This is a text-only version of the document "South Gillette Area Coal Lease - Final Environmental Impact Statement - Vol 2 of 2 - 2009". To see the original version of the document click here.

---

BLM

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications
WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248

Volume 2 of 2
	 Appendices
	

Wyoming State Office  High Plains District

Mule Deer on Reclaimed Rangeland Coal Creek Mine, Wyoming

Reclaimed Belle Fourche River Cordero Rojo Mine, Wyoming

Reclaimed Tisdale Creek Caballo Mine, Wyoming

American Avocet in a Reclaimed Wetland Belle Ayr Mine, Wyoming

August 2009
	

MISSION STATEMENT
 It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Managment to sustain the health, diversity, 
 and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and 
 future generations.

BLM/WY/PL-09/029+1320

Table of Contents VOLUME 2 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Appendix B. Federal and State Agencies and Permitting Requirements Unsuitability Criteria for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts Coal Lease-By-Application Flow Chart Bureau of Land Management Special Coal Lease Stipulations and Form 3400-12 Coal Lease Biological Assessment for the South Gillette Area Coal EIS ­ Belle Ayr North LBA Tract, West Coal Creek LBA Tract, Caballo West LBA Tract, Maysdorf II LBA Tract BLM Sensitive Species Evaluation for the South Gillette Area Coal EIS CBNG and Conventional Oil and Gas Wells Capable Of Production on Sections In or Adjacent to the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts Supplemental Air Quality Information for the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA Tracts Comment Letters on the Draft EIS and Responses

Appendix C. Appendix D.

Appendix E.

Appendix F.

Appendix G.

Appendix H.

Appendix I.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

i

APPENDIX A FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS

Appendix A APPENDIX A: FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES & PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS1 Agency Lease/Permit Action FEDERAL
Bureau of Land Management Coal Lease Resource Recovery & Protection Plan Scoria Sales Contract Exploration Drilling Permit Preparation of MLA Mining Plan Approval Document SMCRA Oversight Approval of MLA Mining Plan Safety Permit and Legal ID Ground Control Plan Major Impoundments Explosive’s Manufacturer’s License Explosives Use and Storage Permit Radio Permit: Ambulance Mobile Relay System Radio License Radioactive By-Products Material License Radioactive Material Certificate of Registration Authorization of Impacts to Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. Hazardous Waste Shipment Notification Radio Tower Facilities Construction Permits

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office of the Secretary of the Interior Mine Safety and Health Administration

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Federal Communication Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Army Corps of Engineers Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration

STATE
State Land Commission Department of Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division Coal Lease Scoria Lease Permit and License to Mine Permit to Construct Sedimentation Pond Solid Waste Disposal Permit-Permanent and Construction Air Quality Permit to Operate Air Quality Permit to Construct Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Water Discharge Permits Authorization to Construct Septic Tank & Leach Field Authorization to Construct and Install a Public Water Supply and Sewage Treatment System Appropriation of Surface Water Permits Appropriation of Ground Water Permits Industrial Siting Certificate of Non-Jurisdiction

Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division Department of Environmental Quality-Water Quality Division

State Engineer’s Office Industrial Siting Council
1

Individual Lease/Permit Actions listed below may not be required at all mines.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

A-1

APPENDIX B UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, 
 CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II 
 LBA TRACTS


Appendix B APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE BELLE AYR NORTH LBA TRACT
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) There are Federal lands located around Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright that were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. FINDINGS FOR BELLE AYR NORTH LBA TRACT None of the federal lands determined to be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Therefore, there are no unsuitable findings under this criterion.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 1. Federal Land Systems. With certain exceptions that do not apply to this tract, all federal lands included in the following systems are unsuitable for mining: National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National System of Trails, National Wilderness Preservation System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas, Lands acquired through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, National Forests and Federal lands in incorporated cities, towns and villages. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. Federal lands that are within ROWs or easements or within surface leases for residential, commercial, industrial or other public purposes, on federally owned surface, are unsuitable for mining. Buffer Zones for Rights-Of-Way, Communities, and Buildings. Federal lands within 100 ft of a ROW of a public road or a cemetery; or within 300 ft of any public building, school, church, community or institutional building or public park; or within 300 ft of an occupied dwelling are unsuitable for mining.

2.

Portions of the BNSF & UP railroad ROWs, the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 ROW were found to be unsuitable under this criterion within the general review area.

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, the I-90 ROW, and the BNSF & UP railroad ROW that were determined to be unsuitable are not located on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Therefore, there area no unsuitable findings under Criterion 2 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery are not located on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. No occupied dwellings or schools are located on the tract. Portions of the Bishop Road, a public road, are located on the tract as applied for and under Alternative 2. Therefore, the portions of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract within the Bishop Road ROW and the associated 100-ft buffer zone are designated unsuitable for mining and the lease will be stipulated to exclude mining within these areas unless a permit to move the road is approved by Campbell County Board of Commissioners. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 4 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

3.

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450, Interstate Highway I-90, and one cemetery were found to be unsuitable under this criterion. Decisions were deferred on other highways/roads, occupied dwellings, and one school until an application to lease is filed.

4.

Wilderness Study Areas. Federal lands designated as wilderness study areas are unsuitable for mining while under review for possible wilderness designation. Scenic Areas. Scenic federal lands designated by visual resource management analysis as Class I (outstanding visual quality or high visual sensitivity) but not currently on National Register of Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. Land Used for Scientific Study. Federal lands under permit by the surface management agency and being used for scientific studies involving food or fiber production, natural resources, or technology demonstrations and experiments are unsuitable for the duration of the study except where mining would not jeopardize the purpose of the study.

No lands in the general review area are within a wilderness study area.

5.

No lands in the general review area meet the scenic criteria as outlined.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 5 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

6.

Two vegetation monitoring study sites on the TBNG (NE¼ of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W. and NW¼ NW¼ of Sec. 30, T.41N., R.69W.), and the Hoe Creek Site (Sec. 7, T.47N., R.72W.) were found to be unsuitable under this criterion.

The vegetation monitoring sites and the Hoe Creek site are not located on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

B-1

Appendix B
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) On the basis of the consultation with SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings under this criterion in the general review area. Continue using the “Standard Archeological Stipulation” to new leases. No lands in the general review area are designated as natural areas or as National Natural Landmarks. FINDINGS FOR BELLE AYR NORTH LBA TRACT There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 7 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. The “Standard Archeological Stipulation” should be applied if this tract is leased. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 8 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 7. Cultural Resources. All publicly or privately owned places which are included in or are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and an appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable. Natural Areas. Federal lands designated as natural areas or National Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. Critical Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Plant and Animal Species. Federally designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered plant and animal species, and scientifically documented essential habitat for threatened or endangered species are unsuitable. State Listed Threatened or Endangered Species. Federal lands containing habitat determined to be critical or essential for plant or animal species listed by a state pursuant to state law as threatened or endangered shall be considered unsuitable. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An active bald or golden eagle nest and appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable unless the lease can be conditioned so that eagles will not be disturbed during breeding season or unless golden eagle nests will be moved. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and Concentration Areas. Bald and golden eagle roost and concentration areas on federal lands used during migration and wintering are unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure that eagles shall not be adversely disturbed. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer Zones. Federal lands containing active falcon (excluding kestrel) cliff nesting sites and a suitable buffer zone shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure the falcons will not be adversely affected. Habitat for Migratory Bird Species. Federal lands which are high priority habitat for migratory bird species of management concern in Wyoming shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure that migratory bird habitat will not be adversely affected during the period it is in use.

8.

9.

There is no federally designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered plant or animal species within the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 9 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

10.

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of threatened or endangered species of plants or animals. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 10 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

11.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate bald and golden eagle nests on a case by case basis at the time of leasing. Establish buffer zones around nests during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with USFWS.

There are currently no bald or golden eagle nests (active or inactive) on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Evaluate suitability prior to lease issuance during consultation with USFWS.

12.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate bald and golden eagle roost areas on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones after consultation with USFWS.

There are no identified roost sites on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Evaluate suitability prior to lease issuance during consultation with USFWS.

13.

Defer suitability decisions on falcon nesting sites and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones around nesting sites after consultation with USFWS.

No falcon nesting sites have been identified on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 13 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

14.

Defer suitability decisions on high priority habitat for migratory bird species of management concern in Wyoming and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones for nesting areas during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with USFWS.

Evaluate suitability during consultation with USFWS.

B-2

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix B
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) Defer suitability decisions on grouse leks and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones after consultation with WGFD. FINDINGS FOR BELLE AYR NORTH LBA TRACT There currently are no active or inactive sage grouse leks on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract study area. There are currently no active sage grouse leks within 2 miles from the Belle Ayr North LBA tract study area. Evaluate this criterion prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with WGFD.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for Resident Species. Federal lands which the surface management agency and state jointly agree are fish, wildlife and plant habitat of resident species of high interest to the state, and which are essential for maintaining these priority wildlife species, shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure no long-term impact on the species being provided will occur. Floodplains. Federal lands in riverine, coastal, and special floodplains shall be considered unsuitable where it is determined that mining could not be undertaken without substantial threat of loss of life or property. Municipal Watersheds. Federal lands which have been committed by the surface management agency to use as municipal watersheds shall be considered unsuitable. National Resource Waters. Federal lands with national resource waters, as identified by states in their water quality management plans, and 1/4-mile buffer zones shall be unsuitable. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal lands identified by the surface management agency, in consultation with the state, as AVFs where mining would interrupt, discontinue or preclude farming, are unsuitable. Additionally, when mining federal lands outside an AVF would materially damage the quality or quantity of water in surface or underground water systems that would supply AVFs, the land shall be considered unsuitable. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. Federal lands to which is applicable a criterion proposed by the state or Indian tribe located in the planning area and adopted by rulemaking by the Secretary are unsuitable.

16.

The BLM and USFS have determined that the identified floodplains in the general review area could potentially be mined. Therefore, all lands within the general review area are considered suitable.

Site-specific stipulations and resource protection safeguards will be applied if necessary during mining and reclamation planning. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 16 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

17.

There are no designated municipal watersheds in the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 17 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

18.

There are no designated national resource waters within the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 18 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

19.

Consider areas determined to contain AVFs significant to farming as unsuitable. Defer decisions on other AVFs and analyze on a case-by-case basis prior to lease issuance.

No AVFs or potential AVFs have been identified on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract with characteristics indicating potential significance to farming. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

20.

There are no criterion proposed by state or Indian tribes that have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. No tribal lands are located in or near the general review area.

There are no unsuitability findings for this criterion on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

B-3

Appendix B APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE WEST COAL CREEK LBA TRACT
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) There are Federal lands located around Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright that were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. FINDINGS FOR WEST COAL CREEK LBA TRACT None of the federal lands determined to be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present on the West Coal Creek LBA tract. Therefore, there are no unsuitable findings under this criterion.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 1. Federal Land Systems. With certain exceptions that do not apply to this tract, all federal lands included in the following systems are unsuitable for mining: National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National System of Trails, National Wilderness Preservation System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas, Lands acquired through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, National Forests and Federal lands in incorporated cities, towns and villages. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. Federal lands that are within ROWs or easements or within surface leases for residential, commercial, industrial or other public purposes, on federally owned surface, are unsuitable for mining. Buffer Zones for Rights-Of-Way, Communities, and Buildings. Federal lands within 100 ft of a ROW of a public road or a cemetery; or within 300 ft of any public building, school, church, community or institutional building or public park; or within 300 ft of an occupied dwelling are unsuitable for mining. Wilderness Study Areas. Federal lands designated as wilderness study areas are unsuitable for mining while under review for possible wilderness designation. Scenic Areas. Scenic federal lands designated by visual resource management analysis as Class I (outstanding visual quality or high visual sensitivity) but not currently on National Register of Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. Land Used for Scientific Study. Federal lands under permit by the surface management agency and being used for scientific studies involving food or fiber production, natural resources, or technology demonstrations and experiments are unsuitable for the duration of the study except where mining would not jeopardize the purpose of the study. Cultural Resources. All publicly or privately owned places which are included in or are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and an appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable.

2.

Portions of the BNSF & UP railroad ROWs, the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 ROW were found to be unsuitable under this criterion within the general review area.

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, the I-90 ROW, and the BNSF & UP railroad ROW that were determined to be unsuitable are not located on the West Coal Creek LBA tract. Therefore, there area no unsuitable findings under Criterion 2 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract. Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery are not located on the West Coal Creek LBA tract. No occupied dwellings, other public highways/roads, or schools are located on the tract. Therefore, there are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 3 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

3.

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450, Interstate Highway I-90, and one cemetery were found to be unsuitable under this criterion. Decisions were deferred on other highways/roads, occupied dwellings, and one school until an application to lease is filed.

4.

No lands in the general review area are within a wilderness study area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 4 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

5.

No lands in the general review area meet the scenic criteria as outlined.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 5 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

6.

Two vegetation monitoring study sites on the TBNG (NE¼ of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W. and NW¼ NW¼ of Sec. 30, T.41N., R.69W.), and the Hoe Creek Site (Sec. 7, T.47N., R.72W.) were found to be unsuitable under this criterion.

The vegetation monitoring sites and the Hoe Creek site are not located on the West Coal Creek LBA tract. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

7.

On the basis of the consultation with SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings under this criterion in the general review area. Continue using the “Standard Archeological Stipulation” to new leases.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 7 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract. The “Standard Archeological Stipulation” should be applied if this tract is leased.

B-4

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix B
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) No lands in the general review area are designated as natural areas or as National Natural Landmarks. There is no federally designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered plant or animal species within the general review area. FINDINGS FOR WEST COAL CREEK LBA TRACT There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 8 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 9 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 8. Natural Areas. Federal lands designated as natural areas or National Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. Critical Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Plant and Animal Species. Federally designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered plant and animal species, and scientifically documented essential habitat for threatened or endangered species are unsuitable. State Listed Threatened or Endangered Species. Federal lands containing habitat determined to be critical or essential for plant or animal species listed by a state pursuant to state law as threatened or endangered shall be considered unsuitable. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An active bald or golden eagle nest and appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable unless the lease can be conditioned so that eagles will not be disturbed during breeding season or unless golden eagle nests will be moved. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and Concentration Areas. Bald and golden eagle roost and concentration areas on federal lands used during migration and wintering are unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure that eagles shall not be adversely disturbed. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer Zones. Federal lands containing active falcon (excluding kestrel) cliff nesting sites and a suitable buffer zone shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure the falcons will not be adversely affected. Habitat for Migratory Bird Species. Federal lands which are high priority habitat for migratory bird species of management concern in Wyoming shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure that migratory bird habitat will not be adversely affected during the period it is in use.

9.

10.

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of threatened or endangered species of plants or animals. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 10 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

11.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate bald and golden eagle nests on a case by case basis at the time of leasing. Establish buffer zones around nests during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with USFWS.

There are currently no bald or golden eagle nests (active or inactive) on the West Coal Creek LBA tract. Evaluate suitability prior to lease issuance during consultation with USFWS.

12.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate bald and golden eagle roost areas on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones after consultation with USFWS.

There are no identified roost sites on the West Coal Creek LBA tract. Evaluate suitability prior to lease issuance during consultation with USFWS.

13.

Defer suitability decisions on falcon nesting sites and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones around nesting sites after consultation with USFWS.

No falcon nesting sites have been identified on the West Coal Creek LBA tract. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 13 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

14.

Defer suitability decisions on high priority habitat for migratory bird species of management concern in Wyoming and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones for nesting areas during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with USFWS.

Evaluate suitability during consultation with USFWS.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

B-5

Appendix B
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) Defer suitability decisions on grouse leks and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones after consultation with WGFD. FINDINGS FOR WEST COAL CREEK LBA TRACT There currently are no active or inactive sage grouse leks on the West Coal Creek LBA tract study area. There are currently three sage grouse leks, which have been active within the last ten years, identified on lands adjacent to the LBA tract: one within ¼ mile and two within 2 miles of the West Coal Creek LBA tract study area. Evaluate this criterion prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with WGFD.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for Resident Species. Federal lands which the surface management agency and state jointly agree are fish, wildlife and plant habitat of resident species of high interest to the state, and which are essential for maintaining these priority wildlife species, shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure no long-term impact on the species being provided will occur. Floodplains. Federal lands in riverine, coastal, and special floodplains shall be considered unsuitable where it is determined that mining could not be undertaken without substantial threat of loss of life or property. Municipal Watersheds. Federal lands which have been committed by the surface management agency to use as municipal watersheds shall be considered unsuitable. National Resource Waters. Federal lands with national resource waters, as identified by states in their water quality management plans, and 1/4-mile buffer zones shall be unsuitable. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal lands identified by the surface management agency, in consultation with the state, as AVFs where mining would interrupt, discontinue or preclude farming, are unsuitable. Additionally, when mining federal lands outside an AVF would materially damage the quality or quantity of water in surface or underground water systems that would supply AVFs, the land shall be considered unsuitable. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. Federal lands to which is applicable a criterion proposed by the state or Indian tribe located in the planning area and adopted by rulemaking by the Secretary are unsuitable.

16.

The BLM and USFS have determined that the identified floodplains in the general review area could potentially be mined. Therefore, all lands within the general review area are considered suitable.

Site-specific stipulations and resource protection safeguards will be applied if necessary during mining and reclamation planning. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 16 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

17.

There are no designated municipal watersheds in the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 17 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

18.

There are no designated national resource waters within the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 18 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

19.

Consider areas determined to contain AVFs significant to farming as unsuitable. Defer decisions on other AVFs and analyze on a case-by-case basis prior to lease issuance.

No AVFs or potential AVFs have been identified on the West Coal Creek LBA tract with characteristics indicating potential significance to farming. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

20.

There are no criterion proposed by state or Indian tribes that have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. No tribal lands are located in or near the general review area.

There are no unsuitability findings for this criterion on the West Coal Creek LBA tract.

