQD Permit No. 237 

T10. In addition, the recently revised mining permit includes the entire Duvall tract in the CRM 

affected area boundary. Therefore, implementation of the No Action Alternative would have 

negligible effect on reducing the extent of surface water impacts.

4.5.2.2 Cumulative Effects

The CIAA for potential surface water impacts includes proposed LOM disturbance areas for the 

adjacent middle group of mines within local drainage basins (map 4-3). The CIAA for surface 

water impacts includes parts of the Caballo Creek and Belle Fourche River drainage basins. The 

CIAA is the area where existing and proposed mining activities may cause measurable changes to 

the hydrologic environment and depends on the characteristics of the surface systems. Pre-mine 

stream morphology measurements have been used to design and evaluate reconstructed stream 

channels. Runoff modeling is used to evaluate hydraulic suitability and predict post-mine 

discharges in reconstructed channels for varied recurrence intervals. The reclaimed topography 

includes the reconstruction of portions of several of the main channels associated with the CRM 

and adjacent mines, including Caballo Creek, and the Belle Fourche River. Cumulative mining 

related impacts to surface water resources associated within the Caballo Creek/Belle Fourche 

River CIAA were analyzed in the 2011 CHIA for the middle group of mines (Ogle et al. 2011). 

While the physical characteristics of the surface is different from premine conditions, surface 

water quality monitoring from area mines shows that surface water quality is generally suitable 

for livestock use and wildlife habitat, which are the planned post-mining land uses (Ogle et al. 

2011). Stream channels in the CIAA would be restored after surface mining operations are 

completed on area mines. Information from the WSGS shows that average monthly CBNG water 

production in the PRB had declined by 72 percent over 2006 when water production reached 

peak levels (WSGS 2017), which has likely reduced effects on surface water. Therefore, the 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-28 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

cumulative effects to surface water are expected to be moderate and long term (until the 

disturbed areas within the CIAA have been reclamation). 

4.5.2.3 Mitigation Measures

The WDEQ-LQD Rules and Regulations require surface coal mine permittees to enhance or 

restore the hydrologic conditions of disturbed land surfaces and minimize adverse impacts to the 

hydrologic balance (WDEQ-LQD 2012). And, as stated above, proposed mining operations must 

be designed and conducted in a way to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside 

the permit area (WDEQ-LQD 2012).

Under provisions of WDEQ-LQD Permit No. 237 T10, the CRM is required to restore stream 

channels after surface mining operations are completed on the Duvall tract. The drainages that 

intersect the CRM permit area will be reclaimed to exhibit channel geometry characteristics 

similar to the premining characteristics. The Caballo Creek stream channel would be restored in 

approximately the same location as the natural channel, and its premining hydrologic functions 

would be restored. Other WDEQ-LQD permit requirements for the CRM include constructing 

sediment control structures to manage discharges of surface water from the mine permit area, 

treating all surface runoff from mined lands as necessary to meet effluent standards, and restoring 

stock ponds, playas, and in-channel impoundments disturbed during mining. Also under provisions 

of WDEQ-LQD Permit 237 T10, alluvial materials have been salvaged, which will be replaced 

when the Belle Fourche River is reconstructed.

4.5.3 Water Rights

4.5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.5.3.1.1 Proposed Action

The type and number of groundwater and surface-water rights within 2 miles of the Duvall tract 

are discussed in section 3.2.3 of this EA. Additional discussions regarding water rights can be 

found in sections 3.5.3.1 and 3.5.3.2 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. Prior to energy development in 

the area, water appropriations (both groundwater and surface water) were typically for livestock 

use. Currently, mining companies hold the majority of the water rights in the vicinity of the EA 

project area. According to Wyoming Rules and Regulations, proposed mining operations must 

be designed and conducted in a way to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside 

the permit area (WDEQ-LQD 2012). According to W.S. 35-11-415(b) (xii), the CRM must 

replace, in accordance with state law, the water supply of an owner of interest in real property, 

who obtains all or part of his supply of water for domestic, agricultural, industrial or any other 

legitimate use from an underground or surface source where the supply has been affected by 

contamination, diminution or interruption resulting from the surface coal mine operation. Ogle 

et al. (2011) assessed the potential for coal mining to result in material damage to groundwater 

and surface water resources in the middle group of mines. Material damage is presumed to occur 

when the median concentrations of a given constituent exceed WDEQ-WQD surface water 

standards, and the available evidence suggests the cause of exceedance is due to coal mining 

activity and will contribute to permanent or long-term change of use suitability. Groundwaterquality parameters for domestic (Class I), agriculture (Class II), and livestock (Class III) are 

included in Chapter 8 of Wyoming Rules and Regulations and surface water-quality parameters 

for outstanding waters (Class 1), fisheries and drinking water (Class 2), aquatic life and other fish 

(Class 3), and agriculture, industry, recreation, and wildlife (Class 4) are included in Chapter 1 of 

Wyoming Rules and Regulations (WDEQ-Water Quality Division [WQD] 2013).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-29

Monitoring wells are placed between mine operations and nearby private wells to monitor for 

water level and water quality changes to anticipate any downgradient impacts. Currently, CBNG 

production has exceeded the amount of drawdown predicted to result from mining. Therefore, 

potential impacts from mining to stock and domestic wells completed in the overburden or 

Wyodak coal aquifer in the area have become largely irrelevant (Hydro-Engineering 2011). The 

postmining land use plan for grazing land includes a commitment to provide water for livestock, 

so the water will be replaced using a combination of stock reservoirs, water wells, and reclaimed 

creek channels. Typically, the wells that replace premine stock wells are drilled into deeper 

aquifers that produce more water, so there are fewer wells overall but the amount of water 

available for livestock is the same or greater. As stated in Section 3.5.3.2.1 of the 2007 Maysdorf

EIS, some privately permitted water wells in the vicinity of the Duvall tract have been or will likely 

be impacted (either by removing the well or by water level drawdown) by mining and CBNG 

development (BLM 2009). Future drawdowns to the Wyodak coal aquifer are expected to be 

negligible because the coal seam has essentially been dewatered due to ongoing CRM mining 

activities; its proximity to the Coal Creek, Caballo, and Belle Ayr mines; and the cumulative 

drawdown effects from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges (Hydro-Engineering 2011).

In general, the proposed federal mining plan amendment would contribute to additional, more 

extensive mining disturbance that may impact groundwater and surface-water rights in the CRM 

area. As stated in section 3.2.1, current groundwater conditions have already changed in the CRM 

area as a result of CBNG development and ongoing mining operations at the Caballo, Belle Ayr, 

Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek 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 CRM during mining is expected because runoff is currently being controlled 

within the CRM as a result of mining unrelated to the Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts to 

groundwater or surface-water rights have already occurred from mining within the CRM and 

from CBNG development and implementation of the Proposed Action would have negligible 

effect on increasing the extent of impacts.

4.5.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The impacts to surface and 

groundwater rights under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the 

Proposed Action since impacts to groundwater and surface-water impacts have already occurred 

within the Duvall tract related to coal recovery on adjacent federal coal leases, as approved by 

CMC’s WDEQ-LQD Permit No. 237 T10. In addition, the recently revised mining permit includes 

the entire Duvall tract in the CRM affected area boundary. Therefore, implementation of the No 

Action Alternative would have negligible effect on reducing the extent of these impacts.

4.5.3.2 Cumulative Effects

The CIAA for water rights impacts are the same as those described above for groundwater and 

surface water. The type and number of groundwater and surface-water rights within 2 miles of the

Duvall tract are discussed in section 3.2.3 of this EA. A continuous cone of depression that affects 

overburden and coal aquifers currently exists around the CRM due to ongoing mining activities; its 

proximity to the Coal Creek, Caballo, and Belle Ayr mines; and the cumulative drawdown effects 

from pit dewatering and nearby CBNG discharges (Hydro-Engineering 2016). The physical 

characteristics of the backfill in the CIAA is different from premine conditions but backfill aquifer 

recharge has been documented. Backfill water quality from monitoring wells in the CIAA is generally 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-30 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

suitable for livestock use and wildlife habitat, which are the planned post-mining land uses (Ogle et al. 

2011). Cumulative effects on groundwater rights would be similar to direct and indirect effect 

described in section 4.5.3.1.

Only a slight reduction in streamflow downstream of the CIAA during mining is expected because 

runoff is currently being controlled within the all mines within the CIAA as a result of mining unrelated 

to the Proposed Action. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of these privately permitted surface water 

rights would be impacted by removal of surface water features within the CIAA to a greater extent 

than they currently are if the Duvall tract is mined. Postmine reclamation at the CRM has been 

designed to satisfy any downstream water rights.

While the approval of the federal mining plan modification request would contribute to additional, 

more extensive mining disturbance in the Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mine 

areas, there would be minor additional cumulative water rights impacts because groundwater systems 

have already been affected by CBNG removal and ongoing mining and because runoff is currently 

being controlled in within the Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines. Regarding 

water quality within the CIAA analyzed in the 2011 CHIA, current mining at the Caballo, Belle Ayr, 

and Cordero Rojo mines is not expected to cause long-term or permanent damage to surface water 

quantity in the CIAA (Ogle et al. 2011). In addition, as discussed above, CRM must replace, in 

accordance with state law, the water supply of an owner of interest in real property, who obtains all 

or part of his supply of water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or any other legitimate use from 

an underground or surface source where the supply has been affected by contamination, diminution, 

or interruption resulting from the surface coal mine operation.

4.5.3.3 Mitigation Measures

Wyoming State Rules and Regulations require surface coal mine permittees to replace any 

domestic, agricultural, industrial, or any other legitimate use groundwater supplies if such supplies 

are diminished, interrupted, or contaminated, to the extent of precluding use of the water as a 

result of mining. The regulations also require restoration of the essential hydrologic function of 

disturbed land surfaces.

Under provisions of WDEQ-LQD Permit 237 T10, the CRM is required to update the list of 

potentially impacted private water supply wells and predict impacts to those wells within the 5-

foot drawdown contour as part of the permitting process. The operator would be required to 

replace those water supplies affected by mining with water of equivalent quality and quantity. Any 

impacts to downstream water rights would fall under the jurisdiction of the State Engineer. If it 

is determined that a water right has been impacted by activities of the CRM, that impact will be 

mitigated.

4.6 Alluvial Valley Floors

4.6.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.6.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding alluvial valley floors (AVF) can be found in sections 3.6.1 and 

3.6.2 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. The direct and indirect effects to AVF would not be significantly 

different than those described in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. No AVFs have been delineated within 

the Duvall tract so there would be no direct or indirect effects to AVFs from the Proposed 

Action.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-31

4.6.1.2 No Action Alternative

Impacts to the AVFs have resulted from current mining activity outside the Duvall tract, and 

therefore under this alternative, impacts to alluvial valley floors in the area would remain as 

described in section 4.6.1.1.

4.6.2 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects to AVFs would not be significantly different than those described in the 

2009 SGAC EIS. AVF investigations conducted within and adjacent to the general analysis area 

have identified three small AVF areas that occur along Caballo Creek north of the Duvall tract. 

No AVFs have been identified within the Duvall tract.

The Cordero Rojo Mine is required to monitor impacts to downstream AVFs by measuring 

discharges from sediment ponds for quantity and quality. The mine is also required to restore 

the essential hydrologic functions of any affected AVFs, if delineated, and preserve the hydrologic 

functions of the AVFs on adjacent lands. WDEQ-LQD does not believe that the Cordero Rojo 

mining operation will result in any material damage to the any AVFs downstream of the current 

Cordero Rojo mine, and that reclamation will replace the alluvial materials and restore the 

hydrologic function of the Belle Fourche River (WDEQ-LQD 2017).

The cumulative effects on AVF emissions are expected to be negligible and short term.

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for AVFs.

4.7 Wetlands (Aquatic Resources)

4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.7.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding aquatic resources can be found in sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of the 

2007 Maysdorf EIS. Three wetland (aquatic resources) sites have been delineated within the

Duvall tract but since these sites are not continuously linked to “Waters of the U.S.” that are 

regulated under the federal Clean Water Act, and these three wetland sites are therefore 

regarded as non-jurisdictional (Johnson, 2015). The aquatic resources associated with the tract 

are shown on map 4-4. The direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action to nonjurisdictional wetlands would be moderate and short term. There would be no direct or indirect 

effects to jurisdictional wetlands from the Proposed Action.

4.7.1.2 No Action Alternative

Three wetland (aquatic resources) sites have been delineated within the Duvall tract but since 

these sites are not continuously linked to Waters of the U.S., they are regarded as nonjurisdictional. There would be no direct or indirect effects to jurisdictional wetlands from the No 

Action Alternative.

4.7.2 Cumulative Effects:

No jurisdictional wetlands would be disturbed if the federal mining plan modification is approved. 

Wetlands disturbance within the CRM permit boundary are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-32 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Map 4-4. Wetlands Associated with the Duvall Tract
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-33

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for wetlands (aquatic resources).

4.8 Soil

4.8.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.8.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding soils can be found in sections 3.8.1, 3.8.2 and 4.2.6 of the 2007 

Maysdorf EIS. The direct and indirect effects to soils would not be significantly different than 

those described in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. Soils within the Duvall tract would be altered under 

the Proposed Action. 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 and wildlife habitat). The direct and indirect effects related to the

Proposed Action to soils would be moderate and short term on the Duvall tract and they would 

increase disturbance by approximately 852.1 acres.

4.8.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The WDEQ-LQD approved 

Permit to Mine No. 237 T10 includes the Duvall tract within the disturbance area and allows for 

soil disturbance independent of the decision from OSMRE. Therefore, under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts to soils in the area would remain as described in section 4.8.1.1.

4.8.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek mines. According to the 2011 Middle Powder River Basin CHIA, approximately 

50,000 acres of land have been approved for disturbance within the middle group of mines (Ogle, 

Kunze, & Reckentine, 2011). Areas within active mines are progressively disturbed. Likewise, 

these areas would be progressively reclaimed by planting appropriate vegetation species to 

restore soil productivity and prevent soil erosion. The cumulative effects related to soils would 

be moderate and short term because reclamation would occur after approximately 2.8 years of 

mining.

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures

Section 3.8.3 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS provides additional discussions regarding mitigation 

measures related to the Duvall Tract. Suitable soil will be salvaged and stockpiled to support plant 

growth for use in reclamation. Sediment control structures would be built to trap eroded soil 

and revegetation would reduce wind erosion. Topsoil will also be protected from acid or toxic 

materials and will be preserved in a usable condition for sustaining vegetation when placed over 

affected land (WDEQ-LQD 2012). After backfill has been placed, at least 4 feet of suitable 

overburden will be selectively placed below topsoil to meet guidelines for vegetation root zones.

These measures are required by state regulations and are therefore considered part of the 

Proposed Action.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-34 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

4.9 Vegetation

4.9.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.9.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding vegetation can be found in sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 of the 2007 

Maysdorf EIS. The direct and indirect effects to vegetation would not be significantly different 

than those described in the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. Short-term impacts associated with the removal 

of vegetation from the Duvall 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, including revegetation of these lands, would occur contemporaneously with mining 

on adjacent lands, i.e., reclamation would begin once an area is mined. In an effort to approximate 

premining conditions, CMC 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 (to be approved by WDEQ-LQD). The 

reclamation plan for the CRM 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 short term.

4.9.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The WDEQ-LQD approved 

Permit to Mine No. 237 T10 includes the Duvall tract within the disturbance area and allows for 

surface disturbance independent of the decision from OSMRE. Therefore, under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts to vegetation in the area would remain as described in section 

4.9.1.1 but the duration of impacts would be reduced by approximately 2.8 years.

4.9.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek mines. According to the 2011 Middle Powder River Basin CHIA, approximately 

50,000 acres of land have been approved for disturbance within the middle group of mines (Ogle 

et al., 2011). The overall contribution to cumulative impacts to vegetation under Proposed Action 

would be minor due to the localized effects and the improved productivity on mined lands that 

have been reclaimed.

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be necessary for vegetation resources.

4.10 Wildlife

Additional discussions regarding wildlife can be found in section 3.10 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. If 

the federal mining plan modification for the CRM is approved by the ASLM to include recovering 

coal within the Duvall tract, disturbance would continue on the Duvall tract. Mining would be 

extended by approximately 2.8 years at the CRM. Impacts to wildlife that would be caused by 

mining the Duvall tract have been addressed by the WGFD and WDEQ-LQD when the mining 

and reclamation permits were amended to include the Duvall tract.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-35

Mining directly and indirectly impacts local wildlife populations. These impacts are both short 

term (until successful reclamation is achieved) and long term (persisting beyond successful 

completion of reclamation). The direct impacts of surface coal mining on wildlife occur during 

mining and are therefore short-term. They include road kills by mine-related traffic, restrictions 

on wildlife movement created by fences, spoil piles, and pits, and displacement of wildlife from 

active mining areas. Displaced animals may find equally suitable habitat that is not occupied by 

other animals, occupy suitable habitat that is already being used by other individuals, or occupy 

poorer quality habitat than that from which they were displaced. In the second and third 

situations, the animals may suffer from increased competition with other animals and are less 

likely to survive and reproduce. If the proposed federal mining plan modification is approved, the 

direct impacts related to mine operations would be extended by approximately 2.8 years.

The indirect impacts are longer term. After the Duvall tract is mined and reclaimed, alterations 

in the topography and vegetative cover and diversity, particularly the reduction in sagebrush 

density, would cause a decrease in carrying capacity for some species. Sagebrush would gradually 

become reestablished on the reclaimed land, but the topographic changes would be permanent. 

Microhabitats may be reduced on reclaimed land due to flatter topography, less diverse vegetative 

cover, and reduction in sagebrush density.

The environmental consequences related to mining the Duvall tract for other mammals; upland 

game birds (excluding the GRSG); other birds; and amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic species are 

not significantly different than those presented in 2007 Maysdorf EIS and are not presented 

herein. Updated discussions for big game, raptors, GRSG, T&E species, and other species of 

special interest are included below.

4.10.1 Big Game

4.10.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.10.1.1.1 Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, big game would be displaced from portions of the Duvall tract to 

adjacent ranges during mining. Mule deer would be most affected as the Duvall tract contains 

good quality habitat. Pronghorn would not be substantially impacted, given that they are scattered 

throughout the site and there is suitable habitat available in adjacent areas. White-tailed deer 

would not be affected, as they have not been observed on the Duvall tract. Big game displacement 

would be incremental, occurring over several years and allowing for gradual changes in 

distribution patterns. Big game residing in the adjacent areas could be impacted by increased 

competition with displaced animals. Noise, dust, and associated human presence would cause 

some localized avoidance of foraging areas adjacent to mining activities. However, big game 

species have continued to occupy areas adjacent to and within active mine operations at the 

CRM, suggesting that some animals may become habituated to such disturbances.

The CRM would be required to reclaim disturbed habitats within the area back to wildlife habitat, 

as outlined in the reclamation requirements of revised state and federal mine permits. After 

mining and reclamation, alterations in the topography and vegetative cover, particularly the 

reduction in sagebrush density, would cause a decrease in carrying capacity and diversity on the 

Duvall tract. Sagebrush would gradually become re-established on the reclaimed land, but the 

topographic changes would be permanent. The direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed 

Action on big game would be moderate and short term.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-36 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

4.10.1.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The WDEQ-LQD approved 

Permit to Mine No. 237 T10 includes the Duvall tract within the disturbance area and allows for 

surface disturbance independent of the decision from OSMRE. Therefore, under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts to big game in the area would remain as described in section 

4.10.1.1.1 but the duration of impacts would be reduced by approximately 2.8 years.

4.10.1.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek mines. According to the 2011 Middle Powder River Basin CHIA, approximately 

50,000 acres of land have been approved for disturbance within the middle group of mines (Ogle 

et al., 2011). The overall contribution to cumulative impacts to big game species under Proposed 

Action would be moderate due to the localized effects and the improved productivity on mined 

lands that have been reclaimed. No severe mine-caused mortalities have occurred and no longlasting impacts on big game species have been noted on the CRM. The cumulative effects on 

regional big game populations would be moderate and they would be extended by approximately 

2.8 years.

4.10.1.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to big game are necessary. General reclamation practices for 

establishing or enhancing post‐mine wildlife habitat at the CRM described in the Reclamation Plan

of Permit 237 T10 are in place. 

4.10.2 Raptors

4.10.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.10.2.1.1 Proposed Action

No intact raptor nests are located within the Duvall tract boundary. CMC has approved plans 

and procedures in place to minimize impacts to nesting raptors and ensure proper reclamation 

techniques are implemented to enhance habitat in the post-mine landscape for both raptors and 

their primary prey species. Inactive, non-eagle raptor nests may be removed from areas likely to 

be impacted in potential disturbance areas to discourage nesting of raptors and other migratory 

birds, in accordance with USFWS guidance provided in the Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum

(USFWS 2003). Decisions as to whether nest removal or relocation is the most appropriate 

approach would be based on the long-term history of the nest site including historic and recent 

raptor use; presence/absence, location, and potential vulnerability of alternate nests within the 

territory; number, proximity, and/or orientation of conspecific territories; historical use of 

artificial nest structures, if any; timing, duration (e.g., continuous and ongoing or short-term); 

proximity, and visibility of potentially disturbing mine activities; and other pertinent factors. In 

addition, CMC conducts annual surveys at multiple prairie falcon nest sites throughout the 

monitoring area and on neighboring lands as part of required and/or voluntary monitoring for 

this species.

Based on the lack of nesting raptors within the Duvall tract and the CRM’s approved plans and 

procedures in place to reduce impacts to raptors, the direct and indirect effects related to the 

Proposed Action on site-specific raptors would be moderate and short term.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-37

4.10.2.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The WDEQ-LQD approved 

Permit to Mine No. 237 T10 includes the Duvall tract within the disturbance area and allows for 

surface disturbance independent of the decision from OSMRE. Therefore, under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts to raptors in the area would remain as described in section 

4.10.2.1.1 but the duration of impacts would be reduced by approximately 2.8 years.

