Record of Decision

Rosebud Mine Area F Federal Mining Plan

Rosebud County, Montana

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

June 2019
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 ii
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 iii

Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................1

1.1 Rosebud Mine Background and Overview.......................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Action......................................................................................... 7

1.2.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................... 7

1.2.2 Need........................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Agency Authority and Actions............................................................................................. 7

1.3.1 Lead Agencies............................................................................................................ 7

1.3.2 Cooperating Agencies................................................................................................ 8

1.4 Key Scoping Issues Considered and Addressed.................................................................. 8

1.5 Response to comments on the Final EIS ............................................................................. 8

Chapter 2. Updates Since the Final EIS.......................................................................................9

Chapter 3. OSMRE Decision and Basis for Decision................................................................10

3.1 Decision............................................................................................................................. 10

3.2 Description of the Selected Alternative............................................................................. 10

3.3 Environmentally Preferred Alternative.............................................................................. 13

3.4 Other Alternatives Considered .......................................................................................... 13

3.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ........................................................................................ 13

3.4.2 Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus Environmental Protection Measures............ 14

3.4.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis.............................. 18

3.5 Basis for Decision ............................................................................................................. 19

3.5.1 Selected Alternative Compliance with State and Federal Laws............................... 19

3.5.2 Environmental Effects.............................................................................................. 26

Chapter 4. Public Involvement...................................................................................................26

4.1 EIS Scoping Period ........................................................................................................... 26

4.2 Draft EIS Public Meeting and Public Review................................................................... 26

Chapter 5. Additional Information ............................................................................................26

Chapter 6. Approval ....................................................................................................................28

Tables

Table 1. Federal T&E Species Potentially Occurring or Potentially Affected by Projects in Rosebud, 

Treasure, Big Horn, and Powder River Counties. ......................................................... 21

Figures

Figure 1. Project Location................................................................................................................ 3

Figure 2. Location of Mine Facilities and Permit Areas. ................................................................. 5

Figure 3. Proposed Project Area, Alternative 2.............................................................................. 11

Appendices

Appendix A - Summary of Impacts Table...................................................................................... 29
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 iv

This page is blank for 2-sided printing.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Western Energy submitted a mine permit application package (PAP) on November 2, 2011, to the 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for a new permit area (C2011003F), known as 

Area F (project or project area), at the Rosebud Mine, an existing surface coal mine in Colstrip, Montana 

(MT). Western Energy Company (Western Energy), a subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal Company 

(Westmoreland), is the operator of the Rosebud Mine and the project proponent. As proposed by Western 

Energy, the new permit area would add 6,746 acres and approximately 70.8 million tons of recoverable 

coal reserves to the Rosebud Mine, extending the operational life of the mine by 8 years (at the current 

rate of production). Operations in the project area would last 19 years and would disturb 4,260 acres. Of 

these, 2,159 acres would be disturbed by mining; the remainder would be disturbed by highwall 

reduction, soil storage, scoria pits, haul road construction, and other mine-related activities. The surface 

of the project area is entirely privately owned, but the subsurface is both privately (3,479 acres) and 

Federally (3,267 acres) owned. Western Energy holds leases for the Federal (M82186) and private coal 

(G-002 and G-002-A). Current surface land uses in the project area include grazing land, pastureland, 

cropland, and wildlife habitat. A county road, a gas transmission pipeline, and high-voltage electric 

transmission lines cross the project area.

To analyze environmental impacts of this proposed permitting action and associated Federal mining plan 

in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, DEQ and the United States Department of the Interior 

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

prepared a joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Western Energy Area F Project. The DOI 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Miles City Field Office acted as a cooperating agency as it is the 

Federal agency responsible for leasing Federal coal lands under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) of 1920, 

as amended (30 United States Code (USC) Section 181 et seq.). The joint EIS meets the respective 

requirements of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (Title 75, Chapter 1, Parts 1 through 3) 

of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) and its implementing rules; the Administrative Rules of Montana 

(ARM) 17.4.601 et seq.; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.); 

the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Parts 1500 to 1508); DOI’s NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46) and Department Manual 516; and the 

OSMRE NEPA Handbook. The BLM NEPA Handbook was also considered in the preparation of the 

EIS. The applicable statutes and regulations for each lead agency, as well as the decisions to be made, are 

described in the Final EIS (FEIS). The opportunity for public input was provided during public scoping, 

after issuance of the Draft EIS, and after DEQ issued its Notice of Acceptability for Western Energy’s 

PAP. Responses to these comments are provided in Appendix F of the FEIS, and the FEIS adequately 

and accurately assesses the environmental impacts of the proposed mining plan action. 

This document constitutes the Record of Decision (ROD) of the OSMRE Western Region Office, 

documenting its selected alternative in accordance with NEPA (40 CFR 1505.2). OSMRE will prepare a 

Mining Plan Decision Document (MPDD) for the DOI Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 

(ASLM) with its recommendation regarding the Federal surface-mining plan for the project area. A 

MPDD will be prepared because Western Energy’s proposed project includes leased Federal coal and 

requires a new Federal mining plan. The ASLM will decide to approve, disapprove, or conditionally

approve the mining plan for the project area.

1.1 ROSEBUD MINE BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

The Rosebud Mine is located in Rosebud County and surrounds the city of Colstrip and the Colstrip 

Steam Electric Station, which is commonly known as the Colstrip Power Plant (Figure 1 and Figure 2). 

Permit Areas D and E of the Rosebud Mine extend to the east of Colstrip for 3.5 miles, and Permit Areas 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 2

A, B, and C extend 12 miles to the west of Colstrip. The project area is located adjacent to the western 

boundary of Area C (Figure 2) in Township 2 North, Range 38 and 39 East, and Township 1 North, 

Range 39 East, and would expand the mine footprint to the west into Treasure County. Situated in the 

northern Powder River Basin, the Rosebud Mine is generally east and north of the Little Wolf Mountains. 

Tributaries of Horse Creek and West Fork Armells Creek, including Black Hank Creek, Donley Creek, 

Robbie Creek, and McClure Creek (all of which lie within the drainage of the Yellowstone River), drain 

the project area. A ridge in the western portion of the project area divides the Horse Creek and West Fork 

Armells Creek drainages.

The Rosebud Mine produces 8.0 to 10.25 million tons of low-sulfur (0.64 percent) subbituminous coal 

annually and 300,000 tons of high-sulfur “waste coal” annually. Between 1975 and 2016, Western Energy 

recovered a total of 462,192,473 tons of coal from the Rosebud Mine. Western Energy currently has three 

other active pit mine areas at the Rosebud Mine operating under permits issued by DEQ: Area A (4,262 

acres, permit C1986003A); Area B (6,231 acres, permit C1984003B); and Area C (9,432 acres, permit 

C1985003C) (Figure 2). These active permit areas have been mined since 1976 (Areas A and B) and 

1983 (Area C). Two permitted mine areas are no longer actively mined and are being actively reclaimed: 

Area D (4,554 acres, permit C1986003D) and Area E (1,470 acres, permit C1981003E).

Although Western Energy has shipped coal from the Rosebud Mine by rail as recently as 2010, all coal 

currently produced by the mine is consumed locally at the Colstrip Power Plant and the Rosebud Power 

Plant (Figure 2). Coal mined in the project area would be burned in Units 3 and 4 of the Colstrip Power 

Plant and in the Rosebud Power Plant.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 3 

Figure 1. Project Location. 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 4 

This page is blank for 2-sided printing. 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 5 

Figure 2. Location of Mine Facilities and Permit Areas.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 6 

This page is blank for 2-sided printing. 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 7 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

1.2.1 Purpose

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to allow continued operations at the Rosebud Mine by permitting 

and developing a new surface-mine permit area, known as permit Area F. OSMRE is required to conduct 

an environmental review and assessment of impact to comply with NEPA; the FEIS evaluated the 

environmental effects of the Proposed Action and two other alternatives. Based on the findings of the 

FEIS, OSMRE makes a recommendation in a MPDD to the ASLM to approve, disapprove, or 

conditionally approve the proposed Federal surface-mining plan for the project area. The ASLM will 

decide whether the mining plan is approved, disapproved, or approved with conditions. 

1.2.2 Need

Western Energy has a need to obtain a surface-mine operating permit, pursuant to Montana Strip and 

Underground Mine Reclamation Act (MSUMRA), and approval of a Federal surface-mining plan (30 

CFR 746) for the project area to access additional coal reserves in Federal coal lease M82186 and in the 

privately held leases G-002 and G-002-A. OSMRE’s need in relation to the action is to review Western 

Energy’s proposal providing them the opportunity to exercise their valid existing rights (VER) granted by 

BLM under Federal coal lease M82186 to access and mine undeveloped Federal coal resources located in 

the project area. OSMRE’s responsibility under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

(SMCRA) Public Law 95-87, Title I, Section 102 to provide an independent assessment to “assure that 

the coal supply essential to the Nation’s energy requirements, and to its economic and social well-being is 

provided and strike a balance between protection of the environment and agricultural productivity and the 

Nation’s need for coal as an essential source of energy.” 

1.3 AGENCY AUTHORITY AND ACTIONS 

1.3.1 Lead Agencies

Two lead agencies were responsible for the analysis of this project: OSMRE and DEQ. A joint EIS for the 

project was prepared to provide a coordinated and comprehensive analysis of potential environmental 

impacts. Before implementation of the proposed project can begin under a state operating permit and an 

approved Federal mine plan, various other permits, such as an air quality permit and a MPDES permit 

from DEQ would be required from multiple state and Federal agencies. The applicable statutes and 

regulations for each lead agency, as well as the decisions to be made, are described in the FEIS in Section 

1.4, Agency Authority and Actions. Tables 1 and 2 in that section summarize the other state and 

Federal approvals needed for the project. 