B-6

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix B APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE CABALLO WEST LBA TRACT
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) There are Federal lands located around Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright that were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. FINDINGS FOR CABALLO WEST LBA TRACT None of the federal lands determined to be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present on the Caballo West LBA tract. Therefore, there are no unsuitable findings under this criterion.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 1. Federal Land Systems. With certain exceptions that do not apply to this tract, all federal lands included in the following systems are unsuitable for mining: National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National System of Trails, National Wilderness Preservation System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas, Lands acquired through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, National Forests and Federal lands in incorporated cities, towns and villages. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. Federal lands that are within ROWs or easements or within surface leases for residential, commercial, industrial or other public purposes, on federally owned surface, are unsuitable for mining. Buffer Zones for Rights-Of-Way, Communities, and Buildings. Federal lands within 100 ft of a ROW of a public road or a cemetery; or within 300 ft of any public building, school, church, community or institutional building or public park; or within 300 ft of an occupied dwelling are unsuitable for mining.

2.

Portions of the BNSF & UP railroad ROWs, the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 ROW were found to be unsuitable under this criterion within the general review area.

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, the I-90 ROW, and the BNSF & UP railroad ROW that were determined to be unsuitable are not located on the Caballo West LBA tract. Therefore, there area no unsuitable findings under Criterion 2 for the Caballo West LBA tract. Highway 450, I-90, and the cemetery are not located on the Caballo West LBA tract. No occupied dwellings or schools are located on the tract. Portions of the Bishop Road, a public road, are located on the tract under Alternative 2. Therefore, the portion of the Caballo West LBA tract within the Bishop Road ROW and the associated 100-ft buffer zone are designated unsuitable for mining and the lease will be stipulated to exclude mining within these areas unless a permit to move the road is approved by Campbell County Board of Commissioners. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 4 for the Caballo West LBA tract.

3.

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450, Interstate Highway I-90, and one cemetery were found to be unsuitable under this criterion. Decisions were deferred on other highways/roads, occupied dwellings, and one school until an application to lease is filed.

4.

Wilderness Study Areas. Federal lands designated as wilderness study areas are unsuitable for mining while under review for possible wilderness designation. Scenic Areas. Scenic federal lands designated by visual resource management analysis as Class I (outstanding visual quality or high visual sensitivity) but not currently on National Register of Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. Land Used for Scientific Study. Federal lands under permit by the surface management agency and being used for scientific studies involving food or fiber production, natural resources, or technology demonstrations and experiments are unsuitable for the duration of the study except where mining would not jeopardize the purpose of the study. Cultural Resources. All publicly or privately owned places which are included in or are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and an appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area are within a wilderness study area.

5.

No lands in the general review area meet the scenic criteria as outlined.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 5 for the Caballo West LBA tract.

6.

Two vegetation monitoring study sites on the TBNG (NE¼ of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W. and NW¼ NW¼ of Sec. 30, T.41N., R.69W.), and the Hoe Creek Site (Sec. 7, T.47N., R.72W.) were found to be unsuitable under this criterion.

The vegetation monitoring sites and the Hoe Creek site are not located on the Caballo West LBA tract. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for the Caballo West LBA tract.

7.

On the basis of the consultation with SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings under this criterion in the general review area. Continue using the “Standard Archeological Stipulation” to new leases.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 7 for the Caballo West LBA tract. The “Standard Archeological Stipulation” should be applied if this tract is leased.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

B-7

Appendix B
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) No lands in the general review area are designated as natural areas or as National Natural Landmarks. There is no federally designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered plant or animal species within the general review area. FINDINGS FOR CABALLO WEST LBA TRACT There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 8 for the Caballo West LBA tract.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 8. Natural Areas. Federal lands designated as natural areas or National Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. Critical Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Plant and Animal Species. Federally designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered plant and animal species, and scientifically documented essential habitat for threatened or endangered species are unsuitable. State Listed Threatened or Endangered Species. Federal lands containing habitat determined to be critical or essential for plant or animal species listed by a state pursuant to state law as threatened or endangered shall be considered unsuitable. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An active bald or golden eagle nest and appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable unless the lease can be conditioned so that eagles will not be disturbed during breeding season or unless golden eagle nests will be moved. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and Concentration Areas. Bald and golden eagle roost and concentration areas on federal lands used during migration and wintering are unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure that eagles shall not be adversely disturbed. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer Zones. Federal lands containing active falcon (excluding kestrel) cliff nesting sites and a suitable buffer zone shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure the falcons will not be adversely affected. Habitat for Migratory Bird Species. Federal lands which are high priority habitat for migratory bird species of management concern in Wyoming shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure that migratory bird habitat will not be adversely affected during the period it is in use.

9.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 9 for the Caballo West LBA tract.

10.

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of threatened or endangered species of plants or animals. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 10 for the Caballo West LBA tract.

11.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate bald and golden eagle nests on a case by case basis at the time of leasing. Establish buffer zones around nests during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with USFWS.

There are currently no bald or golden eagle nests (active or inactive) on the Caballo West LBA tract. Evaluate suitability prior to lease issuance during consultation with USFWS.

12.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate bald and golden eagle roost areas on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones after consultation with USFWS.

There are no identified roost sites on the Caballo West LBA tract. Evaluate suitability prior to lease issuance during consultation with USFWS.

13.

Defer suitability decisions on falcon nesting sites and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones around nesting sites after consultation with USFWS.

No falcon nesting sites have been identified on the Caballo West LBA tract. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 13 for the Caballo West LBA tract.

14.

Defer suitability decisions on high priority habitat for migratory bird species of management concern in Wyoming and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones for nesting areas during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with USFWS.

Evaluate suitability during consultation with USFWS.

B-8

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix B
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) Defer suitability decisions on grouse leks and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones after consultation with WGFD. FINDINGS FOR CABALLO WEST LBA TRACT There currently are no active or inactive sage grouse leks on the Caballo West LBA tract study area. There are currently no active sage grouse leks identified on lands within 3 miles of the LBA tract study area. Evaluate this criterion prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with WGFD.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 15. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for Resident Species. Federal lands which the surface management agency and state jointly agree are fish, wildlife and plant habitat of resident species of high interest to the state, and which are essential for maintaining these priority wildlife species, shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure no long-term impact on the species being provided will occur. Floodplains. Federal lands in riverine, coastal, and special floodplains shall be considered unsuitable where it is determined that mining could not be undertaken without substantial threat of loss of life or property. Municipal Watersheds. Federal lands which have been committed by the surface management agency to use as municipal watersheds shall be considered unsuitable. National Resource Waters. Federal lands with national resource waters, as identified by states in their water quality management plans, and 1/4-mile buffer zones shall be unsuitable. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal lands identified by the surface management agency, in consultation with the state, as AVFs where mining would interrupt, discontinue or preclude farming, are unsuitable. Additionally, when mining federal lands outside an AVF would materially damage the quality or quantity of water in surface or underground water systems that would supply AVFs, the land shall be considered unsuitable. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. Federal lands to which is applicable a criterion proposed by the state or Indian tribe located in the planning area and adopted by rulemaking by the Secretary are unsuitable.

16.

The BLM and USFS have determined that the identified floodplains in the general review area could potentially be mined. Therefore, all lands within the general review area are considered suitable.

Site-specific stipulations and resource protection safeguards will be applied if necessary during mining and reclamation planning. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 16 for the Caballo West LBA tract.

17.

There are no designated municipal watersheds in the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 17 for the Caballo West LBA tract.

18.

There are no designated national resource waters within the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 18 for the Caballo West LBA tract.

19.

Consider areas determined to contain AVFs significant to farming as unsuitable. Defer decisions on other AVFs and analyze on a case-by-case basis prior to lease issuance.

No AVFs or potential AVFs have been identified on the Caballo West LBA tract with characteristics indicating potential significance to farming. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for the Caballo West LBA tract.

20.

There are no criterion proposed by state or Indian tribes that have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. No tribal lands are located in or near the general review area.

There are no unsuitability findings for this criterion on the Caballo West LBA tract.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

B-9

Appendix B APPENDIX B. UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR THE MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) There are Federal lands located around Gillette, Sheridan, and Wright that were determined to be unsuitable under this criterion. FINDINGS FOR MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT None of the federal lands determined to be unsuitable under Criterion 1 are present on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Therefore, there are no unsuitable findings under this criterion.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 1. Federal Land Systems. With certain exceptions that do not apply to this tract, all federal lands included in the following systems are unsuitable for mining: National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National System of Trails, National Wilderness Preservation System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas, Lands acquired through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, National Forests and Federal lands in incorporated cities, towns and villages. Rights-Of-Way and Easements. Federal lands that are within ROWs or easements or within surface leases for residential, commercial, industrial or other public purposes, on federally owned surface, are unsuitable for mining. Buffer Zones for Rights-Of-Way, Communities, and Buildings. Federal lands within 100 ft of a ROW of a public road or a cemetery; or within 300 ft of any public building, school, church, community or institutional building or public park; or within 300 ft of an occupied dwelling are unsuitable for mining.

2.

Portions of the BNSF & UP railroad ROWs, the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, and the I-90 ROW were found to be unsuitable under this criterion within the general review area.

The portions of the Tri-County 230-Kv transmission line ROW, the Wyoming State Highway 450 ROW, the I-90 ROW, and the BNSF & UP railroad ROW that were determined to be unsuitable are not located on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Therefore, there area no unsuitable findings under Criterion 2 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Highway 450, I-90, and the previously evaluated cemetery are not located on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. No occupied dwellings or schools are located on the tract. A portion of Wyoming State Highway 59, a public road, is located on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Therefore, the portion of the Maysdorf II LBA tract within the highway ROW and the associated 100­ ft buffer zone are designated unsuitable for mining and the lease will be stipulated to exclude mining within these areas unless a permit to move the highway is approved by WYDOT. Portions of the Haight and Hilight Roads, public roads, are located on the tract as applied for. Therefore, the portions of the Maysdorf II Tract within the Haight and Hilight ROWs and the associated 100-ft buffer zones are designated unsuitable for mining and the lease will be stipulated to exclude mining within these areas unless a permit to move the roads is approved by Campbell County Board of Commissioners. In addition, an unevaluated cemetery was located within the northern block of the Maysdorf II LBA tract. The cemetery has since been relocated in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and following negotiations with the Campbell County Cemetery District and representatives for the Haight Family.

3.

Portions of Wyoming State Highway 450, Interstate Highway I-90, and one cemetery were found to be unsuitable under this criterion. Decisions were deferred on other highways/roads, occupied dwellings, and one school until an application to lease is filed.

4.

Wilderness Study Areas. Federal lands designated as wilderness study areas are unsuitable for mining while under review for possible wilderness designation. Scenic Areas. Scenic federal lands designated by visual resource management analysis as Class I (outstanding visual quality or high visual sensitivity) but not currently on National Register of Natural Landmarks are unsuitable.

No lands in the general review area are within a wilderness study area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 4 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

5.

No lands in the general review area meet the scenic criteria as outlined.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 5 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

B-10

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix B
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) Two vegetation monitoring study sites on the TBNG (NE¼ of Sec. 1, T.41N., R.71W. and NW¼ NW¼ of Sec. 30, T.41N., R.69W.), and the Hoe Creek Site (Sec. 7, T.47N., R.72W.) were found to be unsuitable under this criterion.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 6. Land Used for Scientific Study. Federal lands under permit by the surface management agency and being used for scientific studies involving food or fiber production, natural resources, or technology demonstrations and experiments are unsuitable for the duration of the study except where mining would not jeopardize the purpose of the study. Cultural Resources. All publicly or privately owned places which are included in or are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and an appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable. Natural Areas. Federal lands designated as natural areas or National Natural Landmarks are unsuitable. Critical Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Plant and Animal Species. Federally designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered plant and animal species, and scientifically documented essential habitat for threatened or endangered species are unsuitable. State Listed Threatened or Endangered Species. Federal lands containing habitat determined to be critical or essential for plant or animal species listed by a state pursuant to state law as threatened or endangered shall be considered unsuitable. Bald or Golden Eagle Nests. An active bald or golden eagle nest and appropriate buffer zone are unsuitable unless the lease can be conditioned so that eagles will not be disturbed during breeding season or unless golden eagle nests will be moved. Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and Concentration Areas. Bald and golden eagle roost and concentration areas on federal lands used during migration and wintering are unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure that eagles shall not be adversely disturbed. Falcon Nesting Sites and Buffer Zones. Federal lands containing active falcon (excluding kestrel) cliff nesting sites and a suitable buffer zone shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure the falcons will not be adversely affected.

FINDINGS FOR MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT The vegetation monitoring sites and the Hoe Creek site are not located on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 6 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

7.

On the basis of the consultation with SHPO, there were no unsuitable findings under this criterion in the general review area. Continue using the “Standard Archeological Stipulation” to new leases. No lands in the general review area are designated as natural areas or as National Natural Landmarks.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 7 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract. The “Standard Archeological Stipulation” should be applied if this tract is leased.

8.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 8 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

9.

There is no federally designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered plant or animal species within the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 9 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

10.

Wyoming does not maintain a state list of threatened or endangered species of plants or animals. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 10 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

11.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate bald and golden eagle nests on a case by case basis at the time of leasing. Establish buffer zones around nests during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with USFWS.

There are currently no bald or golden eagle nests (active or inactive) on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Evaluate suitability prior to lease issuance during consultation with USFWS.

12.

Defer suitability decisions and evaluate bald and golden eagle roost areas on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones after consultation with USFWS.

There are no identified roost sites on the Maysdorf II LBA tract. Evaluate suitability prior to lease issuance during consultation with USFWS.

13.

Defer suitability decisions on falcon nesting sites and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones around nesting sites after consultation with USFWS.

No falcon nesting sites have identified on the Maysdorf II LBA There are no unsuitable findings Criterion 13 for the Maysdorf II LBA

been tract. under tract.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

B-11

Appendix B
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUFFALO RESOURCE AREA (BLM 1985, 2001a) Defer suitability decisions on high priority habitat for migratory bird species of management concern in Wyoming and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones for nesting areas during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with USFWS.

UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA 14. Habitat for Migratory Bird Species. Federal lands which are high priority habitat for migratory bird species of management concern in Wyoming shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure that migratory bird habitat will not be adversely affected during the period it is in use. Fish and Wildlife Habitat for Resident Species. Federal lands which the surface management agency and state jointly agree are fish, wildlife and plant habitat of resident species of high interest to the state, and which are essential for maintaining these priority wildlife species, shall be considered unsuitable unless mining can be conducted in such a way as to ensure no long-term impact on the species being provided will occur. Floodplains. Federal lands in riverine, coastal, and special floodplains shall be considered unsuitable where it is determined that mining could not be undertaken without substantial threat of loss of life or property. Municipal Watersheds. Federal lands which have been committed by the surface management agency to use as municipal watersheds shall be considered unsuitable. National Resource Waters. Federal lands with national resource waters, as identified by states in their water quality management plans, and 1/4-mile buffer zones shall be unsuitable. Alluvial Valley Floors. Federal lands identified by the surface management agency, in consultation with the state, as AVFs where mining would interrupt, discontinue or preclude farming, are unsuitable. Additionally, when mining federal lands outside an AVF would materially damage the quality or quantity of water in surface or underground water systems that would supply AVFs, the land shall be considered unsuitable. State or Indian Tribe Criteria. Federal lands to which is applicable a criterion proposed by the state or Indian tribe located in the planning area and adopted by rulemaking by the Secretary are unsuitable.

FINDINGS FOR MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT Evaluate suitability during consultation with USFWS.

15.

Defer suitability decisions on grouse leks and evaluate on a case by case basis prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones after consultation with WGFD.

There currently are no active or inactive sage-grouse leks on the Maysdorf II LBA tract study area. There are currently four sage grouse leks which have been active within the last 10 years, identified on lands adjacent to the LBA tract: one within ¼ mile, two within 1 mile, and one within 2 miles of the Maysdorf II LBA tract study area. Evaluate this criterion prior to lease issuance. Establish buffer zones during mining and reclamation planning after consultation with WGFD.

16.

The BLM and USFS have determined that the identified floodplains in the general review area could potentially be mined. Therefore, all lands within the general review area are considered suitable.

Site-specific stipulations and resource protection safeguards will be applied if necessary during mining and reclamation planning. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 16 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

17.

There are no designated municipal watersheds in the general review area.

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 17 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

18.

There are no resource waters review area.

designated national within the general

There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 18 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

19.

Consider areas determined to contain AVFs significant to farming as unsuitable. Defer decisions on other AVFs and analyze on a case-by-case basis prior to lease issuance.

No AVFs or potential AVFs have been identified on the Maysdorf II LBA tract with characteristics indicating potential significance to farming. There are no unsuitable findings under Criterion 19 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

20.

There are no criterion proposed by state or Indian tribes that have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. No tribal lands are located in or near the general review area.