4.10.2.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek mines. According to the 2011 Middle Powder River Basin CHIA, approximately 

50,000 acres of land have been approved for disturbance within the middle group of mines (Ogle 

et al., 2011). The overall contribution to cumulative impacts to raptors under Proposed Action 

would be moderate due to the localized effects and the improved productivity on mined lands 

that have been reclaimed. Approved mine permits include regulations specifying mitigation 

measures for wildlife, including minimization of disturbance, reclamation of habitats, and raptorsafe power line construction. The measures specified in mining permits and enforced by WDEQLQD ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act, and the ESA. The cumulative effects on regional raptor populations would be 

moderate and they would be extended by approximately 2.8 years.

4.10.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to raptors are necessary. General reclamation practices for 

establishing or enhancing post‐mine wildlife habitat at the CRM described in the Reclamation Plan 

of Permit 237 T10 are in place. CMC also has developed plans and procedures to minimize 

impacts to nesting raptors and ensure proper reclamation techniques are implemented to 

enhance habitat in the post-mine landscape for raptors and their primary prey species.

4.10.3 Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG)

4.10.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.10.3.1.1 Proposed Action

Long-term results from annual lek monitoring suggest that GRSG populations in the CRM annual 

monitoring area are cyclic, with periodic peaks and declines (CMC 2016b). These data suggest 

that the CRM area may only support larger groups of GRSG when regional populations are 

especially high (CRM 2016b).

Using mapping included in the Executive Order, it has been determined that the closest core area

to the Duvall tract is approximately 9 miles distant. 

WDEQ-LQD Permit No. 237 T10 currently contains multiple monitoring and protection plans 

that include numerous specific measures for GRSG and their habitats, including those mentioned 

above. The WDEQ has strict bonding, reclamation, and bond-release requirements for all surface 

coal mines in Wyoming, including detailed reclamation plans and post-reclamation monitoring 

requirements that extend 10 years or more to ensure that all reclamation standards have 

successfully been met prior to full bond release. 

According to Executive Order No. 12-2015, existing land uses and activities (including those 

authorized by existing permit but not yet conducted) would be recognized and respected by state 

agencies, and those uses and activities that exist at the time the Program becomes effective would 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-38 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

not be managed under the stipulations included in Executive Order No. 12-2015. Because the 

Duvall tract evaluated under the Proposed Action is entirely within the CRM’s currently approved 

WDEQ-LQD Permit No. 213 T10 permit boundary, these activities would not be managed 

according to the executive order.

Potential impacts to GRSG would likely be limited primarily to indirect influences resulting from 

habitat disturbance, though loss of individual birds may occur at times. Ongoing CRM operations 

may adversely impact individual GRSG but are not likely to result in a loss of population viability 

in the wildlife monitoring area or cause a trend toward federal listing. The use of appropriate 

timing and spatial buffers, timely implementation of reclamation, and application of targeted 

conservation measures in suitable habitats both on- and off-property throughout the region are 

expected to sufficiently reduce overall impacts to maintain a viable population within the area. 

The direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action on GRSG would be moderate and 

short term.

4.10.3.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The WDEQ-LQD approved 

Permit to Mine No. 237 T10 includes the Duvall tract within the disturbance area and allows for 

surface disturbance independent of the decision from OSMRE. Therefore, under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts to GRSG in the area would remain as described in section 

4.10.3.1.1 but the duration of impacts would be reduced by approximately 2.8 years.

4.10.3.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek mines. As described in the updated 2012 Task 1D Report (BLM 2012), substantial 

areas of GRSG habitats have been altered from their natural conditions as a result of past and 

on-going human activities in the Wyoming PRB study area. Human disturbances include, but are 

not limited to, agriculture, mining, roads, urban areas, and oil and gas development. Potential 

temporary impacts arise from habitat removal and disturbance associated with a project’s 

development and operation (e.g., coal mines, CBNG wells, etc.) and would cease upon project 

completion and successful reclamation in a given area. Potential long-term impacts consist of 

permanent loss of habitats and the wildlife populations that depend on those habitats, irrespective 

of reclamation success, and habitat disturbance related to longer term projects (e.g., power plant 

facilities, rail lines, etc.) (BLM 2012). The severity of both temporary and long-term impacts to 

GRSG would depend on factors such as seasonal use patterns, type and timing of a project’s 

activities, and physical parameters (e.g., topography, cover, forage, and climate).

The GRSG population in the WGFD Sheridan Region (including the Duvall tract) appears to 

follow a 10-year cycle (BLM 2012). WGFD information indicated that over 42,300 male sage 

grouse were recorded 2016 in Wyoming. The average number of male grouse per lek was up 16 

percent in 2016 compared to 2015, which was 66 percent higher than 2014 (WGFD 2016). 

The cumulative effects related to the Proposed Action on regional GRSG populations would be 

moderate and they would be extended by approximately 2.8 years.

4.10.3.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to GRSG are necessary. The general reclamation practices for 

establishing or enhancing postmine wildlife habitat at the CRM described in the Reclamation Plan 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-39

of WDEQ-LQD Permit No. 237 T10 are in place. Shrub seedlings will be planted in shrub pockets 

in order to improve the beneficial effects of the shrubs for wildlife.

4.10.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species and Other Species of 

Special Interest

4.10.4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.10.4.1.1 Proposed Action

The USFWS maintains a list of T&E species, and designated critical habitats on their official 

website for each county in Wyoming (USFWS 2016a). The USFWS also provides the IPaC system 

to evaluate the potential of encountering USFWS trust resources, including T&E species, related 

to a specific project area. The USFWS list of wildlife species includes the black-footed ferrets, 

which is listed as experimental, non-essential, the northern long-eared bat, which is listed as 

threatened, and the ULT, which is listed as threatened. The analysis area for most T&E species 

includes the CRM permit boundary. There are no critical habitats for these T&E species within 

the Duvall tract or within Campbell County.

According to the USFWS, the primary threat to the northern long-eared bat is white-nose 

syndrome (WNS), a disease caused by the cold-loving fungus, (Pseudogymnoascus destructans) 

(USFWS 2016c). 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.

The most current list of birds of conservation concern included in the IPaC system database 

(USFWS 2016a) indicates that 20 birds of conservation concern occur in the CRM area

(appendix D). The bald eagle is present on the study area as a migrant and winter resident as 

discussed previously. The Brewer’s sparrow is common during the spring and summer as a 

breeder. Golden eagle, ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons, and burrowing owls have nested within

the CRM raptor study area. The Swainson’s hawk was present as a spring and summer breeder

and, as discussed above, nested within the Duvall tract. The grasshopper sparrow, red-headed 

woodpecker, loggerhead shrike, sage thrasher, short-eared owl, GRSG, long-billed curlew, 

McCown’s longspur, and upland sandpiper have been recorded on the CRM wildlife study area. 

The American bittern, mountain plover, western grebe, and willow flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii)

have not been recorded on the study area, as habitat for most of these species does not occur 

on the study area.

If present, these threatened, endangered, and candidate species and other species of special 

interest species would be temporarily displaced but current reclamation practices in-place at the 

CRM would promote the return of these species once reclamation has been completed. The 

direct and indirect effects related to the Proposed Action on species of special interest would be 

moderate and short term (extended by approximately 2.8 years).

4.10.4.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The WDEQ-LQD approved 

Permit to Mine No. 237 T10 includes the Duvall tract within the disturbance area and allows for 

surface disturbance independent of the decision from OSMRE. Therefore, under this alternative,

disturbance related impacts to threatened, endangered, and candidate species in the area would 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-40 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

remain as described in section 4.10.4.1.1 but the duration of impacts would be reduced by 

approximately 2.8 years.

4.10.4.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at CRM, Belle Ayr, Caballo, and Coal Creek 

mines. According to the 2011 Middle Powder River Basin CHIA, approximately 50,000 acres of 

land have been approved for disturbance within the middle group of mines (Ogle et al., 2011). 

The overall contribution to cumulative impacts to T&E species and other species of special 

interest under Proposed Action would be moderate due to the localized effects and the improved 

productivity on mined lands that have been reclaimed. The cumulative effects on regional T&E 

species and other species of special interest populations would be moderate and they would be 

extended by approximately 2.8 years.

4.10.4.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to T&E species and other species of special interest are 

necessary. General reclamation practices for establishing or enhancing post‐mine wildlife habitat 

at the CRM described in the Reclamation Plan of Permit 237 T10 are in place. 

4.11 Ownership and Use of Land

4.11.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.11.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding ownership and use of the land can be found in sections 3.11.1

and 3.11.2 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. Surface ownership in the area is private and the proposed 

coal removal area is managed by CMC. The major adverse environmental consequences of mining 

the proposed Duvall tract on land use would be reduction of livestock grazing, loss of wildlife 

habitat, and curtailment of other mineral development on about 852.1 additional acres during 

active mining. Wildlife (particularly big game) use would be displaced while the Duvall tract is

being mined and reclaimed. Livestock grazing has already been prohibited due to the Duvall tract

being inside the permit boundary and adjacent to active mine areas. Hunting on the Duvall tract

is currently not allowed because it is within the mine permit boundary and would continue to 

be disallowed during mining and reclamation. Following reclamation, the land would be suitable 

for grazing and wildlife uses, which are the historic land uses. The direct and indirect effects 

related to the ownership and use of the land would be moderate and short term (extended by 

approximately 2.8 years).

4.11.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The WDEQ-LQD approved 

Permit to Mine No. 237 T10 includes the Duvall tract within the disturbance area and allows for 

surface disturbance independent of the decision from OSMRE. Therefore, under this alternative,

disturbance related impacts in the area would remain as described in section 4.11.1.1 but the 

duration of impacts would be reduced by approximately 2.8 years.

4.11.2 Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts on ownership and use of the land in the CIAA would be similar to the 

direct and indirect impacts, discussed above, and to the cumulative impacts discussed in section 

4.2.9 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-41

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

Additional discussions regarding cultural resources can be found in sections 3.12.1 and 3.12.2 of 

the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. The Duvall tract has been subjected to Class III cultural resource 

inventories. No sites within the Duvall tract have classified as NRHP eligible sites that would 

require mitigation prior to disturbance. The direct and indirect effects on cultural resource from 

the Proposed Action would be negligible but long term. 

Letters of consultation were sent out to 18 Native American tribes/tribal representatives during 

the scoping process. OSMRE received a response from the Comanche Nation stating that “No 

Properties” were identified within the proposed project boundary.

4.12.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The WDEQ-LQD approved 

Permit to Mine No. 237 T10 includes the Duvall tract within the disturbance area and allows for 

surface disturbance independent of the decision from OSMRE. Therefore, under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts to cultural resources in the area would remain as described in 

section 4.12.1.1 but the duration of impacts would be reduced by approximately 2.8 years.

4.12.2 Cumulative Impacts

The individual evaluation of cultural resource sites in the CMC study area suggests that through 

avoidance of sensitive site types and mitigation through data recovery for all unavoidable 

disturbance to NRHP eligible sites, the cumulative effects to cultural resources in the CIAA have 

been minimal. The cumulative impacts on cultural resource would be negligible but long term.

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to cultural resources are necessary.

4.13 Visual Resources

4.13.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.13.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding visual resources can be found in sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2 of 

the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. Mining would affect landscapes classified by the BLM as visual resource 

management Class IV (BLM 2015a); the overall natural scenic quality of that class rating is 

considered relatively low. Impacts of coal mining on visibility in the general analysis area would 

be minor and short-term. Mining activities would be visible from State Highway 59 and the Haight

Road, though the extent and duration of visibility would vary under the action alternative. No 

unique visual resources have been identified in or near the general analysis area, and the landscape 

character would not be significantly changed following reclamation. Current mining activities 

(blasting procedures and sizes, coal haul rates and distances, dust suppression, etc.) at the CRM 

would not change if the federal mining plan modification is approved. Current best available 

control technology measures for particulates that could contribute to impaired visibility would 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-42 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

continue to be employed. The direct and indirect effects related to the visual resources would 

be moderate and short term.

4.13.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The WDEQ-LQD approved

Permit to Mine No. 237 T10 includes the Duvall tract within the disturbance area and allows for 

surface disturbance independent of the decision from OSMRE. Therefore, under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts to visual resources in the area would remain as described in section 

4.13.1.1 but the duration of impacts would be reduced by approximately 2.8 years.

4.13.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative visual resources effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, and 

Coal Creek 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, CBNG wells, etc.) and 

would cease upon project completion and successful reclamation in a given area. Potential longterm 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.

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to visual resources are necessary.

4.14 Noise

4.14.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.14.1.1 Proposed Action

Existing noise sources in the Duvall tract area includes coal mining activities, rail traffic, traffic on 

nearby federal and state highways, county and access roads, natural gas compressor stations, and 

wind. The nearest residence is approximately 11,000 feet from the Duvall tract and the Haight 

Road passes through the Duvall tract. Noise levels in wildlife habitat adjacent to the expansion 

area might increase, but anecdotal observations indicate wildlife can adapt to mine noise, 

especially since similar mining operations have been conducted in the area for many years. No 

increase in average daily railroad traffic or railroad noise would occur under any of the 

alternatives analyzed.

Given the proposed distance from active mining, direct and indirect effects to residences would 

be moderate and short term. Impacts to people using the Haight Road would increase over current 

conditions but would be minor considering the short duration (an additional 2.8 years) of noise 

exposure.

4.14.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. The WDEQ-LQD approved 

Permit to Mine No. 237 T10 includes the Duvall tract within the disturbance area and allows for 

surface disturbance independent of the decision from OSMRE. Therefore, under this alternative, 

disturbance related impacts to noise in the area would remain as described in section 4.14.1.1

but the duration of impacts would be reduced by approximately 2.8 years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-43

4.14.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be related to disturbance at Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and 

Coal Creek mines. Potential sources of noise disturbances include, but are not limited to, 

agriculture, mining, roads, urban areas, and oil and gas development. Potential impacts would 

cease upon project completion and successful reclamation in a given area. 

Recreational users, local residents and grazing lessees using lands surrounding active mining areas 

do hear mining-related noise, but this has not been reported to cause a substantial impact. 

Wildlife in the immediate vicinity of mining may be adversely affected by noise; however, 

observations at the CRM indicate that wildlife generally adapt to noise conditions associated with 

active coal mining. The cumulative impacts related to noise as discerned by the public would be 

moderate but short term (2.8 years).

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to noise impacts are necessary.

4.15 Transportation Facilities

4.15.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 

4.15.1.1 Proposed Action

Additional discussions regarding transportation facilities can be found in sections 3.16.1 and 3.16.2

of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS and the 2009 SGAC EIS. Major roads and railroads in the general area 

of the Duvall tract are presented on map 1-2. Existing transportation facilities, including roads, 

railroads, coal conveyors, and overhead electrical transmission lines associated with the Duvall 

tract would continue to be used under the Proposed Action. All of the coal mined at the CRM

is transported by rail (BNSF trackage). Based on an estimated annual production rate of 20 Mt of 

coal shipped by rail and an estimated 15,470 tons of coal per train, the Proposed Action would 

result in approximately 1,293 train trips per year (one way). Employees and vendors travel the 

Bishop Road to access the mine. The Proposed Action will not result in increased mine related 

traffic but would extend the impact by 2.8 years. Therefore, mining the Duvall tract would not 

increase the current level of impact on the Bishop Road or the BNSF railroad.

As discussed in section 3.1.4.4, the potential for emissions of dust from the large volumes of 

coal transported to large generating stations can be an environmental concern (Ramboll Environ 

2016). Coal dust and fines blowing or sifting from moving, loaded rail cars has been linked to 

railroad track stability problems resulting in train derailments and to rangeland fires caused by 

spontaneous combustion of accumulated coal dust (BLM 2009). In response to suits brought on 

by environmental groups alleging that coal spilled from trains pollutes waterways, BNSF Railway 

has agreed to study the use of physical covers for coal trains to reduce the effects of blowing coal 

particles (Seattle Times 2016). BNSF has cited studies and experience to demonstrate that 

shippers can take steps in the loading of coal cars using existing, cost-effective technology that 

will substantially reduce coal dusting events. BNSF has a Coal Loading Rule, in effect since 

October 2011, specifically requiring all shippers loading coal at any Montana or Wyoming mine 

to take measures to load cars in such a way that ensures coal dust losses in transit are reduced 

by at least 85% compared to cars where no remedial measures have been taken (BNSF 2016).

Two recent Australian studies involved measuring particle concentrations in the air near a coal 

haul transport corridor to assess whether coal dust was being emitted from the railcars and 

whether any such emissions would result in particulate matter concentrations that would be 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-44 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

considered potentially harmful to human health. The two reports presented strong evidence that, 

while particulate levels were elevated for the several minutes during and after trains passed the 

monitoring station, coal trains did not result in any more emissions than any other freight-hauling 

trains (Ramboll Environ 2016). Rail traffic to and from the mines would continue at existing levels 

for an additional 2.8 years since coal recovery would continue at an estimated annual rate that is 

consistent with the 2009 through 2016 average annual recovery rate.

The mining on the Duvall tract analyzed in this EA would extend the time period over which the

CRM 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 they would be extended by approximately 2.8 years.

4.15.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. Indirect impacts on 

transportation have resulted from current mining activity. Therefore, under this alternative, 

transportation impacts in the area would remain as described in section 4.15.1.1 but the 

duration of the impacts would be reduced by approximately 2.8 years.

4.15.2 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to transportation are related to coal production levels. If coal production 

levels increase, cumulative impacts to transportation would increase. Highway traffic accidents 

and delays at grade crossings could result from train traffic. The transportation facilities for the 

middle group of mines are already in place, and coal production and employment levels would 

not change with the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would extend the duration of mining 

by approximately 2.8 years at the CRM, and thus the length of employment and associated 

transportation utilization would be extended. 

Coal extracted from the existing surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB is transported in rail 

cars along the BNSF and Union Pacific (UP) rail lines. The coal mines south of Gillette, including 

the CRM, ship most of their coal via the Gillette to Douglas BNSF and UP joint trackage that 

runs south through Campbell and Converse Counties and then east over separate BNSF and UP 

mainlines for destinations in the Midwest. The Proposed Action would extend the duration of 

mining by approximately 2.8 years at the CRM, and thus the duration of utilization of BNSF and 

UP rail lines would be extended by that amount.

The added cumulative impacts related to transportation would be minor but they would be 

extended by approximately 2.8 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

Additional discussions regarding hazardous and solid wastes can be found in sections 3.16.1 and 

3.16.2 of the 2007 Maysdorf EIS and in sections 3.16.1 and 3.16.2 of the 2009 SGAC EIS. Waste is 

generated during mining operations at the CRM, as at all mines. While coal mining and associated 

coal processing associated with the Proposed Action would yield additional coal waste, mining 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-45

wastes are currently being generated on site and are handled according to WDEQ-LQD rules and 

regulations. Non-hazardous waste, which is similar to domestic or municipal solid waste, is 

currently disposed of on-site. Most of the wastes generated at the CRM that are not recycled 

are disposed of in a designated sanitary landfill located on a portion of the CRM area. Disposal of 

these non-hazardous wastes, which include abandoned mining machinery, scrap iron, scrap 

lumber, packing material, and other items is permitted under the mine’s existing WDEQ-LQD

permit to mine. No solid wastes would be deposited within the boundaries of the 100-year 

floodplain of a postmining stream channel, within 100 feet of the high water line of any wetland or 

permanent postmining impoundment, within 500 feet of a permitted well, or within eight feet of 

any coal outcrop (WDEQ-LQD 2017).

The CRM does utilize some non-hazardous liquids; some materials that may be classified as 

hazardous, or are handled as hazardous, include some greases, solvents, paints, flammable liquids; 

and other combustible materials determined to be hazardous by the EPA under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. These types of wastes are disposed of at an off-site 

EPA-permitted hazardous waste facility. No significant direct or indirect effects on hazardous and 

solid wastes are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action.

4.16.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. Hazardous and solid wastes 

are currently being generated at the CRM. Therefore, under this alternative, impacts from 

hazardous and solid wastes in the area would remain as described in section 4.16.1.1 but the 

duration of the impacts would be reduced by approximately 2.8 years.

4.16.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative hazardous and solid wastes effects would be related to mining operations at Caballo, 

Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines. The Proposed Action would extend the 

duration of mining by approximately 2.8 years at the CRM and, thus, the duration of effects from 

hazardous and solid wastes would be extended by 2.8 years.

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

Wyoming, Campbell County, Campbell County School District 1, the City of Gillette, and many 

other governmental entities across the state receive revenues derived directly and indirectly from 

taxes and royalties on the production of federal coal, including that at the CRM. Such revenues 

include lease bonus bids, ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, royalty payments, sales and use taxes 

on equipment and other taxable purchases, and portions of required contributions to the federal 

AML program and Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. A summary of federal and state revenues 

generated from recovery of federal coal within the CRM, including federal coal within the Duvall 

tract, is provided in table 4-8 and table 4-9 provides an estimate of the revenues derived from 

recovering the federal coal within the Duvall tract, only.

Table 4-8. LOM Federal and State Revenues from Federal Coal Recovery within 

the CRM (millions of dollars)
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-46 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Revenue Source Total $ Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 483.2 241.6 241.6

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 81.7 40.8 40.8

Severance Tax 198.8 --

1

198.8

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues20.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 160.7 --

1

160.7

Black Lung 162.3 162.3 --

1

Sales and Use Tax 23.3 --

1

23.3

Totals 1,110.0 444.8 665.2

1 No revenues disbursed

2 No bonus bid revenues collected after 2016

Source: WWC calculation – provided in appendix E.