The State-Federal Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) between DEQ and OSMRE (codified in 30 CFR 

926.30) outlines the decision process for a surface coal mine in MT. Under the Agreement, DEQ reviews 

an operator’s (in this case, Western Energy’s) PAP to ensure the permit application complies with the 

permitting requirements and that the coal-mining operation would meet the performance standards of the 

approved MT program as outlined in MSUMRA (Section 82-4-221 et seq., MCA) and its implementing 

regulations (ARM 17.24.301-1309). OSMRE reviews the PAP to ensure it complies with the terms of the 

coal lease(s), MLA, NEPA, and other Federal laws and regulations. DEQ makes a decision to approve or 

deny the permit application component of the PAP in accordance with MSUMRA. When DEQ 

determines that an EIS is needed to make a permit decision, as is the case for the proposed project, DEQ 

must complete the EIS and issue a Record of Decision for the EIS as well as issue the Written Findings 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 8 

on the permit application no later than 45 days from the date of the acceptability determination (ARM 

17.24.405(1)(2)). After DEQ issues its Written Findings documenting its permit decision, OSMRE, in 

accordance with 30 CFR 746.1 through 746.18, reviews DEQ’s permit and recommends approval, 

disapproval, or conditional approval of the mining plan to the ASLM. 

1.3.2 Cooperating Agencies

The BLM Miles City Field Office served as a cooperating agency for the preparation of the FEIS. BLM is 

responsible for leasing Federal coal lands under the MLA. As a cooperating agency, BLM provided 

information, comments, and technical expertise to OSMRE regarding those elements of the FEIS, and the 

data and analyses supporting them, in which BLM has jurisdiction or special expertise, or for which 

OSMRE requested their assistance. 

In order for OSMRE to make a recommendation on the MPDD to the ASLM, BLM must make a finding 

and recommendation (43 CFR 3482.2) with respect to Western Energy’s Resource Recovery and 

Protection Plan (R2P2), which was included in the PAP, and other requirements of Western Energy’s 

lease (43 CFR 3482.2). In a letter dated September 1, 2017, BLM determined that the R2P2 conformed 

with the MLA and the terms and conditions of Western Energy’s Federal coal lease.

1.4 KEY SCOPING ISSUES CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED

During formal public scoping, DEQ and OSMRE sought input from the public, interested organizations, 

tribes, and government agencies (see Section 4.1, EIS Scoping Period below). Eight key issues of 

concern were identified during scoping and were used to guide the EIS interdisciplinary team’s 

alternatives development. These key issues of concern included: (1) effects on surface water quality and 

quantity; (2) effects on ground water quality and quantity; (3) effects on wetlands and non-wetland waters 

of the U.S.; (4) effects on wildlife and their habitats; (5) effects on climate change; (6) effects of the 

power plants on climate change and environmental resources; (7) effects on human health and the 

environment; and (8) reclamation. For a more detailed description of identified scoping issues, please see 

the Final EIS, Section 1.5.1, Scoping. 

1.5 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EIS

OSMRE received a comment during the 30-day Final EIS waiting period requesting that OSMRE analyze 

the Colstrip Generating Station to which the Rosebud Mine currently supplies coal as a connected action 

under the definition of “connected action” set forth in 40 C.F.R. 1508.25(a)(1) based on information 

found in objections to Westmoreland Energy Company’s Chapter 11 Plan from the owners of the Colstrip 

Generating Station – Northwestern Energy, Talen Energy, Puget Sound Energy, Portland General Electric 

Company, and Avista Corporation. As described in Section 1.4.1.1, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement of the Final EIS, OSMRE – Denver Field Division – Casper Area Office 

evaluated the project and the Colstrip Power Plant as potentially connected actions. OSMRE determined 

in a letter dated April 24, 2014, that the project and the Colstrip Power Plant are not connected actions by 

applying guidance found in the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1). The guidance states, “Actions are 

connected if they automatically trigger other actions that may require an EIS, cannot or would not 

proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously, or if the actions are interdependent 

parts of a larger action and depend upon the larger action for their justification under 40 CFR 

1508.25(a)(1)(i, ii, iii).” In the letter, OSMRE determined that Area F and the power plants are not 

connected actions because the power plant[s] are existing, operational facilities, and no pending actions or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions are currently proposed for the power plant[s]. Therefore, Area F is 

the only proposed action and, as such, is not a connected action to a currently existing and operational 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 9 

power plant facility, regardless of the power plant facility’s physical location (OSMRE 2014a). A similar 

argument would also apply to the Rosebud Power Plant. Effects from the two power plants are considered 

as indirect effects in the EIS analyses. After a thorough review of the language in the objections from the 

owners of the Colstrip Generating Station, no new information has been provided that shows any of the 

three criteria in 40 C.F.R. 1508.25(a)(1) are now being met; therefore, OSMRE has confirmed that the 

combustion of coal at the Colstrip Generating Station is not a connected action. 

OSMRE received a comment during the 30-day Final EIS waiting period requesting that OSMRE 

reassess the analysis of impacts to northern long-eared bat and re-initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service per 50 C.F.R. 402.16 (re-initiation is required if new information reveals effects may 

be different than anticipated). OSMRE has reviewed the information provided by the commenter and 

determined that the Section 7 consultation requirements under the ESA for northern long-eared bat have 

been fulfilled through submission of the Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule streamlined consultation 

form submitted on June 21, 2017 to the USFWS Montana Ecological Field Services Office. Per the 

streamlined consultation, the Proposed Action may affect the northern long-eared bat; however, there are 

no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the USFWS’s programmatic BO for the final 4(d) rule. 

This project is consistent with the activities outlined in the programmatic BO and the 4(d) rule and any 

taking that may occur incidental to the Proposed Action is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule (50 

CFR 17.40(o)). Therefore, the programmatic BO satisfies the OSMRE responsibilities under Section 7 of 

the ESA of 1973, as amended, 16 USC l53l et seq. 

CHAPTER 2. UPDATES SINCE THE FINAL EIS

Since publishing the Final EIS in November 2018, DEQ completed its review of the PAP and issued their 

Written Findings on April 18, 2019, in compliance with MSUMRA (ARM 17.24.404(3)). While 

preparing the Written Findings, DEQ determined that the removal of coal in T2N, R38E, Section 12 is 

likely to result in a change in water quality in the Rosebud Coal outside the permit boundary which could 

result in material damage, as defined by 30 CFR 701.5. Therefore, in accordance with ARM 17.24.405(4), 

DEQ did not approve the mine passes proposed in T2N, R38E, Section 12 eliminating approximately 74 

acres of Federal coal from Alternative 2-Proposed Action. OSMRE has subsequently has incorporated 

this decrease in 74 acres of Federal Coal for Alternative 2 as described in the FEIS, and subsequently, 

OSMRE has selected Alternative 2 as described in the DEQ Written Findings. Alternative 2 – Proposed 

Action as selected by OSMRE would now avoid the impacts from mining and burning an additional 74 

acres of Federal coal or approximately 1.9 tons. Removing 74 acres of Federal coal from the selected 

alternative would reduce the duration of mining in Area F by approximately six months to one year and 

would prevent the release of coal combustion emissions and residue associated with burning 

approximately 1.9 tons of Federal coal. Therefore, the intensity of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

to all resources analyzed in the FEIS would generally be reduced as a result of selecting Alternative 2– 

Proposed Action as the agency’s preferred alternative.

DEQ issued its Record of Decision & Written Findings documenting its permitting decision under the 

Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act (MSUMRA) (82-4-201 et seq., MCA) and its 

implementing regulations (ARM 17.24.301-1309) and providing a public record of DEQ’s selected 

alternative and supporting reasoning in accordance with MEPA (ARM 17.4.629). Other DEQ permitting 

decisions, such as those for an application for a new Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(MPDES) permit MT-0031828 for project area outfalls and an application to modify Montana Air Quality 

Permit (MAQP) #1570-07 to include the project area are presented in separate DEQ documents. 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 10

CHAPTER 3. OSMRE DECISION AND BASIS FOR 

DECISION

3.1 DECISION 

NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) requires OSMRE to identify an alternative from among those analyzed in the 

FEIS as the agency preferred alternative. Three alternatives were analyzed in the FEIS: Alternative 1– No 

Action, Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, and Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus Environmental 

Protection Measures. OSMRE has selected Alternative 2 as revised to remove T2N, R38E, Section 12, 

as the agency’s preferred alternative. The preferred alternative incorporates all practicable means to avoid 

or minimize environmental harm. 

In compliance with 40 CFR 1505.2(b), the following sections briefly describe the preferred alternative, 

other alternatives considered, and the environmentally preferable alternative. Chapter 2 of the FEIS 

includes detailed descriptions of the alternatives. OSMRE’s rationale for its selection of Alternative 2 is 

provided in Section 3.5, Basis for Decision. 

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

The Selected Alternative is Alternative 2 – Proposed Action as described in Section 2.4 of the FEIS with 

the exception of 74 acres of Federal coal in T2N, R38E, Section 12, which was not approved for mining. 

Under the Selected Alternative, 68.5Mt of private and Federal coal would mined in Area F. Mining 

operations in Area F would last approximately 18 years. Western Energy would mine 2,085 acres within 

the proposed 6,746-acre permit area (Figure 3). After crushing, most of the coal would be sent via an 

existing 4.2-mile conveyor to the Colstrip Power Plant. Coal with higher sulfur content (an estimated 

105,000 tons/year from the project area) would be trucked to the Rosebud Power Plant, which is also in 

Colstrip. Western Energy would mine around an electric transmission line and a gas transmission pipeline 

that cross the project area; relocate portions of other electric distribution lines that run throughout the 

project area; and relocate two segments of Horse Creek Road, that traverses the project area. Specifically, 

a 4.2-mile segment of Horse Creek Road in the northeast/north-central portion of the permit area (owned 

and maintained by Rosebud County) and a 1.3-mile segment in the northwest portion of the permit area 

(owned and maintained by Treasure County) would be rerouted (Figure 3). The road relocation would be 

done in two phases. The longer segment, which is in Rosebud County, would be relocated during initial 

development of the project. The west end of the realignment, which is in Treasure County, would be 

relocated when mining moves into the northwest corner of the project area (about 12 years later). 