There are no unsuitability findings for this criterion on the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

B-12

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

APPENDIX C COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION 
 FLOW CHART


Appendix C

COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION

BLM STATE OFFICE RECEIVES APPLICATION FM HOLDS PUBLIC HEARING
Adjudicator evaluates applicant’s qualifications

State Director (SD) notifies Governor and Regional Coal Team of application

Applicant submits/ Adjudicator reviews surface owner consent agreement(s) (if necessary)

Field Office Manager (FM) ensures that application is in conformance with Land Use Plan (LUP) Minerals Staff receives application and prepares report on maximum economic recovery

SD consults with Surface Management Agency, Governor, Attorney General, and Indian Tribes

SD DECISION
Non-Conformance with LUP: FM recommends amendment of LUP and/or modification of application area Conformance with LUP: FM prepares site-specific Environmental Analysis FM prepares Environmental Analysis of LUP amendment and application

HOLD SALE

REJECT APPLICATION

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

C-1

APPENDIX D BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
 SPECIAL COAL LEASE STIPULATIONS 
 AND FORM 3400-12 COAL LEASE 


Appendix D Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will attach the following special stipulations to each lease by application (LBA) tract that is leased: SPECIAL STIPULATIONS In addition to observing the general obligations and standards of performance set out in the current regulations, the lessee shall comply with and be bound by the following special stipulations. These stipulations are also imposed upon the lessee's agents and employees. The failure or refusal of any of these persons to comply with these stipulations shall be deemed a failure of the lessee to comply with the terms of the lease. The lessee shall require his agents, contractors and subcontractors involved in activities concerning this lease to include these stipulations in the contracts between and among them. These stipulations may be revised or amended, in writing, by the mutual consent of the lessor and the lessee at any time to adjust to changed conditions or to correct an oversight. (a) CULTURAL RESOURCES (1) Before undertaking any activities that may disturb the surface of the leased lands, the lessee shall conduct a cultural resource intensive field inventory in a manner specified by the Authorized Officer of the BLM or of the surface managing agency, if different, on portions of the mine plan area and adjacent areas, or exploration plan area, that may be adversely affected by lease-related activities and which were not previously inventoried at such a level of intensity. The inventory shall be conducted by a qualified professional cultural resource specialist (i.e., archeologist, historian, historical architect, as appropriate), approved by the Authorized Officer of the surface managing agency (BLM, if the surface is privately owned), and a report of the inventory and recommendations for protecting any cultural resources identified shall be submitted to the Regional Director of the Western Region of the Office of Surface Mining (the Western Regional Director), the Authorized Officer of the BLM, if activities are associated with coal exploration outside an approved mining permit area (hereinafter called Authorized Officer), and the Authorized Officer of the surface managing agency, if different. The lessee shall undertake measures, in accordance with instructions from the Western Regional Director, or Authorized Officer, to protect cultural resources on the leased lands. The lessee shall not commence the surface disturbing activities until permission to proceed is given by the Western Regional Director or Authorized Officer. (2) The lessee shall protect all cultural resource properties that have been determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places within the lease area from lease-related activities until the cultural resource mitigation measures can be implemented as part of an approved mining and reclamation Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications D-1

Appendix D or exploration plan unless modified by mutual agreement in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. (3) The cost of conducting the inventory, preparing reports, and carrying out mitigation measures shall be borne by the lessee. (4) If cultural resources are discovered during operations under this lease, the lessee shall immediately bring them to the attention of the Western Regional Director or Authorized Officer, or the Authorized Officer of the surface managing agency, if the Western Regional Director is not available. The lessee shall not disturb such resources except as may be subsequently authorized by the Western Regional Director or Authorized Officer. Within two (2) working days of notification, the Western Regional Director or Authorized Officer will evaluate or have evaluated any cultural resources discovered and will determine if any action may be required to protect or preserve such discoveries. The cost of data recovery for cultural resources discovered during lease operations shall be borne by the lessee unless otherwise specified by the Authorized Officer of the BLM or of the surface managing agency, if different. (5) All cultural resources shall remain under the jurisdiction of the United States until ownership is determined under applicable law. (b) 	 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES If paleontological resources, either large and conspicuous, and/or of significant scientific value are discovered during mining operations, the find will be reported to the Authorized Officer immediately. Mining operations will be suspended within 250 feet of said find. An evaluation of the paleontological discovery will be made by a BLM-approved professional paleontologist within five (5) working days, weather permitting, to determine the appropriate action(s) to prevent the potential loss of any significant paleontological value. Operations within 250 feet of such discovery will not be resumed until written authorization to proceed is issued by the Authorized Officer. The lessee will bear the cost of any required paleontological appraisals, surface collection of fossils, or salvage of any large conspicuous fossils of significant scientific interest discovered during the operations. (c) 	 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, or OTHER SPECIAL STATUS PLANT and ANIMAL SPECIES (1) The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., or that have other special status. The Authorized Officer may recommend modifications to D-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix D exploration and development proposals to further conservation and management objectives or to avoid activity that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat or to comply with any biological opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Proposed Action. The Authorized Officer will not approve any ground-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The Authorized Officer may require modifications to, or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat. (2) The lessee shall comply with instructions from the Authorized Officer of the surface managing agency (BLM, if the surface is private) for ground disturbing activities associated with coal exploration on federal coal leases prior to approval of a mining and reclamation permit or outside an approved mining and reclamation permit area. The lessee shall comply with instructions from the Authorized Officer of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, or his designated representative, for all ground disturbing activities taking place within an approved mining and reclamation permit area or associated with such a permit. (3) Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’ tresses according to the most recently approved USFWS survey methods within the project area shall be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. (4) Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for blowout penstemon according to the most recently approved USFWS survey methods within the project area shall be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. (d) MULTIPLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT Operations will not be approved which, in the opinion of the Authorized Officer, would unreasonably interfere with the orderly development and/or production from a valid existing mineral lease issued prior to this one for the same lands. (e) OIL AND GAS/COAL RESOURCES

The BLM realizes that coal mining operations conducted on Federal coal leases issued within producing oil and gas fields may interfere with the economic recovery of oil and gas; just as Federal oil and gas leases issued in a Federal coal lease area may inhibit coal recovery. BLM retains the authority to alter and/or modify the resource recovery and protection plans for coal operations and/or oil Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications D-3

Appendix D and gas operations on those lands covered by Federal mineral leases so as to obtain maximum resource recovery. (f) RESOURCE RECOVERY AND PROTECTION

Notwithstanding the approval of a resource recovery and protection plan (R2P2) by the BLM, lessor reserves the right to seek damages against the operator/lessee in the event (i) the operator/lessee fails to achieve maximum economic recovery (MER) (as defined at 43 CFR 3480.0-5(21)) of the recoverable coal reserves or (ii) the operator/lessee is determined to have caused a wasting of recoverable coal reserves. Damages shall be measured on the basis of the royalty that would have been payable on the wasted or unrecovered coal. The parties recognize that under an approved R2P2, conditions may require a modification by the operator/lessee of that plan. In the event a coal bed or portion thereof is not to be mined or is rendered unmineable by the operation, the operator/lessee shall submit appropriate justification to obtain approval by the Authorized Officer to leave such reserves unmined. Upon approval by the Authorized Officer, such coal beds or portions thereof shall not be subject to damages as described above. Further, nothing in this section shall prevent the operator/lessee from exercising its right to relinquish all or portion of the lease as authorized by statute and regulation. In the event the Authorized Officer determines that the R2P2, as approved, will not attain MER as the result of changed conditions, the Authorized Officer will give proper notice to the operator/lessee as required under applicable regulations. The Authorized Officer will order a modification if necessary, identifying additional reserves to be mined in order to attain MER. Upon a final administrative or judicial ruling upholding such an ordered modification, any reserves left unmined (wasted) under that plan will be subject to damages as described in the first paragraph under this section. Subject to the right to appeal hereinafter set forth, payment of the value of the royalty on such unmined recoverable coal reserves shall become due and payable upon determination by the Authorized Officer that the coal reserves have been rendered unmineable or at such time that the operator/lessee has demonstrated an unwillingness to extract the coal. The BLM may enforce this provision either by issuing a written decision requiring payment of the Mineral Management Service demand for such royalties, or by issuing a notice of non-compliance. A decision or notice of non-compliance issued by the lessor that payment is due under this stipulation is appealable as allowed by law.

D-4

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix D (g) 	 PUBLIC LAND SURVEY PROTECTION The lessee will protect all survey monuments, witness corners, reference monuments, and bearing trees against destruction, obliteration, or damage during operations on the lease areas. If any monuments, corners or accessories are destroyed, obliterated, or damaged by this operation, the lessee will hire an appropriate county surveyor or registered land surveyor to reestablish or restore the monuments, corners, or accessories at the same location, using surveying procedures in accordance with the "Manual of Surveying Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States." The survey will be recorded in the appropriate county records, with a copy sent to the Authorized Officer. (h) 	 BUFFER ZONES FOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF PUBLIC ROADS, SCHOOL BUILDING, AND OCCUPIED DWELLINGS (1) No mining activity of any kind may be conducted within the U.S. Highway 59 right-of-way and associated 100-feet buffer zone. The lessee shall recover all legally and economically recoverable coal from all leased lands not within the foregoing right-of-way and associated buffer zone. Provided a permit to move the highway is approved by the Wyoming Department of, the lessee shall recover all legally and economically recoverable coal from all leased lands within the foregoing right-of-way and associated buffer zone. The lessee shall pay all royalties on any legally and economically recoverable coal that it fails to mine without the written permission of the Authorized Officer. (2) No mining activity of any kind may be conducted within Bishop, Haight, or Hilight Road rights-of-way and associated 100-feet buffer zones. The lessee shall recover all legally and economically recoverable coal from all leased lands not within the foregoing rights-of-way and associated buffer zones. Provided a permit to move the roads is approved by the Campbell County Board of Commissioners, the lessee shall recover all legally and economically recoverable coal from all leased lands within the foregoing rights-of-way and associated buffer zones. The lessee shall pay all royalties on any legally and economically recoverable coal that it fails to mine without the written permission of the Authorized Officer.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

D-5

Appendix D
Form 3400-12 (February 2005)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT COAL LEASE

FORM APPROVED
OMB NO. 1004-0073

Expires: January 31, 2007 Serial Number

PART 1. LEASE RIGHTS GRANTED This lease, entered into by and between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter called lessor, through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and (Name and Address)

hereinafter called lessee, is effective (date) / / , for a period of 20 years and for so long thereafter as coal is produced in commercial quantities from the leased lands, subject to readjustment of lease terms at the end of the 20th lease year and each 10-year period thereafter. Sec. 1.This lease is issued pursuant and subject to the terms and provisions of the: Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920, Act of February 25, 1920, as amended, 41 Stat. 437, 30 U.S.C. 181-287, hereinafter referred to as the Act; Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, Act of August 7, 1947, 61 Stat. 913, 30 U.S.C. 351-359; and to the regulations and formal orders of the Secretary of the Interior which are now or hereafter in force, when not inconsistent with the express and specific provisions herein. Sec. 2. Lessor, in consideration of any bonuses, rents, and royalties to be paid, and the conditions and covenants to be observed as herein set forth, hereby grants and leases to lessee the exclusive right and privilege to drill for, mine, extract, remove, or otherwise process and dispose of the coal deposits in, upon, or under the following described lands:

containing acres, more or less, together with the right to construct such works, buildings, plants, structures, equipment and appliances and the right to use such on-lease rights-of-way which may be necessary and convenient in the exercise of the rights and privileges granted, subject to the conditions herein provided. PART II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS Sec. 1. (a) RENTAL RATE -Lessee must pay lessor rental annually and in advance for each acre or fraction thereof during the continuance of the lease at the rate of $ for each lease year. (b) RENTAL CREDITS -Rental will not be credited against either production or advance royalties for any year. Sec. 2. (a) PRODUCTION ROYALTIES - The royalty will be percent of the value of the coal as set forth in the regulations. Royalties are due to lessor the final day of the month succeeding the calendar month in which the royalty obligation accrues. (b) ADVANCE ROYALTIES - Upon request by the lessee, the BLM may accept, for a total of not more than 10 years, the payment of advance royalties in lieu of continued operation, consistent with the regulations. The advance royalty will be based on a percent of the value of a minimum number of tons determined in the manner established by the advance royalty regulations in effect at the time the lessee requests approval to pay advance royalties in lieu of continued operation. Sec. 3. BONDS - Lessee must maintain in the proper office a lease bond in the amount of $ . The BLM may require an increase in this amount when additional coverage is determined appropriate. Sec. 4. DILIGENCE - This lease is subject to the conditions of diligent development and continued operation, except that these conditions are excused
(Continued on page 2)

when operations under the lease are interrupted by strikes, the elements, or casualties not attributable to the lessee. The lessor, in the public interest, may suspend the condition of continued operation upon payment of advance royalties in accordance with the regulations in existence at the time of the suspension. Lessee's failure to produce coal in commercial quantities at the end of 10 years will terminate the lease. Lessee must submit an operation and reclamation plan pursuant to Section 7 of the Act not later than 3 years after lease issuance. The lessor reserves the power to assent to or order the suspension of the terms and conditions of this lease in accordance with, inter alia, Section 39 of the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. 209. 5. LOGICAL MINING UNIT (LMU) - Either upon approval by the lessor of the lessee's application or at the direction of the lessor, this lease will become an LMU or part of an LMU, subject to the provisions set forth in the regulations. The stipulations established in an LMU approval in effect at the time of LMU approval will supersede the relevant inconsistent terms of this lease so long as the lease remains committed to the LMU. If the LMU of which this lease is a part is dissolved, the lease will then be subject to the lease terms which would have been applied if the lease had not been included in an LMU.

D-6

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix D
Sec. 6. DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCE AND INSPECTION - At such times and in such form as lessor may prescribe, lessee must furnish detailed statements showing the amounts and quality of all products removed and sold from the lease, the proceeds therefrom, and the amount used for production purposes or unavoidably lost. Lessee must keep open at all reasonable times for the inspection by BLM the leased premises and all surface and underground improvements, works, machinery, ore stockpiles, equipment, and all books, accounts, maps, and records relative to operations, surveys, or investigations on or under the leased lands. Lessee must allow lessor access to and copying of documents reasonably necessary to verify lessee compliance with terms and conditions of the lease. While this lease remains in effect, information obtained under this section will be closed to inspection by the public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Sec. 7. DAMAGES TO PROPERTY AND CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS Lessee must comply at its own expense with all reasonable orders of the Secretary, respecting diligent operations, prevention of waste, and protection of other resources. Lessee must not conduct exploration operations, other than casual use, without an approved exploration plan. All exploration plans prior to the commencement of mining operations within an approved mining permit area must be submitted to the BLM. Lessee must carry on all operations in accordance with approved methods and practices as provided in the operating regulations, having due regard for the prevention of injury to life, health, or property, and prevention of waste, damage or degradation to any land, air, water, cultural, biological, visual, and other resources, including mineral deposits and formations of mineral deposits not leased hereunder, and to other land uses or users. Lessee must take measures deemed necessary by lessor to accomplish the intent of this lease term. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, modification to proposed siting or design of facilities, timing of operations, and specification of interim and final reclamation procedures. Lessor reserves to itself the right to lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of the surface or other mineral deposits in the lands and the right to continue existing uses and to authorize future uses upon or in the leased lands, including issuing leases for mineral deposits not covered hereunder and approving easements or rights-of-way. Lessor must condition such uses to prevent unnecessary or unreasonable interference with rights of lessee as may be consistent with concepts of multiple use and multiple mineral development. Sec. 8. PROTECTION OF DIVERSE INTERESTS, AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY - Lessee must: pay when due all taxes legally assessed and levied under the laws of the State or the United States; accord all employees complete freedom of purchase; pay all wages at least twice each month in lawful money of the United States; maintain a safe working environment in accordance with standard industry practices; restrict the workday to not more than 8 hours in any one day for underground workers, except in emergencies; and take measures necessary to protect the health and safety of the public. No person under the age of 16 years should be employed in any mine below the surface. To the extent that laws of the State in which the lands are situated are more restrictive than the provisions in this paragraph, then the State laws apply. Lessee will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended, and the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. Neither lessee nor lessee's subcontractors should maintain segregated facilities. Sec. 15. SPECIAL STIPULATIONS Sec. 9. (a) TRANSFERS This lease may be transferred in whole or in part to any person, association or corporation qualified to hold such lease interest. This lease may be transferred in whole or in part to another public body or to a person who will mine coal on behalf of, and for the use of, the public body or to a person who for the limited purpose of creating a security interest in favor of a lender agrees to be obligated to mine the coal on behalf of the public body. This lease may only be transferred in whole or in part to another small business qualified under 13 CFR 121. Transfers of record title, working or royalty interest must be approved in accordance with the regulations. (b) RELINQUISHMENT - The lessee may relinquish in writing at any time all rights under this lease or any portion thereof as provided in the regulations. Upon lessor's acceptance of the relinquishment, lessee will be relieved of all future obligations under the lease or the relinquished portion thereof, whichever is applicable. Sec. 10. DELIVERY OF PREMISES, REMOVAL OF MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, ETC. - At such time as all portions of this lease are returned to lessor, lessee must deliver up to lessor the land leased, underground timbering, and such other supports and structures necessary for the preservation of the mine workings on the leased premises or deposits and place all workings in condition for suspension or abandonment. Within 180 days thereof, lessee must remove from the premises all other structures, machinery, equipment, tools, and materials that it elects to or as required by the BLM. Any such structures, machinery, equipment, tools, and materials remaining on the leased lands beyond 180 days, or approved extension thereof, will become the property of the lessor, but lessee may either remove any or all such property or continue to be liable for the cost of removal and disposal in the amount actually incurred by the lessor. If the surface is owned by third parties, lessor will waive the requirement for removal, provided the third parties do not object to such waiver. Lessee must, prior to the termination of bond liability or at any other time when required and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, reclaim all lands the surface of which has been disturbed, dispose of all debris or solid waste, repair the offsite and onsite damage caused by lessee's activity or activities incidental thereto, and reclaim access roads or trails. Sec. 11. PROCEEDINGS IN CASE OF DEFAULT - If lessee fails to comply with applicable laws, existing regulations, or the terms, conditions and stipulations of this lease, and the noncompliance continues for 30 days after written notice thereof, this lease will be subject to cancellation by the lessor only by judicial proceedings. This provision will not be construed to prevent the exercise by lessor of any other legal and equitable remedy, including waiver of the default. Any such remedy or waiver will not prevent later cancellation for the same default occurring at any other time. Sec. 12. HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST - Each obligation of this lease will extend to and be binding upon, and every benefit hereof will inure to, the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns of the respective parties hereto. Sec. 13. INDEMNIFICATION -Lessee must indemnify and hold harmless the United States from any and all claims arising out of the lessee's activities and operations under this lease. Sec. 14. SPECIAL STATUTES - This lease is subject to the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1252 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 4274 et seq.), and to all other applicable laws pertaining to exploration activities, mining operations and reclamation, including the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).

(Continued on page 3)

(Form 3400-12, page 2)

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

D-7

Appendix D
Sec. 15. SPECIAL STIPULATIONS (Cont’d.) -

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

_____________________________________________________________ (Company or Lessee Name) _____________________________________________________________ (Signature of Lessee) _____________________________________________________________ (Title) _____________________________________________________________ (Date)

By _________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________ (BLM) _____________________________________________________________ (Title) _____________________________________________________________ (Date)

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, makes it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to make to any department or agency of the United States any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations as to any matter within its jurisdiction.