Table 4-9. LOM Federal and State Revenues from Federal Coal Recovery within 

the Duvall Tract (millions of dollars)

Revenue Source Total $ Collected Fed Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 92.4 46.2 46.2

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 15.6 7.8 7.8

Severance Tax 36.1 --

1

36.1

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues20.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 30.7 --

1

30.7

Black Lung 32.5 32.5 --

1

Sales and Use Tax 4.5 --

1

4.5

Totals 211.8 86.5 125.3

1 No revenues disbursed

2 No bonus bid revenues collected after 2016

Source: WWC calculation – provided in appendix E.

Under the Proposed Action, Wyoming revenues generated from LOM CRM production could 

be increased by approximately $125.3 million and federal revenues could be increased by $86.5

million. The primary difference between state and federal revenues is related to the fact that 

severance, Ad Valorem, and sales and use taxes are only paid to the state of Wyoming. The 

Proposed Action would extend the duration of the economic impacts related to mining the 

federal coal.

Continued mining in the Duvall tract would not directly create new jobs and therefore, the 

availability of housing units would not be impacted. No additional employees are anticipated as a 

result of the Duvall 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, as described in section 3.16, are 

anticipated but the effects would be extended by approximately 2.8 years.

4.17.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the ASLM would not approve the modification of the existing 

federal mining plan to recover the coal included in the Duvall tract. In terms of coal conservation; 

the No Action Alternative would mean that approximately 55.8 Mt of federal coal within the 

Duvall tract would not be recovered. Wyoming revenues of approximately $129.1 million and 

federal revenues of approximately $86.5 million related to this coal would not be realized over 

the LOM under No Action Alternative. The selection of the No Action Alternative would likely 

not result in direct job losses, but any revenue, state program funding, abandoned mine land fees, 

and black lung fees that might otherwise be generated by extending the LOM by 2.8 years would 

not be collected. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 4-47

4.17.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects would be related to socioeconomic conditions in Campbell County. 

Cumulative impacts related to the Proposed Action are not substantially different than those 

described in section 4.17.1.1 because Wyoming, Campbell County, Campbell County School 

District 1, the City of Gillette, and many other governmental entities across the state receive 

revenues derived directly and indirectly from taxes and royalties on the production of federal 

coal from Campbell County. The cumulative effects on socioeconomics are expected to be 

moderate and long term on the Duvall tract.

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to reducing socioeconomic impacts are necessary.

4.18 Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity

The discussions contained within this environmental consequences chapter, and the Coal Lease 

EIS incorporated by reference, provides the analysis and relationships of shorter uses (such as 

mining coal) and long-term productivity (such as generating electricity for homes, schools, and 

industry).

4.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Unavoidable adverse impacts are the effects on natural and human resources that would remain 

after mitigation measures have been applied. These impacts range from negligible to moderate and 

short to long term. For the Proposed Action, details regarding these impacts are presented in

the preceding resource sections and the 2007 Maysdorf EIS. Unavoidable adverse effects are also

summarized in table 4-10.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences/Cumulative Impacts

4-48 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Resource Unavoidable Adverse Effect

Topography and

Physiography

Topographic effects of mining are unavoidable because mining activities such as blasting, 

excavating, loading and hauling of overburden and coal are required to recover coal in an 

economical manner.

Geology, Mineral 

Resources and 

Paleontology

Geology, mineral resources, and buried paleontological resources may be permanently 

impacted by mining activities. Such impacts are unavoidable as the resources cannot be 

avoided during mining.

Air Quality/GHGs Emissions and associated impacts are unavoidable, but are not expected to degrade 

ambient air quality in the area. Mined coal is primarily used for combustion; therefore, any 

associated GHG emissions are unavoidable if the Proposed Action is implemented.

Water Resources Impacts to water resources resulting from coal extraction are unavoidable. However, 

these impacts would be mitigated through replacement of groundwater or surface water 

supplies for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or any other legitimate use if such a supply is 

diminished, interrupted, or contaminated, to the extent of precluding use of the water, as 

a result of mining.

Soils Soil in disturbance areas would exhibit more homogenous textures and may have coarser 

fragments near the surface following mining. Some soil loss may occur as a result of 

erosion, prior to stabilization. Microbial and chemical impacts due to accelerated erosion 

and mixing of soil zones may occur as a result of disturbance.

Vegetation Vegetation would be eliminated beginning with the initial disturbance and continuing until 

reclamation is complete, which would extend to the end of the mining term for many 

facilities. Noxious weeds may be introduced as a result of mining activity, potentially 

affecting vegetation communities and requiring implementation of control measures in the 

long term.

Wildlife Wildlife would be temporarily affected by mine activities, which would alter habitat 

conditions, particularly in the vicinity of surface disturbance. These impacts would be 

short-term and habitats would be reclaimed following mining.

Cultural Resources No sites within the Duvall tract have been designated as eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Undiscovered cultural resources could be impacted 

by surface disturbing activities. All discovered sites would be mitigated as required by 

Section 106 of the NHPA.

Visual Resources Mining activity and associated disturbances and facilities would unavoidably alter the 

landscape during the mining term, affecting the aesthetic qualities. Some features would be 

visible from public access points, including state highway 59. The effects would be 

negligible following reclamation.

Noise Noise would result from mining activities similar to the existing condition. 

Transportation

Facilities

State highway 59 would continue to experience mine related traffic. The effects would 

occur during the mining term.

Hazardous and Solid

Waste

Coal mining and associated coal processing would yield coal waste.

Table 4-10. Unavoidable Adverse Effects of the Proposed Action
Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 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 27, 2016 and was available at:

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/CorderoRojoMineAmendment.shtm.

OSMRE released a Public NOI to prepare the CRM Duvall tract EA in the Gillette News Record

on August 4, 2016 and again on August 20, 2016. Public outreach letters describing the EA and 

soliciting comments were mailed on August 4, 2016 to a total of 125 recipients, including city 

governments, adjacent landowners, and other interested parties (see Appendix A). The legal 

notices and letters invited the public to comment on issues of concern related to the EA. OSMRE 

also sent letters of notification to 18 tribes/tribal representatives. These tribal notification letters 

were mailed on August 4, 2016. Written comments were solicited until September 5, 2016.

Appendix B presents a summary of the scoping comments received by the public.

A total of four comment letters were received during the public scoping period. 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.

Name Organization Project Responsibility

Marcelo Calle OSMRE Project Lead

Logan Sholar OSMRE Project Coordination

Lauren Mitchell OSMRE Project Assistance

Gretchen Pinkham OSMRE Air Quality

Roberta Martinez Hernandez OSMRE Hydrology

Karen Jass OSMRE Geology/Physiology/Topography

Jeremy Iliff OSMRE Cultural/Historical/Paleontological

Jacob Mulinix OSMRE Soils

Third party contractors who contributed to the development of this EA are identified in

table 5-2.

Table 5-1. OSMRE Personnel
Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 5-1

Table 5-2. Third Party Contractor Personnel

Name Organization

Project

Responsibility

Education

John Berry WWC Engineering Project Manager,

QAQC

B.S. Wildlife Management

Chris McDowell WWC Engineering Primary Author B.S. Geology

Mike Evers WWC Engineering QAQC M.S. Geology

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 

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/CorderoRojoMineAmendment.shtm.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 6-1

6.0 References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

6.1 References

4Rail, 2017. 4rail.net - BNSF Locomotives. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.4rail.net/reference_nam_bnsf_locos1.php

AirNow, 2016. Air Quality Index (AQI) Basics. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

https://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi

AirNow, 2017, Outdoor Air Quality Data. Air Quality Index Report. Available from website on 

the Internet as of January 2017: https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/air-qualityindex-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

BNSF 2017, Coal Cars Thermal Coal. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.bnsf.com/customers/equipment/coal-cars/

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2007. Maysdorf Coal Lease Application Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/eplanning/legacyProjectSite.do?methodName=renderLegacyProjectSite&projectId=

67025.

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 June 2017:

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/eplanning/legacyProjectSite.do?methodName=renderLegacyProjectSite&projectId=

67025.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2012. Task 1D Report Current Environmental Conditions 

Chapter 2-4 Wildlife and Fisheries. Document not yet available on BLM E-Planning 

Website. Electronic copy available on request from OSMRE. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2015a, Record of Decision and Approved Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for the Rocky Mountain Region. Document not yet 

available on BLM E-Planning Website. Electronic copy available on request from OSMRE. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2015b. Approved Resource Management Plan Attachment 

6 Map 3-24. Available on the internet as of January 2017: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplfront-office/projects/lup/36597/63099/68341/BFO_ARMP_CHAP3_MAPS_13-24.pdf
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms 

6-2 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2017. Successful Competitive Lease Sales Since 1990, 

Wyoming. Available on the internet as of June 2017: 

https://blm_prod.opengov.ibmcloud.com/basic/programs-energy-and-minerals-coalwyoming-statistics

Cordero Mining Company (CMC), 2016a. Cordero Rojo Contract Position – as of September 

2016. Confidential Information Provided to OSMRE.

Cordero Mining Company (CMC), 2016b. Information provided to OSMRE by CMC for the 

Preparation of the EA.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), 2011. North American Power Plant Air 

Emissions. Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/10236-north-american-power-plant-airemissions-en.pdf

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 2005. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Available on the internet as of 

December 2016: https://ceq.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/regulations.html.

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG), 2016. Mineral Price and Production Estimates 

General Fund Revenues Severance Taxes Federal Mineral Royalties Common School 

Land Income Account Total State Assessed Valuation. Available on the internet as of 

April 2017: http://eadiv.state.wy.us/creg/GreenCREG_Oct16.pdf

Davis, R.W., Hasfurther, V., and Rechard, P.A. 1978. Shallow groundwater distribution and 

movement as influenced by surface coal mining in the Eastern Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming. Water Resources Series No. 77. Water Resources Research Institute, 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Department of Interior (DOI), 2004. Department of the Interior Departmental Manual Part 

516. Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/nepa/webguide/departmental_manual.html.

Government Publishing Office (GPO), 1982. 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §3425.1. 

Available on the internet as of December 2016: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR2004-title43-vol2/pdf/CFR-2004-title43-vol2-sec3425-1-5.pdf.

Government Publishing Office (GPO), 1998. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §50.1. 

Available on the internet as of December 2016: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR2011-title40-vol2/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol2-sec50-1.pdf.

Government Publishing Office (GPO), 2001. 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §746. 

Available on the internet as of December 2016: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR2001-title30-vol3/pdf/CFR-2001-title30-vol3-part746.pdf.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 6-3

Government Publishing Office (GPO), 2011, 43 CFR Part 46 – Implementation of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title43/43cfr46_main_02.tpl.

Hydro-Engineering, LLC. (Hydro-Engineering), 2011, Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring 

Organization, 30-year report.

Hydro-Engineering, LLC. (Hydro-Engineering), 2016, Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring 

Organization 30-year Report.

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Environments (IMPROVE), 2016, Data Acquired from 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments. Available on the internet as of 

December 2016: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/.

Inter-Mountain Labs (IML), 2016. Cordero Mine Surface Water Analysis. Electronic copy only. 

Available from OSMRE on request.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 2011, Coal Excise Tax Audit Technique Guide (ATG). Available 

on the Internet as of April 2017: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-mssp/coal.pdf

IPCC, 2014, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and 

III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 

151 pp. Available on the Internet as of January 2017: 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.

Johnson, T.B., 2015. Personal Communication with T. Johnson from the U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers. Cheyenne, WY.

Kentucky Geological Survey, 2012. Methods of Mining. Available on the internet as of 

December 2016: https://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coal_mining.htm.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), 2010 National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program 2014 Annual Summary. NADP Data Report 2010-01. Illinois State Water 

Survey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. Available from website as of 

December 2016: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/data/2009as.pdf

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), 2011 National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program 2014 Annual Summary. NADP Data Report 2011-01. Illinois State Water 

Survey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. Available from website as of 

December 2016: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/data/2010as.pdf

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), 2012 National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program 2014 Annual Summary. NADP Data Report 2012-01. Illinois State Water 

Survey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. Available from website as of 

December 2016: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/data/2011as.pdf
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms 

6-4 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), 2013 National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program 2014 Annual Summary. NADP Data Report 2013-01. Illinois State Water 

Survey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. Available from website as of 

December 2016: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/data/2012as.pdf

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), 2014 National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program 2014 Annual Summary. NADP Data Report 2014-01. Illinois State Water 

Survey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. Available from website as of 

December 2016: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/data/2013as.pdf

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), 2015. National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program 2014 Annual Summary. NADP Data Report 201-01. Illinois State Water 

Survey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. Available from website as of 

December 2016: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/data/2014as.pdf

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), 2016. National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program 2015 Annual Summary. NADP Data Report 2016-02. Illinois State Water 

Survey, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. Available from website as of 

December 2016: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/data/2015as.pdf

Ogle, K. M., Calle, M., Mooney, G. and Dornak, D. N., 2005, Cumulative Hydrological Impact 

Assessment of Coal Mining in the Middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming, Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, WDEQ-CHIA-14, 75p., 1 

plate. Electronic Copy Only. Available on request from OSMRE.

Ogle, K. M., Kunze, M. D., and Reckentine, L.J., 2011, Cumulative Hydrological Impact 

Assessment of Coal Mining in the Middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, WDEQ-CHIA-21, 165 p., 

1 plate. Electronic Copy Only. Available on request from OSMRE. 

Office of the Governor, 2015. State of Wyoming Executive Department Executive Order 2015-

4 Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection. Available from website as of December 

2016: http://psc.state.wy.us/pscdocs/dwnload/SageGrouseExecOrder2015-7.pdf

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 1989. REG-1 490-Handbook 

on Procedures for Implementing the NEPA; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Handbook. Available from website as of December 2016: 

http://www.osmre.gov/lrg/directives.shtm. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). 1999. REG-31 881-

Preparation of Mining Plan Decision Documents. Available from website as of December 

2016: https://www.osmre.gov/lrg/directives.shtm.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). 2012. Cordero Rojo Mining 

Plan Decision Document. Electronic copy only. Available on request from OSMRE. 
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 6-5

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). 2014. Annual Evaluation 

Report for the Abandoned Mine Lands Program Administered by the Department of 

Environmental Quality of Wyoming. Electronic copy only. Available on request from 

OSMRE.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 2015, Reclamation 

Performance Bonds - Bonding Overview. Available on the Internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.osmre.gov/resources/bonds/BondsOverview.shtm.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 2016. Public Notice of EA 

Preparation. Available from website as of December 2016: 

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/corderoMine/documentLibrary.shtm. 

Pace, Thomas G., 2005, Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust 

Emissions from PM10. Available from website as of December 2016: 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei14/session5/pace_pres.pdf.

Pitchford, M.L., and W.C. Malm, 1994. Development and Applications of a Standard Visual 

Index. Atmospheric Environment 28(5): 1,049-1,054.

Ramboll Environ, 2016, Coal Dust from Rail Transport. Available from website as of April 2017: 

https://ngskmc-eis.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NGS-KMC-Railroad-Coal-DustWhite-Paper-2016.1.16.pdf.

Redhorse Corporation (Redhorse), 2016. Air Quality Permit Application to Modify the 

Cordero Rojo Mine Wyoming Air Quality Permit #MD-9943 Technical Support 

Document. Electronic Copy Only. Available on request from OSMRE. 

Rose, S.K., D. Turner, G. Blanford, J. Bistline, F. de la Chesnaye, and T. Wilson. Understanding 

the Social Cost of Carbon: A Technical Assessment. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2014. Report 

#3002004657.

Seattle Times (2016), BNSF to Study Coal Covers Under Tentative Lawsuit Agreement. 

Available on the internet as of April 2017: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattlenews/environment/enviros-bnsf-railway-reach-agreement-in-coal-dust-lawsuit/

Shelanski, H., M. Obstfeld. 2015. Estimating the Benefits from Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

Reductions: http://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/07/02/estimating-benefitscarbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2015. Employment Status of the Civilian Non-Institutional 

Population 1976 to 2015 Averages. Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

https://www.bls.gov/lau/rdscnp16.htm
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms 

6-6 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

U.S. Census Bureau, 2016a. Community Facts-Find Popular Facts and Frequently Requested 

Data About your Community. Available from website as of December 2016: 

https://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau, 2016b. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2010 – State –

County / County Equivalent 2010 Census Summary File 1. Available from website as of 

December 2016: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

U.S. Congress (Public Law No: 109-58 [08/08/2005]), 2005, H.R.6-Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Available from website as of December 2016: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109thcongress/house-bill/6. 

U.S. Department of State, 2014, 2014 Climate Action Report, First Biennial Report of the 

United States. Electronic copy only. Available on request from OSMRE.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2011. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the 

United States, 2009. Available from website as of December 2016: 

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/pdf/0573(2009).pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2016a. Annual Coal Distribution Report 2015. 

Available from website as of December 2016: 

http://www.eia.gov/coal/distribution/annual/pdf/acdr_fullreport2015.pdf

U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2016b. Drilling Productivity Report. Available 

on the internet as of April 2017: 

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/dpr_methodology.pdf

U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2016c, Annual Coal Report. Available on the 

Internet as of July 2017: https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002. Latest Findings on National Air Quality, 

2002 Status and Trends. Available from website as of December 2016: 

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/tiff2png.cgi/P1003URM.PNG?-r+75+-

g+7+D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C00THRU05%5CTIFF%5C00001326%

5CP1003URM.TIF

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2008. Direct Emissions from Stationary 

Combustion Sources. Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2014. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 6-7

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016a. Summary of the Clean Air Act. Available 

from website as of December 2016: http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summaryclean-air-act.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016b. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Available from website as of December 2016: https://www.epa.gov/criteriaair-pollutants/naaqs-table

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016c. Current Nonattainment Counties for All 

Criteria Pollutants. Available from website as of December 2016: 

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016d. AirData Air Quality Data Collected at 

outdoor monitors across the US. Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016e, Report on the Environment, Acid Rain. 

Available from website as of December 2016: https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator.cfm?i=1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016f. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Available 

on the internet as of December 2016: 

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016g. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2014. Available on the Internet as of December 2016: 

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2016-

Main-Text.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017a. AirData Air Quality Data Collected at 

outdoor monitors across the US. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017b. National Summary of Carbon Monoxide 

Emissions. Available on the internet as of April 2017: https://www3.epa.gov/cgibin/broker?polchoice=CO&_debug=0&_service=data&_program=dataprog.national_1.sa

s

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2003, Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum, Subject: 

Nest Destruction. Available from website as of January 2017: 

https://www.fws.gov/policy/m0208.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008, Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Available 

from website as of December 2016: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/grants/BirdsofConservationConcern2008.pdf.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms 

6-8 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011, Bald Eagle Delisting. Bald Eagle Removed from 

Endangered Species List. Available from website as of December 2016: 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/BaldEagleDelisting.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2015. Historic Conservation Campaign Protects 

Greater Sage-Grouse. Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ID=F5B7455D-0824-997C47667F8ABBFFBA86

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2016a, 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), 2016b. Wyoming Ecological Services Office BlackFooted Ferret. Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/wyoming/Species/BFF.php

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2016c. Wyoming Ecological Services Office Northern 

Long-eared Bat. Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

https://www.fws.gov/wyominges/Species/NLEBat.php

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2017. Northern Long-eared Bat Area of Influence Data 

Download. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

https://www.fws.gov/wyominges/gis.php

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2013. Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserve 

Base in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana, Fact Sheet 2012–3143. 

Available from website as of December 2016: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3143/fs-2012-

3143.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. National Climate Change Viewer. Available on the 

internet as of April 2017: https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/nccv.asp

U.S. Senate 2015, Clean Air Act. .Available on the Internet as of January 2016: 

http://www.epw.senate.gov/envlaws/cleanair.pdf.

Van Voast, W.A., 1974, Hydrologic effects of strip coal mining in southeastern Montana--

Emphasis: one year of mining near Decker: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

Bulletin 93, 24 p.

Van Voast, W. A. and Hedges, R.B. 1975. Hydrogeologic aspects of existing and proposed strip 

coal mines near Decker, southeastern Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

Bulletin 97, 31 p.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 6-9

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information – Economic Analysis Division 

(WDAI-EAD), 2016. Gross Domestic Product for Wyoming by Industry. Available on 

the internet as of December 2016: http://eadiv.state.wy.us/i&e/WyoGDP97_15.htm

Wyoming Department of Employment (DOE), 2013. Average Earnings by Age and Gender with 

Place of Work in Campbell County in 2013. Available on the internet as of: 

http://doe.state.wy.us/LMI/earnings_tables/2014/county/wr_demo_by_county329.html

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), 2010, 

Air Quality Permit MD-9943. Electronic copy only, available on request to OSMRE.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), 2016. 

Standards and Regulations Chapter 2 Ambient Standards. Available on the internet as of 

April 2017: 

http://deq.wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Air%20Quality/Rule%20Development/Propos

ed%20Rules%20and%20Regulations/AQD_Rule-Development_Chapter-2-AmbientStandards-IBR-draft_03-18-15-Clean.pdf

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), 2017a, 

Air Quality Permit P0022480. Electronic copy only, available on request to OSMRE.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), 2017b. 

Request for Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plan for Attainment in the 

Particulate Matter Moderate Nonattainment area Sheridan, WY. Available on the 

internet as of April 2017: 

http://sgirt.webfactional.com/media/attachments/Air%20Quality/Rule%20Development/P

roposed%20Rules%20and%20Regulations/Sheridan%20Redesignation%203.23.2017%20P

ubComment-Draft_attachments_reduced.pdf

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2011, 

Permit to Mine 237 Revision.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2012, 

Chapter 4 Environmental Protection Performance Standards for Surface Coal Mining 

Operations. Available on the internet as of January 2017: 

https://rules.wyo.gov/Search.aspx?mode=1

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2014. 

Guideline No. 20 Bond Release Categories and Submittal Procedures for Coal Mines. 

Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

http://deq.wyoming.gov/lqd/resources/guidelines/.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD), 2017, 

Approval of the Duvall Amendment and Term 10 Renewal to the Cordero Rojo Mine, 

Permit No. 237-T10, TFN 6 2/174.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms 

6-10 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Water Quality Division (WDEQ-WQD), 

2013. Chapter 1: Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards. Available on the internet 

as of April 2017: https://rules.wyo.gov/Search.aspx?mode=1

Wyoming Department of Revenue (WDOR), 2015. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 

2015 Annual Report. Available on the internet as of April 2017: https://0ebaeb71-a84cef9ff-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/wyo.gov/wydor/2015AnnualReport.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7crJsWtdCO2ZfUAbqCs4Ie7LDE9-

bmMNe7qprknxWpDoCOz6tmOc1PUjONWZPSgMJwCgbNWDIz5AE-pfkp0EyAEl-F8-

fbh8cODuE3vxuAmk-JQgSjcte5Z70HyQYpmZq1CI4dShTZuFTP2L8Ti2xJyiS6-

be3__Swx6WpWmxxazLJ0xC1PtlUIjPCk9ybrT_b7zjPZtdfWNsGDTPUrjNHP9YVcD5g

%3D%3D&attredirects=0

Wyoming Department of Revenue (WDOR), 2016a. State of Wyoming Department of 

Revenue 2015 Annual Report. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

https://0ebaeb71-a-84cef9ff-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/wyo.gov/wydor/2016AnnualReport.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqmn0mmZ4l9XckzcOPxDqEHiVdSDALSEvs18wj54S7EwQqW3jJ2tEn6hT6fcXGDlzza1rizhBy9qxkiuSM26_

nXwauubvd9XvdykXcPbbV-JMKlAukV-Z8OC9A0QAYneXjxSf_THXhSmzX8N4tZoCGJyFLIHoLzzoNXL8QOmspCP8iaV16Vdn

MYgX9vz0uw1XhohpX73jSpU19sJsEyEYj4tbKg%3D%3D&attredirects=0

Wyoming Department of Revenue (WDOR), 2016b Total Distribution by Major Business Class 

and by County. Available on the internet as of April 2017: http://revenue.wyo.gov/taxdistribution-reports/major-industry-code-by-month-year-1/2017-major-industry-codeby-monthyear

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2009. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2010. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2011. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2012. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 6-11

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2013. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2014. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2015a. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2015b. Wyoming Workforce Annual 

Report. Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

https://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/annual-report/2015/2015_Annual_Report.pdf

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2016a. Annual Report of the State 

Inspector of Mines of Wyoming. Available on the internet as of April 2017: 

http://www.wyomingworkforce.org/businesses/mines/info/.

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (WDWS), 2016b. Wyoming Labor Force Trends. 

Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

https://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/trends/0116/toc.htm

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), 2016. Sage Grouse Numbers Peak Statewide. 

Available on the internet as of January 2017: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/News/Sage-grousenumbers-peak-statewide

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), 2016. Well Data Search. 

Available on the internet as of December 2016: 

http://wogcc.state.wy.us/urecordsMenu.cfm?Skip='Y'&oops=ID83640

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO), 2016. e-Permit Water Right Search. Available on the 

internet as of April 2017: https://sites.google.com/a/wyo.gov/seo/

Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS), 2017. Groundwater Response of Wasatch and Fort 

Unions Sandstones to Reduced CBM Development in the Powder River Basin. Available 

on the internet as of April 2017: http://www.wsgs.wyo.gov/products/wsgs-2017-ri-74.pdf

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office, 2012. Wyoming Resource Definitions and 

Recording Guidelines. Available on the internet as of June 2017: 

http://wyoshpo.state.wy.us/pdf/ResourceDefinitionsandReportingGuidelinesFinal.pdf

WWC Engineering (WWC), 2017. GHG, Air Quality, and Socioeconomic Calculations located 

in Appendix E. 
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 6-12

6.2 Abbreviations/Acronyms

AERMOD American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model Improvement 

Committee Dispersion Model

ANFO Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil

AQRVs Air Quality Related Values

ARMB Air Resources Management Bureau

ASLM Assistant Secretary, Land and Mineral Management (DOI)

AVF alluvial valley floor

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Btu British thermal unit

CAA Clean Air Act, as amended

CCAC Climate Change Action Committee

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 Methane

CHIA Cumulative Hydrologic Impacts Assessments

CIAA Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

CMC Cordero Rojo Coal Company

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e Equivalent CO2

CPE Cloud Peak Energy

CRM Cordero Rojo Mine

dBA Adjusted decibels, a logarithmic unit of sound levels

DM Departmental Manual

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FCLAA Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment (1976)

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GHG Greenhouse gas 

GPO U.S. Government Publishing Office

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse

H+ Hydrogen ion

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide

Hg Mercury

HAP Hazardous air pollutants

LBA Lease by Application

LOM Life of mine
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms 

6-13 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

MATS Mercury and Air Toxic Standards

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended

MLA Mineral Leasing Act (1920)

MPDD Mining Plan Decision Document

Mt million tons

Mtpy million tons per year

N2O Nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (1969) 

NH3 Ammonia

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NOX Oxides of Nitrogen

NOA Notice of Availability

NOI Notice of Intent

O3 Ozone

OSMRE Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

PAP Permit Application Package

Pb Lead

ppm parts per million

PM2.5 Fine particulates less than 2.5 microns

PM10 Fine particulates less than 10 microns

PSD Significant Deterioration Program

R2P2 Resource Recovery and Protection Plan

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision

SIP State Implementation Plan

SMP State Mining Permit

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977)

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SOSI Species of Special Interest

TDS Total dissolved solids

TSS Total suspended solids

T&E threatened, endangered, and candidate

tpy tons per year

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

USEIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC Volatile organic compound

VRM Visual Resource Management
Chapter 6 – References and Abbreviations/Acronyms

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 6-14

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

WDEQ-LQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WSGS Wyoming State Geologic Survey
APPENDIX A

LEGAL NOTICES

FOR FEDERAL LEASE MODIFICATION APPROVAL

WYW174407
Appendix A

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 A-1

Public Notice

Cordero Rojo 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 Cordero Rojo Mine’s (CRM) mining plan modification for federal coal lease WYW174407 

(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. The Lease by Application (LBA) 

application was filed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by Cordero Mining Company 

(CMC) on September 20, 2001. BLM subsequently issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the

lease on June 6, 2007 and the lease was effective on August 1, 2008. On December 17, 2015, the

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)/Land Quality Division (LQD) received

an application for an amendment to CRM Permit 237, including mining portions of WYW174407.

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 

CRM is located approximately 15 miles south-southeast of Gillette, Wyoming. The CRM uses a 

combination of dragline and truck shovel mining methods. The amount of remaining recoverable 

federal coal authorized for removal within the currently approved federal mining plan is 

approximately 232.6 million tons (Mt). The Project proposes to add approximately 569.1 acres 

and 55.77 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 20 million 

tons per year (Mtpy), which is the estimated future annual production rate suggested by CMC 

and is below the maximum permitted production rate of 65 Mtpy set by WDEQ/AQD air quality 

permit MD-9943. CRM started operation in 1976 and the mine will continue to operate until 

2027 under the current, approved mining plan. Using the estimated 20 Mtpy production rate, the 

Project would extend the life of the mine by approximately 2.8 years, to 2030.

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. The ASLM will approve, 

disapprove, or conditionally approve the mining plan approval document within the mining plan 

decision document, 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: Cordero Rojo Mine Amendment EA

C/O: Logan Sholar, 

OSMRE Western Region 

1999 Broadway, Suite 3320 

Denver, CO 80202-3050
Appendix A

A-2 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Comments may also be emailed to: osm-nepa-wy@osmre.gov, ensure the subject line reads: 

ATTN: OSMRE, Cordero Rojo Mine Amendment EA. Comments should be received or 

postmarked no later than September 5, 2016 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/CorderoRojoMineAmendment.shtm.
Appendix A

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Western Region

1999 Broadway St., Suite 3320

Denver, CO 80202-3050

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 A-3

August 4, 2016

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 Cordero Rojo Mine’s (CRM) federal mining plan modification for federal coal lease 

WYW174407 (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. The Lease by 

Application (LBA) application was filed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by Cordero 

Mining Company (CMC) on September 20, 2001. BLM subsequently issued a Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the lease on June 6, 2007 and the lease was effective on August 1, 2008. On December 

17, 2015, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)/Land Quality Division 

(LQD) received an application for an amendment to CRM Permit 237, including mining portions 

of WYW174407.

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 CRM 

is located approximately 15 miles south-southeast of Gillette, Wyoming. The CRM uses a 

combination of dragline and truck shovel mining methods. The amount of remaining recoverable 

federal coal authorized for removal within the currently approved federal mining plan is 

approximately 232.6 million tons (Mt). The Project proposes to add approximately 569.1 acres 

and 55.77 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 20 million tons 

per year (Mtpy), which is the estimated future annual production rate suggested by CMC and is 

below the maximum permitted production rate of 65 Mtpy set by WDEQ/AQD air quality permit 

MD-9943. CRM started operation in 1976 and the mine will continue to operate until 2027 under 

the current, approved mining plan. Using the estimated 20 Mtpy production rate, the Project would 

extend the life of the mine by approximately 2.8 years, to 2030.

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. The ASLM will approve, 

disapprove, or conditionally approve the mining plan approval document within the mining plan 

decision document, 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:
Appendix A

A-4 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

ATTN: Cordero Rojo Mine Amendment EA

C/O: Logan Sholar,

OSMRE Western Region 

1999 Broadway, Suite 3320, 

Denver, CO 80202-3050

Comments may also be emailed to: osm-nepa-wy@osmre.gov, ensure the subject line reads: 

ATTN: OSMRE, Cordero Rojo Mine Amendment EA. Comments should be received or 

postmarked no later than September 5, 2016 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/CorderoRojoMineAmendment.shtm.

Sincerely,

Marcelo Calle, 

Manager

Field Operations Branch
APPENDIX B

PUBLIC SCOPING AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY MAILING LISTS,

PUBLIC SCOPING and DUVALL EA REVIEW COMMENTS SUMMARIES

and

DUVALL EA REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE LOG

(INDIVIDUAL LETTERS RECEIVED HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED)
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-1

Mailing List

Name Title

Tribes

Ivan Posey Chairman Shoshone Business Council

Glenda Trosper Director of Cultural Preservation Eastern Shoshone Tribe

Richard Brannan Chairman Arapahoe Business Council

Eugene Little Coyote President Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council

Carl Venne Chairman Crow Tribal Council

John Yellow Bird Steele President Oglala Sioux Tribal Council

Roger Trudell Chairman Santee Sioux Tribal Council

Rodney Bordeaux President Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council

Ron His-Horse-Is-Thunder Chairman Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council

Duane Big Eagle Tribal Council Chairman Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

Gordon Yellowman Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma

Joshua Weston President Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe

Joe Brings Plenty Sr Chairman Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council

Michael Jandreau Chairman Lower Brule Sioux Tribal Council

Alonzo Chalepah Tribal Chairman Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

Billy Evans Horse Chairman Kiowa Business Committee

Anthony Addison Northern Arapaho Business Council

Wallace Coffey Chairman Comanche Nation Tribe

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Mitchell Leveratte Division Chief BLM WO320

Jamie Connell State Director BLM - Montana State Office

Duane Spencer BLM Buffalo Field Office

Rhen Etzelmiller BLM Casper Field Office

BLM Library

Coal Coordinator BLM Montana State Office

Todd Yeager BLM Miles City Office

Coal Coordinator BLM Wyoming State Office
Appendix B

B-2 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Name Title

File Copy BLM-Wyoming High Plains District Office

Stephanie Connolly District Manager BLM-Wyoming High Plains District Office

Don Sutherland Bureau of Indian Affairs

Campbell County Conservation District

Campbell County School District 1

Campbell County Board of Commissioners

Executive Director Campbell County Econ Dev Corp

Louise Carter-King Mayor City of Gillette

Congresswoman Cynthia M. Lummis

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

Superintendent Devils Tower National Monument

Economic Analysis Division

Tom Langston Gillette Dept of Comm Dev

Steve Bullock Governor of Montana

Matt Mead Governor of Wyoming

Eric Barlow H03 Campbell/Converse

Dan Kirkbride H04 Platte/Converse

Richard Cannady H06 Converse

Scott Clem H31 Campbell

Norine Kasperik H32 Campbell

Michael Madden H40 Johnson/Sheridan

Bill Pownall H52 Campbell

Roy Edwards H53 Campbell

Environmental Division HQ-USAF/CEVP

Greg Julian Mineral Management Service

Environmental Protection Specialist National Park Service - Air Quality
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-3

Name Title

NPS

NPS - Air Quality

NPS Air Resources Division

NPS 2310

Bridget Hill Office of State Lands and Investments

Mark Gordon Office of the State Treasurer

Matt McKeown Rocky Mtn Region Solicitor

Ogden Driskill S01 Crook/Campbell/Weston

Dave Kinskey S22 Sheridan/Johnson

Jeff Wasserburger S23 Campbell/Converse

Michael Von Flatern S24 Campbell

Jason Crowder State Land Commissioner - State of Wyoming

Ralph Kingan Mayor Town of Wright

US Army Corps of Engineers

US Department of Energy

US EPA

Conservation US Fish & Wildlife Service

Ecological Services US Fish & Wildlife Service

US Geological Survey Water Resources Division

US Senator John Barrasso

DeAnna Kay US Senator Mike Enzi

Jason M. Ryan Business Analytics Director US Western Surface Operations

BLM Cooperator Lead USDA-FS Douglas Ranger District

Wendi Chatman UW Libraries

Mark Rogaczewski WDEQ Land Quality Division

David Waterstreet WDEQ Water Quality Division

Tim Stark WY Dept of Transportation

Dave Spencer WY Business Council/NE Region

WY Dept of Employment Research & Planning
Appendix B

B-4 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Name Title

Kelly Bott WY DEQ Air Quality Division

Milward Simpson WY Parks & Cultural Res Dept

Pat Tyrrell WY State Engineer's Office

Sarah Needles WY State Historic Pres Office

Section Wyoming Dept of Agriculture

Scott Talbott Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Kyle Wendtland Wyoming LQD - DEQ

Al Minier Chairman Wyoming Public Service Comm

Harry LaBonde Wyoming Water Dev Comm

Thomas A. Drean Director Wyoming State Geological Survey

Businesses and Individuals

Alpha Wyoming Land Company, LLC

Managing Editor Associated Press

Mark Thrall Belle Ayr Mine

H.A. True President Belle Fourche Pipeline Company

Mitchell J. Reneau VP Land Bill Barrett Corporation

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

BNSF Railway Company

Buckskin Mine – Kiewit Mining Group

Caballo Rojo, LLC

Jason Adrians Casper Star Tribune

Amy M. Atwood Center for Biological Diversity

John Trummel Cloud Peak Energy

Cordero Rojo Mine

Defenders of Wildlife

Matt Adelman Publisher Douglas Budget

Environmental Policy and Culture Program

Fdn for N American Wild Sheep

Energy Reporter Gillette News-Record
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-5

Name Title

Scott Child Interwest Mining Company

Joe Mehl Kiewit Mining Group Inc

Jim McLealand & Eric Bjordahl M&K Oil Company Inc

Hal Quinn National Mining Association

National Wildlife Federation

Natural Resources Defense Council

Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC

Shannon Anderson Powder River Basin Resource Council

Phil Dinsmoor Powder River Coal Company

James Piccone Resolute Wyoming

Peter Morgan Sierra Club

Lecia Craft Thunder Basin Coal Company

Roger Miller President Trout Unlimited

Lance Fritz President, CEO Union Pacific Railroad

Taylor Jones WildEarth Guardians

Mike Evers WWC Engineering

Bill Schilling Wyoming Business Alliance

Jonathan Downing Wyoming Mining Association

Gary Wilmont Wyoming Outdoor Council

Niels Hansen Wyoming Stock Growers Assoc

Steve Kilpatrick Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Amy Wallop-Hendrickson Executive Director Wyoming Wool Growers Assoc

Mike McCraken Publisher Wyoming-Tribune Eagle

Katie Parker Yates Petroleum Corp et al

Norma L. Duvall Trust

Kyle R. Larson

Beverly J. Lawson Trust

James F. Rourke, et al.

Randy C. Greer
Appendix B

B-6 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Duvall Public Outreach (Scoping) Comments Summary

Comment Topic

Comment 

Date

Water 

Quality

Air 

Quality Wildlife

Level of 

NEPA/

NEPA 

Process

Reclamation/

Self Bonding

Climate 

Change/

Global 

Warming 

Economy Pro 

Mining Notes # of Comments

8/23/2016 1 1

9/2/2016 1 1 1 1

9/5/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1

9/6/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 4

* Comments received over extended period
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-7

Public Outreach (Scoping) Comments Categorized by Key Resource Category

Comment Topic Count Percent

Pro Mining 2 14%

Level of NEPA/NEPA Process 3 21%

Economy 1 7%

Air Quality 2 14%

Wildlife 1 7%

Climate Change/ Global Warming 2 14%

Reclamation/ Self Bonding 1 7%

Water Quality 2 14%

Total 14 100%
Appendix B

B-8 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Duvall EA Review Public Comments Summary

Comment Topic

Level of 

NEPA/

NEPA 

Process

Climate 

Change Permitting Economy Pro Mining Against Coal Mining Notes # of Comments # Commenters

WGFD has no concerns pertaining 

to this mining plan modification 0 1

1 1

Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners requests OSM 

approval of the proposed action

2 1

SEO noted that there is an updated 

CHIA (2017) for the area. 

Commenter has no concerns.

0 1

1 1 1 1

WildEarth Guardians stated that an 

EIS needs to be prepared and that 

previous comments from this 

commenter were not appropriately 

analyzed

4 1

1 1 1

Sierra Club letter contains multiple 

comments about GHG/climate 

change analysis/modeling and insists 

that an EIS is required

3 1

2 2 1 1 1 2 9 5
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-9

Duvall EA Substantive Public Review Comments and OSMRE Response

COMMENTER: WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT

Comment: The staff of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (Department) has reviewed 

the proposed Environmental Assessment for the Cordero Rojo Mine Duvall Tract federal 

mining plan modification located in Campbell County. We have no terrestrial wildlife habitat or 

aquatic concerns pertaining to this mining plan modification.

Response: Noted

Revision: No changes made.

COMMENTER: CAMPBELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Comment: Mr. Sholar, we respectfully request the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement approve the Proposed Action as outlined in the EA, Sign the FONSI and allow 

Cordero Rojo Mine to proceed with the Mining Plan Modification for Federal Coal Lease 

WYW174407.

Response: Noted

Revision: No changes made.

COMMENTER: WYOMING STATE ENGINEER'S OFFICE

Comment: Overall, findings from the 2017 CHIA indicate that there is no expected material 

damage to the hydrologic system outside of the permit area. These findings are consistent with 

the analysis provided in the EA and as such, there are no concerns on behalf of the WSEO. This 

comment is for informational purposed only.

Response: Noted

Revision: No changes made.

COMMENTER: WILDEARTH GUARDIANS

Comment 1: It appears that an EIS is required for numerous reasons, among them that the 

draft EA fails to demonstrate that the impacts will not be significant under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

To begin with, it appears that OSM is attempting to tier its Environmental Assessment (EA) the 

2007 Maysdorf coal lease final EIS and the 2009 South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Final 
Appendix B

B-10 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

EIS, and in doing so avoid preparing its own EIS or supplemental EIS. This is not supported by 

interior Department NEPA regulations at 43 C.F.R § 46.140. These regulations state that:

An environmental assessment may be prepared, and a finding of no significant impact reached, for 

a proposed action with significant effects, weather direct, indirect, or cumulative, if the 

environmental assessment is tiered to a broader environmental impact statement which fully 

analyzed those significant effects.

43 C.F.R § 46.140(c). Here, the EISs that will be tiered to, namely the 2007 Maysdorf coal lease 

EIS and 2009 South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications EIS, did not fully analyze the significant 

impacts of mining the lease. it did not address the impacts of mining to current National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), it did not address the fact that current OSM regulations fail to 

appropriately limit blasting emissions in order to protect public health and safety, it did not 

address new sage grouse management requirements, it not [sic] address new information 

regarding climate impacts and the need to fully quantify the greenhouse gas emissions that would 

result from mining and consuming the coal produced from the lease, it did not address the social 

cost of carbon related to the mining of the lease, among other impacts.

Response 1: The determination of significance is based on the context and intensity as defined 

by CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1508.27. The context and intensity of the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts to all resources are described in the EA in Chapter 4, and the rationale for 

the conclusions reached is provided. For the reasons described in the FONSI, OSMRE has 

determined that there would be no significant impacts resulting from the Proposed Action. 

Therefore, an EIS is not required under for the Proposed Action. 

The EA analyzes the direct and indirect effects on climate change from greenhouse gas emissions 

and, as discussed in section 4.4 of this EA, concludes the effects would be moderate and shortterm. The EA addresses impacts to NAAQS in Section 4.4 and determined the effects to be 

moderate and short term. The EA conforms to current OSM regulations on blasting emissions.

The EA discloses potential impacts to greater sage-grouse in Sections 3.3.3 and 4.10.3 concluding

impacts would be moderate and short-term. The EA provides OSMRE’s rationale for not 

conducting a social cost of carbon analysis in Section 4.4.5.1.

Revision: Section 4.4.5.1 has been revised to clarify why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

utilized for this NEPA evaluation.

Comment 2: ...it does concern us that the agency has not appropriately analyzed and assessed 

a number of potentially significant impacts that were identified by WildEarth Guardians in 

previous comments. Importantly, the EA fails to analyze air quality impacts, particularly impacts 

to the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide NAAQS and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, fails to analyze and 

assess the impacts of similar and cumulative actions, particularly in terms of climate impacts, and 

fails to appropriately analyze and assess carbon costs in terms of the social cost of carbon.