Relocation of the road segments would require permits from the counties and approval from the State.

Reclamation would begin within 2 years of mining the initial pass and would continue as subsequent 

mine passes are completed until Phase IV bond release. Reclamation would facilitate the following 

postmine land uses: grazing land, cropland, and wildlife habitat. The major reclamation steps planned to 

occur before and after mining include, but are not limited to, soil-material salvage and redistribution, pit 

backfilling, grading and contouring to the postmining topography, drainage construction, revegetation, 

and postmine monitoring. In addition to the reclamation of the landscape disturbed by mining operations, 

other disturbed areas that would require reclamation include the road system, mine plant facilities, 

sedimentation ponds, and temporary diversion structures. 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

September 2018 11

Figure 3. Proposed Project Area, Alternative 2.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

September 2018 12

This page is blank for 2-sided printing. 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 13

3.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

An environmentally preferred alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)) is one that has the least impact on the 

physical and biological environment and that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and 

natural resources. As shown in Appendix A Summary of Impacts Table, Alternative 1, the “no action 

alternative,” would result in the least amount of impact on the physical and biological environment and 

best meets that definition of environmentally preferred. 

3.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Two alternatives to the Proposed Action were analyzed in the FEIS. OSMRE evaluated and considered 

both Alternative 1 – No Action and Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus Environmental Protection 

Measures before selecting Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. These alternatives considered by OSMRE, 

but not selected, are described in the sections below along with OSMRE’s rationale for not selecting 

them.

3.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action

3.4.1.1 Description of the Alternative

Alternative 1 considered a scenario where Federal and private coal in the project area would not be 

mined. Under the No Action Alternative, Western Energy’s application for the project would not have 

been approved by DEQ for one or more of the conditions outlined in the FEIS (Section 1.4.1.2, Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality, Conditions for Denial). Without an approved state permit, 

OSMRE would not make a recommendation to ASLM regarding a Federal mining plan for the project. 

Without an approved permit and Federal mining plan, Western Energy would not develop the project, 

resulting in approximately 33,885,390 tons of Federal coal not being recovered from lease M-82816 and 

37,036,115 tons of private coal not being recovered from private leases G-002 and G-002-A. It would 

also result in 4,260 acres of previously undisturbed ground not being disturbed. The environmental, 

social, and economic conditions described in Chapter 3 of the FEIS (and summarized in Appendix A

Summary of Impacts Table) would continue. The conditions under which OSMRE could select the No 

Action Alternative or DEQ could deny Western Energy’s application for an operating permit for the 

project area, MPDES permit, or air quality permit are described in the FEIS (see Section 1.4, Agency 

Authority and Actions).

Under the No Action Alternative, coal within the project area would not be available for combustion in 

the Colstrip Power Plant or the Rosebud Power Plant. For analysis purposes, the FEIS assumed that the 

power plants would continue operations through 2038. (see FEIS, Section 1.2.2, Coal Combustion at 

Colstrip). Selection of the No Action Alternative would not have changed the status of the other five 

areas of the Rosebud Mine that are currently permitted and being mined or reclaimed by Western Energy 

(see FEIS, Section 2.2, Description of Existing Mine and Reclamation Operations), nor would it have 

changed the status of other areas of the Rosebud Mine that are in the permitting process (see FEIS, 

Section 5.2.2.7, Mining and Mineral Development).

3.4.1.2 Rationale for Not Selecting Alternative 1 – No Action

OSMRE did not select Alternative 1 – No Action because it does not meet OSMRE’s purpose and need.

OSMRE’s need for the action is to provide Western Energy the opportunity to exercise its VER granted 

by BLM under Federal coal lease M82186 to access and mine undeveloped Federal coal resources located 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 14

in the project area. The need for the action to provide Western Energy the opportunity to mine the Federal

coal obtained under Federal coal lease M82186 would not be met by this alternative.

3.4.2 Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus Environmental Protection 

Measures

3.4.2.1 Description of Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3, OSMRE would have required Western Energy to implement additional 

environmental protection measures that are above and beyond the requirements of MSUMRA and 

SMCRA. These measures (listed below and described in the FEIS, Section 2.5.2, Environmental 

Protection Measures) were conceptual in nature and were designed by OSMRE and DEQ to minimize

environmental effects and address key issues identified during the scoping process (see FEIS, Section 

1.5.2.1, Key Issues Identified During Scoping for Detailed Analysis). Under Alternative 3, Western 

Energy would mine and reclaim the project area as described in Alternative 2 while also implementing the 

additional environmental protection measures as required by OSMRE. The proposed additional protection 

measures included: 

• Additional requirements for a Water Management Plan:

 Enhancement of wetland habitats (managed discharges from MPDES outfalls)

 Pit water management

 Ground water monitoring and mitigation

• Additional requirements for the Wetland Mitigation Plan:

 Natural water source for off-site mitigation areas

 Mitigation sites to be within the same watershed

 Deed restrictions or easements on mitigation sites

 Soil salvage from affected wetlands

 Managed water releases (from MPDES outfalls)

• Modifications to reclamation practices

 Soil salvage from affected wetlands (and stockpiling, if necessary) 

 Organic amendments on small-acre problem areas

 5-foot contours for postmine topography design

 DEQ review of drainage basin design for select drainages

• Other mitigations

 Geological resources survey

 Paleontology resources survey

As described above in Section 1.3, Agency Authority and Actions, MSUMRA (ARM 17.24.405(1)(2)) 

mandates that DEQ complete an EIS and issue a decision on a permit application no later than 45 days 

from the date of the acceptability determination. In order to meet MSUMRA-mandated timelines, 

preparation of the EIS and development of the alternatives occurred concurrently with DEQ’s 

acceptability review of Western Energy’s application. During the course of the acceptability review, 

Western Energy revised its application eight times in response to deficiencies identified by DEQ. As a 

result, certain components of the additional environmental protection measures concerning water 

management, wetland mitigation, reclamation practices and geological resources developed for 

Alternative 3 were incorporated into Western Energy’s permit application as part of the MSUMRArequired water management and reclamation plans and are analyzed under Alternative 2 in the FEIS. The 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 15

remaining components of the additional environmental protection measures were retained in the FEIS to 

provide continuity during the concurrent NEPA/MEPA environmental impacts analysis.

3.4.2.2 Rationale for Not Selecting Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus 

Environmental Protection Measures

In its consideration of alternatives, OSMRE looked at Alternative 3 in its entirety and at the individual 

environmental protection measures described in Alternative 3 for possible incorporation into the selected 

agency preferred alternative. The environmental protection measures that make up Alternative 3 are 

conceptual in nature and would be incorporated into the MSUMRA permit in addition to the resource 

protection measures currently in Western Energy’s permit application as analyzed under Alternative 2 in 

the FEIS. Western Energy would incur the additional costs of implementing these environmental 

protection measures. Like the selected alternative, Alternative 3 would be consistent with the project’s 

purpose and need. Similarly, it also would have complied with state and Federal laws. However, OSMRE 

determined that the requirements of MSUMRA, which are met by the Proposed Action as described in 

Alternative 2 in the FEIS, are sufficiently protective of resources within the project area and the general 

vicinity of the project area (see Section 2.5.2, Environmental Effects in the FEIS). Therefore, OSMRE 

chose not to select Alternative 3 as a whole or any of the individual protection measures analyzed in the 

EIS due to the negligible benefit they would provide to affected resources. The rationale for not selecting 

Alternative 3 or any of the alternative’s specific environmental protection measures is provided in the 

following sections.

Additional Requirements for a Water Management Plan

The analysis in the FEIS for the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) shows that the intensity of effects on 

surface and ground water would be short- and long-term, minor to moderate, and adverse and would not 

rise to the level of significance requiring additional mitigation under NEPA. The MSUMRA-compliant 

Alternative 2, which requires Western Energy to prepare and implement a water management plan, would 

be sufficiently protective of surface and ground water. MSUMRA conditions approval of an application 

for a coal mine operating permit on demonstration by the applicant that “the assessment of the probable 

cumulative impact of all anticipated mining in the area on the hydrologic balance has been made by the 

department [DEQ] and the proposed operation of the mining operation has been designed to prevent 

material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area” under 82-4-227(3)(a), MCA, and 

ARM 17.24.405(6)(c). The permit application must contain a detailed description of the “measures to be 

taken during and after mining activities to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic balance on and off the 

mine permit area, and prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area” under 

ARM 17.24.314(1). Alternative 3 modifications to Western Energy’s Water Management Plan would 

have included enhancement of downstream wetland habitat through managed discharges, alternative pit 

water management practices, and installation of alluvial monitoring wells to be sampled monthly. 

However, OSMRE determined that these modifications would not measurably reduce the intensity of 

impacts on surface and ground water below the intensity identified in Alternative 2 (see Appendix A 

Summary of Impacts Table). A rationale specific to each Alternative 3 protection measure is provided 

below.

Enhancement of Wetland Habitats 

Managing discharges from MPDES outfalls to enhance downstream wetland habitats would only be 

beneficial during mining. Any benefits would cease once the area was reclaimed; under the Western 

Alkaline Coal Mining standard (40 CFR 434 subpart H), Western Energy would have to reclaim ponds as 

soon as practicable after mining and replace them with DEQ-approved sedimentation structures. As a 

result, any enhancements to wetlands would be temporary.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 16

Pit Water Management 

MSUMRA’s regulatory requirements and environmental performance standards are protective of 

resources. Pursuant to ARM 17.24.405 and 82-4-227, MCA, MSUMRA provides all practical means to 

avoid or minimize environmental harm, including water quality and quantity impacts. Alternative 2, 

which is MSUMRA-compliant (see DEQ Decision below in Section 3.5.1.2), is sufficiently protective of 

the hydrologic balance. 