NOTICES
The Privacy Act of 1974 and the regulation in 43 CFR 2.48(d) provide that you be furnished with the following information in connection with information required by this application. AUTHORITY: 30 U.S.C. 181-287 and 30 U.S.C. 351-359. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: BLM will use the information you provide to process your application and determine if you are eligible to hold a lease on BLM Land. ROUTINE USES: BLM will only disclose the information according to the regulations at 43 CFR 2.56(d). EFFECT OF NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION: Disclosing the information is necessary to receive a benefit. Not disclosing the information may result in BLM's rejecting your request for a lease. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires us to inform you that: The BLM collects this information to authorize and evaluate proposed exploration and mining operations on public lands. Response to the provisions of this lease form is mandatory for the types of activities specified. The BLM would like you to know that you do not have to respond to this or any other Federal agency-sponsored information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. BURDEN HOURS STATEMENT: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average one hour per response including the time for reading the instructions and provisions, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (1004-0073), Bureau Information Collection Clearance Officer (WO-630), 1849 C Street, Mail Stop 401 LS, Washington, D.C. 20240.
(Form 3400-12, page 3)

D-8

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

APPENDIX E BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
 FOR THE SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL
 LEASE APPLICATIONS EIS,
 BELLE AYR NORTH LBA TRACT 
 WEST COAL CREEK LBA TRACT
 CABALLO WEST LBA TRACT 
 MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT


Appendix E TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................E-1 CONSULTATION TO DATE ...........................................................................E-4 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION ......................................E-5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...............................................................................E-7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure E-1. 	 General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA 
 Tracts......................................................................................E-2 SECTION 1, BELLE AYR NORTH LBA TRACT E1-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 
 ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................E1-1 E1-1.1 The Proposed Action ......................................................E1-1 E1-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................E1-4 E1-1.2.1 Alternative 1................................................E1-4 E1-1.2.2 Alternative 2................................................E1-4 E1-2.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 
 PROPOSED PROJECT..................................................................E1-6 E1-2.1 Threatened Species ........................................................E1-9 E1-2.1.1 Ute Ladies’-tresses ......................................E1-9 E1-2.2 Endangered Species .....................................................E1-12 E1-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret.....................................E1-12 E1-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon...................................E1-14 E1-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS .............................................E1-15 E1-4.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL ..................................E1-16 E1-4.1 Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming ............................E1-16 E1-4.2 ESCO Associated Inc. of Boulder, Colorado ..................E1-16 SECTION 1, LIST OF TABLES Table E1-1	 Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tracts...........................E1-15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


SECTION 1, LIST OF FIGURES Figure E1-1 	 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives ..................................E1-2 
 Figure E1-2 	 Surface Ownership Within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives...........................................................................E1-3 SECTION 2, WEST COAL CREEK LBA TRACT E2-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 
 ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................E2-1 E2-1.1 The Proposed Action.......................................................E2-1 
 E2-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................E2-4 
 E2-1.2.1 Alternative 1................................................E2-4 E-i 


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E E2-2.0 E2-1.2.2 Alternative 2................................................E2-4 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 
 PROPOSED PROJECT..................................................................E2-6 E2-2.1 Threatened Species ......................................................E2-10 E2-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses .....................................E2-10 E2-2.2 Endangered Species .....................................................E2-13 E2-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret.....................................E2-13 E2-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon...................................E2-14 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS .............................................E2-15 
 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL ..................................E2-16 
 E2-4.1 Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming ............................E2-16 
 E2-4.2 BKS Environmental Associated, Inc. of Gillette, 
 Wyoming......................................................................E2-16


 
 


E2-3.0 E2-4.0

SECTION 2, LIST OF TABLES Table E2-1.	 Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the West Coal Creek LBA Tracts ........................E2-16

SECTION 2, LIST OF FIGURES Figure E2-1. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives ................................E2-2 
 Figure E2-2. Surface Ownership Within the West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives..................................................................E2-3 Figure E2-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the Coal Creek Mine and the West Coal Creek LBA Tract..............................................E2-8 SECTION 3, CABALLO WEST LBA TRACT E3-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 
 ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................E3-1 E3-1.1 The Proposed Action.......................................................E3-1 E3-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................E3-4 E3-1.2.1 Alternative 1................................................E3-4 E3-1.2.2 Alternative 2................................................E3-4 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF 
 THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..........................................................E3-5 E3-2.1 Threatened Species ........................................................E3-8 E3-2.1.1 Ute ladies’ tresses........................................E3-8 E3-2.2 Endangered Species .....................................................E3-11 E3-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret.....................................E3-11 E3-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon...................................E3-13 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS .............................................E3-15 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL ..................................E3-15 E3-4.1 Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming ............................E3-15 E3-4.2 BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. of Gillette, 
 Wyoming......................................................................E3-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 
 
 


E3-2.0


 
 
 


E3-3.0 E3-4.0


 
 
 


E-ii

Appendix E SECTION 3, LIST OF TABLES Table E3-1.	 Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal R&E Species in the Area of the Caballo West LBA Tracts..........................E3-15

SECTION 3, LIST OF FIGURES Figure E3-1 	 Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives .....................................E3-2 
 Figure E3-2 	 Surface Ownership Within the Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives...........................................................................E3-3 SECTION 4, MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND 
 ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................E4-1 E4-1.1 The Proposed Action.......................................................E4-1 E4-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................E4-3 E4-1.2.1 Alternative 1................................................E4-3 E4-1.2.2 Alternative 2................................................E4-5 E4-1.2.3 Alternative 3................................................E4-7 E4-2.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE 
 PROPOSED PROJECT..................................................................E4-9 E4-2.1 Threatened Species ......................................................E4-12 E4-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses .....................................E4-12 E4-2.2 Endangered Species .....................................................E4-15 E4-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret.....................................E4-15 E4-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon...................................E4-18 E4-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ..............................................E4-19 E4-4.0 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL ...................................E4-19 E4-4.1 Intermountain Resources of Laramie, Wyoming............E4-19 E4-4.2 ESCO Associated Inc. of Boulder, Colorado ..................E4-20 SECTION 4, LIST OF TABLES Table E4-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the Maysdorf II LBA Tracts.........................................E4-19 SECTION 4, LIST OF FIGURES Figure E4-1. 	 Figure E4-2. 	 Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives ......................................E4-2 
 Surface Ownership Within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives ........................................................................E4-4 T&E Species Survey Area for the Cordero Rojo Mine and the Maysdorf II LBA Tract .......................................................E4-10 E4-1.0 
 
 



 
 



 
 
 


Figure E4-3. 	

SECTION 5 REFERENCES CITED.............................................................E5-1 


Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E-iii

Appendix E INTRODUCTION Between 2004 and 2006, operators of four coal mines in Campbell County, Wyoming applied for four tracts of federal coal as maintenance leases under the Leasing on Application regulations at 43 CFD 3425. The environmental impacts of leasing these four lease by application (LBA) tracts are being evaluated in one environmental impact statement (EIS), the South Gillette Area Coal (SGAC) EIS. The four tracts, which are shown in Figure E-1, and applicant mines are:
   

Belle Ayr North LBA tract adjacent to and north of the Belle Ayr Mine; West Coal Creek LBA tract adjacent to and west of the Coal Creek Mine; Caballo West LBA tract adjacent to and southwest of the Caballo Mine; and Maysdorf II LBA tract adjacent to and west of the Cordero Rojo Complex.

The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to provide information about the potential effects that leasing the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts would have on federally listed threatened or endangered (T&E) species. T&E species are managed under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 93-205, as amended). The Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that all actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does not authorize mining by issuing a lease for federal coal, but the impacts of mining the coal are considered at the leasing stage because they are a logical consequence of issuing a lease. This biological assessment was prepared to disclose the possible effects to T&E species (plant and animal) that are known to be present or that may be present within the area influenced by the Proposed Action and the alternative to the Proposed Action being evaluated by the BLM. It was prepared in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Biological assessment objectives are: 1. To comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act that actions of federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species. 2. To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened or endangered species receive full consideration in the decision making process.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E-1

Appendix E

14 16

59

LEGEND
Existing Leases (Prior to Decertification) LBA's Issued

Hay Creek II Buckskin Mine Rawhide Mine Eagle Butte Mine To Buffalo 38 Miles Dry Fork Mine Wyodak Mine
90
ROZET

LBA's Pending LBA Tracts As Applied For (This EIS) Coal-Fired Power Plant (Existing, Proposed, or Under Construction)
14 90

Crook County

GILLETTE

MOORCROFT

90

50

59

Campbell County

16

CABALLO WEST BELLE AYR NORTH
Campbell County Johnson County

Belle Ayr Mine Cordero Rojo Mine

MAYSDORF II WEST COAL CREEK Coal Creek Mine

Weston County

Caballo Mine

116

North Hilight Field West Jacobs Ranch
RENO JUNCTION

WRIGHT

Jacobs Ranch Mine To Newcastle 29 Miles
450

50

West Hilight Field
387

South Hilight Field North Porcupine South Porcupine

Black Thunder Mine North Rochelle Mine School Creek Mine (Proposed) North Antelope Rochelle Mine

387

Campbell County Converse County

West Antelope II Antelope Mine

Weston County Converse County Niobrara County

SCALE: 1"= 10 MILES

59

To Douglas 46 Miles

Figure E-1.

General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts.

E-2

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E If a decision is made to hold competitive lease sales for the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts and if there is a successful bidder at a sale, a lease would be issued for the tract of federal coal as applied for. The tracts offered for lease would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB). The stipulations that would be attached to a lease for the four tracts are listed in appendix D of the SGAC EIS document. The following stipulation relating to T&E species is one of the special stipulations developed for the Wyoming PRB: THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, or OTHER SPECIAL STATUS PLANT and ANIMAL SPECIES – The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., or that have other special status. The Authorized Officer may recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to further conservation and management objectives or to avoid activity that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat or to comply with any biological opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Proposed Action. The Authorized Officer will not approve any ground-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The Authorized Officer may require modifications to, or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat. The lessee shall comply with instructions from the Authorized Officer of the surface managing agency (BLM, if the surface is private) for ground disturbing activities associated with coal exploration on federal coal leases prior to approval of a mining and reclamation permit or outside an approved mining and reclamation permit area. The lessee shall comply with instructions from the Authorized Officer of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, or his designated representative, for all ground disturbing activities taking place within an approved mining and reclamation permit area or associated with such a permit. It is assumed that an area larger than a tract would have to be disturbed in order to recover all of the coal in the tract. The disturbances outside of a tract would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. The coal mining unsuitability criteria listed in the federal coal management regulations at 43 CFR 3461.5 were applied to high to moderate coal development potential lands in the Wyoming PRB. As indicated in sections 1.1 and 1.5, some of the coal in the six tracts is overlain by rights of way (ROWs) for a state highway or county roads, or portions of the BNSF and UP railroad ROW and has been determined to be unsuitable for mining under Unsuitability Criterion 2 and/or Unsuitability Criterion 3 (43 CFR 3461.5). The Surface Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E-3

Appendix E Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) prohibits surface mining operations on lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the ROW for a public road (SMCRA Section 522(e)(4) and 30 CFR 761.11(d)). There is an exception to this prohibition in the regulations at SMCRA Section 522(e)(4) and 30 CFR 761.11(d)(2), which can be applied if the appropriate road authority (Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) for state highways and Campbell County Board of Commissioners for county roads) allows a public road to be relocated or closed after public notice, an opportunity for a public hearing, and a finding that the interests of the affected public and landowners will be protected. Although the federal coal underlying the railroad and road ROWs and associated buffer zones may not be mined, it is included in a tract because it would allow maximum recovery of the mineable coal adjacent to but outside of the railroad and road ROWs and associated buffer zones and comply with the coal leasing regulations that do not allow leasing of less than 10-acre aliquot parts. Under the Proposed Actions for each tract, it is assumed that the LBA tract would be developed as maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent existing applicant mine. As a result, under the Proposed Actions, the coal included in the tract would be mined by existing employees using existing facilities and roads. CONSULTATION TO DATE The existing applicant mines and Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are included in the area determined to be “acceptable for further consideration for leasing” as part of the coal screening process. The coal screening process is a four part process that includes application of the coal unsuitability criteria, which are defined in 43 CFR 3461.5. BLM has applied these coal screens to federal coal lands in Campbell County several times, starting in the early 1980s. Most recently, in 1993, BLM began the process of reapplying these screens to federal coal lands in Campbell, Converse, and Sheridan Counties. The results of this analysis were included as Appendix D of the 2001 Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands Administered by the BLM Buffalo Field Office (BLM 2001), which can be viewed on the Wyoming BLM website at http://www.wy.blm.gov in the NEPA documents section. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) occurred in conjunction with the unsuitability findings under Criterion 9 (Critical Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Plant and Animal Species), Criterion 11 (Bald or Golden Eagle Nests), Criterion 12 (Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and Concentration Areas), Criterion 13 (Falcon Nesting Site(s) and Buffer Zone(s)), and Criterion 14 (Habitat for Migratory Bird Species). Appendix B of the SGAC EIS document summarizes the unsuitability criteria, describes the general findings for the screening analyses discussed above, and presents a validation of these findings for the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts based on the current information. E-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E The USFWS maintains a list of T&E and candidate species and designated critical habitat on their official website; the website includes those species found in Wyoming. USFWS updates the species list annually, or sooner if any listing changes occur. The species list on the USFWS website fulfills the obligation of the USFWS, under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, to provide a list of T&E species upon request for federal actions and NEPA compliance. According to USFWS information (USFWS 2008a), three federally listed species could potentially occur in the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II general analysis areas; the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) (threatened), the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) (endangered) , and the blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) (endangered). The effects upon these three species are described and analyzed in detail in this appendix. The August 8, 2007 memorandum provided recommendations for protective measures for T&E species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. Protective measures for migratory birds in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and recommendations for the protection of wetlands (under Executive Order 11990 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and for other fish and wildlife resources (under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) were also included. The memorandum identified the greater sage-grouse as a species of specific interest and the importance of identifying grouse habitats within the lease area and appropriate mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts to this species. The memorandum also stated that the USFWS would work with the BLM to ensure that the species-specific protective measures and programs for the conservation and recovery of listed species as required by under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are satisfied and carried out. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) provided BLM with scoping comments for the four tracts included in the SGAC EIS in a letter from John Emmerich, Deputy Director, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Teresa Johnson, BLM, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated April 10, 2007 (WGFD 2007). WGFD recommended consideration be given to possible impacts to big game, sage grouse, raptors, and nongame species and their habitat, and aquatic resources within the South Gillette Area Coal project area. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION The issuance of a Federal coal lease grants the lessee the exclusive rights to mine the coal, subject to the terms and conditions of the lease. Lease ownership is necessary for mining federal coal, but lease ownership does not authorize mining operations. Surface coal mining operations are regulated in accordance with the requirements of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and Wyoming State regulations. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act gives the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E-5

Appendix E and Enforcement (OSM) primary responsibility to administer programs that regulate surface coal mining operations and the surface effects of underground coal mining operations. Pursuant to Section 503 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) developed, and in November 1980 the Secretary of the Interior approved a permanent program authorizing WDEQ to regulate surface coal mining operations and surface effects of underground mining on nonfederal lands within the State of Wyoming. In January 1987, pursuant to Section 523(c) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, WDEQ entered into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior authorizing WDEQ to regulate surface coal mining operations and surface effects of underground mining on federal lands within the state. In order to get approval of this cooperative agreement, the state had to demonstrate that the state laws and regulations are no less stringent than, meet the minimum requirements of, and include all applicable provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. If the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts are leased, they would be a maintenance lease for the existing applicant mines, which currently have both approved Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) mining plans and approved State mining and reclamation permits. In the case of maintenance leases, such as the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, the existing MLA mining plans and State mining and reclamation plans must be amended to include any newly leased area before that area can be mined. In order to amend the existing MLA mining plans and State mining and reclamation permits, the companies would be required to submit a detailed permit application packages to WDEQ before starting surface coal mining operations on any newly acquired leases. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD) would review the permit application packages to insure the permit applications complies with the permitting requirements and the coal mining operation will meet the performance standards of the approved Wyoming program. If the permit application packages do comply, WDEQ would issue the applicants amended permits that would allow the permittee to extend coal mining operations onto the newly acquired leases. Protection of fish, wildlife, and related environmental values is required under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act regulations at 30 CFR 816.97, which state: “No surface mining activity shall be conducted which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species listed by the Secretary of which is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitats of such species in violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.” In addition to requiring the operator to minimize disturbances and adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values, the regulations at E-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E 30 CFR 816.97 disallow any surface mining activity which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species and require that the operator use the best technology currently available to minimize electrocution hazards to raptors; locate and operate haul and access roads to avoid or minimize impacts on important fish and wildlife species; and design fences, conveyors, and other potential barriers to permit passage of large mammals. Section 7 consultation would be required prior to approval of the mining and reclamation plan modification. Additional measures to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act can be developed when the detailed mining plan, which identifies the actual location of the disturbance areas, how and when they would be disturbed, and how they would be reclaimed, is developed and reviewed for approval. At the leasing stage, a detailed mining and reclamation plan is not available for evaluation or development of appropriate mitigation measures specific to an actual proposal to mine. The following is a partial list of measures related to federally-protected species that are required as part of the mining and reclamation permits: • 	 avoiding bald eagle disturbance per the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; • 	 restoring bald eagle foraging areas disturbed by mining; • 	 using raptor safe power lines; and • 	 surveying for Ute ladies’-tresses if habitat is present. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Existing habitat-disturbing activities in the PRB include surface coal mining; conventional oil and gas and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) development; uranium mining; sand and gravel, and scoria mining; ranching; agriculture; road, railroad, and power plant construction and operation; recreational activities; and rural and urban housing development. Mining, construction and agricultural activities, and urban development tend to have more intense impacts on fairly localized areas, while ranching, recreational activities, and oil and gas development tend to be less intensive but spread over larger areas. Oil and gas development and mining activities have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as resources are depleted. The net area of energy disturbance in the Wyoming PRB has been increasing. In the short term, this means a reduction in the available habitat for T&E plant and wildlife species. In the long term, habitat is being and will continue to be restored as reclamation proceeds. BLM is in the process of completing a regional technical study of current and proposed or potential development activity in the PRB to help the agency evaluate the impacts of coal development in the PRB. The Powder River Basin Coal Review consists of three tasks: Task 1 updates the BLM’s 1996 status check for coal development in the PRB, Task 2 develops a forecast of reasonably foreseeable development in the PRB through the year 2020, and Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E-7