Furthermore, OSM inappropriately rejected analyzing in detail alternatives that were 

recommended by WildEarth Guardians in previous comments, including an alternative that 

provides for alternative mining levels, and alternative that requires the use of equipment that 
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-11

produces less or no emissions, such as natural gas-fired vehicles and machinery and electric 

machinery powered by solar panels or other renewable energy sources, and an alternative or 

alternatives that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed mining.

Overall, it simply appears that WildEarth Guardians previously submitted comments on OSM's 

proposed mining plan were mostly ignored. We request the agency consider and respond to our 

comments and explain to the American Public why it believes that approval of the proposed is 

wholly justified.

Response 2: The Duvall EA presents historic emission data for both the 1-hour NO2 and 8-

hour O3 NAAQS in Section 3.1.4.2, and impacts analysis in Section 4.4.2. The EA analyzes the 

direct and indirect effects on climate change from greenhouse gas emissions and, as discussed in 

Section 4.4 of this EA, concludes the effects would be moderate and short-term. The EA provides 

OSMRE’s rationale for not conducting a social cost of carbon analysis in Section 4.4.5.1.

OSM considered the alternatives suggested by WildEarth Guardians (low or no pollutant emitting 

equipment and air quality mitigation measures) in the Duvall EA in Section 2.1.3. The suggested 

alternatives were eliminated from detailed analysis because OSMRE determined they did not

meet the agency’s purpose and need.

Section 1.3 of the EA provides OSMRE’s rationale for the purpose and need for the Proposed 

Action.

Revision: Section 4.4.5.1 has been revised to clarify why social cost of carbon was not utilized 

for this NEPA evaluation.

COMMENTER: SIERRA CLUB

Comment 1: OSM must analyze and disclose the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and 

cumulative climate impacts of the proposed mining, and evaluate the “significance” of these 

impacts. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1502.16.

OSM cannot attempt to meet this obligation merely by comparing project level carbon dioxide 

emissions to national greenhouse gas emissions. Here, OSM quantified the 34.3 million tons of 

greenhouse gas emissions (in CO2-e) that would result from mining, shipping, and burning 

Cordero Rojo coal each year. Draft EA at 4-17, T.4-7. OSM then concluded that “[b]cause 

emissions would . . . represent only 0.59 percent of the projected 2020 U.S. CO2 emissions, 

impacts would be potentially detectable but slight.” Draft EA at 4-16.

This limited approach fails to provide the public and decision-makers with meaningful information 

on climate change and fails to follow clear instruction from the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), which promulgates NEPA regulations and guidance. In August 2016, the CEQ issued 

guidance to assist federal agencies in analyzing climate impacts of their actions under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).2 Although the CEQ Climate Guidance has been “withdrawn 

for further consideration,” 82 Fed. Reg. 16,576 (April 5, 2017), the underlying requirement to 

consider climate change impacts under NEPA has not changed.
Appendix B

B-12 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

OSM’s approach to evaluating the significance of the climate impacts of its decision is precisely 

the kind of limited analysis that CEQ specifically directed agencies not to do:

Therefore, a statement that emissions from a proposed Federal action represent only a small 

fraction of global emissions is essentially a statement about the nature of the climate change 

challenge, and is not an appropriate basis for deciding whether or to what extent to consider 

climate change impacts under NEPA. Moreover, these comparisons are also not an appropriate 

method for characterizing the potential impacts associated with a proposed action and its 

alternatives and mitigations because this approach does not reveal anything beyond the nature of 

the climate change challenge itself: the fact that diverse individual sources of emissions each make 

a relatively small addition to global atmospheric GHG concentrations that collectively have a large 

impact.

CEQ Climate Guidance at 11 (emphasis added). OSM cannot comply with NEPA merely by 

comparing the carbon dioxide emissions from its proposal with national levels of greenhouse gas 

emissions. OSM has the means to provide the public and decision-makers with meaningful 

information, and OSM must do so before it approves the proposed mine expansion. As explained 

below, OSM has the tools that would allow it to evaluate both the amount and impact of 

greenhouse gas emissions that will flow from its decision to authorize the mining of an additional 

55.8 million tons of federally owned coal.

Response 1: OSMRE has determined that the analysis of potential impacts resulting from direct 

and indirect greenhouse gas emissions is adequate. The EA quantifies direct and indirect GHG 

emissions and evaluates these emissions in the context of U.S. and State/County GHG emission 

inventories as discussed in Section 4.4.4.1 of the EA. The EA concludes that the potential effects 

of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change would be moderate and short-term.

Comment 2: OSM’s EA entirely fails to address the key climate question: whether there is a 

measurable difference in greenhouse gas emissions between approving and rejecting this 55.8 

million ton mine expansion. OSM must answer this question in order to make an informed 

decision here. Without such an answer, neither OSM nor the public can adequately distinguish 

between the climate impacts of the Action and No Action alternatives. OSM’s current approach 

quietly dodges responsibility for any contribution to the climate problem. But NEPA requires 

federal agencies to study and disclose the effects of their decisions; it does not permit them to 

leave key questions silently unanswered. Quantifying emissions from the fifth largest coal mine in 

the U.S. is not enough. Because OSM could answer this fundamental question about the effects 

of its decision, but has not done so, NEPA demands more. By not even attempting to answer the 

key environmental question, OSM has failed to take the hard look that NEPA requires.

There is no doubt that agencies must provide a clear basis for choice among alternatives, and in 

particular between the climate impacts of Action and No Action alternatives. 42 U.S.C. §§ 

4332(2)(C), 4332(2)(E), and 40 CFR §§ 1502.14(f), 1508.9(b). In the context of climate change, 

OSM must at least analyze and disclose the difference in greenhouse gas emission levels between 

alternatives. Among other clear directives, CEQ reaffirmed the bedrock principles that an agency 
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-13

must present its climate analysis “in clear terms and with sufficient information to make a 

reasoned choice between no action and other alternatives” and that it is the agency’s obligation 

to “ensure the professional and scientific integrity” of its analysis. CEQ Climate Guidance at 10 

(citing 40 CFR § 1500.1, 1502.24).

Here OSM admits that in 2014, 98 percent of coal from Wyoming was used to generate electricity 

by burning it in coal-fired power plants. Draft EA at 4-18. OSM quantifies carbon dioxide 

emissions that will result from mining, shipping, and burning the Cordero Rojo mine coal3. Yet 

OSM never addresses whether approving or rejecting the 55.8 million tons of coal at stake here 

would change those downstream greenhouse emissions from coal-fired power plants. Instead, 

OSM dodges the issue by dating that: that should be signed to the coal producer. In addition, 

there is no certainty that GHG emissions at power plants would actually be reduced if the federal 

coal associated with the Proposed Action was not mined, given that the power plants supplied 

by CMC have alternative sources for coal, and the CRM also has non-federal coal reserved that 

could be mined (see Draft EA at 4-19).

OSM's dodge is legally untenable. As explained below, this supposed uncertainty is the result of 

OSM's refusal to study the issue. OSM is well aware that it has the tool to study the marked 

effects of its decisions since it has participated as a cooperating agency in at least one of such 

study, discussed later in these comments. 

Moreover, OSM here expressly adopts the 2009 South Gillette Final EIS prepared by BLM that 

purported to analyze the climate impacts of four coal mines in Wyoming, including the Cordero 

Rojo coal covered in this proposed mine plan amendment. Draft EA at 1-1.

The problem for OSM, and the public, is that the South Gillette FEIS - which OSM expressly 

adopts here - contains a deeply flawed view of how energy markets work and how changes in 

supply change those markets. In the South Gillette FEIS, BLM, and OSM as a cooperating agency, 

incorrectly assert that the decision to approve or reject the proposals, (which included the 

Cordero Rojo Mine expanded by this proposal), would have no impact on the amount of coal 

mined, coal burned, or carbon dioxide emitted.

According to the BLM analysis that OSM expressly adopts in this EA:

It is not likely that selection of the No Action Alternative would result in a decrease in U.S. CO2

emissions attributable to coal-burning power plants in the longer term because there are multiple 

other sources of coal that, while not having the cost, environmental, or safety advantage, could 

supply the demand for coal beyond the time that [the mines] complete recovery . . . .BLM, South 

Gillette Area Coal LBA Tracts, Final Environmental Impact Statement, at 4-120 to 4-121 (2009). 

Not only did OSM explicitly adopt the 2009 FEIS analysis in this EA, it was a cooperating agency 

in that 2009 FEIS. Id. at inside cover page. Cordero Rojo Draft EA at 1-1.

Response 2: Section 4.4.4 of the EA discloses the difference in greenhouse gas emissions impacts 

between the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action 

would result in impacts that are moderate and would extend those impacts approximately 2.8 

years beyond the current life of the mine. The impacts directly resulting from GHG emissions 
Appendix B

B-14 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed Action but would 

not be extended by approximately 2.8 years. While annual CO2e emissions would remain the 

same as the Proposed Action for approximately 11.6 years, the LOM CO2e emissions would 

decrease by approximately 22 percent as a result of the No Action Alternative, based on 2.8-

fewer years of combustion of CRM coal.

OSMRE is tiering to the Maysdorf 2007 EIS and the SGAC 2009 EIS pursuant to CEQ regulations 

40 CFR 1502.20 as described in Section 1.1 of the EA..

Revision: No changes made.

Comment 3: The assumption – that if OSM were to reject the proposal in favor of the No 

Action alternative, other coal mines would simply ramp up production to completely replace all 

55.8 million tons of Cordero Rojo coal in the market – defies the most basic understanding of 

market economics, lacks any support, and fails to meet the standard of professional analysis that 

NEPA demands. Simply put: supply and demand matter. Nor does OSM state that the mine has 

sufficient non-federal reserves that are accessible without the proposed modification to replace 

the additional 20 million tons per year added by this proposal or the 55.8 million tons over the 

life of the project. OSM does not get to ignore basic economic principles or remain ignorant of 

their effects simply because it would prefer not to own the climate effects of its decision to 

approve more than 55.8 million tons of coal mining and the resulting coal combustion. Under 

NEPA, agencies have a duty to “insure the professional integrity” of the analyses in an EIS, 40 

C.F.R. § 1502.24, and must present “high-quality” information and “[a]curate scientific analysis.” 

40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). OSM’s adoption of the flawed “perfect substitution” assumption is illogical 

and unsupported, and its refusal to correct this error by adequately studying the market effects 

using available tools violates NEPA.

In the U.S. energy market – where coal, natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear all compete for 

market share, where utilities can choose among these competing options on an on-going basis, 

and where utilities and grid operators can quickly alter the rates at which these commodities are 

utilized – price, supply, and demand interact in predictable ways. Although BLM and OSM assert 

that other coal mines “could supply the demand” if it were to reject the Cordero Rojo proposal, 

that statement fundamentally misunderstands how supply and demand works. 

Economic demand is not a fixed threshold that suppliers of a commodity will necessarily rise to 

meet; it is instead a relationship among economic parameters that ultimately lead to certain levels 

of consumption.4 As you restrict the supply of a good, price increases, and this in turn affects 

demand. As explained by Judge Posner, these “straightforward, intuitive premises” dictate that 

“[i]f quantity falls, price will rise . . . [i]f price rises, quantity falls because consumers buy less of 

the good.”5In the energy context, that means that if OSM, BLM, or other federal agencies restrict 

the supply of coal, coal prices will increase. This increase in coal price will cause some utilities to 

switch from coal to a cheaper alternative. Because switching from coal to anything else – natural 

gas, wind, solar, geothermal or nuclear energy, etc. – results in decreased carbon dioxide 

emissions, this fuel switching results in quantifiable decreases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-15

Response 3: Section 2.1.2 of the EA discusses the No Action Alternative against which the 

Proposed Action is compared. Under the No Action Alternative, ASLM would not approve the 

2016 federal mining plan modification request described above under the Proposed Action. 

Under this alternative, the CRM would mine its remaining 232.6 Mt of recoverable federal coal 

reserves within the existing CRM leases in approximately 11.6 years at an average production 

rate of approximately 20 million tons per year (Mtpy).

The No Action Alternative included in this EA compares the potential environmental and 

economic consequences of not mining the Duvall tract, under the assumption that the additional 

coal within federal coal lease WYW174407 tract would not be mined in the foreseeable future if 

the No Action Alternative is selected. Under the No Action Alternative scenario, CMC would 

be limited to recovering the remaining federal coal reserves associated with federal coal leases

WYW8385, WYW23929, WYW154432, and WYW174407 and coal within state and private 

leases. All of the federal coal included in the No Action Alternative would continue to be shipped 

to customers in the U.S. Selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude approval of 

a federal mining plan modification in the future to include the Duvall tract.

Revision: No changes made

Comment 4: As noted, OSM neither identifies nor answers the key environmental question 

posed by its consideration of the Cordero Rojo proposal. But NEPA does not allow OSM to 

simply stick its head in the sand and remain willfully ignorant of the environmental effects of its 

decision. NEPA affirmatively requires “reasonable forecasting,” and requires agencies to provide 

information that is “essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives,” where the cost of 

obtaining the information is not exorbitant. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a).

Here OSM chose not to provide any information on relevant market factors that might help 

explain why OSM believes in this perfect substitution theory. For example, OSM provided no 

information comparing Cordero Rojo coal prices to the prices and availability of other sources 

of coal. OSM provided no information on shipping prices, existing reserves, sulfur or heat content 

of other sources of coal. OSM provided no mention of the relationship between supply, price 

and demand in the coal market, which are crucial pieces when evaluating the market effect of a 

decision to approve hundreds of millions of tons of federal coal mining, and must be evaluated by 

OSM here.

Notably, OSM’s analysis here directly contradicts the approach that CEQ recommended agencies 

take in looking at climate impacts. CEQ’s Climate Guidance, which articulated then (and still) 

controlling obligations under NEPA statute and regulations, specifically instructed agencies to 

compare the greenhouse gas emissions levels between alternatives in agencies’ NEPA reviews:

When considering GHG emissions and their significance, agencies should use appropriate tools 

and methodologies for quantifying GHG emissions and comparing GHG quantities across 

alternative scenarios.
Appendix B

B-16 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

...[A]n agency should compare the anticipated levels of GHG emissions from each alternative –

including the no-action alternative – and mitigation actions to provide information to the public 

and enable the decision maker to make an informed choice.

CEQ Climate Guidance at 10, 15 (emphasis added).

Moreover, CEQ directs federal agencies to use the tools available to conduct the necessary study 

in order to distinguish between the climate impacts of various project alternatives:

When data inputs are reasonably available to support calculations, agencies should conduct GHG 

analysis and disclose quantitative estimates of GHG emissions in their NEPA reviews. These tools 

can provide estimates of GHG emissions, including emissions from fossil fuel combustion and 

estimates of GHG emissions and carbon sequestration for many of the sources and sinks 

potentially affected by proposed resource management actions.

CEQ Climate Guidance at 12.

In correcting its error here, OSM cannot simply assert that emissions differences between Action 

and No Action alternatives would be uncertain. That sort of dodge is belied by the fact that these 

market and climate effects do not need to be uncertain, as evidenced by DOI’s statement that it 

will develop and use models to answer this question going forward. This question is only uncertain 

because federal agencies have often refused to do the necessary study. In fact, there are multiple 

energy-economy models that could supply OSM with the projected levels of emissions in 

comparing the Action and No Action alternatives for 55.8 million tons of coal at issue here. These 

tools are already widely used by private parties and federal agencies to evaluate market effects of 

agency proposals in the coal mining and energy sectors.

For example, OSM’s sister federal agency, the Department of Energy, has a computer model 

created by the EIA that has been in use since 1994, and it could be utilized by OSM here to 

undertake precisely the kind of analysis that would be useful to decision-makers. EIA’s National 

Energy Modeling System (NEMS) is an energy-economy model that projects future energy prices, 

supply, and demand and can be used to isolate variables such as changes in coal supply and 

variations in delivered coal price.6

Similarly, ICF International’s Integrated Planning Model has been used to evaluate these types of 

market responses to numerous federal proposals in recent years. Recent examples include, but 

are not limited to the following projects: EPA, Clean Power Plan; State Department, Keystone 

XL Pipeline; Surface Transportation Board, Tongue River Railroad; U.S. Forest Service, Colorado 

Roadless Rule; Washington Department of Ecology, Millennium Bulk Export Terminal.

Response 4: Section 4.4.4 of the EA discloses and quantifies the difference in greenhouse gas 

emissions impacts between the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative. The 

Proposed Action would result in impacts that are moderate and would extend those impacts 

approximately 2.8 years beyond the current life of the mine. The impacts directly resulting from 

GHG emissions under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed 

Action but would not be extended by approximately 2.8 years. While annual CO2e emissions 

would remain the same as the Proposed Action for approximately 11.6 years, the LOM CO2e 
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-17

emissions would decrease by approximately 22 percent as a result of the No Action Alternative, 

based on 2.8-fewer years of combustion of CRM coal.

Revision: No changes made

Comment 5: Courts have long recognized the connection between market impacts and 

environmental effects, and have set aside agency decisions for violating NEPA’s “hard look” 

mandate where the agency misunderstood basic economic principles or a third-party’s economic 

report. Both the Eighth Circuit, Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 

550 (8th Cir. 2003), and more recently the District of Colorado, High Country Conservation 

Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F.Supp. 3d 1174, 1197-98 (D.Colo. 2014) have rejected similar 

unsupported, “illogical” assumptions of perfect substitution in essentially identical contexts. As 

the Eight [sic] Circuit explained:

[T]he proposition that the demand for coal will be unaffected by an increase in availability and a 

decrease in price . . . is illogical at best. The increased availability of inexpensive coal will at the 

very least make coal a more attractive option to future entrants into the utilities market when 

compared with other potential fuel sources, such as nuclear power, solar power, or natural gas. 

. . . [The railroad] will most certainly affect the nation’s long-term demand for coal.

Mid-States Coal. for Progress v. STB, 345 F.3d at 549. The Eighth Circuit then concluded that even 

if the “extent” of the increase in coal use was not reasonably foreseeable, the “nature” of the 

effect was, and that in this circumstance, “the agency may not simply ignore the effect.” Id. (citing 

40 C.F.R. §1502.22).

The Forest Service’s error in High Country is even more on point. The Forest Service in High 

Country, like BLM and OSM here, argued that “if the coal does not come out of the ground in 

the North Fork consumers will simply pay to have the same amount of coal pulled out of the 

ground from somewhere else—overall [greenhouse gas] emissions from combustion will be 

identical under either scenario.” 52 F.Supp. 3d 1174, 1197-98 The court in High Country held 

that the Forest Service’s FEIS was deficient, concluding that the increased supply made possible 

by the Forest Service’s decision would “impact the demand for coal relative to other fuel sources” 

and that “[t]his reasonably foreseeable effect must be analyzed.” Id. at 1198.

Other courts have similarly invalidated agency decisions that fail to take into account the 

connection between economic information and environmental impacts. For example, the Ninth 

Circuit invalidated a timber sale because Forest Service misinterpreted economic reports 

supporting the sale, explaining that, “[i]inaccurate economic information may defeat the purpose 

of an EIS by ‘impairing the agency’s consideration of the adverse environmental effects’ and by 

‘skewing the public’s evaluation’ of the proposed agency action.” NRDC v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 

F.3d 797, 811 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 

437, 446-48 (4th Cir. 1996)). See also Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 235 

F.Supp.2d 1143, 1157 (D. Wash. 2002) (“An EIS that relies upon misleading economic information 

may violate NEPA if the errors subvert NEPA’s purpose of providing decision makers and the 

public an accurate assessment upon which to evaluate the proposed project.”).
Appendix B

B-18 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Response 5: Section 4.4.4 of the EA discloses and quantifies the difference in greenhouse gas 

emissions impacts between the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative. The 

Proposed Action would result in impacts that are moderate and would extend those impacts 

approximately 2.8 years beyond the current life of the mine. The impacts directly resulting from 

GHG emissions under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed 

Action but would not be extended by approximately 2.8 years. While annual CO2e emissions 

would remain the same as the Proposed Action for approximately 11.6 years, the LOM CO2e 

emissions would decrease by approximately 22 percent as a result of the No Action Alternative, 

based on 2.8-fewer years of combustion of CRM coal.

Revision: No changes made

Comment 6: In addition to federal courts, the Secretary of Interior has recognized that opening 

up more federal lands for fossil fuel production could not only affect the amount of coal produced, 

but also the amount of wind and solar generation in our energy grid. That is why, in ordering a 

comprehensive study of the climate impacts of the federal coal program—since cancelled for 

political purposes—then-Secretary Jewell directed the Department of Interior to evaluate “how 

the administration, availability, and pricing of Federal coal affect regional and national economies 

(including job impacts), and energy markets in general, including the pricing and viability of other 

coal resources... and other energy sources.”7 The Secretary further directed the Department to 

study, “[t]he impact of possible program alternatives on the projected fuel mix and cost of 

electricity in the United States”.

8

More recently, in releasing a scoping report on the now-cancelled PEIS process, the Department 

of Interior – which OSM is a part of – acknowledged that the climate impacts of various 

alternatives for the federal coal leasing program are “largely contingent on the degree to which 

the substitute fuel sources are less carbon intensive (e.g., natural gas-fired generation or 

renewable generation) as opposed to similarly carbon intensive (e.g., non-Federal coal).”9 The 

Department acknowledged that this issue has not yet been studied and evaluated by either the 

Department or BLM, explaining that “BLM will develop and use economic models to assess these 

substitution dynamics and the impact they have on the costs and benefits of any changes.”10 Since 

the Department of the interior has acknowledged this is a key issue in determining the climate 

impact of leasing federally-owned coal, clearly stated its intention to study the market effects, and 

then abruptly cancelled the study for purely political reasons, OSM must use the available tools 

to study the market effects of its decision to approve the proposed mine plan modification.