Ground Water Monitoring

Installation of additional alluvial monitoring wells would have limited benefit. Alternative 2, which is 

MSUMRA-compliant (see DEQ Decision below in Section 3.5.1.2), is sufficiently protective of ground 

water quality. The preferred alternative includes a comprehensive groundwater monitoring plan that 

would identify an increase in concentration for any ground water parameter that would adversely affect 

beneficial uses of the alluvial water (based on the ground water classification).

Additional Requirements for the Wetland Mitigation Plan

The analysis in the FEIS for the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) shows that the intensity of effects on 

wetlands and wetland habitat would be short- and long-term, moderate, and adverse and would not rise to 

the level of significance requiring additional mitigation under NEPA. The MSUMRA-compliant 

Alternative 2, which requires Western Energy to prepare and implement a wetland mitigation plan, would 

be sufficiently protective of wetlands and wetland habitat. Wetlands, including those determined to be 

nonjurisdictional by the Corps, are waters of the state. Under MSUMRA, these resources are considered 

important as part of the hydrologic balance and wildlife habitat. ARM 17.24.751 requires surface mine 

operating permit applicants to restore or avoid disturbance to wetlands. Alternative 3 modifications to 

Western Energy’s Wetland Mitigation Plan would have included the requirement that off-site mitigation 

areas be supported by a natural water source, be located in the same watershed as the impact, and be 

protected by a deed restriction or easement. Soil salvage from affected nonjurisdictional wetlands and 

managed discharges (described above) also would have been required. OSMRE determined that these 

modifications would not measurably reduce the intensity of impacts on wetlands below what is identified 

in Alternative 2 (see Appendix A Summary of Impacts Table). A rationale specific to each Alternative 

3 protection measure is provided below.

Require a Natural Water Source for Off-Site Mitigation Areas

OSMRE determined that a requirement for off-site mitigation areas to be supported by natural water 

sources would be unnecessary as DEQ would not approve a mitigation site that uses an artificial water 

source, such as a well, in a permit. Western Energy’s proposed wetlands mitigation plan (PAP, Appendix 

N) described in Alternative 2 does not propose artificial water sources. Instead, Western Energy will

opportunistically enhance existing natural wetland areas or develop wetlands during reclamation where 

natural water sources are present. 

Require Mitigation Sites to be within the Same Watershed

OSMRE determined that a requirement for mitigation sites to be in the same watershed as the effect 

would be overly restrictive and would not provide for opportunistic enhancement of wetlands where 

natural water sources are available (such as in other permit areas of the Rosebud Mine). Allowing 

mitigation sites to be implemented mine-wide, as in Alternative 2 and as currently provided under 

Western Energy’s other MSUMRA operating permits, will provide operational flexibility and be more 

beneficial to wetland associated resources. 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 17

Require Deed Restrictions or Easements

OSMRE determined that requiring a deed restriction or easement on mitigation sites to protect the site 

from future development or mining would be difficult to implement uniformly. Western Energy does not 

own all the surface area where mitigation would occur. As a result, the benefit to wetlands would be 

limited. The measure could also potentially infringe on private property rights.

Soil Salvage 

OSMRE determined that salvaging hydric soils from wetlands is already covered in the Proposed Action 

(Alternative 2). Western Energy’s proposed wetland mitigation plan (PAP, Appendix N) described in 

Alternative 2 includes development of site-specific wetland mitigation plans two years prior to wetland 

disturbance. Direct haul of wetland soils to mitigation sites could be incorporated into those site-specific 

plans as deemed necessary by DEQ.

Managed Water Releases

As described above under Additional Requirements for the Water Management Plan, managing 

discharges from MPDES outfalls to enhance downstream wetland habitats would only be beneficial 

during mining. As a result, the benefit to wetlands would be limited due to the fact that at some point 

during reclamation the MPDES outfalls would be eliminated; therefore, the wetlands in question would 

still experience the adverse impacts as disclosed in the FEIS. 

Modifications to Reclamation Practices

The MSUMRA-compliant Alternative 2, which requires Western Energy to prepare and implement a 

reclamation plan, will be sufficiently protective of vegetation, water resources, and wildlife. MSUMRA 

(82-4-233 and 82-4-235, MCA) and its implementing rules (Subchapters 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 of the ARM) 

include regulations applicable to vegetation including requirements for baseline investigations, 

requirements for reclamation and revegetation, protection of Federally T&E species, and conditions for 

bond release. Alternative 3 modifications to the reclamation plan would have included the requirement 

that soil salvaged from affected nonjurisdictional wetlands be salvaged and stockpiled and that organic 

amendments (i.e., grass mulch) be applied to small-acre problem areas. Western Energy also would have 

been required to design the project area’s postmine topography at a finer scale (5-foot contours instead of 

10-foot) and to submit drainage designs for additional (smaller) drainages. However, OSMRE determined 

that these modifications would not measurably reduce the intensity of impacts to the project area nor 

measurably improve revegetation and prevent erosion (see Appendix A Summary of Impacts Table). A 

rationale specific to each Alternative 3 protection measure is provided below.

Soil Salvage and Stockpiling 

OSMRE determined that stockpiling salvaged hydric soil from disturbed nonjurisdictional wetlands 

would have limited benefit. When hydric soil (soil from wetlands) is stockpiled, wetland characteristics of 

the soil are removed due to lack of water. As described above, salvaging and direct-hauling hydric soil is 

a component of Western Energy’s proposed wetland mitigation plan (PAP, Appendix N) described in 

Alternative 2. Western Energy’s plan includes development of site-specific wetland mitigation plans two

years prior to wetland disturbance. 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 18

Organic Amendments 

DEQ has experimented with the application of organic amendments on problem areas on other similar 

mine sites and determined that the practice has limited benefits for revegetation efforts. After consulting

with DEQ, OSMRE concluded that this practice would not measurably reduce impacts on vegetation in 

the project area.

Postmine Topography 

OSMRE concluded that requiring a finer design scale (5-foot contours rather than 10-foot contours) for 

postmine topography would reduce reclamation flexibility and could lead to a more engineered and 

unnatural postmine topography. That level of design also could create a postmine topography that would 

be inconsistent with pre-mine site conditions. After consulting with DEQ, OSMRE concluded the benefits 

would be limited and would not measurably reduce the intensity of impacts on the relevant resources. 

Drainage Basin Design

DEQ has required designs for smaller drainages (defined as those with an estimated 2-year, 24-hour peak 

discharge greater than 5 cubic feet per second) on other permit areas, but when constructed, the designed

drainage basins often appeared engineered and unnatural. OSMRE considered requiring this level of 

design for haul road crossings and drainages outside the disturbance boundary; however, after consulting 

with DEQ, OSMRE concluded the benefits would be limited and would not measurably reduce the 

intensity of impacts on the relevant resources.

Other Mitigations

Geological Resources Survey

This environmental protection measure was incorporated into Western Energy’s permit application during 

DEQ’s acceptability review and will be implemented by DEQ as needed to reduce impacts on geological 

resources.

Paleontology Resources Survey

The analysis in the FEIS for the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) shows that paleontological resources not 

identified or salvaged prior to mining would be permanently lost, resulting in impacts that are short- and 

long-term, major, and adverse. All surface area within the Area F permit area is privately owned. All 

paleontological resources discovered during mining would be the property of the surface owner. OSMRE 

has determined that while there could be an increase in the potential for discovery of paleontological 

resources of scientific interest under an unanticipated discovery and mitigation plan, due to private 

ownership of paleontological resources in the project area, the plan would not ensure protection of the 

paleontological resources, thus having limited benefit in reducing adverse impacts. In addition, OSMRE 

does not have the authority to impose the implementation of the aforementioned unanticipated discovery 

and mitigation plan. Therefore, OSMRE has determined that an unanticipated discovery and mitigation 

plan would not effectively reduce impacts on paleontological resources below the intensity identified in 

Alternative 2.

3.4.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis

Seven alternatives were suggested by the public in scoping comments or by specialists based on 

professional experience but were not analyzed in detail for a variety of reasons, including operational 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 19

feasibility and failure to meet the project purpose and need (see Chapter 2, Section 6 in the FEIS). 

Dismissed alternatives include (1) coal conservation; (2) private coal mining; (3) underground mining; (4) 

mining within a smaller disturbance area, for a shorter duration, and/or within a different timeframe; (5) 

transporting coal by rail to western and international ports; (6) alternative land uses; and (7) alternative 

energy generation.

3.5 BASIS FOR DECISION

OSMRE has based its decision to select Alternative 2 without 74 acres of Federal coal in T2N, R38E,

Section 12 based on a thorough review of the FEIS, review of public and agency concerns received on 

this project, consultation with cooperating and regulatory agencies, consultation with interested tribes, 

DEQ’s April 18, 2019 Written Findings and the project record. OSMRE also considered the intensity of 

impacts expected for each of the analyzed alternatives. Alternative 1 has the least impacts, but does not 

meet purpose and need, and OSMRE determined that implementation of Alternative 3 would not 

measurably reduce the intensity of impacts described for Alternative 2 (see Table A-1 in Appendix A). 