Appendix E Task 3 predicts cumulative impacts that would be expected to occur as a result of the projected development. The information about existing development in the following paragraphs is taken from the Powder River Basin Coal Review Task 2 report (BLM 2005a) and BLM lease records. The completed PRB Coal Review reports can be accessed at the BLM Wyoming website at http://www.wy.blm.gov/minerals/coal/prb/prbdocs.htm. The project area for Tasks 1 and 2 of the PRB Coal Review encompasses over eight million acres and includes all of Campbell, Sheridan, and Johnson Counties and the northern portion of Converse County in northeastern Wyoming. Oil and gas exploration and production have been ongoing in the PRB for more than 100 years. Conventional (non CBNG) oil and gas fields are, for the most part, concentrated in the central and southern parts of the structural basin. Development of the CBNG resources from the coal beds is a more recent occurrence, with CBNG production in the Wyoming PRB starting in the late 1980s. As of 2003, an estimated 187,761 acres had been disturbed in the coal review project area as a result of oil and gas development activities, but approximately 115,045 acres of that disturbance has been reclaimed. This includes conventional oil and gas and CBNG wells and associated facilities and major transportation pipelines. BLM estimates that the existing federal coal leases in the Wyoming PRB include approximately 121,185 acres. The currently pending federal coal LBA tracts (including the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts) include approximately 35,245 additional acres. The majority of the coal in the areas permitted for surface coal mining is federal, but some state and private leases are included within some of the existing mine permit areas. All of the current and proposed federal coal leases are concentrated near the outcrop of the Wyodak coal bed, which is located in eastern Campbell County and the extreme northeastern edge of Converse County. As of 2003, the base year for the PRB Coal Review, the surface coal mining operations along the Wyodak outcrop had disturbed approximately 68,794 acres. Approximately 24,097 of those acres of disturbance are occupied by “permanent” mine facilities, such as roads, buildings, coal handling facilities, etc., which are not available for reclamation until after coal mining operations end. Of the remaining 44,697 acres of disturbance available for reclamation, approximately 21,238 acres had been reclaimed. The Powder River Basin Coal Review identified an estimated 4,891 additional acres of coal-related development disturbance (i.e., coal-fired power plants, railroads, and coal technology projects) as of 2003. The estimated total development-related disturbance in the Wyoming PRB in 2003 was 264,704 acres. In addition to the coal and oil and gas development discussed above, this total includes other types of development disturbance, such as reservoirs and industrial fabrication firms, as well as public and E-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E private infrastructure, such as highways and roads, government buildings, and residential and commercial real estate development. It should be noted that some of these disturbances overlap one another. In such cases, the disturbance acreage is counted separately under each category, but is not counted twice in determining the total area of disturbance. Cumulative effects would also occur to T&E plant and wildlife resources as a result of indirect impacts. One factor is the potential import and spread of noxious weeds around roads and facilities. Noxious weeds have the ability to displace native vegetation and hinder reclamation efforts. Control of noxious weeds is addressed in surface coal mining and reclamation plans. If weed mitigation and preventative procedures are applied to all construction and reclamation practices, the impact of noxious weeds on T&E plants and wildlife would be minimized. In reclaimed areas, vegetation cover often differs from undisturbed areas. In the case of surface coal mines, re-established vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by WDEQ). The majority of the species in the approved reclamation seed mixtures are native to the area; however, reclaimed areas may not serve ecosystem functions presently served by undisturbed vegetation communities and habitats. In the short-term in particular, species composition, shrub cover, and other environmental factors are likely to differ from pre-disturbance vegetation communities and habitats. Establishment of noxious weeds and alteration of vegetation in reclaimed areas has the potential to alter T&E plant and wildlife habitat composition and distribution. Potential adverse effects to listed and proposed species that have occurred and would continue to occur as a result of existing and potential future activities in the PRB would include direct loss of habitat, indirect loss of habitat due to human and equipment disturbance, and habitat fragmentation. The existing mines have developed mitigation procedures, as required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (at 30 CFR 816.97) and Wyoming State regulations, to protect T&E species. These procedural requirements would be extended to include mining operations on the Belle Ayr North, West coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts, if they are leased as proposed and after required detailed plans to mine the coal and reclaim the mined-out areas are developed and approved. Species specific cumulative impacts are discussed below by tract.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E-9

SECTION 1
 BELLE AYR NORTH LBA TRACT

Appendix E E1-1.0 E1-1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES The Proposed Action

On July 6, 2004, RAG Coal West, Inc. filed an application with the BLM to lease federal coal reserves in a tract located west of and immediately adjacent to the Belle Ayr Mine (Figure E-1). The tract was assigned case file number WYW161248. In August 2004, RAG Coal West, Inc. finalized the sale of the Belle Ayr Mine to Foundation Coal West, Inc. (FCW), a directly held subsidiary of Foundation Coal Corporation. Under the Proposed Action for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, the tract as applied for by FCW would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale. The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract lease application (Figure E1-1). The Proposed Action assumes that FCW will be the successful bidder on the Belle Ayr North LBA tract if it is offered for sale. The legal description of the proposed Belle Ayr North LBA tract coal lease lands as applied for by FCW under the Proposed Action is as follows: T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 18: Lots 17, 18, 19(W½, SE¼); Section 19: Lots 5 through 19; Section 20: Lots 3 (SW¼), 4 (W½, SE¼), 5, 6, 7 (S½), 9 (S½), 10 through 16; Section 21: Lots 13, 14; Section 28: Lots 3 through 6; Section 29: Lots 1, 6; T. 48 N., R.72 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 24: Lots 1, 8. Total: 82.77 acres 1,578.74 acres 113.48 acres 606.93 acres

450.43 acres 81.52 acres 161.98 acres 81.63 acres

The coal estate in the tract described above is federal and the surface estate is owned by FCW. Surface ownership is shown in Figure E1-2. The tract as applied for includes approximately 1,578.74 mineable acres. It is assumed that an area larger than the tract would have to be disturbed in order to recover all of the coal in the tract. The disturbances outside of the tract Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-1

Appendix E
28 27 26

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

Four Corners Ro ad
32

28

27

26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Fairview Ro

29

T. 49 N. T. 48 N.

33

34

35

36

31

33

34

35

36

31

32

T. 49 N. T. 48 N.

ad

State High way 59

4

3

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

6

5

9

10

11

12

7

8

9

10

11

12

7

8

op sh Bi Ro ad

16

15

14

13

18

17

16

15

14

13

18

17

21

22

23

24

19

20

21

22

23

24

19

BNSF RR
20

28

27

26

25

30

29

28

27

26

25

& SF BN 30

RR UP
29

Bishop
Ro ad

T. 48 N. T. 47 N.

33

34

35

36

31

32

33

34

35

36

31

32

T. 48 N. T. 47 N.

4

3

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

6

5

Hoe

Cre ek
9

Road
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8

16

15

14

13

18

17

16

15

14

13

18

17

State Highway 59

21

22

23

24

19

20

21

22

T -7 R oa d 23

24

19

20

Haight Road

Hilight Road

BN SF

&

28

27

26

25

30

UP

29

28

27

26

25

RR

30

29

T -7 ad Ro
32

33

34

35

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

32

33

34

35

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary Existing Belle Ayr Mine Federal Coal Leases Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for BLM's Study Area
0 5000 10000 20000

Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure E1-1 Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives.

E1-2

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
R. 72 W. R. 71 W. T. 49 N. T. 48 N.
35 36 31 32 33 34 35

T. 49 N. T. 48 N.

3

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

le da T is

State Hi ghway 59

10

11

12

7

C reek

8

9

10

11

op sh Bi Ro ad
17 16 15 14

15

14

13

18

22

23

24

19

20

21

22

23

Bone
30 29 27 28 26

27

26

25

BishopRoad

Pile

k ee Cr
Caballo

Cre
33

ek
34 35

T. 48 N. T. 47 N.

34

35

36

31

32

T. 48 N. T. 47 N.

lo bal Ca
2

k ee Cr
1 6 5 4 3 2

3

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

LEGEND
Belle Ayr Mine Permit Boundary Belle Ayr North LBA Tract as Applied for BLM's Study Area Foundation Coal West, Inc.
0 3000 6000 12000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure E1-2. Surface Ownership Within the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Alternatives.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E1-3

Appendix E would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. E1-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

E1-1.2.1 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the application to lease the coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract would be rejected, the tract would not be offered for competitive sale, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. This would not affect permitted mining activities and employment on the existing leases at Belle Ayr Mine and would not preclude an application to lease the federal coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract in the future. No additional surface of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract would be disturbed due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the adjacent existing leases. E1-1.2.2 Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, BLM would reconfigure the tract, hold a competitive coal sale for the lands included in the reconfigured tract, and issue a lease to the successful bidder. In evaluating the Belle Ayr North coal lease application, BLM identified a study area, which includes unleased federal coal adjacent to the northern edge of the tract as applied for (Figure E1-1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be added to the tract to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the tract, and/or reduce the potential that some of the potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed in the future if it is not included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. The modified tract would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and this tract if it is offered for sale, as discussed above. Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract assumes that FCW would be the successful bidder on the tract if a lease sale is held and that the tract would be developed as a maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent Belle Ayr Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. The lands that BLM is considering adding to the tract are: T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 17: Lots 13, 14; Section 18: Lots 19 (NE¼); Section 20: Lots 3 (E½, NW¼), 4 (NE¼), 7 (N½), and 9 (N½); E1-4 82.53 acres 10.34 acres

82.19 acres

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E Total Added: 175.06 acres

The area BLM is evaluating removes the following lands from the tract as applied for: T. 48 N., R.72 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 24: Lots 1, 8. Total (Net Change): -82.77 acres 92.29 acres

The legal description of BLM’s reconfiguration of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract under Alternative 2 is as follows: T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 17: Lots 13, 14; Section 18: Lots 17, 18, 19; Section 19: Lots 5 through 19; Section 20: Lots 3 through 7, 9through 16; Section 21: Lots 13, 14; Section 28: Lots 3 through 6; Section 29: Lots 1, 6. Total: 82.53 acres 123.82 acres 606.93 acres 532.62 acres 81.52 acres 161.98 acres 81.63 acres 1,671.03 acres

Not all of the coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is considered to be mineable at this time. A portion the Bishop Road (County Road 12) overlies some of the coal included in the tract. As discussed in Chapter 1, section 1.1, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 ft on either side of the right-of-way of any public road (43 CFR 3461). There would also be a quantity of coal east of the Bishop Road that would be isolated from the mining operations if the coal under the road was not mined. The coal underlying the portion of the Bishop Road and its right-of-way, and the 100 ft buffer zone within the Belle Ayr North LBA tract could be mined if the Campbell County Board of Commissioners, the authorized agency, determines that the road can be moved [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. FCW is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the road at this time. FCW estimates that the reconfigured tract includes approximately 221.1 million tons of in-place coal and 162.6 million tons of mineable coal. Using Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-5

Appendix E FCW’s projected recovery factor of 94 percent, the reconfigured tract would contain about 152.8 million tons of recoverable coal. E1-2.0 	 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Belle Ayr Mine began producing coal in 1972. Wildlife monitoring has been conducted annually for the mine since 1984. This wildlife monitoring was designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal requirements for annual monitoring and reporting of wildlife activity on coal mining areas. Detailed procedures and site-specific requirements have been carried out as approved by WGFD and USFWS. The monitoring program was conducted in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Because the areas covered in the wildlife surveys included the mine’s permit area and a large perimeter around the permit boundary, the entire Belle Ayr North LBA tract has been included in baseline inventories and annual wildlife surveys conducted for the Belle Ayr Mine since wildlife studies began. The approved Belle Ayr Mine Permit 214 Term T6 (FCW 2005) includes monitoring and mitigation measures for the Belle Ayr Mine that are required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and Wyoming State Law. If the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is acquired by FCW, these monitoring and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract when the Belle Ayr Mine’s mining permit is amended to include the tract. This amended permit would have to be approved before mining operations could take place on the tract. These monitoring and mitigation measures are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 during the leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. Background information on T&E species in the vicinity of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract was drawn from several sources, including: the original baseline inventory (1974), wildlife survey reports submitted by the Belle Ayr Mine to the WDEQ/LQD from 1984 through 2006, the Final South Powder River Basin Coal EIS (BLM 2003), the Final EIS for the Maysdorf Coal Lease Application (BLM 2007), a Wyoming Natural Diversity Database search (University of Wyoming 2001), and from WGFD and USFWS records and contacts in 2007. In addition, the Belle Ayr North LBA tract wildlife study area falls within the wildlife monitoring areas for the nearby Caballo and Cordero Rojo Mines (Figure E-1). Site-specific data for a substantial portion of the tract as applied for and the study area for Alternative 2 were obtained from several sources, including WDEQ/LQD permit applications and annual wildlife reports for the Belle Ayr Mine and other nearby coal mines. Baseline wildlife studies were conducted by Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes, expressly for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract in 2006 early 2007.

E1-6 	

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E The Belle Ayr North LBA tract is in an area of gently rolling terrain of moderate relief influenced by Duck Nest Creek and other tributaries of Caballo Creek. Elevations range from 4,515 to 4,666 ft within the LBA tract and from 4,515 to 4,704 ft including the area added under Alternative 2. Within the LBA tract and the area added under Alternative 2, slopes range from flat to over 28 percent in the eastern portion of the tract, south of the Bishop Road. The slopes of the gently rolling uplands, which comprise most (about 74 percent) of the LBA tract, seldom exceed 4 percent. A slope analysis would be done for the LBA tract if a lease sale is held and it is proposed for mining. Predominant wildlife habitat types classified on the LBA tract and adjacent area correspond with the major plant communities defined during the vegetation baseline study and consist primarily of crested wheatgrass pasture and sagebrush/grassland. Other habitats present in limited extent include disturbed areas and grassland areas. Networks of road, pipeline, tank battery, and well-pad disturbance areas associated with oil and gas development overlay much of the study area. The Belle Ayr Mine site is situated near the center of the PRB, which is a broad structural trough that lies between the Big Horn Mountains and the Black Hills. The PRB is drained by three separate drainage systems: the Powder/Little Powder, the Cheyenne, and the Belle Fourche Rivers. Lying between the Powder River and Cheyenne River drainage basins is the Belle Fourche River drainage system, which is a narrow, linear-shaped basin extending from the Pumpkin Buttes northeast to the Black Hills. The topography of the Belle Fourche drainage basin is typified by broad, flat, interstream uplands and a wide, level expanse of eastward-sloping plains broken by a few isolated buttes. The Belle Ayr Mine lies within the Caballo Creek watershed, which is a tributary of the Belle Fourche River. Caballo Creek flows from west to east through the mine’s permit area and empties into the Belle Fourche River approximately 7 miles east-southeast of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract in Section 3, T.47N., R.70W. (Figure 3-27 in the SGAC EIS document). The total drainage for Caballo Creek is approximately 260 square miles, and the mainstream channel is about 51 miles long. The Caballo Creek watershed has a dendritic drainage pattern with an approximate width (north-south) of 12.8 miles and an approximate length (east-west) of 25.0 miles. The relief of Caballo Creek’s basin is 740 feet from its headwaters to its confluence with the Belle Fourche River. The Belle Ayr Mine disturbs several drainages within the Caballo Creek watershed and Caballo Creek is currently diverted by the mining operation. The Belle Ayr Mine is currently permitted to disturb approximately 7 percent of the Caballo Creek drainage basin. The entire undisturbed Caballo Creek drainage basin was extensively studied by the Belle Ayr Mine and the results of that study are included in the mine and reclamation permit (FCW 2003). A large portion of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is within the mine’s existing Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-7

Appendix E permit area, and Duck Nest Creek, a southeast-flowing ephemeral tributary of Caballo Creek, drains the western portion of the LBA tract. Two smaller, first order tributaries of Caballo Creek (called Draw No. 1 and Draw No. 2 by the Belle Ayr Mine) and three playas formed by natural topographic depressions drain the eastern portion of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. The Belle Aye Mine permit area, the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, and a portion of the undisturbed Caballo Creek watershed are shown on Figure 3-27in the SGAC EIS document. Belle Ayr North LBA Tract Wetlands Wetland inventories have been completed on those portions of Caballo Creek and its tributaries that lie within Belle Ayr Mine’s existing permit area. A large portion of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract is within the mine’s existing permit area (Figure S1-6 in the SGAC Supplementary Information document); therefore, a wetland inventory on Duck Nest Creek, including the entire stream segment that lies within the BLM study area for the LBA tract, has been conducted and is included in the mine’s approved mine permit. There have been numerous correspondences between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and Belle Ayr Mine on wetland inventories and determinations related to mine permit revisions. Most recently, on September 29, 1999, the COE conducted a site visit of wetland areas within the Belle Ayr Mine’s permit area. Following that visit, a revised premining wetland delineation and discussion of wetlands to be impacted for the entire permit area was presented to COE in a letter from the mine, dated September 30, 1999. A response letter from COE to the mine, dated October 1, 1999, authorized the revised delineation and impact determination (FCW 2003). These premining wetland areas that occur within and adjacent to the Belle Ayr North LBA tract are shown on Figure S1-6 in the SGAC Supplementary Information document. Belle Ayr Mine’s most recent delineation of wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. over the existing permit area identified these four types of wetlands: Man Made, Stream Channel, Saline, and Playa (FCW 2003). The man-made wetlands are found in association with small reservoirs and stock ponds. Stream channel wetlands are primarily moist to wet grassy meadows, usually less than 20 feet wide, and restricted to the stream channel and areas immediately adjacent to the stream bank. Saline wetlands occur only along the upper section of Duck Nest Creek and are characterized by saturated soils that commonly have salt deposits on the surface. Playa wetlands occur on areas with internal drainage that are intermittently flooded in response to spring runoff or runoff from intense thunderstorms. These individual wetland units and their respective areas (in acres) are shown within the Belle Aye North LBA tract wetlands analysis area on Figure S1-6 in the SGAC Supplementary Information document. Accordingly, a total of approximately 193.9 acres of Waters of the U.S., including a total of 14.4 acres of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. occur within the wetlands analysis area for the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. Approximately 11.9 of those acres are jurisdictional wetlands that occur along the watercourse of Duck Nest Creek. The 2.5 acres of jurisdictional other E1-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E Waters of the U.S. that did not qualify as jurisdictional wetlands consist primarily of open water that is held within the in-channel impoundments and intermittent pools along Duck Nest Creek. The non-jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. contained in the wetlands analysis area (approximately 179.5 acres) consists of the internally drained playas. Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area there is no “critical” habitat designated by USFWS for T&E species. The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 on federal T&E species. E1-2.1 Threatened Species