Response 6: OSMRE is aware of the programmatic federal coal lease EIS, and since the analysis 

identified by the commenter was not completed, OSMRE is unable to review any findings in 

relation to our EA. Section 4.4.5.1of the EA provides OSMRE’s rationale for not conducting a 

social cost of carbon analysis.

Revision: Section 4.4.5.1 has been revised to clarify why social cost of carbon was not utilized 

for this NEPA evaluation.
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-19

Comment 7: Critically, every time these robust modeling tools discussed above have been used, 

they have documented market impacts. Most on point, the U.S. Forest Service recently 

documented impacts to wind and solar generation of a proposal that would open up 

approximately 170 million tons of coal on otherwise protected public lands in Colorado. OSM 

should be well aware of this analysis, as OSM was a cooperating agency in that NEPA review.

In its analysis, using ICF’s Integrated Planning Model (IPM) version 5.13, which most closely

matches our current regulatory setting where the Clean Power Plan has not been implemented, 

the Forest Service concluded: “the mix of energy sources used to generate electricity changes, in 

response to increases in North Fork Coal Mining Area coal production,” resulting in quantifiable 

decreases in renewable generation (measures in megawatt hour) as a result of the proposal.11

The Forest Service explained that “[t]hese shifts in the mixtures of energy used to generate 

electricity, as well as the production of different types of energy will change carbon dioxide 

emissions.12 The Forest Service concluded that the proposal would result in an additional 130 

million tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the proposal, when compared to the No 

Action alternative based on IPM version 5.13.13

Understanding the market and climate impacts of a decision to approve or reject massive coal 

mine expansions like the one at issue here is essential to making an informed decision. In order 

to comply with NEPA, OSM must either use available tools to provide that essential information 

or explain why it could not do so. OSM has done neither. Under the applicable regulations, the 

agency “shall” explain in its EIS (1) why such essential information is incomplete or unavailable; 

(2) its relevance to reasonably foreseeable impacts; (3) a summary of existing science on the 

topic; and (4) the agency’s evaluation based on any generally accepted theoretical approaches. 40 

C.F.R. § 1502.22(b).

In order to fully understand the climate impacts of its proposal, OSM must use one of the available 

climate energy models to evaluate market changes. Without using available tools to compare the 

greenhouse gas emission levels between Action and No Action, OSM cannot make an informed 

decision or take the hard look NEPA requires.

Response 7: Section 4.4.4 of the EA discloses and quantifies the difference in greenhouse gas 

emissions impacts between the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative. The 

Proposed Action would result in impacts that are moderate and would extend those impacts 

approximately 2.8 years beyond the current life of the mine. The impacts directly resulting from 

GHG emissions under the No Action Alternative would be similar to those under the Proposed 

Action but would not be extended by approximately 2.8 years. While annual CO2e emissions 

would remain the same as the Proposed Action for approximately 11.6 years, the LOM CO2e 

emissions would decrease by approximately 22 percent as a result of the No Action Alternative, 

based on 2.8-fewer years of combustion of CRM coal.

Section 4.4.5.1of the EA provides OSMRE’s rationale for not conducting a social cost of carbon 

analysis.

Revision: Section 4.4.5.1 has been revised to clarify why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted for this NEPA evaluation.
Appendix B

B-20 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Comment 8: In the EA, OSM asserts—incorrectly—that it simply does not have the means to 

assess the climate impact of the greenhouse emissions it quantifies.

Although the effects of GHG and other contributions to climate change in the global aggregate 

are estimable, it is currently not feasible to determine what effect GHG emissions in a specific 

area resulting from a specific activity might have on climate change and resulting environmental 

impacts. It is therefore not possible to associate any particular action with the creation or 

mitigation of any specific climate-related environmental effects.

EA at 4-18. Not only is this statement patently untrue, it is boilerplate stock language used by 

OSM in other NEPA reviews. See, e.g. OSM Spring Creek Draft Environmental Assessment at 4-

15 (2016); OSM, Belle Ayr Draft Environmental assessment at 4-24 (2017) (repeating quoted 

language verbatim).

OSM’s assertion that it does not have tools to assess climate impacts from its decision is 

incorrect. The social cost of carbon – a tool created by federal agencies and generally accepted 

in the scientific community – could be used here, as it would allow OSM to quantify and disclose 

the harm caused by that the project’s carbon dioxide emissions. The social cost of carbon 

provides a metric for estimating the economic damage, in dollars, of each incremental ton of 

carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.14

NEPA specifically requires federal agencies to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of 

their actions, including “aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health” impacts. 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1508.8. Where “information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts 

cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain 

it are not known,” NEPA regulations direct agencies to evaluate a project’s impacts “based upon 

theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community.” 40 

C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(4). The social cost of carbon is based on generally accepted research methods 

and years of peer-reviewed scientific and economic studies. It is a simple tool that is easy for 

federal agencies to use and easy for the public to understand. Putting a dollar figure on each ton 

of CO2 emitted as a result of a federal project places climate impacts in a context that both 

decision makers and the public can readily comprehend. The social cost of carbon is backed by 

years of peer reviewed scientific and economic research, it is designed to be updated to reflect 

the most up-to-date information, and it has already been used by federal agencies in both 

rulemaking decisions and project-level reviews under NEPA.

Although President Trump recently disbanded the IWG and rescinded its Technical Support 

Document – he did so on political, not scientific grounds.15 The President’s Executive Order 

directed federal agencies to refer to OMB Circular A-4 when evaluating greenhouse gas emission 

impacts from federal regulations. Circular A-4 instructs agencies to account for both the costs 

and benefits and to account for global impacts when evaluating impacts “likely to have effects” 

outside the U.S.16 The social cost of carbon allows OSM to evaluate those impacts here. There is 

nothing about the science behind the social cost of carbon that makes it more applicable in the 

regulatory setting than to project-level NEPA processes, and thus its specific application in the 

regulatory context does not detract from its utility here. Similarly, OSM could simply use one of 
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-21

the DICE, PAGE, or FUND models that the social cost of carbon is based on, as nothing in federal 

policy undermines the validity or application of those models. 

Moreover, federal agencies’ obligation to analyze the costs associated with greenhouse gas 

emissions through NEPA was directly affirmed by the court in High Country Conservation Advocates 

v. U.S. Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D.Colo. 2014). In its decision, the court identified the 

social cost of carbon protocol as a tool to “quantify a project’s contribution to costs associated 

with global climate change.” Id. at 1190. After rejecting the agency’s excuses for not using the 

tool, the court concluded: “[t]he critical importance of [climate change] . . . tells me that a ‘hard 

look’ has to include a ‘hard look’ at whether this tool, however imprecise it might be, would 

contribute to a more informed assessment of the impacts than if it were simply ignored.” Id. at 

1193. The same is true here.

Nor can the agency tout the benefits of coal development without similarly disclosing the costs. 

See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.23. Here, as is often the case, federal agencies reviewing coal leasing 

proposals tout the economic benefits of the project—such as job creation or local taxes—while 

failing to discuss the costs. EA at Appendix E-14. OSM quantified “future revenues added by the 

[Cordero Rojo] Tract,” including federal royalties, three different types of tax revenues, bonus 

bid payments, contributions to abandoned mine land funds. Id. Yet, as noted, OSM refused to 

make any attempt to quantify costs associated with its proposal. Although NEPA does not require 

agencies to prepare cost-benefit analyses, this type of misleading and one-sided analysis is 

expressly forbidden. See Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 446-47 (4th 

Cir. 1996) (“it is essential that the EIS not be based on misleading economic assumptions”); Sierra 

Club v. Sigler, 695 F.2d 957, 979 (5th Cir. 1983) (agency choosing to “trumpet” an action’s benefits 

has a duty to disclose its costs).

Finally, if OSM truly believes that other mines would simply ramp up production to fully replace 

Cordero Rojo coal in the market, then OSM cannot simultaneously refuse to apply that same 

logic to its evaluation of the economic benefits of its decision. Essentially, OSM discounts the 

climate harms as ‘likely to happen anyway’ but treats the benefits as outright additions. OSM does 

not acknowledge that, under its theory, for example, the taxes and royalties it touts as benefits 

of its decision would largely accrue anyway since production would just occur elsewhere. Nor 

does OSM acknowledge that mine employment would remain the same, if, as it asserts may 

happen, Cordero Rojo simply supplies the same amount of coal from non-federal reserves at the 

mine. OSM wants to take responsibility for the benefits while disavowing responsibility for the 

harms. This misleading and internally-inconsistent analysis must be discarded.

None of OSM's excuses for not using the social cost of carbon have any merit. First, OSM asserts 

that it cannot use the social cost of carbon because there is no consensus of what percentage of 

power plant greenhouse gas emissions to assign to coal producers. Draft EA at 4-19. 

Fundamentally, this statement does not address the central purpose of the social cost of carbon: 

to better inform agencies and the public of the impact of the proposed action. As the court in 

High Country stated, key issue for purposed of NEPA is "whether this tool, however imprecise 

it might be, would contribute to a more informed assessment of the impacts than if it were simply 

ignored." High Country, 52 F. Supp. 3d at 1193. The notion that OSM may not want to assign all 

off [sic] the social costs of emissions from power plants to the mine operator - and thus to OSM's 
Appendix B

B-22 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

decision to approve a mine plan modification - does not mean that the portion to assign to the 

mine operator and to OSM is zero. Moreover, as explained next, OSM does not need to assign 

a portion of power plan emissions to coal producers in order to use the social cost of carbon. 

Instead, OSM could determine how its decision (compared to the No Action alternative) would 

affect coal combustion levels, and use that number as the necessary inputs for calculating the 

social cost of carbon.17

Second, as noted above, OSM declined to use the social cost of carbon because there is "no 

certainty" that power plant emissions would be reduced by OSM selecting the No Action 

alternative here. Draft EA at 4-19. That lack of certainty, as explained above, is the result of 

OSM's refusal to study this issue. OSM cannot reasonably claim "uncertainty" as an excuse for 

not using a tool like the social cost of carbon because OSM could end any uncertainty by using 

one of several available models to first answer the market effect question on the quantity of CO2

emissions caused by OSM's approval of the mine plan modification, and then use those changes 

in the marketplace (i.e., changes in coal production and CO2 emissions) to analyze the impact of 

those emissions on the environment.

Finally, OSM asserts that to "provide any meaningful insight, the projected social cost of carbon 

would need to be viewed in the context with other costs and benefits associated with the 

Proposed Action. Draft EA at 4-19. OSM never states that it couldn't provide those other costs 

and benefits. Indeed, it quantifies many of the purported economic benefits of the mine expansion, 

including taxes, employment, royalties, and bonus bid payments. Draft EA at Appendix E-14. Nor 

does OSM offer up anything to explain why offering partial benefits provided "meaningful insight" 

but providing partial costs would not. This excuse is simply another dodge so that OSM does not 

have to own up to the true climate costs of its decision to approve the mine plan modification 

that Cloud Peak wants.

Response 8: Section 4.4.5.1of the EA provides OSMRE’s rationale for not conducting a social 

cost of carbon analysis.

Revision: Section 4.4.5.1 has been revised to clarify why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducteded for this NEPA evaluation.

Comment 9: OSM must consider the urgent need to cut carbon emissions to combat climate 

change in accordance with our international commitments and scientific consensus regarding the 

urgent need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the very near term. One of the 

measuring standards available to the agency for analyzing the magnitude and severity of OSMrelated fossil fuel emissions is by applying those emissions to the remaining global carbon budget. 

A “carbon budget” offers a cap on the remaining stock of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted 

while still keeping global average temperature rise below scientifically-backed warming 

thresholds—beyond which climate change impacts may result in sever and irreparable harm to 

the biosphere and humanity. Utilizing carbon budgets would offer OSM a methodology for 

analyzing how the proposed mine expansion and the continued coal combustion from the 

Cordero Rojo [sic] may affect the country’s ability to meet its national and international 

greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-23

As the Department of Interior recently explained, a “central objective to the BLM’s reform effort 

for the Federal coal program is consideration of the effect of the program on, and alternatives 

for alignment with, US climate goals.” Department of Interior, Federal Coal Program 

Programmatic EIS Scoping Report at 6-13. The fact that President Trump ordered the 

Department of Interior to abandon that review on political grounds does not relieve OSM and 

other federal agencies of the obligation to take a hard look at the climate impacts of their 

decisions, including by examining how agency decisions align with U.S. climate objectives. Here 

OSM has made no attempt to align its decision with still-binding U.S. climate reduction goals, nor 

has OSM assessed the severity of its emissions by discussing the diminishing U.S. carbon budget.

NEPA regulations mandate that federal agencies, “shall discuss any inconsistency of a proposed 

action with any approved State or local plan and laws (whether or not federally sanctioned),” 40 

C.F.R. § 1506.2(d), and require agencies to address “possible conflicts between the proposed 

action and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the case of a reservation, 

Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(c).

In order to take the hard look at this issue as NEPA requires, OSM must acknowledge and address 

the extent to which the proposed action conflicts with our national emissions reduction goals 

and international climate commitments, including internationally-agreed upon carbon budgets.

Response 9: Section 4.4.4 specifically evaluates the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed 

Action and clearly includes the estimated direct and indirect impacts from GHG emissions 

related to the Proposed Action. OSMRE has determined that the existing analysis is adequate 

to inform the decisionmaker of potential impacts of the Proposed Action.

Revision: No changes made

Comment 10: In its short, five-page section on climate impacts, EA at 4-16 to 4-20, OSM fails 

to appreciate the urgency of climate change. OSM characterizes climate impacts associated with 

the Cordero Rojo Mine as “minor” and “detectable but slight.” EA at 4-16. However, climate 

experts disagree with OSM: we cannot continue to simply wave off contributions to climate 

change simply because they represent a small part of a big problem. A coalition of prominent 

climate experts, policymakers, and corporate leaders warns in the top scientific journal Nature 

that keeping the global temperature rise below 2 °C, as set out in the Paris Climate Agreement, 

will be impossible without major changes in the next three years.18,19 The Paris Climate 

Agreement remains legally binding to the United States and is an international commitment that 

will require urgent action before 2020 to honor. As explained in these recent studies, this timeline 

will make it possible to attain the United Nations Sustainable Development goals set out in 2015.20

Pushing back the year of peak emissions just five years to 2025 will make it infeasible to transform 

the global economy in time to forestall the devastating impacts of climate change.21

Using climate models, scientists have estimated the quantity of allowable global emissions to 

remain within a global temperature increase of 2 °C or lower compared to pre-industrial 

temperatures.22 This is our remaining global carbon budget, which has been estimated at around 

1000 gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2),23 or at most, 1050 GtCO2 this century.24 A lower bound for the 
Appendix B

B-24 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

carbon budget has been estimated at only 150 GtCO2, also over the next century.25 By 2013, 

cumulative carbon emissions had amounted to 1970 GtCO2.

26 In other words, when looking at 

cumulative carbon emissions since pre-industrial levels, we have less than one-third of aggregate 

carbon emissions remaining before we will see a 2 °C temperature rise, and this is the most 

conservative estimate, giving us only a 67% chance of reaching the goal according to the largest 

carbon budget estimate available.27 In its EA, OSM failed to even mention the concept of a global 

carbon budget, nor the urgency of keeping global emissions within a strict carbon budget that is 

consistent with our international commitments.

The 1 °C of global warming humans have caused since the late 19th century has already led to 

appreciable and alarming impacts on the environment:

Global temperature and sea levels keep rising, reaching record highs once again in 2016. Global 

sea ice cover reached a record low, and mountain glaciers and the huge ice sheets in Greenland 

and Antarctica are on a trajectory of accelerating mass loss. More and more people are suffering 

from increasing and often unprecedented extreme weather events, both in terms of casualties 

and financial losses.28

Controlling global warming to a 2 °C increase is difficult enough, but in reality, keeping warming 

at or below 1.5 °C is ideal, since greater increases in temperature are associated with a higher 

chance of “crossing critical tipping points where major and largely irreversible changes...are 

triggered.”29 Achieving just the 2 °C target requires immediate action and leaves no room for 

continued coal leasing on federal lands.

Experts have made projections of where the world must be in 2020 to keep global temperature 

rise below 2 °C. Within the energy sector, all coal plants will need to be in the process of 

retirement, and no new coal plants can be approved.30 Leasing a federal coal mine with climate 

impacts reaching to 2027 and beyond is inconsistent with where the United States must be by 

2020 in order to meet our climate commitments. Our current global rate of carbon emissions is 

highly unsustainable. At our current rate of emissions of 39 GtCO2 emitted each year, we could 

reach the lower bound for the world’s estimated carbon budget in just four years, and the midpoint estimate would be reached within fifteen years.31 Even the current intended Nationally 

Determined Contributions (“(I)NDCs”) pursuant to the Paris Climate Agreement are insufficient 

to meet the 2 °C goal.32,33

Deliberate climate leadership is needed, and now. Scientific simulations have shown that to fulfill 

the Paris Climate Agreement, “the effort required to close the gap between current conditional 

(I)NDCs and the 2 °C goal [falls] solely to the G8 and China.”34 Moreover, experts indicate 

moving away from coal by 2020 is not only necessary but achievable, as demand for coal will have 

peaked by 2020.35

Most governments and investors increasingly realize that there is no room for new coal-fired 

power plants in the emissions budget implied by the Paris Agreement temperature limits: 

emissions from existing power plants alone would exceed the cost-optimal carbon budget by 

114%. Most governments are also beginning to recognize that reliance on coal (and gas) exposes 

their economy to price volatility on the global coal markets and decreases their energy security. 
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-25

These considerations, combined with increasing cost competitiveness of renewables, means that 

investment in new fossil fuel generation capacity is slackening off.36

Furthermore, the United States bears a disproportionately large share of the blame for 

anthropogenic climate change. The United States’ historical emissions debt (the difference 

between how much we should have been emitting based on population size and actual emissions) 

is extremely large. In fact, since 1960, “[t]he United States is a clear leader among debtor 

countries, with historical CO2 emissions that have consistently exceeded the world per-capita 

average” and carries the largest share of both carbon (CO2) and climate (also including methane, 

nitrous oxide, and sulfur dioxide) debt.37

In terms of countries that bear the greatest responsibility for anthropogenic climate change, the 

United States easily tops the list. In the period from 1990–2010, the United States alone was 

responsible for 32% of global climate debt.38 The country with the next greatest impact during 

the same period was Russia, which was responsible for only 10% of emissions, much lower by 

comparison.39 In total, our carbon debt by the year 2013 surmounted 100 GtCO2, compared to 

just 3.1 GtCO2 owed by France.40 In any future global discussions about who bears the 

responsibility for climate change, such as the costs of mitigation, the United States could be 

expected to pay a significant amount relative to other debtor nations,41 potentially to climate 

creditor nations such as India.42

In the extreme case of the United States, [fully accounting for both past and future inequalities] 

would entail both: (1) at least a 90% reduction in emissions by 2050, relative to 2005; and (2) an 

additional accounting for the more than 150 Gt CO2 carbon debt that will have accrued against 

the United States by that time. And neither of these conditions are trivial. The US EPA’s own 

estimates of the social cost of carbon range vary widely, from $11 to almost $100 per tonne of 

CO2 emitted, based on various assumptions of the future cost and discount rate of climate 

damages associated with emissions. Even at the very lowest end of this cost range, the United 

States’ current cumulative carbon debt of 100 Gt CO2 is valued at more than a trillion dollars.43

Several other published studies have estimated the United States’ portion of the global carbon 

budget based on various principles, each of which offers OSM a viable option for better evaluating 

the impact of the emissions from its decision to authorize the Cordero Rojo project. These 

studies allocate the remaining global carbon budget across countries based on factors including 

equity and economics. Estimates of the U.S. carbon budget reported by the four studies discussed 

below range from 34 GtCO2 to 158 GtCO2, depending on the temperature target used by the 

study (1.5°C versus 2°C), the likelihood of meeting the temperature target (50% or 66% 

probability), the equity principles used to allocate the global budget among nations, and whether 

a cost-optimal model was employed.

Using a non-precautionary 50% probability of limiting global warming to 2°C, Raupach et al. (2014) 

estimated the U.S. carbon budget at 158 GtCO2 based on a “blended” approach of sharing 

principles for allocating the global carbon budget across nations.44 The “blended” approach is 

midway between a non-equity “inertia” approach in which sharing is based on current emissions, 

and an “equity” approach in which sharing is based on population and provides for equal percapita emissions across countries.
Appendix B

B-26 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Using a more precautionary 66% probability of keeping warming below 2°C, Peters et al. (2015) 

estimated the U.S. carbon budget at 34 GtCO2 under an equity approach and 123 GtCO2 under 

an inertia approach.45

Similarly using a 66% probability of keeping warming below 2°C, Gignac et al. (2015) estimated 

the U.S. carbon budget at 78 to 97 GtCO2, based on a contraction and convergence framework, 

in which all countries adjust their emissions over time to achieve equal per-capita emissions.46

Although the contraction and convergence framework corrects present emissions inequities 

among countries over a specified time frame, it does not account for inequities stemming from 

historical emissions differences. When accounting for historical responsibility, Gignac et al. (2015) 

estimated that the United States has an additional cumulative carbon debt through 2013 of 100 

GtCO2.

Du Pont et al. (2017) averaged across five IPCC-AR5 sharing principles (capability, equal per 

capita, greenhouse development rights, equal cumulative per capita, and constant emissions ratio) 

to estimate the U.S. carbon budget through 2100.47 Using a 66% probability of keeping warming 

below 2°C, du Pont et al. (2017) estimated the U.S. carbon budget at 104 GtCO2eq (equal to ~ 

69 GtCO2) based on a cost-optimal model. Du Pont et al. (2017) further estimated the U.S. 

carbon budget at 57 GtCO2eq (equal to ~ 38 GtCO2) for a 50% chance of returning global average 

temperature rise to 1.5°C by 2100, which is the only target among the four studies just discussed 

that is consistent with the “well below 2°C” temperature target of the Paris Agreement.