As described in the following sections, Alternative 2 meets the project’s purpose and need (Section 1.2) 

and is consistent with all applicable regulatory requirements (Section 3.5.1), while minimizing potential 

impacts (Section 3.5.2). Alternative 2 also addresses the issues of concern identified during the scoping 

process. The effects on surface and groundwater quality and quantity are described in Section 4.7, Water 

Resources - Surface Water and Section 4.8 Water Resources – Groundwater of the FEIS, and the 

duration and intensity of potential adverse impacts would be reduced under the MSUMRA permit issued 

by DEQ. There are no jurisdictional wetlands or other waters in the project area (see FEIS, Section 3.11,

Wetlands and Riparian Zones). USFWS concurred with OSMRE’s determination that there would be 

no effects to threatened and endangered species as a result of approving the Proposed Action with the 

exception of the northern long-eared bat which the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect (see FEIS, Section 4.13, Special Status Species). OSMRE analyzed potential impacts of 

coal combustion on climate and environmental resources as outlined in the FEIS (see FEIS, Section 4.4,

Climate and Climate Change). OSMRE disclosed the potential impacts of Alternative 2 on human 

health in Section 4.16, Public Health Impacts of the FEIS. OSMRE described reclamation practices that 

would be implemented under Alternative 2 in Section 2.4.4, Reclamation Plan of the FEIS.

The FEIS meets the standards for an adequate EIS under CEQ regulations. OSMRE, as a co-lead agency, 

has taken responsibility for the preparation of the FEIS and has determined that all stakeholders’

concerns, comments, and suggestions provided during the NEPA process have been satisfactorily 

addressed, and all identified issues and potential impacts have been adequately analyzed and disclosed.

OSMRE’s decision to select the Proposed Action in part as the agency’s preferred alternative will be 

implemented through issuance of this ROD, my recommendation to approve the mining plan decision 

document to the ASLM and the ASLM’s approval, if given.

3.5.1 Selected Alternative Compliance with State and Federal Laws

OSMRE considered all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements necessary for approval of the 

proposed project. The following sections document the selected alternative’s compliance with applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 20

3.5.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA declares a national environmental policy and promotes consideration of environmental concerns by 

Federal agencies in decision making. Procedures and regulations issued by CEQ, as authorized under 

NEPA, direct implementation of NEPA by Federal agencies. CEQ regulations are promulgated at 40 CFR 

1500–1508, and DOI’s NEPA regulations are promulgated at 43 CFR 46 and in Department Manual 516. 

The OSMRE NEPA Handbook and the BLM NEPA Handbook also provide guidance and were 

considered in the preparation of the FEIS. OSMRE prepared the Western Energy Area F FEIS jointly 

with DEQ to meet the requirements of NEPA and MEPA, respectively.

Finding

OSMRE finds that the Western Energy Area F FEIS complies with the procedural and analytical 

requirements of NEPA.

3.5.1.2 SMCRA/State-Federal Cooperative Agreement

OSMRE is an office of DOI charged with administration of SMCRA. SMCRA establishes a program of 

cooperative Federalism that allows the states to enact and administer their own regulatory programs 

within limits established by Federal minimum standards and with prescribed backup enforcement 

authority by OSMRE (30 CFR 1253). DEQ operates an approved state program under SMCRA and, 

therefore, has primary jurisdiction over the regulation of surface coal-mining and reclamation operations 

on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within the state. See 45 CFR 21560, 30 CFR 926.15, 30 CFR 

926.16, and 30 CFR 926.30. Under Section 1273(c) of SMCRA, a state with a permanent regulatory 

program approved by the DOI Secretary, such as DEQ, can elect to enter into a cooperative agreement for 

state regulation of surface coal-mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands within the state. 

OSMRE granted DEQ this authority, and DEQ regulates permitting and operation of surface coal mines 

on Federal lands within MT under the authority of MSUMRA (Section 82-4-221, MCA).

The Agreement between DEQ and OSMRE (codified in 30 CFR 926.30) outlines the decision process for 

a surface coal mine in MT. Under the Agreement, DEQ reviews an operator’s (in this case, Western 

Energy’s) PAP to ensure the permit application complies with the permitting requirements and that the 

coal-mining operation would meet the performance standards of the approved MT program as outlined in 

MSUMRA (Section 82-4-221 et seq., MCA) and its implementing regulations (ARM 17.24.301-1309). 

OSMRE, BLM, and other Federal agencies such as the USFWS review the PAP to ensure it complies 

with the terms of the coal lease(s), MLA, NEPA, and other Federal laws and regulations. DEQ makes a 

decision to approve or deny the permit application component of the PAP in accordance with MSUMRA. 

OSMRE, and 30 CFR 746.1 through 746.18; reviews DEQ’s permit; and recommends approval, 

disapproval, or conditional approval of the mining plan to the ASLM.

DEQ Decision

DEQ reviewed Western Energy’s PAP and determined that under MSUMRA it is technically adequate 

(August 8, 2012) and that it is complete and acceptable under MSUMRA (October 5, 2018). DEQ issued 

a public Notice of Acceptability and accepted objections from the public. DEQ also completed a

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment (CHIA) for the project area, which included an analysis of 

impacts on the hydrologic balance and an assessment of the Probable Hydrologic Consequences of the 

proposed project. DEQ concluded in the CHIA that no material damage has occurred from current or 

approved mining and that the additional mining under the proposed project would not create material 

damage with the exclusion of 74 acres of Federal coal in T2N, R38E, Section 12, which has not been 

permitted for mining. On April 18, 2019, DEQ issued Written Findings and Notice of Decision, 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 21

documenting its decision to select Alternative 2 in part and to issue a surface-mine operating permit for 

Western Energy’s proposed permit Area F that excludes mining of 74 acres of Federal coal in T2N, 

R38E, Section 12. 

Finding

MSUMRA’s regulatory requirements and environmental performance standards are protective of 

resources. Pursuant to ARM 17.24.405 and 82-4-227, MCA, MSUMRA provides all practical means to 

avoid or minimize environmental harm including, without limitation, measures addressing water quality 

and quantity impacts, wildlife impacts, reclamation, and other measures. OSMRE finds that DEQ’s 

certification that Western Energy’s PAP as technically adequate and acceptable, DEQ’s Written Findings 

and Notice of Decision, and DEQ’s 2018 CHIA constitute compliance with SMCRA, per the Agreement. 

3.5.1.3 Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides a means for conserving the ecosystems upon which 

threatened and endangered (T&E) species depend and a program for the conservation of such species. The 

ESA directs all Federal agencies to participate in conserving these species. Specifically, Section 7(a)(1) of 

the ESA charges Federal agencies to aid in the conservation of listed species, and Section 7(a)(2) requires 

the agencies to ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed 

species or adversely modify designated critical habitats. Section 7 of the ESA (16 United States Code 

(USC) 1531 et seq.) outlines the procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve Federally 

listed species and designated critical habitats.

Four Federally listed species potentially occur or are affected by projects in Rosebud, Treasure, Big Horn, 

and Powder River Counties, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Federal T&E Species Potentially Occurring or Potentially Affected by Projects in 

Rosebud, Treasure, Big Horn, and Powder River Counties.

Common Name Scientific Name Status*

Federal/State General Habitat Affinity Habitat in Analysis Area

Birds

Whooping crane Grus americana E Wet meadows, marshes None

Mammals

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes E Active prairie dog towns or 

complex > 80 acres in size

None

Northern longeared batMyotis septentrionalis T Rock cavities and crevices, 

behind bark in trees, dead 

hardwood trees

None

Fish

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus E Slow-moving, large rivers None *

E = Endangered; T = Threatened.

Source: USFWS.

The USFWS was sent a scoping newsletter on August 30, 2013 describing the Proposed Action and 

requesting comments. OSMRE contacted the USFWS Ecological Services Montana Field Office in 

Helena on June 9, 2014 to discuss the project. USFWS advised that if OSMRE is making a determination 

of “no effect,” then no further USFWS consultation is needed. OSMRE followed up with USFWS in 

2017 regarding the indirect effects analysis area for the proposed project. Specifically, OSMRE provided 

information to USFWS on January 31, 2017 disclosing Federally listed T&E species that could be present 

in Rosebud, Treasure, and Big Horn Counties and any potential effects on the species or habitat that could 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 22

result from the proposed project. USFWS communicated to OSMRE via phone that they were in 

agreement with OSMRE’s determination that there would be “no effect” on T&E species within the 

indirect effects analysis area. In May 2017, the indirect effects analysis area was expanded from a 29-

kilometer (km) radius to a 32-km radius from the Rosebud and Colstrip Power Plants. The 32-km analysis 

area extended into Powder River County; therefore, species potentially occurring in Powder River County 

were included in the T&E species analysis.

Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus Environmental 

Protection Measures, a portion of the indirect effects analysis area for special status species falls within 

the area of impact for the northern long-eared bat. OSMRE has complied with the USFWS’s 

programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) for the January 5, 2016 Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule and 

fulfilled the Section 7 consultation requirements under the ESA through submission of the streamlined 

consultation form on June 21, 2017 to the Montana Ecological Field Services Office. There are no effects 

on the northern long-eared bat beyond those previously disclosed in the USFWS’s BO for the final 4(d) 

rule. Any taking that may occur incidental to Alternative 2 or 3 is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule 

(50 CFR 17.40(o)). This project is consistent with the activities outlined in the programmatic BO, and the 

4(d) rule does not prohibit incidental take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a result of this 

project. Therefore, the programmatic BO satisfies OSMRE responsibilities under Section 7 of the ESA of 

1973, as amended, 16 USC l53l et seq., relative to the northern long-eared bat for this project.

Additionally, USFWS and OSMRE were able to conclude that no other Federally listed T&E species or 

their critical habitats exist within the direct and indirect effects analysis areas for special status species 

(see FEIS, Section 3.1, Special Status Species), and no further USFWS consultation was needed.

Finding

OSMRE has met the requirements of the ESA. This determination is based on documented 

communications between OSMRE and the USFWS.