E1-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses Ute ladies’-tresses, a member of the orchid family, was listed as threatened on January 17, 1992, due to a variety of factors, including habitat loss and modification, hydrological modifications of existing and potential habitat areas, and invasion of exotic plant species. At the time of listing, Ute ladies’-tresses was only known from Colorado, Utah, and extreme eastern Nevada. Ute ladies’­ tresses orchids were discovered in Wyoming in 1993. It is currently known from western Nebraska, eastern Wyoming, north-central Colorado, northeastern and southern Utah, east-central and southeastern Idaho, southwestern Montana, and central Washington. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12 to 50 cm tall arising from tuberous-thickened roots. Ute ladies’-tresses occurs primarily on moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams. The elevation range of known occurrences is 4,200 to 7,000 feet in alluvial substrates along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, and moist to wet meadows. Most populations are found on alluvial sand, coarse silt, or whitish loamy clay with a slightly basic pH. These soils are derived from Quaternary alluvial deposits or drab Eocene- age sandstones and claystones (Fertig 2000). Ute ladies’-tresses is not found in heavy, tight clay soils, saline, or alkaline soils. This orchid can be commonly associated with horsetail, milkweed, verbena, blue-eyed grass, reedgrass, goldenrod, bentgrass, and arrowgrass (USFWS 2005). Wyoming populations often occur in moist meadow communities dominated by redtop, common quackgrass, Baltic rush, foxtail barley, or switchgrass within a narrow vegetative band between emergent aquatic vegetation and dry upland prairie (Fertig 2000). Vegetative cover tends to range from 75-90 percent and is usually less than 45 cm tall (Fertig 2000). The orchid seems intolerant of shade. Plants usually occur as small scattered groups and occupy relatively small areas within the riparian system. Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-9

Appendix E In Wyoming, this species typically blooms from early August to early September, with fruits produced from mid-August to September (Fertig 2000). Leaves persist during flowering (Moseley 1998). Flowers are white or ivory and are clustered into a spike at the top of the stem. No direct observations of pollination have been made in Wyoming. In their 1994 report, Sipes and Tepedino indicated that large, long-tongued bumblebees in the genus Bombus are the primary pollinators in Utah and Colorado (Fertig 2000). Smaller bees may also visit these flowers, but have the incorrect body shape or mass to properly accommodate the orchid’s large, sticky anther/pollen clusters (Fertig 2000). This species reproduces basically by sexual reproduction and can produce as many as 7,300 tiny seeds per fruit (Fertig 2000). The plant requires mycorrhizal fungi to germinate and establish. Individual plants may not flower in consecutive years under adverse environmental conditions but will persist below ground with their mycorrhizal symbionts (Fertig 2000). Flowers are needed for positive plant identification. The species can be reliably located only when it is flowering (Heidel 2001). Plants probably do not flower every year and may remain dormant below ground during drought years. In general, the species’ best flowering years seem to correspond with extreme heat during flowering. Preliminary review of climate data also indicates that growing seasons that start out as relatively cold and wet correspond with low flowering levels (Heidel 2001). The orchid is well adapted to disturbances from stream movement and is tolerant of other disturbances such as grazing that are common to grassland riparian habitats (USFWS 1995). Populations are often dynamic and “move” within a watershed as disturbances create new habitat or succession eliminates old habitat (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Ute ladies’-tresses colonize early successional riparian habitats such as point bars, sand bars, and lowlying gravelly, sandy, or cobbley edges, persisting in those areas where the hydrology provides continual dampness in the root zone through the growing season. The orchid has been known to establish in heavily disturbed sites, such as revegetated gravel pits, heavily grazed riparian edges, and along welltraveled foot trails on old berms (USFWS 1995). Existing Environment: Prior to 2005, four orchid populations had been documented within Wyoming, all discovered between 1993 and 1997 (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Four additional sites were located in 2005 and one additional site was found in 2006 (Heidel, 2007). The new locations were in the same drainages or tributaries as the original four populations. Drainages with documented orchid populations include Antelope Creek and tributaries in northern Converse County, Bear Creek in northern Laramie and southern Goshen Counties, Horse Creek in Laramie County, and Niobrara River in Niobrara County. No occurrences have been recorded in Campbell County including the Belle Ayr North vegetation general analysis. E1-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E Areas of suitable habitat within the Belle Ayr North LBA tract and adjacent study area were surveyed by ESCO Associates, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado in August 2006 and August 2007. Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the study area were reviewed to identify all significant drainages and potential habitat that may contain the orchid. Suitable habitat was traversed on foot during the time of actual flowering of the known population, and it involved walking entire lengths of the drainages documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species. The environs of the Duck Nest Creek drainage that passes through the study area constitute the closest approximation of suitable habitat for the plant. However, while naturally prone to accumulating moisture because of topographic position, they also are underlain by Arvada soils (or the similar saline phases of Heldt and Bidman soils) that have considerable salt accumulation, and, during dry years are themselves quite dry. As such, these areas do not constitute likely habitat for the plant by virtue of lack of dependable moisture and high salinity. A pedestrian survey of these areas in August 2006 revealed no individuals of Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid. Playa Grassland was suggested by USFWS (personal communication) as suitable habitat and the portion of the LBA site occupied by this type was also searched in August 2006 with the same results. Eastern Wyoming playas, except during hypothetically potential extraordinary years of unrelenting rain, would probably never naturally sustain the moist conditions required by the orchid. Even following the springs when the playas do occasionally, but only temporarily, include standing water, subsequent summer conditions accompany a thorough drying that excludes any routine manifestation of moisture-loving perennial plant species such as the orchid. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’­ tresses. Typical suitable habitat for this species on the tract is very limited and found along the CBNG-impacted bottomlands of Little Duck Nest Creek and its tributaries. However, the quality of potential habitat is extremely poor. Outside of the narrow riparian strips located along these impacted watercourses, typical suitable habitat is rare or non-existent in the study area. Multiple surveys of the existing suitable habitat at the Belle Ayr Mine and other mines in this area have not found any Ute ladies’-tresses. Because of the ability of this species to persist below ground or above ground without flowering, single season surveys that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect populations. If undetected populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’-tresses within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E1-11

Appendix E Jurisdictional wetlands located in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract that are destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as determined by COE. The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the exact function and landscape features of the pre-mine wetlands. COE considers the type and function of each jurisdictional wetland that will be impacted and may require restoration of additional acres if the type and function of the restored wetlands will not completely replace the type and function of the original wetland. Replacement of non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands may be required by the surface land owner and/or WDEQ/LQD. WDEQ/LQD allows and sometimes requires mitigation of non-jurisdictional wetlands affected by mining, depending on the values associated with the wetland features. Cumulative Effects: Alterations of stream morphology and hydrology are believed to have extirpated Ute ladies’-tresses from most of its historical range (USFWS 2002). Disturbance and reclamation of streams by surface coal mining may alter stream morphology and hydrology. The large quantities of water produced with CBNG development and discharged on the surface may also alter stream morphology and hydrology. E1-2.2 Endangered Species

E1-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret The black-footed ferret, a nocturnal mammal and an obligate associate of prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), was listed as endangered in March, 1967. This species is thought to have historically inhabited a nearly contiguous matrix of prairie dog colonies spanning the short-grass prairies of the eastern and southern Rockies and the Great Plains of North America (Forrest et al. 1985). Since the early 1930s, numerous factors have led to substantial declines in prairie dog colonies in that region. Reductions in some states are estimated as high as 90% from formerly occupied colonies (Rose 1973, Tyler 1968). Conversion of grasslands to agricultural landscapes, eradication of prairie dogs, and diseases such as the plague and canine distemper have resulted in severe reductions in prairie dog colonies across the west, colonies which provided food, shelter, and habitat for black-footed ferrets. This species of ferret is currently one of the most endangered mammals in North America and was thought to be extinct until a small population was discovered in Meeteetse, Wyoming in September, 1981. Since then, successful captive breeding and reintroduction programs have released black-footed ferrets back into the wild in several western and Great Plains states including Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ferrets rely on prairie dogs to provide both shelter and food (Hillman and Clark 1980). Ferrets produce one litter per year, typically giving birth to four or five kits. The decline in ferret populations has been largely attributed to the reduction in the vast prairie dog colonies that E1-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E historically existed in the western United States. Despite extensive ferret surveys over the past 20 plus years throughout Wyoming, the last known wild black-footed ferret population was discovered near Meeteetse in 1981 (Miller et al. 1996). Those surveys included numerous USFWS-approved clearances for coal mining and other development in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, as well as U.S. Department of Agriculture – Forest Service (USFS) surveys for ferrets on the TBNG. Reintroduction efforts involving captive bred individuals have successfully established one black-footed ferret population in the Shirley Basin area in south-central Wyoming. Currently, this is the only known blackfooted ferret population within the state, though other populations are present elsewhere in the United States and Mexico. Existing Environment: The Belle Ayr North LBA tract is within the historical range of the black-footed ferret, although no black-footed ferrets are presently known to occur in northeastern Wyoming. During the 1980s, WGFD, in cooperation with other agencies, conducted searches for black-footed ferrets in Wyoming in the places they were most likely to be found, but these searches were not successful (Martin Grenier, personal communication, 10/14/2003). In a February 2, 2004 letter to interested parties, the USFWS declared that black-footed ferret surveys are no longer necessary in black-tailed prairie dog colonies within Wyoming. No black-tailed prairie dog colonies are currently present on the Belle Ayr North wildlife general analysis area. No evidence of ferrets has been recorded during general or specific ferret surveys over the last 30 years (1976–2006) conducted by wildlife consultants for the Belle Ayr Mine and other mines in this area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the documented absence of black-footed ferrets in the region, including the general analysis area during specific surveys for this species, the lack of colonies within the LBA tract and surrounding area, the block clearance issued by USFWS for black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout the entire state, and the distance of the LBA area from future reintroduction sites, mining the general analysis area will not result in any direct or indirect effects on blackfooted ferrets. Mine activities include, but are not limited to, large-scale topsoil stripping, the intense presence of heavy machinery, extended human presence, loud noise and various linear disturbances such as roads, power lines and fences. Additionally, ongoing disturbance (grazing, oil and gas production, etc.) from sources unrelated to mining would likely continue, with some activities occurring within prairie dog colonies in the area. These activities would result in less habitat disturbance than surface mining, but physical disturbance would occur. Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E1-13

Appendix E Based on more than 20 years of historic and recent survey efforts and other general analysis area data and information, it is unlikely that ferrets exist in the Belle Ayr North wildlife general analysis area. Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog colonies is a leading cause of ferret habitat loss in the PRB. Surface coal mining tends to have more intense impacts on fairly localized areas, while oil and gas development tends to be less intensive but spread over larger areas. Oil and gas development and mining activities have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as resources are depleted. In reclaimed areas, vegetation cover may differ from undisturbed areas. In the case of surface coal mines, re-established vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by WDEQ). The majority of the approved plant species are native to the area; however, reclaimed areas may not serve ecosystem functions presently served by undisturbed vegetation communities and habitats, particularly in the short-term, when species composition, shrub cover, and other environmental factors are likely to be different. Shifts in habitat composition or distribution following reclamation could increase or decrease potential habitat for prairie dogs and associated habitat for black-footed ferrets. However, black-tailed prairie dogs have been recorded invading and establishing towns on reclaimed coal mined lands in northeastern Wyoming (IR 2005). Potential ferret habitat is also affected by other impacts to prairie dog populations. Plague can infect and eliminate entire prairie dog colonies. Poisoning and recreational prairie dog shooting may locally reduce prairie dog populations, but seldom completely eliminate colonies. E1-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon Blowout Penstemon, a member of the figwort family, was listed as endangered on October 1, 1987. It is known from multiple populations in western Nebraska and in the Ferris dunes area in northwestern Carbon County, Wyoming. The plant was first discovered in Wyoming in 1877 and then rediscovered in 1996 (BLM 2008). The removal of fire, leveling of dunes, reduction of grazing, and cultivation of stabilizing cover crops drastically reduced the amount of habitat available for this species. Loss of habitat, coupled with impacts from insect outbreaks, drought, inbreeding, and potential over collection, has caused problems for the plant (University of Wyoming 2009). Only 3,500-5,000 plants are currently found in Nebraska at about a dozen sites. The Wyoming population is limited to three sites in northern Carbon County that contain several thousand plants (BLM 2008). Threats to the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic (USFWS 2008b). Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2 to 6 inches long and has six to ten compact whorls of milky-blue to pale lavender flowers. This E1-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current know range in Wyoming is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 percent vegetative cover; and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active blowouts with 25 to 40 percent vegetative cover (USFWS 2008b). Existing Environment: The Belle Ayr North LBA tract is not within the documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. It is located approximately 150 miles northwest of the Nebraska known occurrences and approximately 150 miles northeast of the Wyoming occurrences. No suitable sand dunes (whether stable or blownout) are currently present on the Belle Ayr North vegetation general analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, would have no effect on blowout penstemon. Typical suitable habitat for this species on the tract is non-existent. If undetected populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for blowout penstemon within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. Cumulative Effects: This species is potentially vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation resulting from sand mining, water development, energy development, ORV use, and associated destabilization of its sand dune habitat. It also could be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of non­ native species within its range. E1-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS

Table E1-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in the area of the Belle Ayr North LBA tract that may result from implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative. Table E1-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the Belle Ayr North LBA Tracts. Species Common Name Ute ladies’-tresses Black-footed ferret Blowout Penstemon Potential Effects May affect1 No effect No effect

Status Threatened: Endangered: Endangered:
1

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E1-15

Appendix E E1-4.0 E1-4.1 CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming

Gwyn McKee Ms. McKee obtained a Master of Science degree in Wildlife Ecology/Management from the University of Missouri-Columbia. She has accumulated nearly 20 years of professional experience, with the last 14 spent working with the energy industry in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. Ms. McKee has conducted the wildlife surveys and impact analyses for most of the surface coal mines in the Powder River Basin during her tenure in Wyoming, including two of the three properties analyzed in the South Gillette Area Coal EIS. She has also provided and/or reviewed the pertinent text related to impact assessments for vertebrate species of concern for most of the coal EISs that have been prepared in the Powder River Basin since 2000. Jennifer Ottinger Ms. Ottinger received a B.S. in Zoology from Colorado State University in 1993, with a minor in Microbiology. She has 12 years of professional experience with a variety of vertebrate species, including surveys for sage-grouse and mountain plovers, though her work has focused on raptors during that period. Ms. Ottinger has worked throughout the U.S. and abroad. She joined Jones & Stokes as a Wildlife Biologist in 2004. She has strong raptor identification and handling skills, research experience, proven abilities in data analysis and technical writing, and has presented and/or published several articles in a variety of professional meetings and publications, respectively. E1-4.2 ESCO Associates Inc. (ESCO) of Boulder, Colorado

David L. Buckner Education: B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in Plant Ecology, University of Colorado, Boulder Familiarity with Spiranthes diluvialis: observation of flowering populations in Boulder County, 1991-2005; observation of vegetative sprouts of individuals occurring in Boulder County populations, January to April 1992, June 1993, May 1995. Other Rare Plant Survey Experience (representative): Asclepias ruthiae, Grand County, Utah, 1982; Stellaria irrigua, La Plata County, Colorado; Sclerocactus glaucus, Mesa and Garfield Counties, Colorado, 1987; Penstemon harringtonii, Eagle, Grand, and Routt Counties, Colorado, 1982, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994; Ptilagrostis porteri, Teller County, Colorado, 1992, Carex oreocharis, Carex scirpoidea, Rubus (Cylactis) arctica ssp. acaulis, Mimulus gemmiparus, Salix candida, Aquilegia saximontana, Botrychium lunaria, and Listera borealis, E1-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E Clear Creek and Park Counties, Colorado 1995, 1996; Lesquerella congesta, Physaria obcordata, Astragalus lutosus, Festuca dasyclada, Gentianella tortuosa, Lesquerella parviflora, and Thalictrum heliophilum, Rio Blanco County, Colorado 2002. Contacted References for Spiranthes: William F. Jennings, Louisville, Colorado

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E1-17

SECTION 2
 WEST COAL CREEK LBA TRACT

Appendix E E2-1.0 E2-1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES The Proposed Action

On February 10, 2006, Ark Land Company (ALC) filed an application with the BLM to lease federal coal reserves in a tract located west of and immediately adjacent to the Coal Creek Mine (Figure E-1). The Coal Creek Mine is operated by Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC), a subsidiary of Arch Western Resources, LLC. In this EIS, ALC is referred to as the applicant and TBCC is referred to in discussions of mine operations. The West Coal Creek LBA tract was assigned case file number WYW172388. Under the Proposed Action the tract as applied for by ALC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale. The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the West Coal Creek LBA tract lease application (Figure E2-1). The Proposed Action assumes that ALC will be the successful bidder on the West Coal Creek LBA tract if it is offered for sale. The legal description of the proposed West Coal Creek LBA tract coal lease lands as applied for by ALC under the Proposed Action is as follows: T. 46 N., R. 70 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 18: Lots 14 through 17; Section 19: Lots 7 through 10, 15 through 18; Section 30: Lots 5 through 20. Total: 161.95 acres 323.60 acres 665.71 acres 1,151.26 acres

The coal estate underlying this tract described above is owned by the federal government and administered by the BLM. The surface estate of the tract is privately owned. Surface ownership is shown in Figure E2-2. The tract as applied for includes approximately 1,151.26 mineable acres. It is assumed that an area larger than the tract would have to be disturbed in order to recover all of the coal in the tract. The disturbances outside of the tract would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. Under the Proposed Action for the West Coal Creek LBA tract, if a decision is made to hold a competitive lease sale and if there is a successful bidder at that sale, a lease would be issued for the tract of federal coal as applied for. The tract offered for lease would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the Wyoming PRB. The stipulations that would be attached to a lease for the West Coal Creek LBA tract are listed in appendix D of the SGAC EIS document. Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-1

Appendix E
21 22 23

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
25

20

21

22

23

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.
25 30

20

Haight Road

Hilight Road

RR

UP

28

27

26

30

29

28

27

26

29

T -7

BN SF

&

ad Ro

T. 47 N. T. 46 N.

33

34

35

36

31

32

33

34

35

36

31

32

T. 47 N. T. 46 N.

4

3

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

6

5

9

10

11

12

7

8

9

10

11

12

7

8

16

15

14

13

18

17

16

15

14

13

18

17

Hoadley Road
20

Hoadley R oad

BNSF & UP RR

21

22

23

24

19

20

21

22

23

24

19

28

27

26

25

30

29

28

27

26

25

30

29

T. Wagensen R oa d 46 33 N. T.
 45 N.

34

35

36

31

32

33

34

35

36

31

32

T. 46 N. T. 45
 N.

4

3

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

6

5

Lawver Road

9

10

11

12

7

8

9

10

11

12

7

8

Mills Road

16

15

14

13

18

17

16

15

14

13

18

17

BNSF & UP RR

Hilight Road

21

22

23

24

19

20

21

22

23

24

19

20

Breen Road
28 27

Lawver Road
26

Lawver Road
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

25

R. 70 W. R. 69 W.

LEGEND
Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary Existing Coal Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for BLM's Study Area
0 5000 10000 20000

Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure E2-1. West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives.