Under any scenario, the remaining U.S. carbon budget consistent with limiting global average 

temperature rise to 1.5°C or 2°C is quite small and is rapidly being consumed. Keeping in mind 

considerations of both equity and future costs, the United States must place cutting CO2

emissions as a pressing national priority to sustain its leadership role in the international 

landscape, which leaves no place for continued coal mine leasing on federal lands. OSM must take 

the threat of climate change seriously in light of the overwhelming research and evidence 

presented by climate experts. At a minimum, OSM must address this recent scholarship on the 

concept of carbon budgeting, which was not addressed by BLM in the 2009 South Gillette EIS or 

OSM’s 2017 Draft EA, and evaluate how the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions 

associated with the Cordero Rojo project affect the remaining available carbon budget.

Response 10: Section 4.4.4 specifically evaluates the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed 

Action and clearly includes the estimated direct and indirect impacts from GHG emissions related 

to the Proposed Action. OSMRE has determined that the existing analysis is adequate to inform 

the decisionmaker of potential impacts of the Proposed Action.

Revision: No changes made

Comment 11: NEPA also requires a detailed analysis of “cumulative” effects, “the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.25(c).
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-27

Here OSM improperly refused to even consider cumulative climate impacts. The sum total of its 

cumulative climate section reads as follows:

4.4.5.2 Cumulative Effects

The analyses provided above include direct and indirect effects analysis for GHG emissions. Due 

to the global nature of climate change, and the difficulty therefore of predicting climate change 

impacts caused by an incremental increase in GHG emissions from specific actions separately or 

together, a separate cumulative impacts analysis for GHG emissions is not appropriate.

Draft EA at 4-19.

This blatant dodge plainly violates NEPA. For example, OSM does not even acknowledge the 

cumulative impact of Cordero Rojo coal added to other coal mining in the Powder River Basin. 

Nor does OSM address other nearby mine plan modifications that OSM is currently considering, 

like the 220 million ton mine plan modification at the Belle Ayr Mine that was part of the same 

2009 South Gillette FEIS that OSM tiers to here.

The impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative 

impacts analysis that NEPA requires agencies to conduct. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway 

Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 (9th Cir. 2008). [T]he fact that climate change is largely 

a global phenomenon that includes actions that are outside of [the agency’s] control . . . does not 

release the agency from the duty of assessing the effects of its actions on global warming within 

the context of other actions that also affect global warming. Id.

Analysis of cumulative impacts protects against “the tyranny of small decisions,” Kern v. Bureau of 

Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002), by confronting the possibility that agency action 

may contribute to cumulatively significant effects even where the impacts appear insignificant in 

isolation. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.27(b)(2). See Grand Canyon Trust v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 290 

F.3d 339, 342 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (evaluating the environmental consequences of a proposed action, 

the agency “must give a realistic evaluation of the total impacts and cannot isolate a proposed 

project, viewing it in a vacuum.”).

Here OSM cannot simply punt because it thinks predicting impacts might be “difficult[].” EA at 4-

23 [sic]. OSM may not want to add up the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions that result from 

its past, pending, and foreseeable future approvals for coal mining on public lands, but NEPA does 

not allow it.

Response 11: Section 4.4.5.2 of the EA includes a detailed discussion for the reasoning behind 

not including cumulative effects for GHG evaluations. Section 4.4.4 presents emissions related to 

the Proposed Action in the context of total U.S. emissions. OSMRE, where appropriate and not 

overly speculative, included reasonable forecasting as in the case with the Air Quality and Climate 

Change discussion in Chapter 4 allowing the decision maker to evaluate potential impacts 

associated with the Proposed Action using representative or predicted emissions. 

No changes required
Appendix B

B-28 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Revision: No changes made

Comment 12: NEPA requires OSM prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 

proposed mine expansion instead of the more limited EA and unsigned Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) it has prepared thus far. This proposal is massive – the 20 million tons of coal 

per year Cordero Rojo would generate would make it the fifth largest coal mine in the U.S. See 

supra note 1 and accompanying text. OSM’s proposed course is legally insufficient. The agency 

must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to fulfill its duties under NEPA.

NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS rather than a more limited EA for any “major 

federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 

4332(2)(C). Agencies must prepare an EIS if there are “substantial questions whether a project 

may have significant effect,” Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1212 

(9th Cir. 1998), and an agency “cannot avoid preparing an EIS by making conclusory assertions 

that an activity will have only an insignificant impact on the environment.” Ocean Advocates v. U.S. 

Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846, 864 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of coal mining and combustion associated with 

the proposed expansion will undoubtedly have a significant effect on the environment. The 

proposed expansion will assuredly result in the release of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. 

When combined with other mine expansions, including those currently under evaluation by OSM, 

the proposal will undoubtedly result in hundreds of millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions 

– making them significant by any measure.

A proposal may require an EIS if its effects are “likely to be highly controversial.” 40 C.F.R. § 

1508.27(b)(4). Increasing methane and carbon dioxide emissions by expanding coal mining into 

federal lands is particularly controversial at this time, as doing so may interfere with efforts to 

meet our international climate commitments and could make it impossible to keep global warming 

limits within manageable thresholds.

Response 12: The determination of significance is based on the context and intensity as defined 

by CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1508.27. The significance of the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts to all resources is analyzed in the EA in Chapter 4, and the rationale for the conclusions 

reached is provided. For the reasons described in the FONSI, OSMRE has determined that there 

are no significant impacts. Therefore, an EIS is not required. As stated in the FONSI on pages 4 

and 5, As a factor for determining within the meaning of 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4) (whether or not 

to prepare a detailed EIS) “controversy” is not equated with “the existence of opposition to a 

use.” Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Bonneville Power Administration, 117 F.3d 1520, 1536 

(9th Cir. 1997). The term ‘highly controversial’ refers to instances in which “a substantial dispute 

exists as to the size, nature, or effect of the major federal action rather than the mere existence 

of opposition to a use” Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. Jacoby, 9 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1242 (D. Or. 

1998). The EA has analyzed the direct and indirect effects on and from climate change and, as 

discussed in section 4.4 of this EA, determined the effects to be moderate and short-term.
Appendix B

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 B-29

Revision: No changes made
APPENDIX C

AIR QUALITY MODELING FOR CORDERO ROJO PERMIT #MD-9943

REDHORSE CORPORATION
Appendix C

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 C-1

Selection of Worst-Case Years – Redhorse Corporation

Redhorse Corporation (Redhorse) also conducted air quality modeling in 2016 for the Cordero 

Rojo Mine. Redhorse used the ISCLT3 model to estimate average annual PM10 concentrations for 

the years 2016 through 2035, for the Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo, and Coal Creek mines 

(middle group of mines) (Redhorse 2016).

Because of the nature of surface coal mining, air emissions will vary from year to year, both in 

magnitude and location. Dispersion modeling was completed to evaluate compliance with air 

quality standards based on selected worst-case emissions years. Because it is not feasible to 

develop modeling for all mine years, two worst-case years were selected for modeling that 

represent the maximum potential for off-site impacts.

Off-site impacts are primarily affected by the magnitude of emissions from the mine, and the 

proximity of the emission sources to the ambient air boundary. The first worst-case modeling 

scenario was selected based on the mine year that had the maximum projected particulate matter 

emissions. From Table 5-1, in Redhorse 2016, the mine year with the highest projected PM10

emissions from Cordero Rojo Mine is mine year 2023. This mine year also has pit operations that 

are in close proximity to the western and eastern borders of the lands necessary to conduct 

mining. Therefore, mine year 2023 was selected as the first mine year for the modeling analysis.

Based on guidance from WDEQ personnel at a pre-application meeting held on May 16, 2016, 

one of the worst-case years selected should be based on the maximum projected cumulative 

PM10 emissions from all Middle Group mines and at least one of the one of the worst-case years 

should be within 5 years of the application submittal. An examination of projected emissions 

shown in the PM10 table on page C-2 shows that mine year 2017 represents the highest 

cumulative PM10 emissions from the Middle Group mines and is also within 5 years. Therefore, 

mine year 2017 was selected as the second worst-case modeling scenario.

Mine year 2017 was also used for the NO2 modeling analysis. These mine years represent high 

Cordero Rojo Mine and cumulative projected NOX emissions. Mine year 2017 is 99 percent of 

the maximum cumulative NOX emission year and mine year 2023 is 97 percent of the maximum 

Cordero Rojo Mine NOX emission year (see NOX table on page C-2).
Appendix C

C-2 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Redhorse Corporation Cordero Rojo Mine and Regional Mines Annual PM10 Emission Summary 

(tpy)

Year Belle Ayr1 Caballo2 Coal Creek3 Cordero Rojo Total

2017 1443 1730 1231 1822 6226

2018 1294 1511 1146 1885 5836

2019 1112 1573 1207 1930 5822

2020 1168 1688 1247 1730 5833

2021 1281 1616 --- 2013 4910

2022 1269 1552 --- 2097 4918

2023 1262 1609 --- 2111 4982

2024 1306 --- --- 2100 3406

2025 1350 --- --- 2110 3460

2026 1199 --- --- 1786 2985

2027 960 --- --- 1779 2739

2028 173 --- --- 1283 1456

2029 138 --- --- 837 975

2030 101 --- --- 880 981

2031 61 --- --- 1058 1119

1 The Belle Ayr Mine plan includes mining through 2031

2 The Caballo Mine plan includes mining through 2023

3 The Coal Creek Mine plan includes mining through 2020

Redhorse Corporation Cordero Rojo Mine and Regional Mines Annual NOX Emission Summary 

(tpy)

Year Belle Ayr1 Caballo2 Coal Creek3 Cordero Rojo Total

2017 1373 1892 1493 2758 7516

2018 1249 1887 1434 2789 7359

2019 1082 1892 1248 2830 7052

2020 1107 1872 1365 2621 6965

2021 1194 1865 1426 3126 7611

2022 1173 1872 --- 3164 6209

2023 1165 1887 --- 3226 6278

2024 1202 1862 --- 3253 6317

2025 1280 --- --- 3331 4611

2026 1184 --- --- 2901 4085

2027 1049 --- --- 2910 3959

2028 86 --- --- 1861 1947

2029 89 --- --- 1241 1330

2030 89 --- --- 1340 1429

2031 89 --- --- 1722 1811

1 The Belle Ayr Mine plan includes mining through 2031

2 The Caballo Mine plan includes mining through 2023

3 The Coal Creek Mine plan includes mining through 2020
APPENDIX D

CRM SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES SUMMARY TABLES

FOR FEDERAL LEASE MODIFICATION APPROVAL - WYW174407
Appendix D

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 D-1

CRM Species of Concern

Group Common Name Scientific Name

Observed 

in Study 

Area1

Bird of 

Conservation 

Concern2

USFWS2 WY_BLM2 USFS2 WGFD2 STATE 

RANK2

GLOBAL 

RANK2

Amphibians Tiger Salamander Ambystoma 

mavortium No S4 G5

Amphibians Great Plains Toad Anaxyrus cognatus No NSSU (U); 

Tier 3 S3 G5

Amphibians Northern Leopard 

Frog Lithobates pipiens Yes Not Warranted for Listing (NW) Sensitive Region 2 Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 3 S3 G5

Amphibians Plains Spadefoot Spea bombifrons Yes NSSU (U); 

Tier 3 S4 G5

Birds Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis No No Not Warranted 

for Listing (NW) Sensitive

Region 2 

Sensitive; 

Region 4 

Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 1 S2B;S3N G5

Birds Western Grebe Aechmophorus 

occidentalis Yes Yes

Birds Baird's Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii Yes No Sensitive S1?B G4

Birds Grasshopper 

Sparrow

Ammodramus 

savannarum

Yes Yes Region 2 

Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S4 G5

Birds Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Yes Yes S4B;S4N G5

Birds Sagebrush Sparrow Artemisiospiza 

nevadensis No No Sensitive Region 2 Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S3 G5

Birds Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Yes Yes Region 2 

Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S2 G5

Birds Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Yes Yes Sensitive Region 2 

Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 1 S4B G4

Birds Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Yes No S4B G5

Birds Bufflehead Bucephala albeola No No S2B G5

Birds Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Yes Yes

Birds American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus No Yes

Birds Common 

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula No No S3B G5

Birds Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Yes Yes Sensitive Region 2 

Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 1 S4B;S5N G4

Birds Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Yes Yes
Appendix D

D-2 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Group Common Name Scientific Name

Observed 

in Study 

Area1

Bird of 

Conservation 

Concern2

USFWS2 WY_BLM2 USFS2 WGFD2 STATE 

RANK2

GLOBAL 

RANK2

Birds Chestnut-collared 

Longspur Calcarius ornatus Yes No Region 2 Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S1 G5

Birds Greater SageGrouse

Centrocercus 

urophasianus Yes Yes

Candidate 

Warranted but 

Precluded (C)

Sensitive

Region 2 

Sensitive; 

Region 4 

Sensitive

NSS2 (Ba); 

Tier 1 S4 G3G4

Birds Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus No Yes Not Warranted 

for Listing (NW) Sensitive Region 2 Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 1 S2B;S3B G3

Black Tern

Birds Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus No No NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S2 G5

Birds Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii No Yes

Birds Merlin Falco columbarius No No NSSU (U); 

Tier 3 S3B;S4N G5

Birds Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Yes Yes

Birds Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Yes Yes Delisted; formally 

monitored (DM) Sensitive

Region 2 

Sensitive; 

Region 4 

Sensitive

NSS3 (Bb); 

Tier 2 S2 G4

Birds Whooping Crane Grus americana No No

Listed Endangered 

(LE); and 

Endangered -

Nonessential 

Experimental 

Population 

(LEXN)

S1N G1

Birds Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis No No NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 3 S3B;S5N G5

Birds Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus Yes Yes Delisted; formally monitored (DM) Sensitive

Region 2 

Sensitive; 

Region 4 

Sensitive

NSS2 (Ba); 

Tier 1 S3B;S5N G5

Birds Black-necked Stilt Himantopus 

mexicanus No No S3B G5

Birds Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis No No S5B;S5N G5

Birds White-winged Junco Junco hyemalis aikeni No No S3 G5T4
Appendix D

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 D-3

Group Common Name Scientific Name

Observed 

in Study 

Area1

Bird of 

Conservation 

Concern2

USFWS2 WY_BLM2 USFS2 WGFD2 STATE 

RANK2

GLOBAL 

RANK2

Birds Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Yes Yes Sensitive Region 2 

Sensitive S3 G4

Birds Herring Gull Larus argentatus No No SNA G5

Birds California Gull Larus californicus No No S2B G5

Birds Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis No No S2 G5

Birds Eastern ScreechOwl Megascops asio No No S3 G5

Birds Red-headed 

Woodpecker

Melanerpes 

lentiginosus Yes Yes

Birds Lewis's 

Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis No No Region 2 Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 2 S2 G4

Birds Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Yes Yes Sensitive Region 2 

Sensitive

NSS3 (Bb); 

Tier 2 S3B G5

Birds Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes 

montanus

Yes Yes Sensitive NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S5 G5

Birds Osprey Pandion haliaetus No No S3B G5

Birds American White 

Pelican

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos No No S1B G4

Birds Red-necked 

Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus No No S3N G4G5

Birds Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak

Pheucticus 

ludovicianus No No S1 G5

Birds White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi Yes No Sensitive NSS3 (Bb); 

Tier 2 S1B G5

Birds Virginia Rail Rallus limicola No No NSS3 (Bb); 

Tier 2 S3B G5

Birds American Avocet Recurvirostra 

americana No No S3B G5

Birds Golden-crowned 

Kinglet Regulus satrapa No No S3B;S4N G5

Birds McCown's Longspur Rhynchophanes 

mccownii Yes Yes Region 2 Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S2 G4

Birds Dickcissel Spiza americana No No NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S1 G5

Birds Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri Yes Yes Sensitive Region 2 

Sensitive

NSS4 (Bc); 

Tier 2 S5 G5
Appendix D

D-4 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Group Common Name Scientific Name

Observed 

in Study 

Area1

Bird of 

Conservation 

Concern2

USFWS2 WY_BLM2 USFS2 WGFD2 STATE 

RANK2

GLOBAL 

RANK2

Birds Clay-colored 

Sparrow Spizella pallida Yes No S3B G5

Birds Common Tern Sterna hirundo No No S1 G5

Birds Barn Owl Tyto alba No No S2 G5

Mammals Plains Bison Bos bison No Not Warranted 

for Listing (NW) S1 G4TU

Mammals Gray Wolf Canis lupus Yes Proposed for 

Delisting (PD)

Region 2 

Sensitive; 

Region 4 

Sensitive

S1 G4G5

Mammals Black-tailed Prairie 

Dog Cynomys ludovicianus No Not Warranted for Listing (NW) Sensitive Region 2 Sensitive S2 G4

Mammals Thirteen-lined 

Ground Squirrel

Ictidomys 

tridecemlineatus Yes S5 G5

Mammals Northern River 

Otter Lontra canadensis No Region 2 Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 2 S3 G5

Mammals Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes No

Listed Endangered 

(LE); and 

Endangered -

Nonessential 

Experimental 

Population 

(LEXN)

NSS1 (Aa); 

Tier 1 S1 G1

Mammals Least Weasel Mustela nivalis

Mammals Western Smallfooted Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum No NSS4 (Cb); 

Tier 2 S3B G5

Mammals Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus No Petition Under 

Review (UR)

NSS4 (Cb); 

Tier 2 S5 G3

Mammals Olive-backed 

Pocket Mouse Perognathus fasciatus No NSS4 (Cb); Tier 2 S4 G5

Mammals White-footed 

Deermouse Peromyscus leucopus No S3 G5

Mammals Dwarf Shrew Sorex nanus No NSS3 (Bb); 

Tier 2 S4 G4

Mammals Plains Spotted 

Skunk

Spilogale putorius 

interrupta No Petition Under Review (UR) S3 G4T4
Appendix D

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 D-5

Group Common Name Scientific Name

Observed 

in Study 

Area1

Bird of 

Conservation 

Concern2

USFWS2 WY_BLM2 USFS2 WGFD2 STATE 

RANK2

GLOBAL 

RANK2

Mammals Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Yes S3 G5

Mammals Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos No Listed Threatened 

(LT) S1 G4T4

Mammals Swift Fox Vulpes velox No Not Warranted 

for Listing (NW) Sensitive Region 2 Sensitive

NSS4 (Cb); 

Tier 2 S2 G3

Mammals

Bear Lodge 

Meadow Jumping 

Mouse

Zapus hudsonius 

campestris Yes S1 G5T3

Reptiles Eastern Spiny 

Softshell Apalone spinifera No NSS4 (Bc); Tier 3 S4 G5T5

Reptiles Eastern Yellowbellied Racer

Coluber constrictor 

flaviventris No S4 G5T5

Reptiles Pale Milksnake

Lampropeltis 

triangulum 

multistriata

No NSS3 (Bb); 

Tier 2 S3 G5TNR

Reptiles Bullsnake Pituophis catenifer 

sayi No S4 G5T5

Reptiles Plains Gartersnake Thamnophis radix No NSSU (U); 

Tier 2 S5 G5

Plants Barr's milkvetch Astragalus barrii Yes Region 2 

Sensitive S3 G3

Plants Woolly twinpod Physaria lanata No Region 2 

Sensitive

NSSU (U); 

Tier 2 S2 G5T2

1

Study area is CRM permit boundary and 0.5-mile buffer

2 Blank cells indicate the information is not applicable

Highlights indicates species has been documented in the same T/R as the CRM 

MBCC – Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern

USFS:

Region 2 Sensitive, R2 - In Wyoming, sensitive in Bighorn, Black Hills, Medicine Bow, and Shoshone National Forests, and Thunder Basin National Grassland

Region 4 Sensitive, R4 - In Wyoming, sensitive in Bridger-Teton, Caribou, Targhee, Wasatch-Cache, and Ashley (including Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area) National Forests

WGFD:

NSS1-NSS4:

The NSS rank of the species is subtracted from 5 and multiplied by 6: [(5-NSS)x6]. This would result in scores of NSS1 = 24, NSS2 = 18, NSS3 = 12, NSS4 = 6.

The species is assigned a score of 1-10 based on the variable "Wyoming's contribution to the species' overall conservation"; 10 being the highest contribution and 1 being the lowest contribution. The WYNDD G 

rank (global chance of extinction) and Wyoming Conservation Contribution score were consulted in determining this score. The species is assigned a score of 1-5; 5 being the highest and 1 the lowest for each 

of the following variables:

Regulatory/monetary impacts of the species' listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Urgency of conservation action.

Ability to implement effective conservation actions.