3.5.1.4 Clean Air Act 

The State of Montana administers the Federal Clean Air Act. The limits in the approved Montana Air 

Quality Permit (MAQP) #1570-07 are necessary to ensure that all potential sources of air pollutants from 

mining Area F coal comply with the Clean Air Act of Montana. DEQ would document compliance with 

the Clean Air Act of Montana in its Final Determination for MAQP #1570-07 prior to the start of mining 

operations in Area F at the Rosebud Mine. 

Finding

DEQ’s permit decision and conditions on the air quality permit constitute compliance with Clean Air Act 

of Montana requirements. The FEIS analyzes the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to air quality as 

a result of Alternative 2 - Proposed Action (see FEIS, Section 4.3, Air Quality and Section 5.3.2.2, Air 

Quality). Direct impacts would be short-term, negligible to minor, and adverse. Indirect impacts of coal 

combustion would be short- and long-term, minor, and adverse. Cumulative impacts of mining and coal 

combustion would be short-term, minor to moderate, and adverse. The emissions concentrations for all 

constituents created directly, indirectly and cumulatively under the Proposed Action are expected to fall 

below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Montana Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (MAAQS).
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 23

3.5.1.5 Clean Water Act

DEQ is responsible for administering the Montana Water Quality Act, which prevents degradation of 

surface and ground water due to discharges of mine wastewater and storm water (implementing rules: 

ARM 17.30 Subchapters 11, 12, and 13). MT’s nondegradation rule applies to any human activity 

resulting in a new or increased source that may cause degradation of high-quality waters. The project 

would be considered a new source. 

DEQ also administers several sections of the Clean Water Act pursuant to an agreement between the state 

and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DEQ developed water quality classifications and standards, 

as well as a permit system to control discharges into state waters. Mining operations must comply with 

state regulations and standards for surface water and ground water. MPDES permits are required for point 

discharges of wastewater to state surface water. MPDES permits regulate discharges of wastewater by 

establishing effluent limitations based on, when applicable, technology-based effluent limits, state surface 

water quality standards including numeric and narrative requirements, and nondegradation criteria. 

Finding

DEQ’s permit decision and conditions on the MPDES permit constitutes compliance with Clean Water 

Act requirements. Compliance with applicable water quality regulations, including water quality 

standards and nondegradation rules and the subsequent Fact Sheet for the MPDES permit, are discussed 

in DEQ’s decision documents for the surface-mine operating permit and the MPDES permit. During the 

PAP review process, DEQ concluded that no material damage has occurred from current or approved 

mining and that the additional mining under the Proposed Action would not create material damage to 

water resources outside the permit boundary with the exclusion of 74 acres of Federal coal in T2N, R38E, 

Section 12, which has not been permitted for mining. On April 18, 2019, DEQ issued Written Findings 

and Notice of Decision, documenting its decision to select Alternative 2 in part and to issue a surfacemine operating permit for Western Energy’s proposed permit Area F that excludes mining of 74 acres of 

Federal coal in T2N, R38E, Section 12. The FEIS analyzes the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to 

water resources within and downstream of the project area as a result of Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

(see FEIS, Section 4.7, Water Resources - Surface Water; Section 4.8, Water Resources – 

Groundwater; Section 5.3.6, Water Resources – Surface Water; and Section 5.3.7, Water Resources 

– Groundwater). Direct impacts would be short- and long-term, minor to moderate, and adverse. Indirect 

impacts of coal combustion would be short- and long-term, negligible to moderate, and adverse. 

Cumulative impacts of mining and coal combustion would be short-term, minor to major, and adverse. 

Due to the exclusion of mining in Section 12 of the project area, there would be a decrease in the intensity 

of the impacts to water resources from the selection of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action as the agency’s 

preferred alternative.

3.5.1.6 National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations under 36 

CFR 800 require all Federal agencies to consider effects of Federal actions on cultural resources eligible 

for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Traditional cultural properties are also 

protected under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

Impacts on cultural resources were assessed within the 8,280-acre area of potential effect (APE) during 

two Class III cultural resource surveys completed in 2010 (PAP, Appendix A-1) and 2012 (PAP, 

Appendix A-2). The APE was defined as the entirety of the project area or the proposed permit boundary. 

A total of 105 cultural resources were documented within the APE. Eighty-one (81) of the sites have been 

evaluated as not eligible for listing in the NRHP. Sixteen sites are recommended eligible for listing in the 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 24

NRHP. Both historic districts intersecting the APE—the Castle Rock and Lee Historic Districts—have 

been recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. Adverse effects on four archaeological properties 

(24RB958, 24RB2334, 24RB2339, and 24RB2438) would potentially occur within the first 5 years (60 

months) of project operations. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was entered into by Western 

Energy, the State Historic Preservation Office, DEQ, BLM, and OSMRE and would implement 

mitigation measures for the four archaeological properties. A Programmatic Agreement (PA) has also 

been developed among the same parties and was officially executed on March 27, 2017 (see FEIS, 

Appendix H). The PA provides direction to the parties to ensure continued Section 106 compliance. 

Under the selected alternative, surface disturbance from mining and wetland mitigation activity may 

result in disturbance or destruction of historic properties located within the analysis area, and these 

impacts would be long-term, major, and adverse. Adverse impacts would be resolved through both a 

property-specific MOA and a long-term PA stipulating measures for continued Section 106 compliance 

(see FEIS, Appendix H).

Tribal Consultation

In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations 

under 36 CFR 800, OSMRE initiated formal tribal consultation with the Northern Cheyenne, Fort Peck 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, and Crow Tribes regarding the identification and effects on traditional 

cultural properties (TCPs) and archaeological sites of significance to the tribes. Consultation was initiated 

through letters sent to the three tribes on April 14, 2014. OSMRE did not receive any communications in 

response to these letters. Each tribe also was contacted during the two formal public scoping periods. 

None of the tribes provided comments during either public scoping period. 

OSMRE contacted the Northern Cheyenne, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, and Crow Tribes 

again via letter on January 6, 2015, to inform the tribes of potential adverse effects on four archaeological 

properties (24RB958, 24RB2334, 24RB2339, and 24RB2438) that would potentially occur within the 

first 5 years (60 months) of project operations. The letters informed the tribes that a MOA would be 

prepared for standard data recovery for the four affected sites and invited tribal participation in the MOA. 

The letter also informed the tribes that a PA would be developed for the project to implement mitigation 

measures for effects on known sites and stipulations to treat unanticipated discoveries during mining 

operations. Comments on the affected sites were solicited and information was requested regarding 

traditional uses, ethnographic resources, and TCPs in the project area. OSMRE did not receive any 

responses to these letters. 

On June 2, 2015, OSMRE notified the Northern Cheyenne, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, and 

Crow Tribes via letter that the Black Hank Site (24RB2339) had been determined eligible for listing in 

the NRHP under Criterion D. Comments on the affected site, as well as the other three sites covered by 

the MOA, were solicited and information was once again requested regarding traditional uses, 

ethnographic resources, and TCPs in the project area. OSMRE did not receive any responses to these 

letters.

In response to public comments on the Draft EIS, OSMRE initiated consultation with additional tribes, 

including the Apache, Blackfeet Nation, Eastern Shoshone, Kiowa, and Oglala Sioux. The purpose of 

continuing consultation is to inform the tribes of Stipulation 10 in the PA that allows new stakeholders to 

request consulting status at any time (see FEIS, Appendix H).
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 25

Finding

OSMRE finds that the selected alternative complies with the NHPA based on the coordination with 

SHPO and the tribes described above in Section 2.5.1.6. OSMRE has completed the Section 106 

consultation process for this project and will insure that the stipulations in the PA are implemented.

3.5.1.7 Executive Order (EO) 13175 – Government-to-Government 

Consultation with Tribes 

EO 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult with American Indian tribal representatives and 

traditionalists on a government-to-government basis. OSMRE’s tribal consultation is described above in 

Section 3.5.1.6, National Historic Preservation Act. 

Finding

OSMRE finds that the selected alternative complies with EO 13175 based on the coordination with SHPO 

and the tribes described above in Section 2.5.1.6. OSMRE has completed the Section 106 consultation 

process for this project and will insure that the stipulations in the PA are implemented. 

3.5.1.8 EO 12898 Environmental Justice 

EO 12898 requires Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations when 

implementing their respective programs, including American Indian programs. OSMRE’s analysis of 

environmental justice impacts under Alternative 2 follows the CEQ’s guidance on environmental justice, 

the EPA’s guidance on environmental justice, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

regulation on environmental justice. The USDA’s regulation indicates an effect on a minority or a lowincome population is disproportionately high and adverse if the adverse effect is appreciably more severe 

or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the nonminority population and/or 

non-low-income population. 

Consistent with the EO, OSMRE provided for effective community participation in the NEPA process for 

the relevant populations (see FEIS, Section 6.1, Consultation Process). Populations living in the EIS 

analysis area meet the environmental justice guidelines for minority and low-income residents. Effects of 

Alternative 2 on these minority and low-income populations were analyzed in the FEIS. The selected 

alternative would extend the life of the Rosebud Mine by 8 years, delaying the onset of adverse economic 

impacts associated with mine closure and possibly allowing time for other sectors to develop. There may 

be potential for adverse health risk to environmental justice populations and individuals from incidental 

exposure to PM, DPM, and coal dust while traveling along public roads adjacent to the project area, and 

roads connecting the project area to the Rosebud and Colstrip Power Plants. These effects would be 

negligible and short-term, and not disproportionate relative to the overall population (see FEIS, Section 

4.16.3, Public Health Impacts).