E2-2

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
rche

lle Be
3

Fo u

River

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
2

y Dr

2


1

6

5


4


3


Cr

Coal

k ee

Cre

10

11


ek 12

7

8


9

10


11

15

14


13


18

17


16


15


14


Hoadley

Road

22

23


24

19


20

21

22


23


BNSF & UP RR

HoadleyR oad

27

26

25


30


29


E ast

F ork

28


27


26

Co al C

re e

k

Coal C reek

Hilig ht

Lawver

We st Fork

T. 46
 N. T. 45
 N.

34


35


36


31


32


33

34


35


T. 46
 N. T. 45
 N.

3

Roa d

Ro ad
2 1
 12

6

5

4

3


2


10

11


7

8

9

10


11


R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for BLM's Study Area Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC
0 3000 6000 12000


Dennis L. Edwards

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure E2-2. Surface Ownership Within the West Coal Creek LBA Tract Alternatives.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E2-3

Appendix E TBCC estimates that the West Coal Creek LBA tract under the Proposed Action includes approximately 63.3 million tons of in-place and mineable coal. Using TBCC’s projected recovery factor of 90 percent, the tract would contain about 57.0 million tons of recoverable coal. Under the Proposed Action, it is assumed that the LBA tract would be developed as a maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent existing Coal Creek Mine. As a result, under the Proposed Action, the coal included in the tract would be mined by existing employees using existing facilities and roads. E2-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

E2-1.2.1 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the application to lease the coal included in the West Coal Creek LBA tract would be rejected, the tract would not be offered for competitive sale, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. This would not affect permitted mining activities and employment on the existing leases at Coal Creek Mine and would not preclude an application to lease the federal coal included in the West Coal Creek LBA tract in the future. No additional surface of the West Coal Creek LBA tract would be disturbed due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the adjacent existing leases. E2-1.2.2 Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract, BLM would reconfigure the tract, hold one competitive coal sale for the lands included in the reconfigured tract, and issue a lease to the successful bidder. The modified tract would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and this tract if it is offered for sale (appendix D). Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 for the West Coal Creek LBA tract assumes that ALC would be the successful bidder on the tract if a lease sale is held and that the federal coal would be mined as a maintenance lease for the Coal Creek Mine. Assumptions concerning mining methods, facilities, hazardous materials, mitigation and monitoring requirements, etc. are the same as described for the Proposed Action. As applied for, the West Coal Creek LBA tract consists of a single block of federal coal (Figure 1-3). In order to evaluate the potential that an alternate configuration of the tract would provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the West Coal Creek LBA tract, and/or reduce the potential that some of the remaining unleased federal coal in this area would be bypassed in the future, BLM identified a study area. The E2-4 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E BLM study area includes the tract as applied for and unleased federal coal adjacent to the northern edge of the tract as applied for (Figure E2-1). Under this alternative, BLM could add some or all of the adjacent lands to the tract or BLM could reduce the size of the tract, as discussed in Section 2.0. The area BLM is evaluating in addition to the tract as applied for includes the following lands: T.46N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming Section 18: Lots 7 through 10; 162.00 acres

The land description and acreage are based on the BLM Status of Public Domain Land and Mineral Titles approved Coal Plat as of August 8, 2006. In identifying a study area, BLM included additional federal coal resources north of the current application area, as shown in Figure E2-1. BLM wanted to evaluate that federal coal in order to determine if it would be possible to economically recover additional coal in this area. After evaluating the tract configuration, BLM concluded that economic considerations preclude extending the West Coal Creek LBA tract in a north direction to the full extent of the study area due to the presence of the Coal Creek Mine railroad spur. BLM did not reduce the size of the tract because the modified tract was configured to allow recovery of the federal coal while maintaining the setback distances necessary to avoid the railroad spur. BLM did make a decision to add approximately 81 acres to the northern portion of the tract. Although most of the coal included in this addition to the tract would not be recoverable due to the required setback distances, including this coal in the tract would potentially allow more efficient recovery of the coal up to the required setback distance. BLM’s preferred tract configuration is to add approximately 81 acres to the northern edge of the tract as applied for (Figure E2-1). Under Alternative 2, BLM would add the following lands to the West Coal Creek LBA tract as applied for: T.46N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming Section 18: Lots 9 and 10; 80.91 acres

The legal description of BLM’s preferred configuration of the West Coal Creek LBA tract under Alternative 2 is as follows: T.46N., R.70W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming Section 18: Lots 7 through 10, 14 through 17; Section 19: Lots 7 through 10, 15 through 18; Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 242.86 acres 323.60 acres E2-5

Appendix E Section 30: Lots 5 through 20. Total: 665.71 acres 1,232.17 acres

TBCC estimates that the reconfigured tract includes approximately 69.3 million tons of in-place coal and approximately 63.3 million tons of mineable coal. Using TBCC’s projected recovery factor of 90 percent, the reconfigured tract would contain about 57.0 million tons of recoverable coal. E2-2.0 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Coal Creek Mine began producing coal in 1982. Wildlife monitoring has been conducted annually for the mine since 1983. This wildlife monitoring was designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal requirements for annual monitoring and reporting of wildlife activity on coal mining areas. Detailed procedures and site-specific requirements have been carried out as approved by WGFD and USFWS. The monitoring program was conducted in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Because the areas covered in the wildlife surveys included the mine’s permit area and a large perimeter around the permit boundary, the entire West Coal Creek LBA tract has been included in baseline inventories and annual wildlife surveys conducted for the Coal Creek Mine since wildlife studies began. The approved Coal Creek Mine Permit 483 Term T5 (TBCC 2006) includes monitoring and mitigation measures for the Coal Creek Mine that are required by Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and Wyoming State Law. If the West Coal Creek LBA tract is acquired by FCW, these monitoring and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract when the Coal Creek Mine’s mining permit is amended to include the tract. This amended permit would have to be approved before mining operations could take place on the tract. These monitoring and mitigation measures are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 during the leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. Background information on T&E species in the vicinity of the West Coal Creek LBA tract was drawn from several sources, including: wildlife survey reports submitted by the Coal Creek Mine to the WDEQ/LQD from 1983 through 2006, the Final South Powder River Basin Coal EIS (BLM 2003), the Maysdorf Coal FEIS (BLM 2007), and from WGFD and USFWS records and contacts in 2006 and 2007. In addition, the entire West Coal Creek LBA tract and all but the southwestern corner of its corresponding two-mile perimeter wildlife study area fall within the wildlife monitoring areas for the nearby Cordero Rojo Mine (Figure E2-1). Site-specific data for a substantial portion of the tract as applied for and the study area for Alternative 2 were obtained from several sources, including E2-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E WDEQ/LQD permit applications and annual wildlife reports for the Coal Creek Mine and other nearby coal mines. Baseline wildlife studies were conducted by Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes, (TJS) expressly for the West Coal Creek LBA tract during 2006 and 2007. Figure E2-3 depicts TJS’s T&E animal species survey areas for the West Coal Creek LBA tract. The West Coal Creek general analysis area is situated in an area of gently rolling terrain of moderate relief influenced by the East and West forks of Coal Creek. Elevations range from 4,555 to 4,710 ft within the LBA tract and from 4,580 to 4,725 ft within the area added under Alternative 2. Within the LBA tract and the area added under Alternative 2, slopes range from flat to over 33 percent, with the steeper slopes primarily occurring in the southern portion of the study area. The slopes of the gently rolling uplands, which comprise most (about 65 percent) of the BLM study area, seldom exceed 4.4 percent. Predominant wildlife habitat types classified on the LBA tract and adjacent area correspond with the major plant communities defined during the vegetation baseline study and consist primarily of sagebrush/grassland and mixed grass prairie. Other habitats present in limited extent include streamside meadow and premine disturbance. Networks of road, pipeline, tank battery, and well-pad disturbance areas associated with oil and gas development overlay much of the study area. All streams within and adjacent to the general analysis area are ephemeral. Storm runoff is typically of short duration and exhibits temporal patterns similar to the precipitation events. Streamflow is characteristically low to nonexistent from October through January. Streamflow frequently results from snowmelt during the late winter and early spring. Although peak discharges from such events are generally small, the duration and therefore the percentage of annual runoff volume can be considerable. During the spring, storms (both rain and snow) can result in both large runoff volumes and high peak discharges. Intense, short-duration summer thunderstorms also result in large runoff volumes and high peak discharges. All streams draining the general analysis area are categorized as class 3B waters of the state by the WDEQ/Water Quality Division. No playas or topographic depressions have been identified within the general analysis area. Springs are uncommon in the general area and have not been identified in the general analysis area. Four reservoirs used for livestock watering have been identified in the West Coal Creek general analysis area. None of these reservoirs have been permitted through the SEO. Most appear to have been in place for several decades. Three permitted sediment ponds (industrial and miscellaneous use) for the Coal Creek Mine are also located within the general analysis area. Each of these sediment ponds is associated with a WYPDES outfall.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E2-7

Appendix E
R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
32
T7

34

lle Be

e ch ur Fo

35
 Rive r

36

31


33


34

35


y Dr
Cre ek

3


2


1

6

5


ad Ro

4

3

2


Coal

10


11


C re e 12
 k

7


8


9

10


11

13
 15
 14


18


17

16


15


14


Hoadley Road

22


23


24


19

20

21


22


23


BNSF & UP RR

Hoadley R oad

E as t

27

26


25


30


Fo

29


rk

Coa 28 l
Cr ee k

27


26

Coal Creek

T. 34 46
 N. T. 45
 N.

35


36


31

32


33


34


35

T. 46
 N. T. 45
 N.

We

st

Fork

3

2

1


6

Lawver Road

5

4


3


2


10

11


12


R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

7


8


9

10

11


LEGEND
Coal Creek Mine Permit Boundary West Coal Creek LBA Tract as Applied for BLM's Study Area Alternative 2, BLM's Preferred Alternative West Coal Creek Wildlife General Analysis Area
0 3000 6000 12000


Two-Mile Buffer from the West Coal Creek Wildlife General Analysis Area Prairie Dog Colony


GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)


Figure E2-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the Coal Creek Mine and the West Coal Creek LBA Tract.

E2-8

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E West Coal Creek LBA Tract Wetlands A preliminary wetlands inventory, based on USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping and vegetation mapping in the field, was conducted in 2004. The wetland analysis area includes the West Coal Creek LBA tract as applied for, the lands added under Alternative 2, and a ¼-mile disturbance buffer around the tract sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the existing Coal Creek Mine operation. A formal wetland delineation has been confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for the portion of the LBA tract wetlands analysis area that is within the adjacent existing Coal Creek Mine permit area (TBCC 2006). Coal Creek Mine conducted a preliminary wetlands inventory in 2007, based on USFWS NWI mapping and vegetation mapping in the field (BKS 2007), for the non-delineated portions of the wetlands analysis area. Some wetland areas previously mapped by the USFWS NWI project have been recently altered somewhat due to CBNG-related water production within and upstream of the West Coal Creek wetlands analysis area. The boundaries of the existing potential wetlands may vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps, and current field conditions may not be representative of the field conditions in the future. A formal wetland delineation survey of the lands proposed for mining disturbance would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mining and reclamation permit process, if the West Coal Creek LBA tract is leased and proposed for mining. Based on the existing USFWS NWI mapping data (which may be somewhat outdated), the wetlands confirmed to be present within the adjacent Coal Creek Mine’s permit area, and the vegetation mapping that was conducted in 2007, a total of approximately 16.92 acres of wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. occur within the West Coal Creek wetlands analysis area. The earlier wetland delineation confirmed by the COE identified a total of approximately 3.48 acres of wetlands, which are associated with the stream channels (both riverine- and palustrine marsh-types), within the wetlands analysis area. The 2007 preliminary wetlands survey identified approximately 13.44 acres of other Waters of the U.S., which were areas of open water held within the stream channels, or in-channel impoundments identified by NWI mapping that were found to be dry at the time. These areas that occur within and adjacent to the West Coal Creek LBA tract are shown on Figure S2-5 in the Supplementary Information document. Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area there is no “critical” habitat designated by USFWS for T&E species. The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the West Coal Creek LBA tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and Alternative 1 on federal T&E species.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E2-9

Appendix E E2-2.1 Threatened Species

E2-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandularpubescent stems 12 to 50 cm tall arising from tuberous-thickened roots. Ute ladies’-tresses occurs primarily on moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams. The elevation range of known occurrences is 4,200 to 7,000 feet in alluvial substrates along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, and moist to wet meadows. Most populations are found on alluvial sand, coarse silt, or whitish loamy clay with a slightly basic pH. These soils are derived from Quaternary alluvial deposits or drab Eocene- age sandstones and claystones (Fertig 2000). Ute ladies’-tresses is not found in heavy, tight clay soils, saline, or alkaline soils. This orchid can be commonly associated with horsetail, milkweed, verbena, blue-eyed grass, reedgrass, goldenrod, bentgrass, and arrowgrass (USFWS 2005). Wyoming populations often occur in moist meadow communities dominated by redtop, common quackgrass, Baltic rush, foxtail barley, or switchgrass within a narrow vegetative band between emergent aquatic vegetation and dry upland prairie (Fertig 2000). Vegetative cover tends to range from 75-90 percent and is usually less than 45 cm tall (Fertig 2000). The orchid seems intolerant of shade. Plants usually occur as small scattered groups and occupy relatively small areas within the riparian system. In Wyoming, this species typically blooms from early August to early September, with fruits produced from mid-August to September (Fertig 2000). Leaves persist during flowering (Moseley 1998). Flowers are white or ivory and are clustered into a spike at the top of the stem. No direct observations of pollination have been made in Wyoming. In their 1994 report, Sipes and Tepedino indicated that large, long-tongued bumblebees in the genus Bombus are the primary pollinators in Utah and Colorado (Fertig 2000). Smaller bees may also visit these flowers, but have the incorrect body shape or mass to properly accommodate the orchid’s large, sticky anther/pollen clusters (Fertig 2000). This species reproduces basically by sexual reproduction and can produce as many as 7,300 tiny seeds per fruit (Fertig 2000). The plant requires mycorrhizal fungi to germinate and establish. Individual plants may not flower in consecutive years under adverse environmental conditions but will persist below ground with their mycorrhizal symbionts (Fertig 2000). Flowers are needed for positive plant identification. The species can be reliably located only when it is flowering (Heidel 2001). Plants probably do not flower every year and may remain dormant below ground during drought years. In general, the species’ best flowering years seem to correspond with extreme heat during flowering. Preliminary review of climate data also indicates that growing E2-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E seasons that start out as relatively cold and wet correspond with low flowering levels (Heidel 2001). The orchid is well adapted to disturbances from stream movement and is tolerant of other disturbances such as grazing that are common to grassland riparian habitats (USFWS 1995). Populations are often dynamic and “move” within a watershed as disturbances create new habitat or succession eliminates old habitat (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Ute ladies’-tresses colonize early successional riparian habitats such as point bars, sand bars, and lowlying gravelly, sandy, or cobbley edges, persisting in those areas where the hydrology provides continual dampness in the root zone through the growing season. The orchid has been known to establish in heavily disturbed sites, such as revegetated gravel pits, heavily grazed riparian edges, and along welltraveled foot trails on old berms (USFWS 1995). Existing Environment: Prior to 2005, four orchid populations had been documented within Wyoming, all discovered between 1993 and 1997 (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Four additional sites were located in 2005 and one additional site was found in 2006 (Heidel, 2007). The new locations were in the same drainages or tributaries as the original four populations. Drainages with documented orchid populations include Antelope Creek and tributaries in northern Converse County, Bear Creek in northern Laramie and southern Goshen Counties, Horse Creek in Laramie County, and Niobrara River in Niobrara County. No occurrences have been recorded in Campbell County including the West Coal Creek vegetation general analysis. Areas of potential habitat within the West Coal Creek LBA tract and adjacent study area were surveyed by BKS Environmental Associates, Inc during vegetation and wetland sampling in July 2007. The Coal Creek channel and its tributaries primarily had water present but for the most part lacked hydrophytic wetland vegetation or in some areas no vegetation was present along the steeply incised creek banks, with soils that primarily had clay textures. Potential habitat was traversed on foot during the time of typical flowering of the known population, and it involved walking entire lengths of the drainages documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species. No individuals of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid were located during the 2007 survey. The land within the West Coal Creek LBA tract and adjacent study area is not potential suitable Ute ladies’-tresses habitat. This includes highly disturbed or modified sites, upland habitat types, and sites inundated by standing water. Poor habitat (3.48 acres of Riverine and palustrine wetland channel) within the study area is very limited and is mostly found along the CBNG-impacted bottomlands of the Middle and West Forks of Coal Creek. Poor habitat factors included areas within and immediately adjacent to stream channels and floodplains, less steep stream banks, light soil texture having close lateral or vertical distance (within approximately 18 inches) to perennial Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-11