The species' ecological or management role as a keystone, indicator, or umbrella species.
Appendix D

D-6 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Rank: 

G = Global rank assigned by NatureServe: range-wide probability of extinction for a species

S = Subnational (state/jurisdiction) rank assigned by WYNDD biologists for Wyoming

T = Trinomial rank: refers to the range-wide probability of extinction for a subspecies or variety

These letters are each followed by a numeric, 1-5 score: 

1 = critically imperiled

2 = imperiled

3 = vulnerable

4 = apparently secure

5 = secure

Source: WYNDD (2017) and USFWS (2017) for Birds of Conservation Concern
APPENDIX E

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOX, Hg, CO, and CO2 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM COAL COMBUSTION 

CALCULATIONS

REVENUE CALCULATIONS

(Completed by WWC Engineering)
Appendix E

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 E-1

GHG Calculations Assumptions 

Direct Emissions Variables

Source: SGAC Calculations (BLM 2009)

Indirect Emissions Assumptions

Train: 130 Cars/Train, 1/2 aluminum rotary, 1/2 aluminum bottom dump (From CRM)

23 Tons/car empty - 1/2 are 21 tons and 1/2 are 25 tons (BNSF 2017)

119 Tons of Coal/Car (BNSF 2017)

15,470 Tons of Coal/Train (calculated)

200 Tons/locomotive – four per train (4Rail 2017)

3,790 Weight of empty 130-car train (tons) (calculated)

19,260 Weight of loaded coal train (tons) (calculated)

Transportation Emissions Variables

Emission Rate (kg/gal) CO2e Conversion Rate Kg CO2e/Gal Diesel Kg CO2e/Mile/Ton

CO2 10.21 1 10.21 0.023417431

CH4 0.0000112 25 0.00028 0.000001

N2O 0.0000224 298 0.0066752 0.000015

Total 10.2169552 0.0234

Source: Conversion Rate – EPA 2017a

Emission Rate – EPA 2014

Transportation Variables

Miles/gal/1 Ton1 Miles Kg 

CO2e/Mile/Ton2 Tons Kg CO2e /Mile Kg CO2e/Trip Metric Tons CO2e/Trip

Loaded 436 1,060 0.0234 19,260.0

(Calculated)

451.3

(Calculated)

478,406.6

(Calculated)

4,784.1

(Calculated)

Empty 436 1,060 0.0234 3,790.0 88.8 94,141.3.0 941.4

1

FactCheck 2008

2 EPA 2014

CRM Production, 2009-2016

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average

Production (Tons) 39,380,964 38,499,809 39,455,590 39,204,737 36,670,450 34,809,102 22,871,977 18,332,046 33,653,084

Source: WDWS (2009 through 2016)

Source CO2e/Mt Coal Mined

FUEL subtotal 3,266.9

ELECTRICITY subtotal 2,670.1

PROCESS subtotal 1,147.7
Appendix E

E-2 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Estimated 2009 Cordero Rojo Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt)

Ave. Known Ratio (tons CO2e/Mt 

coal) Tons CO2e

Direct

Fuel 39.4 3266.9 128,654

Electricity 2670.1 105,151

Mining Process 1147.7 45,198

Total Direct 279,002

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2009 Coal Production 39,400,000

2009 Coal Shipped by Rail 39,400,000

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 2,547

# Empty Trains/year 2,547

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,060

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 239,765,108.5

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 1,218,436,936.4

Kg CO2e/year Total 1,458,202,044.8

Total Transportation (CO2e) 1,457,498

Combustion (CO2e) 65,963,115

Total Indirect CO2e 67,420,612

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 67,699,615

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Appendix E

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 E-3

Estimated 2010 Cordero Rojo Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 38.5 3266.9 125,775

Electricity 2670.1 68,798

Mining Process 1147.7 29,572

Total Direct 272,760

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2010 Coal Production 38,499,809

2010 Coal Shipped by Rail 38,499,809

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 2,489

# Empty Trains/year 2,489

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,060

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 234,287,078.2

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 1,190,598,713.9

Kg CO2e/year Total 1,424,885,792.1

Total Transportation (CO2e) 1,424,886

Combustion (CO2e) 64,487,180

Total Indirect CO2e 65,912,066

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 66,184,825

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Appendix E

E-4 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Estimated 2011 Cordero Rojo Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 39.5 3266.9 128,897

Electricity 2670.1 105,350

Mining Process 1147.7 45,283

Total Direct 279,531

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2011 Coal Production 39,455,590

2011 Coal Shipped by Rail 39,455,590

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 2,550

# Empty Trains/year 2,550

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,060

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 240,103,396.3

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 1,220,156,045.7

Kg CO2e/year Total 1,460,259,442.1

Total Rail Transportation (CO2e) 1,460,259

Combustion (CO2e) 66,088,113

Total Indirect CO2e 67,548,373

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 67,827,904

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Appendix E

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 E-5

Estimated 2012 Cordero Rojo Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 39.2 3266.9 128,078

Electricity 2670.1 104,681

Mining Process 1147.7 44,995

Total Direct 277,754

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2012 Coal Production 39,204,737

2012 Coal Shipped by Rail 39,204,737

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 2,534

# Empty Trains/year 2,534

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,060

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 238,576,853.3

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 1,212,398,468.1

Kg CO2e/year Total 1,450,975,321.3

Total Rail Transportation (CO2e) 1,450,975

Combustion (CO2e) 65,667,934

Total Indirect CO2e 67,118,910

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 67,396,664

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Appendix E

E-6 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Estimated 2013 Cordero Rojo Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 36.7 3266.9 119,799

Electricity 2670.1 97,914

Mining Process 1147.7 42,087

Total Direct 259,799

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2013 Coal Production 36,670,450

2013 Coal Shipped by Rail 36,670,450

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 2,370

# Empty Trains/year 2,370

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,060

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 223,154,680.7

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 1,134,026,161.3

Kg CO2e/year Total 1,357,180,842.0

Total Transportation (CO2e) 1,357,181

Combustion (CO2e) 61,423,004

Total Indirect CO2e 62,780,185

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 63,039,984

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Appendix E

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 E-7

Estimated 2014 Cordero Rojo Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 34.8 3266.9 113,718

Electricity 2670.1 92,944

Mining Process 1147.7 39,950

Total Direct 246,612

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2014 Coal Production 34,809,102

2014 Coal Shipped by Rail 34,809,102

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 2,250

# Empty Trains/year 2,250

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,060

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 211,827,617.2

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 1,076,464,355.3

Kg CO2e/year Total 1,288,291,972.5

Total Transportation (CO2e) 1,288,292

Combustion (CO2e) 58,305,246

Total Indirect CO2e 59,593,538

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 59,840,150

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Appendix E

E-8 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Estimated 2015 Cordero Rojo Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 22.9 3266.9 74,720

Electricity 2670.1 61,070

Mining Process 1147.7 26,250

Total Direct 162,041

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2015 Coal Production 22,871,977

2015 Coal Shipped by Rail 22,871,977

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 1,478

# Empty Trains/year 1,478

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,060

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 139,185,331.1

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 707,311,207.7

Kg CO2e/year Total 846,496,538.9

Total Transportation (CO2e) 846,497

Combustion (CO2e) 38,310,561

Total Indirect CO2e 39,157,058

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 39,319,099

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Appendix E

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 E-9

Estimated 2016 Cordero Rojo Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 18.3 3266.9 59,889

Electricity 2670.1 48,948

Mining Process 1147.7 21,040

Total Direct 129,877

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2016 Coal Production 18,332,046

2016 Coal Shipped by Rail 18,332,046

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 1,185

# Empty Trains/year 1,185

Average Rail Miles to Power Plant 1,060

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 111,557,994.9

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 566,914,770.7

Kg CO2e/year Total 678,472,765.6

Total Transportation (CO2e) 678,473

Combustion (CO2e) 30,706,177

Total Indirect CO2e 31,384,650

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 31,514,527

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Appendix E

E-10 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Summary of Estimated CRM 2009-16 CO2e Emissions

CO2e Source 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ave.

% Of 

Total 

Emissions

Direct Emissions

 Fuel 128,654 125,775 128,897 128,078 119,799 113,718 74,720 59,889 109,941

 Electricity 105,151 102,798 105,350 104,681 97,914 92,944 61,070 48,948 89,857

 Mining Process 45,198 44,186 45,283 44,995 42,087 39,950 26,250 21,040 38,624

 Total Direct Emissions 279,002 272,760 279,531 277,754 259,799 246,612 162,041 129,877 238,422 0.4%

Indirect Emissions

 Rail Transport 1,457,498 1,424,886 1,460,259 1,450,975 1,357,181 1,288,292 846,497 678,473 1,245,508 2.2%

 Power Plant Combustion (CO2e) 65,963,115 64,487,180 66,088,113 65,667,934 61,423,004 58,305,246 38,310,561 30,706,177 56,368,916 97.4%

 Total Indirect Emissions 67,420,612 65,912,066 67,548,373 67,118,910 62,780,185 59,593,538 39,157,058 31,384,650 57,614,424 99.6%

Total Emissions 67,699,615 66,184,825 67,827,904 67,396,664 63,039,984 59,840,150 39,319,099 31,514,527 57,852,846 100%
Appendix E

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 E-11

Estimated 2017-2027 Cordero Rojo Mine Equivalent CO2e (in metric tons)

Source Coal (Mt) Ave. Known Ratio (tons/Mt coal) Tons

Direct

Fuel 20.0 3266.9 65,338

Electricity 2670.1 53,402

Mining Process 1147.7 22,954

Total Direct 141,694

Indirect

Rail Transport 

2017-2027 Coal Production 20,000,000

2017-2027 Coal Shipped by Rail 20,000,000

Tons Coal/Train 15,470

Empty Train Tons 3,790

Loaded Train Tons 19,260

# Loaded Trains/year 1,293

# Empty Trains/year 1,293

Average Rail Miles to Power 

Plant 1,060

Kg CO2e/Mi/Loaded Train 451.33

Kg CO2e/Mi/Empty Train 88.81

Kg CO2e/year Empty 121,708,176.9

Kg CO2e/year Loaded 618,495,906.8

Kg CO2e/year Total 740,204,083.7

Total Transportation (CO2e) 740,204

Combustion (CO2e) 33,500,000

Total Indirect 34,240,204

Total Direct + Indirect CO2e 34,381,898

100% Coal shipped to U.S. power plants
Appendix E

E-12 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Summary of Estimated CRM 2017-2027 CO2e Emissions

CO2e Source 2017-2027 

Ave

% Of Total 

Emissions

Fuel 65,338

Electricity 53,402

Mining Process 22,954

Total Direct 141,694 0.4%

Indirect Emissions

 Rail Transport 740,204 2.5%

 Power Plant Combustion 33,500,000 97.4%

 Total Indirect Emissions 34,240,204 99.6%

Total Emissions 34,381,898 100%
Appendix E

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 E-13

Parameters Used to Calculate Combustion Emissions

Btu per short ton 16,890,000 https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625a/Chapters/PG.pdf

tons per kg 0.00110231 Conversion

tons to generate 1KW-h 0.000618709 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=2

tons to generate 1 MW-h 0.618709295 Calculated

PM10 Emissions per Btu (kg/MW-h) 0.39 http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/10236-north-american-power-plant-air-emissions

PM10 Emissions per Btu (ton/MW-h) 0.000429901 Calculated

PM2.5 Emissions per Btu (kg/MW-h) 0.305 http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/10236-north-american-power-plant-air-emissions

PM2.5 Emissions per Btu (ton/MW-h) 0.00013112 Calculated

SO2 Emissions (kg/MW-h) 17.5 AP-42 Table 1.1-3, with S (sulfur content %) = 0.5 from USGS 1625-A cited above

NOx Emissions (kg/MW-h) 7.2 AP-42 Table 1.1-3, pulverized coal, dry bottom, tangentially fired, sub-bituminous, NSPS

Hg Emissions per Btu (kg/MW-h) 0.000083 AP-42 Table 1.1-18

CO Emissions (lb) per ton 0.50000000 AP-42 Table 1.1-3

Combustion Emissions Values

Years 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2027 2017-2030

Tons of Coal Mined (From CRM)

39,380,964 38,499,809 39,455,590 39,204,737 36,670,450 34,809,102 22,871,977 18,332,046 20,000,000 20,000,000

mw-h from coal mined 63,650,190 62,226,007 63,770,805 63,365,360 59,269,273 56,260,836 36,967,243 29,629,498 32,325,359 32,325,359

PM10 Emissions (Tons) 27,363.3 26,751.0 27,415.1 27,240.8 25,479.9 24,186.6 15,892.3 12,737.7 13,896.7 13,896.7

PM 2.5 Emissions (Tons) 8,345.8 8,159.1 8,361.6 8,308.5 7,771.4 7,376.9 4,847.1 3,885.0 4,238.5 4,238.5

SO2 Emissions (Tons) 344,583.4 336,873.3 345,236.4 343,041.4 320,866.4 304,579.6 200,129.8 160,405.4 175,000.0 175,000.0

NOx Emissions (Tons) 141,771.5 138,599.3 142,040.1 141,137.1 132,013.6 125,312.8 82,339.1 65,995.4 72,000.0 72,000.0

Hg Emissions (Tons) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8

CO Emissions (Tons) 9,845.2 9,625.0 9,863.9 9,801.2 9,167.6 8,702.3 5,718.0 4,583.0 5,000.0 5,000.0
Appendix E

E-14 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Estimated 2016 Fiscal Revenue from 2015 Coal Production in Campbell Co. (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 564.2 282.1 282.1

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 95.4 67.4 28.0

Severance Tax 241.1 241.1

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 307.9 153.9 153.9

Ad Valorem Tax 187.6 187.6

Black Lung 182.1 182.1

Sales and Use Tax 29.8 29.8

Totals 1608.0 685.5 922.5

$/Ton $2.48

Total Future Revenues from CRM (No Action Alternative) (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 390.9 195.4 195.4

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 66.1 33.0 33.0

Severance Tax 162.7 162.7

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 129.9 129.9

Black Lung 129.8 129.8

Sales and Use Tax 18.9 18.9

Totals 898.2 358.3 540.0

$/Ton $2.29

Future Revenues added by the CRM Duvall Tract only (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 92.4 46.2 46.2

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 15.6 7.8 7.8

Severance Tax 36.1 36.1

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 30.7 30.7

Black Lung 32.5 32.5

Sales and Use Tax 4.5 4.5

Totals 211.8 86.5 125.3

$/Ton $2.25

Total Future Revenues from CRM (existing mine plus Duvall tract) (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 483.2 241.6 241.6

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 81.7 40.8 40.8

Severance Tax 198.8 198.8

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 160.7 160.7

Black Lung 162.3 162.3

Sales and Use Tax 23.3 23.3

Totals 1110.0 444.8 665.2

$/Ton $2.28
Appendix E

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 E-15

Difference Between the CRM No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action (Million U.S. 

Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 92.4 46.2 46.2

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 15.6 7.8 7.8

Severance Tax 36.1 36.1

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 30.7 30.7

Black Lung 32.5 32.5

Sales and Use Tax 4.5 4.5

Totals 211.8 86.5 125.3

Estimated 2022 Campbell Co. Fiscal Revenue (Million U.S. Dollars)

Revenue Source Total Collected Federal Revenue State Revenue

Federal Mineral Royalties 600.6 300.3 300.3

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund 101.5 50.8 50.8

Severance Tax 234.7 234.7

Bonus Bid Annual Revenues 0.000 0.0 0.0

Ad Valorem Tax 199.7 199.7

Black Lung 199.4 199.4

Sales and Use Tax 29.0 29.0

Totals 1364.9 550.5 814.4

$/Ton $2.25

All revenues were calculated using variables presented below
Appendix E

E-16 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

Bonus Bid Payments, 2008-2017

Source: BLM 2017. Bids are paid off in four equal annual payments, after the initial 1/5 amount payment attached to the bid. 

Revenue Variables

Coal Surface # Units of Taxable 

Valuation

Taxable 

Valuation

Taxable Valuation 

Per Unit

Average Tax 

Levy (Mills)

Estimated Ad 

Valorem Tax Levied

Average Tax 

Per Unit

Sev. Tax 

Rate %

Estimated Severance 

Tax Collectible

Average Sev. 

Tax Per Unit

2015 Wyoming 392,418,629 $3,894,432,347 9.92 $0.059925 $233,373,858 0.5947 0.07 $272,610,264 $0.6947

2015 Campbell Co. 358,196,669 $3,348,921,099 9.35 $0.059592 $199,568,906 0.5571 0.07 $234,424,477 $0.6545

2016 Wyoming 372,577,808 $3,646,317,231 9.79 $0.059910 $218,450,865 0.5863 0.07 $255,242,206 $0.6851

2016 Campbell Co. 340,675,046 $3,149,810,399 9.25 $0.059554 $187,583,809 0.5506 0.07 $220,486,728 $0.6472

Source: WDOR 2015 and 2016a

Bonus Bids Lease-Month Tons Total Bid $/Ton 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

WYW155132 Eagle Butte 

West - May 255,000,000 $180,540,000.00 $0.71 $36,108,000.00 $36,108,000.00 $36,108,000.00 $36,108,000.00 $36,108,000.00

$144,432,000.00 $108,324,000.00 $72,216,000.00 $36,108,000.00 $0.00

WYW174407 South Maysdorf 

- August 288,100,000 $250,800,000.00 $0.87 $50,160,000.00 $50,160,000.00 $50,160,000.00 $50,160,000.00 $50,160,000.00

$200,640,000.00 $150,480,000.00 $100,320,000.00 $50,160,000.00 $0.00

WYW154432 North Maysdorf 

- August 54,657,000 $48,098,424.00 $0.88 $9,619,684.80 $9,619,684.80 $9,619,684.80 $9,619,684.80 $9,619,684.80

$38,478,739.20 $28,859,054.40 $19,239,369.60 $9,619,684.80 $0.00

WYW177903 West Antelope 

South 56,356,000 $49,311,500.00 $0.88 $9,862,300.00 $9,862,300.00 $9,862,300.00

$39,449,200.00 $29,586,900.00 $0.00

WYW163340 West Antelope 

North 350,263,000 $297,723,228.00 $0.85 $59,544,645.60 $59,544,645.60 $59,544,645.60 $59,544,645.60 $59,544,645.60

$238,178,582.40 $178,633,936.80 $119,089,291.20 $59,544,645.60 $0.00

WYW161248 Belle Ayr North 221,734,800 $210,648,060.00 $0.95 $42,129,612.00 $42,129,612.00 $42,129,612.00 $42,129,612.00 $42,129,612.00

$168,518,448.00 $126,388,836.00 $84,259,224.00 $42,129,612.00 $0.00

WYW172657 Caballo West 130,196,000 $143,417,403.80 $1.10 $28,683,480.76 $28,683,480.76 $28,683,480.76 $28,683,480.76 $28,683,480.76

$114,733,923.04 $86,050,442.28 $57,366,961.52 $28,683,480.76 $0.00

WYW174596 South Hilight 222,676,000 $300,001,011.66 $1.35 $60,000,202.33 $60,000,202.33 $60,000,202.33 $60,000,202.33 $60,000,202.33

$240,000,809.33 $180,000,607.00 $120,000,404.66 $60,000,202.33 $0.00

WYW176095 South 

Porcupine LBA 401,830,508 $446,031,864.00 $1.11 $89,206,372.80 $89,206,372.80 $89,206,372.80 $89,206,372.80 $89,206,372.80

$356,825,491.20 $267,619,118.40 $178,412,745.60 $89,206,372.80 $0.00

WYW173408 North 

Porcupine LBA 721,154,828 $793,270,311.00 $1.10 $158,654,062.20 $158,654,062.20 $158,654,062.20 $158,654,062.20 $158,654,062.20

$634,616,248.80 $475,962,186.60 $317,308,124.40 $158,654,062.20 $0.00

Average $0.98 $86,268,000.00 $95,887,684.80 $95,887,684.80 $236,107,723.16 $543,968,360.49 $457,700,360.49 $438,218,375.69 $438,218,375.69 $307,860,637.33 $0.00
Appendix E

Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237 E-17

Revenue Calculations Variables

Coal Production (tons)1

Campbell Wyoming

2015 Tons Produced 340,675,046 372,577,808

2022 Tons Produced (Estimated) 362,625,000 375,000,000

From Campbell Co. 91.44%

Duvall Tract2(tons minable) (tons recoverable)

No Action Alternative 256,521,739 236,000,000

Added by Proposed Action 60,751,425 55,773,000

Average 2015 Sales Price ($/ton)

2015 8800 Btu Coal $13.232 $13.253

2015 Price without BLT4 $12.68 $12.70

Federal Royalties

WY share of FR = 0.5 x FR

Federal Royalties3 $564,243,044.94

Wyoming Share $282,121,522.47

Abandoned Mine Lands Funds5

Campbell AML Total $95,389,012.88

WY Share6 $28,000,000.00

Severance Taxes7

Campbell ST Rate/Ton $0.6472

2016 Severance Taxes8 $241,132,357.34

Lease Bonus Bids (2017 Payments)

2016 $307,860,637.33

2017 $0.00

2019+ $0.00

Total 2017+ Bonus Bid Payments $0.00

WY share $0.00

Campbell Ad Valorem Taxes7

AVT Rate/ton $0.55

AVT (Total) $187,575,680.33

Black Lung

2016 BLT Rate/Ton9 $0.534

2016 BLT Collected10 $182,058,833.01

Future BLT Rate/Ton11 $0.535

Future BLT Collected $194,094,683.91

2015 Campbell Co. Employment (mining)12

Buckskin 218

Belle Ayr 286

Eagle Butte 290

Cordero Rojo 521

Antelope 632

Caballo 133

NARM 1428

Rawhide 195

Black Thunder 1622

Coal Creek 153

Dry Fork 80

Wyodak 68

Total 5626

Federal Income Tax13

Head of Household income info:

10% on first $12,750

15% on next (up to $48,600)

Rate10 13.6%

Tax/employee $6,185.55

Fed Tax $34,799,904.30

Fiscal Year 2016 Sales and Use Tax14

Coal Mining $29,765,322

$/ton $0.08

1Source: WDOR 2016a

2CRM 2016b

3Calculated - Tons produced x 2014 sales price per ton x 12.5%

4Black lung tax removed since it is included in the sale price

5Calculated - 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 

2016

6Calculated - Wyoming’s portion of 2015 + AML Funds (Max out at $75,000,000)

7WDOR 2016, recalculated using Campbell Co. numbers only 

8CREG 2016

9Calculated - Maximum per ton rate is $0.55 [(.10)(12750) + (.15)(45487-12750)]

10 IRS 2011
Appendix E

E-18 Duvall Tract Federal Mining Plan Modification EA for Permit No. PT0237

11 Calculated - Rate x 2022 Estimated Production

12 WDWS 2015

13 WDOE 2013 (This is the most current doc as of March 2106)

14 WDOR 2016b