Finding

OSMRE’s decision to select Alternative 2 was made in consideration of and consistent with EO 12898 as 

described above in Section 2.5.1.8 of this ROD and supported by the analysis in Section 4.16 of the 

FEIS.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 26

3.5.2 Environmental Effects

OSMRE’s decision considered the environmental effects of each alternative. The intensity of effects for 

Alternative 2 (the selected alternative) and Alternative 3 were considered. All direct and indirect impacts, 

including their intensities, are described fully in Chapter 4 of the FEIS, and cumulative impacts are 

described in Chapter 5 of the FEIS. For a summary comparison of effects by all resources analyzed in 

the FEIS, see Table A-1 in Appendix A of this document, which also is included in Section 2.7 of the 

FEIS.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects were largely similar between Alternatives 2 and 3, and the 

differences in effect intensities between these two alternatives were minimal. OSMRE concluded that the 

requirements of MSUMRA, which equate to the requirements of SMCRA under the Agreement 

(described above in Section 3.5.1.2), are sufficiently protective of resources in the project area and 

vicinity and would be met by the selected alternative. 

CHAPTER 4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

4.1 EIS SCOPING PERIOD 

Two formal public scoping periods were held before preparation of the EIS. DEQ held its scoping period 

in fall 2012. OSMRE did not become a co-lead agency on the EIS until 2013, so a second scoping period 

was held in fall 2013. The intent of both scoping periods was to gather comments, concerns, and ideas 

from those who have interest in or may be affected by the Proposed Action. Key issues raised in scoping 

comments are described above in Section 1.3. A detailed accounting of DEQ and OSMRE scoping 

processes can be found in the Public Scoping Report and Public Scoping Report II, respectively. Both 

reports are available on the OSMRE website: http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/westernEnergy.shtm. 

4.2 DRAFT EIS PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC REVIEW

OSMRE and DEQ conducted a 60-day public comment period on the Draft EIS. The initial 45-day public 

comment period on the Draft EIS began on January 4, 2018, and was noticed in the Federal Register, on 

agency websites, in legal notices, and in local newspapers. At the request of the Northern Plains Resource 

Council and Montana Environmental Information Center, the comment period was extended by the 

agencies to March 5, 2018 (a 15-day extension). OSMRE and DEQ jointly hosted a public open house 

and town hall meeting in Colstrip, Montana, on February 13, 2018. Substantive public comments received 

during the public comment period and agency responses are included in the Fin Appendix F, Comments 

on the DEIS and Responses. 

CHAPTER 5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The FEIS and electronic copies of this ROD can be downloaded as PDFs from OSMRE’s webpage: 

https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/westernEnergy.shtm. The ROD is also available to view at

OSMRE Western Region Office, the BLM Miles City Field Office, and the BLM State Office (addresses 

and hours of availability are below). For additional information regarding the project or to request a hard 

copy version of the ROD, please contact the OSMRE Project Coordinator, Logan Sholar, 

lsholar@osmre.gov, (303) 293-5036. 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 27

BLM Miles City Field Office

111 Garryowen Road

Miles City, MT 59301

Between the hours of 7:45 AM and 4:30 PM Monday 

through Friday (Closed Saturday and Sunday)

OSMRE, Western Region

1999 Broadway, Suite 3320

Denver, CO 80202

Between the hours of 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM Monday 

through Friday (Closed Saturday and Sunday)

BLM State Office

5001 Southgate Drive

Billings, MT 59101

Between the hours of 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM Monday 

through Friday (Closed Saturday and Sunday)
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 28

CHAPTER 6. APPROVAL

In consideration of the information presented above, I approve this OSMRE ROD and the selection of 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) as described in Section 3.2 of this ROD. The State of Montana has 

approved the MSUMRA permit, which sets forth requirements to minimize environmental impacts that 

could potentially occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Accordingly, I recommend approval without 

conditions of the new mining plan to the ASLM. This action can be implemented following approval of 

the mining plan by the ASLM. 

This ROD is effective on signature.

 Date

For additional information regarding the project, this ROD, or the FEIS, please contact the OSMRE

Project Coordinator: Logan Sholar, OSMRE Western Region, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3320, Denver, CO 

80202, lsholar@osmre.gov, (303) 293-5036. 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 29

Appendix A Summary of Impacts Table
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 30

This page is blank for 2-sided printing. 
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 31

Table A-1. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts.

Resource Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus 

Environmental Protection Measures

Topography No impacts Changes in topography during mining would be 

noticeable and would be short-term, major, and 

adverse. In the years immediately following 

reclamation, impacts from erosion would be 

negligible. Over time, differential erosion of the 

spoil would create a hummocky terrain with 

fragments of more resistant stone scattered 

throughout the analysis area; these impacts 

would be long-term, minor, and adverse. 

Differential erosion of backfilled areas and 

unmined drainage basins would result in 

topographic inversion of the analysis area; these 

impacts would be long-term, major, and adverse.

Impacts would be similar to those described 

for Alternative 2. Improved water management 

during mining may result in decreased shortterm erosion rates, and tighter elevation 

control may result in a more stable land 

surface. 

Air Quality No impacts Air emissions would not result in exceedances of 

any NAAQS. Direct and indirect impacts on air 

quality would be short-term, negligible to minor, 

and adverse. Deposition impacts would be longterm, negligible to minor, and adverse.

Impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 2.

Climate and 

Climate Change

No impacts Direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions 

would contribute incrementally to climate change. 

Direct impacts on climate change would be 

negligible relative to other sources. 

Impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 2.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 32

Table A-1. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts.

Resource Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus 

Environmental Protection Measures

Public Health There would be no immediate 

effects on the public health of the 

analysis area’s overall population 

and sensitive subpopulations, 

including those with chronic 

disease and American Indian 

populations. There may be longterm negligible impacts on public 

health within the direct effects 

analysis area resulting from 

fugitive dust from reclamation 

activities. If and when the 

Rosebud Mine does close, 

revenues that support access to 

public health services, such as 

hospitals, libraries, schools, and 

other services, would cease, 

resulting in direct and indirect 

moderate to major long-term 

effects on social services and 

resources.

The public’s exposure to diesel particulate matter 

(DPM) and fugitive dust, including coal dust, 

would be low due to limited exposure time and 

extent. Deposition of airborne contaminants of 

potential concern on soils and surface waters may 

occur, but it is not likely that the public would be 

exposed to these except incidentally. Project 

impacts on air concentrations of PM would result 

in a short-term minor adverse impact on public 

health within the project area and public access 

roads. Members of the public would not be 

permitted within the project area where PM and 

other hazardous substances would be present at 

higher concentrations. Any potential exposure of 

sensitive receptors to PM would be incidental and 

limited in duration. Therefore, the direct impacts 

on public health from PM2.5 and PM10, including 

from DPM and coal dust, would be short-term, 

negligible to minor, and adverse. There is a low 

likelihood that human consumption or contact with 

contaminated surface or ground water would 

occur from the Proposed Action. With monitoring 

and mitigation activities, increased risk to public 

health from exposure to water because of the 

Proposed Action is not likely. The Proposed 

Action would have a short-term moderate 

beneficial impact on public health as it relates to 

economics and social services; a short-term 

negligible impact on community health; and a 

short-term minor adverse effect on land use as it 

relates to public health. Effects on public safety 

from noise and from solid and hazardous waste 

would be none to negligible.

Impacts would be similar as those described 

for Alternative 2.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 33

Table A-1. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts.

Resource Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus 

Environmental Protection Measures

Geology No impacts Horizontal continuity of the geology in the analysis 

area would be lost during mining, and the 

overburden would be vertically altered. Rockoutcrop features of historical significance would 

also be lost. Impacts would be short- and longterm, major, and adverse. Impacts would last until 

the spoil used to replace the geologically distinct 

layers was eroded away. 

Impacts would be similar to those described 

for Alternative 2. Rock-outcrop features of 

historical significance would be identified prior 

to disturbance as part of a geological 

resources survey, and if DEQ determines the 

feature should remain in place, the mine plan 

would be adjusted to avoid long-term major 

adverse impacts. 

Water Resources –

Surface Water

Impacts due to current and future 

mining and/or reclamation in other 

areas of the Rosebud Mine would 

continue.

Impacts on stream and spring flows, pond levels, 

and hydrologic balance due to road relocation and 

construction would be short-term, minor, and 

adverse. Impacts from changes in flow volumes, 

timing of flows, and frequency of flows would be 

long-term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Impacts due to mining activities within the 100-

year floodplains would be short-term, minor, and 

adverse. Impacts on surface water quality due to 

mining would be long-term, minor to moderate, 

and adverse. Some surface water resources 

would be permanently lost or changed.

Impacts on stream and spring flows, pond 

levels, and hydrologic balance would be 

similar to those described for Alternative 2. Pit 

water would be managed to protect surface 

water quality outside of the analysis area. 

Postmine topography would be designed 

using 5-foot (instead of 10-foot) contours. 

DEQ approval would be required for drainage 

designs with estimated 2-year, 24-hour peak 

flows greater than 5 cfs (vs. the standard 15 

cfs).
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 34

Table A-1. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts.

Resource Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus 

Environmental Protection Measures

Water Resources –

Ground Water

No impacts Mining of the project area would permanently 

remove the Rosebud Coal aquifer and result in 

long-term reduction or elimination of the bedrock 

ground water contribution to baseflow in the 

perennial and intermittent reaches of the major 

tributaries. Long-term ground water drawdown 

due to mining would extend upgradient to the 

south beyond the mine area. Drawdown may 

affect existing water users of the Rosebud Coal 

aquifer. Mining would permanently remove 

springs in the project area whose ground water 

source is either the Rosebud Coal or overburden 

that would be removed. Replacement of the 

Rosebud Coal with spoil would have long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts on ground water 

quality in the analysis area. When the spoil is 

sufficiently resaturated to discharge to alluvium in 

the major tributaries, impacts on alluvial ground 

water quality would likely be long-term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse.

Impacts would be similar to those described 

for Alternative 2. Pit-water handling 

requirements during mining would reduce 

potential impacts on alluvial ground water 

downgradient of storage ponds.

Water Resources –

Water Rights

Impacts due to current and future 

mining and/or reclamation in other 

areas of the Rosebud Mine would 

continue.

If a surface or ground water right became 

unusable for its specified purpose due to flow or 

water quality changes, the impact would be shortterm, moderate, and adverse; a suitable 

replacement source would be provided by 

Western Energy. If a water right were impacted by 

mining but still contained sufficient water of 

adequate quality to meet beneficial use needs, 

the impact would be short-term, negligible to 

minor, and adverse.

Impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 2.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 35

Table A-1. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts.

Resource Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus 

Environmental Protection Measures

Vegetation No impacts The removal of 4,260 acres of vegetation for 

mining activities would result in direct impacts that 

are short-term, moderate, and adverse. 

Decreased vegetation vigor and diversity, and the 

potential for changes to vegetation communities 

from a reduced amount of surface and ground 

water in the area, would result in impacts that are 

long-term, minor, and adverse. The indirect 

impacts on vegetation from power-plant 

emissions would be long-term, minor, and 

adverse.

Impacts would be similar to those described 

for Alternative 2. Development of a watermanagement plan and modifications to 

reclamation practices related to soil 

stockpiling, soil redistribution, and seeding to 

better manage water and improve reclamation 

success would have a beneficial effect on 

vegetation. 

Wetlands and 

Riparian Zones

No impacts Surface disturbance and changes to surface and 

ground water during mining activities would result 

in impacts that are short- and long-term, 

moderate, and adverse. A wetland mitigation plan 

would reduce the loss of wetland function and 

values. Indirect impacts on wetlands from powerplant emissions would be negligible.

Impacts would be similar to those described 

for Alternative 2. Development of a watermanagement plan and additional requirements 

for the wetland mitigation plan would have a 

beneficial effect on wetlands and would 

reduce long-term adverse impacts. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Resources

No impacts Mining activities would result in loss of habitat due 

to surface disturbances that remove vegetation, 

direct mortality or injury due to vehicle or 

construction equipment collisions, and behavioral 

shifts such as a change in movement or 

displacement to other areas due to increased 

human activity and noise from blasting and mining 

operations. Direct impacts on small mammals, 

carnivores, big game, migratory birds, shorebirds, 

raptors, reptiles and amphibians, and aquatic 

species would be short- and long-term, negligible 

to minor, and adverse. Impacts on bats would be 

short- and long-term, moderate, and adverse. 

Indirect impacts from power-plant emissions 

would be negligible.

Impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 2. Development of a 

water-management plan in conjunction with a 

nonjurisdictional wetland mitigation plan would 

result in potential beneficial impacts on most 

wildlife species that depend on wetland and 

riparian habitat.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 36

Table A-1. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts.

Resource Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus 

Environmental Protection Measures

Special Status 

Species

No impacts Mining activities would result in loss of habitat due 

to surface disturbances that remove vegetation, 

direct mortality or injury due to vehicle or 

construction equipment collisions, and behavioral 

shifts such as a change in movement or 

displacement to other areas due to increased 

human activity and noise from blasting and mining 

operations. There would be no impacts on 

Federally listed threatened and endangered 

species. Direct impacts on state species of 

concern would be short- and long-term, moderate, 

and adverse. Indirect impacts from power-plant 

emissions would be negligible.

Impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 2. Development of a 

water-management plan in conjunction with a 

nonjurisdictional wetland mitigation plan would 

result in potential beneficial impacts on most 

wildlife species that depend on wetland and 

riparian habitat.

Cultural and 

Historic Resources

No impacts Surface disturbance from mining and wetland 

mitigation activity may result in disturbance or 

destruction of historic properties located within the 

analysis area, and these impacts would be longterm, major, and adverse. Adverse impacts would 

be resolved through both a property-specific 

Memorandum of Agreement and a long-term PA 

stipulating measures for continued Section 106 

compliance.

Wetland mitigation has the potential to

adversely affect known and unknown historic 

properties. A PA would stipulate measures for 

Section 106 compliance prior to undertaking 

wetland mitigation.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 37

Table A-1. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts.

Resource Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus 

Environmental Protection Measures

Socioeconomic 

Conditions

Annual economic impacts 

associated with continued 

operation of the Rosebud Mine 

would be short-term and 

negligible since the mine would 

continue to support local 

economic activity. With the 

retirement of the Colstrip Power 

Plant Units 1 and 2 in 2022, 

impacts of changes in mine 

operation would likely be shortterm and moderate since the mine 

would support local economic 

activity at a reduced level. 

Eventual mine closure would likely 

result in long-term, moderate to 

major negative impacts.

Impacts would be the same as those described 

for Alternative 1.

Impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 1.

Environmental 

Justice

When the Rosebud Mine 

eventually closes, all populations 

within Rosebud County will be 

negatively affected, including the 

substantial environmental justice 

populations. Impacts would be 

long-term, negligible, and 

adverse.

Alternative 2 would delay the onset of adverse 

economic impacts, possibly allowing time for 

other sectors to develop. Therefore, impacts 

would be short-term and minor because the mine 

would continue to support local economic activity 

during the life of the mine.

Impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 2.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 38

Table A-1. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts.

Resource Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus 

Environmental Protection Measures

Visual Resources No impacts Mining activities would change the visual 

landscape for drivers traveling along Horse Creek 

Road through the project area through changes to 

geology and topography, and removal of 

vegetation; the impact would be short-term, 

moderate, and adverse. For seven residences 

adjacent to the Rosebud Mine, active mining 

adjacent to existing mining areas may be visible 

in a small portion of the viewshed from a few 

locations. Depending on location, impacts would 

range from none to long-term, moderate, and 

adverse. 

Impacts would be similar to those described 

for Alternative 2. Measures to improve 

revegetation success and a pre-mining 

geological resource survey to identify rockoutcrop features to be left intact may help the 

area return to pre-mine visual conditions more

quickly. 

Recreation No impacts All current use of the land for recreation (primarily 

hunting) would be unavailable during mine 

operations. Hunting opportunities on mine-related 

disturbance areas would be lost until revegetation 

and forage production were comparable to premining levels associated with adjacent land. 

Impacts would be long-term, moderate, and 

adverse.

Impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 2.

Paleontology No impacts Paleontological resources not identified or 

salvaged prior to mining would be permanently 

lost, resulting in impacts that are short- and longterm, major, and adverse. However, previously 

unknown paleontological resources may also be 

identified during mining activities and potentially 

salvaged, resulting in a beneficial impact. 

The Unanticipated Discovery Plan required 

under Alternative 3 would increase the 

potential for discovery of paleontological 

resources of scientific interest. Discovery 

would not ensure protection but would help 

minimize unintentional destruction of these 

resources.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 39

Table A-1. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts.

Resource Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus 

Environmental Protection Measures

Access and 

Transportation

The haul road from Area C West 

would likely be decommissioned 

15 to 20 years earlier.

A 4.2-mile segment of Horse Creek Road in the 

northeast/north-central portion of the analysis 

area would be relocated, and a 1.3-mile segment 

in the northwestern portion would be rerouted. 

Impacts from the relocation/reroute of Horse 

Creek Road would be short-term, minor, and 

adverse. The impacts due to haul, ramp, and 

service roads would be short-term, negligible, and 

adverse because the overall transportation 

system would not be disrupted. 

Impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 2.

Solid and 

Hazardous Waste

No impacts Potential leaks or releases of solid or hazardous 

wastes would result in impacts that are short-term, 

negligible, and adverse. Impacts from boron 

toxicity related to the receipt and use of bottom 

ash at other permit areas of the mine would be 

short-term, negligible, and adverse.

Impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 2.

Noise No impacts Direct impacts due to noise from mining and 

reclamation in the project area would be shortand long-term, negligible to minor, and adverse 

for the nearest rural residences. Indirect impacts 

due to noise from operation of the Rosebud and 

Colstrip Power Plants would continue to be 

moderate to minor for the residences in Colstrip 

and for those adjacent to the Rosebud Power 

Plant.

Impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 2.

Land Use No impacts All current land uses within the analysis area 

would be temporarily disturbed during mine 

operations based on the timing of the approved 

mine plan. Impacts on grazing land would be 

long-term, moderate, and beneficial. Impacts on 

cropland would be long-term, moderate, and 

adverse. 

Impacts would be similar to those described 

for Alternative 2. Loss of soil productivity and 

associated loss of cropland/grazing-land 

productivity would vary slightly, with 

productivity potentially returning to postmine 

conditions more quickly.
Western Energy Area F Record of Decision

June 2019 40

Table A-1. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts.

Resource Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Plus 

Environmental Protection Measures

Soil No impacts Soil salvage, storage, and respreading would 

result in soil erosion and changes to physical, 

chemical, and biological soil characteristics. 

During mining, soil erosion impacts would be 

short-term, minor, and adverse. Erosion rates in 

reclaimed areas would return to pre-mine rates 

within 2 years once vegetation stabilizes the 

surface. It would be many years before physical, 

chemical, and biological soil characteristics return 

to pre-mine conditions; impacts in reclaimed areas 

would be long-term, minor, and adverse. 

Contouring soil stockpiles during mining would 

reduce short-term erosion from stockpiles 

compared to Alternative 2. Applying organic 

amendments such as grass to the upper 4 

inches of soil in small problem areas (i.e., 

areas lacking sufficient organic matter, areas 

with limited vegetation cover, or areas 

susceptible to erosion) would enhance soil 

productivity and reduce erosion when 

compared to Alternative 2. Long-term impacts 

on soil would be the same as those described 

for Alternative 2.