Appendix E water source during the flowering period, lack of plant competition, lack of general soil alkalinity/salinity, and current or historical management practices that did not promote overgrazing and extensive use of riparian areas. As discussed above, a total of approximately 16.92 acres of wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. occur within the West Coal Creek wetlands analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West Coal Creek LBA tract, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 1, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’­ tresses. Potential habitat for this species on the tract is very limited and found along the CBNG-impacted bottomlands of West Fork, Middle Fork, and East Fork Coal Creek. However, the quality of potential habitat is extremely poor. Outside of the narrow riparian strips located along these impacted watercourses, potential habitat is rare or non-existent in the study area. Multiple surveys of the existing habitat at the Coal Creek Mine and other mines in this area have not found any Ute ladies’-tresses. Because of the ability of this species to persist below ground or above ground without flowering, single season surveys that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect populations. If undetected populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’-tresses within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. Jurisdictional wetlands located in the West Coal Creek LBA tract that are destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as determined by COE. The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the exact function and landscape features of the pre-mine wetlands. COE considers the type and function of each jurisdictional wetland that will be impacted and may require restoration of additional acres if the type and function of the restored wetlands will not completely replace the type and function of the original wetland. Replacement of non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands may be required by the surface land owner and/or WDEQ/LQD. WDEQ/LQD allows and sometimes requires mitigation of non-jurisdictional wetlands affected by mining, depending on the values associated with the wetland features. Cumulative Effects: Alterations of stream morphology and hydrology are believed to have extirpated Ute ladies’-tresses from most of its historical range (USFWS 2002). Disturbance and reclamation of streams by surface coal mining may alter stream morphology and hydrology. The large quantities of water produced with CBNG development and discharged on the surface may also alter stream morphology and hydrology.

E2-12

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E E2-2.2 E2-2.2.1 Endangered Species Black-footed ferret

The black-footed ferret, a nocturnal mammal and an obligate associate of prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), was listed as endangered in March, 1967. This species is thought to have historically inhabited a nearly contiguous matrix of prairie dog colonies spanning the short-grass prairies of the eastern and southern Rockies and the Great Plains of North America (Forrest et al. 1985). Since the early 1930s, numerous factors have led to substantial declines in prairie dog colonies in that region. Reductions in some states are estimated as high as 90% from formerly occupied colonies (Rose 1973, Tyler 1968). Conversion of grasslands to agricultural landscapes, eradication of prairie dogs, and diseases such as the plague and canine distemper have resulted in severe reductions in prairie dog colonies across the west, colonies which provided food, shelter, and habitat for black-footed ferrets. This species of ferret is currently one of the most endangered mammals in North America and was thought to be extinct until a small population was discovered in Meeteetse, Wyoming in September, 1981. Since then, successful captive breeding and reintroduction programs have released black-footed ferrets back into the wild in several western and Great Plains states including Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ferrets rely on prairie dogs to provide both shelter and food (Hillman and Clark 1980). Ferrets produce one litter per year, typically giving birth to four or five kits. The decline in ferret populations has been largely attributed to the reduction in the vast prairie dog colonies that historically existed in the western United States. Despite extensive ferret surveys over the past 20 plus years throughout Wyoming, the last known wild black-footed ferret population was discovered near Meeteetse in 1981 (Miller et al. 1996). Those surveys included numerous USFWS-approved clearances for coal mining and other development in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, as well as the USFS surveys for ferrets on the TBNG. Reintroduction efforts involving captive bred individuals have successfully established one blackfooted ferret population in the Shirley Basin area in south-central Wyoming. Currently, this is the only known black-footed ferret population within the state, though other populations are present elsewhere in the United States and Mexico. Existing Environment: Few ferrets have historically been recorded in locations away from prairie dog colonies. The Coal Creek Mine and LBA study area are beyond the focus area for ferret reintroduction efforts on the nearby Thunder Basin National Grassland and elsewhere in the general region (USFS 2002, Grenier 2003). One small (approximately 34 acres) prairie dog colony is present just south of the BLM study area and its one-mile perimeter (Figure E2-3). As indicated, that colony does not meet the 80-acre minimum, nor does it fall within a larger complex of colonies, to be considered as potential blackFinal EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E2-13

Appendix E footed ferret habitat by the USFWS (1989). Likewise, the colony does not provide sufficient habitat to persistently support individuals or breeding females, whose needs are estimated to be at least 30 and 123.5 acres, respectively (Forrest et al. 1985). Ferrets have never been documented at Coal Creek Mine or in the surrounding region during surveys conducted over the last 20 plus years by a variety of private, state, and federal entities. The lack of black-footed ferret observations and scat in the BLM study area leads to the conclusion that ferrets are not present in the area. On 2 February 2004, the USFWS declared that surveys for black-footed ferrets are no longer required in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming (file letter ES­ 61411/BFF/WY7746). Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the West Coal Creek LBA tract, should the tract be leased under the Proposed Action Alternative, will have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the documented absence of this species in the region, including the LBA study area, during specific surveys for this species, the isolated nature and small size of the lone colony within the LBA survey area, the block clearance issued by the USFWS for black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout the entire state, and the location of the LBA area beyond future reintroduction sites, mining the LBA area will not result in any direct or indirect effects on black-footed ferrets. Cumulative Effects: As indicated, coal mining and natural gas development have occurred in the general project area for more than 20 years, with energy extraction activities expected to increase in the immediate future. Leasing and mining the West Coal Creek LBA tract would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects to black-footed ferrets within either the study area or region. No black-footed ferret populations exist within northeastern Wyoming. The USFWS issued a block clearance for this species in black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout the state. The LBA study area and surrounding perimeter are beyond the focus area for future ferret reintroduction efforts in the general region (USFS 2002, Grenier 2003). Furthermore, the Proposed Action Alternative would not conflict with any future objectives to manage the area for, or reintroduce black-footed ferrets into, northeast Wyoming. Potential ferret habitat is also affected by other impacts to prairie dog populations. Plague can infect and eliminate entire prairie dog colonies. Poisoning and recreational prairie dog shooting may locally reduce prairie dog populations, but seldom completely eliminate colonies. E2-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon Blowout Penstemon, a on October 1, 1987. Nebraska and in the Wyoming. The plant rediscovered in 1996 reduction of grazing, E2-14 member of the figwort family, was listed as endangered It is known from multiple populations in western Ferris dunes area in northwestern Carbon County, was first discovered in Wyoming in 1877 and then (BLM 2008). The removal of fire, leveling of dunes, and cultivation of stabilizing cover crops drastically Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E reduced the amount of habitat available for this species. Loss of habitat, coupled with impacts from insect outbreaks, drought, inbreeding, and potential over collection, has caused problems for the plant (University of Wyoming 2009). Only 3,500-5,000 plants are currently found in Nebraska at about a dozen sites. The Wyoming population is limited to three sites in northern Carbon County that contain several thousand plants (BLM 2008). Threats to the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic (USFWS 2008b). Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2 to 6 inches long and has six to ten compact whorls of milky-blue to pale lavender flowers. This species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current know range in Wyoming is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 percent vegetative cover; and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active blowouts with 25 to 40 percent vegetative cover (USFWS 2008b). Existing Environment: The West Coal Creek LBA tract is not within the documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. It is located approximately 150 miles northwest of the Nebraska known occurrences and approximately 150 miles northeast of the Wyoming occurrences. No suitable sand dunes (whether stable or blownout) are currently present on the West Coal vegetation general analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, would have no effect on blowout penstemon. Typical suitable habitat for this species on the tract is non-existent. If undetected populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for blowout penstemon within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. Cumulative Effects: This species is potentially vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation resulting from sand mining, water development, energy development, ORV use, and associated destabilization of its sand dune habitat. It also could be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of non­ native species within its range. E2-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS

Table E2-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in the area of the West Coal Creek LBA tract that may result from implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E2-15

Appendix E Table E2-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the West Coal Creek LBA Tracts. Species Common Name Ute ladies’-tresses Black-footed ferret Blowout Penstemon Potential Effects May affect1 No effect No effect

Status Threatened: Endangered: Endangered:
1

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations.

E2-4.0 E2-4.1

CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming

Gwyn McKee Ms. McKee obtained a Master of Science degree in Wildlife Ecology/Management from the University of Missouri-Columbia. She has accumulated nearly 20 years of professional experience, with the last 14 spent working with the energy industry in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. Ms. McKee has conducted the wildlife surveys and impact analyses for most of the surface coal mines in the Powder River Basin during her tenure in Wyoming, including two of the three properties analyzed in the South Gillette Area Coal EIS. She has also provided and/or reviewed the pertinent text related to impact assessments for vertebrate species of concern for most of the coal EISs that have been prepared in the Powder River Basin since 2000. Jennifer Ottinger Ms. Ottinger received a B.S. in Zoology from Colorado State University in 1993, with a minor in Microbiology. She has 12 years of professional experience with a variety of vertebrate species, including surveys for sage-grouse and mountain plovers, though her work has focused on raptors during that period. Ms. Ottinger has worked throughout the U.S. and abroad. She joined Jones & Stokes as a Wildlife Biologist in 2004. She has strong raptor identification and handling skills, research experience, proven abilities in data analysis and technical writing, and has presented and/or published several articles in a variety of professional meetings and publications, respectively. E2-4.2 BKS Environmental Associates, Inc of Gillette, Wyoming

Dr. Brenda K. Schladweiler Dr. Brenda K. Schladweiler obtained her Ph.D. in Soil Science from the University of Wyoming, 2003. M.S. in Soil Science from University of Wyoming 1995, and B.S. Range Management (Land Rehabilitation) from Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 1980. E2-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E Dr. Schladweiler has extensive experience over the last 26 years in conducting rare plant surveys. The following is a list of recent threatened and endangered plant studies she has conducted: Location
Wharf Mine, Lawrence Co., SD Ferris Haggerty Mine, Carbon Co., WY Crow AML, Big Horn Co., MT Caballo Mine Wright Clinic AML, Campbell Co., WY Kane Environmental, Campbell Co., WY Atlantic City Mine, Knight Piesold, Fremont Co., WY Eagle Butte Mine, Campbell Co., WY West Antelope Mine, Converse Co., WY BRS, Bighorn Basin Water Project, Washakie Co., WY URS, Transmission Line, Campbell Co., WY Wright, (bike path) Campbell Co., WY Gillette, PCA sewer line, Campbell Co., WY Gillette, PCA trunk line, Campbell Co., WY Pinehaven (Wester-Wetstein), Crook Co., WY Spotted Horse, (CBMA CH4), Campbell Co., WY Bowers Oil (Antelope Creek)Campbell/ Converse Co., WY Gillette, PCA Swanson Rd., Campbell Co., WY North Rochelle Mine USFS Survey, Campbell Co., WY Westport Oil & Gas, Nicholson POD, Campbell Co., WY Devon Energy, Mustang POD, Campbell Co., WY NARM, Beckwith Rd., Campbell Co., WY Yates Petroleum, Campbell Co., WY

Date
1992 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000

Plants Surveyed
Various, State of SD Heritage Plants Various, State of WY Various, State of MT Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Various, State of Wyoming Plant Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Various USFS Sensitive Species for TBNG Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis; various USFS Sensitive Species for TBNG Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis

2001 2001 2001 2001 2002­ 2004 2002­ 2004 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

PRCC, Ridgeroad USFS, Campbell Co., WY Lance, Black Thunder POD, Campbell Co., WY Devon Energy, Mulie POD, Campbell Co., WY Devon Energy Whitetail POD, Campbell Co., WY Devon Energy, Bighorn POD, Campbell Co., WY

2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E2-17

Appendix E Numerous actions have been taken by Dr. Schladweiler to become acquainted with the known locations and the appearance of Spiranthes diluvialis. Research has been conducted through the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and the Internet for sensitive plants. In addition, she has actually visited the population on the Unnamed Tributary to Antelope Creek numerous times over the last approximate 10 years. This known population verification was completed as part of a field survey conducted for Yates Petroleum Company in the Rochelle Hills POD, Campbell County, Wyoming on August 29, 2004. She has also visited the known population near Chugwater, Wyoming. Dr. Schladweiler on numerous occasions has been in contact with Mr. Ernie Nelson, University of Wyoming, Rocky Mountain Herbarium, and George Jones, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. In addition, she has consulted with Mr. Walt Fertig, previously from the University of Wyoming. Katie Halvorson Katie Halvorson holds a B.S. in Environmental Studies with a minor in Biology from Bemidji State University, Bemidji, Minnesota (2005). Ms. Halvorson has been employed by BKS Environmental since the spring of 2005. She has been conducting mineland reclamation monitoring for various coal mines in Campbell and Converse County, Wyoming since her employment. She has also performed vegetation sampling for numerous CBM projects and baseline vegetation surveys in the Powder River Basin. In addition, she has conducted rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, and environmental compliance assessments. Threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive plant survey experience includes:
         

Visited a tributary of Antelope Creek and observed a Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid) population. 2005. Powder River Coal LLC – North Antelope Rochelle Mine Umbrella Botany Evaluation, in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005. Powder River Coal LLC – Gold Mine Draw AVF Exchange – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey, in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005. West Roundup Resources, Inc. – School Creek Mine – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005 and 2006. Devon Energy Corporation – Juniper Draw Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Johnson County, Wyoming. 2005. Devon Energy Corporation – Crossroads Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Johnson County, Wyoming. 2005. Marathon Oil Company – Knudson 9 Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. Marathon Oil Company – Twenty Mile Butte Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. Marathon Oil Company – West Innes 27 Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. Rio Tinto Energy America – Antelope Mine – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid habitat survey in Converse County, Wyoming. 2007. Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E2-18

Appendix E Cindy Robinson Cindy Robinson holds a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and a B.S. in Environmental Science from the University of Denver, Denver, Colorado (2005). Ms. Robinson has been employed by BKS Environmental since April of 2006. She has been conducting mineland reclamation monitoring for various coal mines in Campbell County, Wyoming during the last year. In addition, she has conducted rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, and environmental compliance assessments. Ms. Robinson has also visited an Astragalus barrii site, on USFS lands at the proposed School Creek Mine area when the species was blooming. Threatened and endangered and sensitive plant survey experience includes:
   

West Roundup Resources, Inc., – School Creek Mine – Barr's Milkvetch survey in Campbell County, Wyoming, 2006. West Roundup Resources, Inc., – School Creek Mine – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming, 2006. Thunder Basin Coal Company, Black Thunder Mine – West Hilight – Barr's Milkvetch survey, August 2006. Wellstar Corporation (Jones and Stokes), Ute Ladies Tresses orchid survey, 2007.

Jamie Eberly Jamie Eberly holds a B.S. in Range Management, Rangeland Livestock Option with a Business Administrations minor from Chadron State College, Chadron, Nebraska (2005). Ms. Eberly has been employed by BKS Environmental since the fall of 2006. She has been conducting mineland reclamation monitoring for various coal mines in Campbell and Converse County, Wyoming since her employment. She has also performed vegetation sampling for numerous CBM projects and baseline vegetation surveys in the Powder River Basin. In addition, she has conducted rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, and environmental compliance assessments. Threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive plant survey experience includes:
	

Williams Production Company, West Cripple Creek POD, Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2007.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	

E2-19

SECTION 3
 CABALLO WEST LBA TRACT

Appendix E E3-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES E3-1.1 The Proposed Action

On March 15, 2006, Caballo Coal Company (CCC) filed an application with the BLM to lease federal coal reserves in a tract located west of and immediately adjacent to the Caballo Mine (Figure E-1). The tract was assigned case file number WYW172657. Under the Proposed Action for the Caballo West LBA tract, the tract as applied for by CCC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale. The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the Caballo West LBA tract lease application (Figure E3-1). The Proposed Action assumes that CCC will be the successful bidder on the Caballo West LBA tract if it is offered for sale. The legal description of the proposed Caballo West LBA tract coal lease lands as applied for by CCC under the Proposed Action is as follows: T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 7: Lots 12, 19; Section 8: Lot 10; Section 17: Lots 1 through 10, 11 (N½, SE¼), 12 (NE¼), 15 (N½, SE¼), 16; Section 18: Lot 5, 12 (NE¼); 52.32 acres 81.86 acres 777.49 acres 81.88 acres 39.67 acres

521.76 acres

Section 20: Lots 1, 2 (NE¼), 8 (N½, SE¼). Total:

The coal estate underlying this tract described above is owned by the federal government and administered by the BLM. The surface estate of the tract is privately owned. The federal surface estate is administered by BLM. Surface ownership is shown in Figure E3-2. The tract as applied for includes approximately 777.49 mineable acres. It is assumed that an area larger than the tract would have to be disturbed in order to recover all of the coal in the tract. The disturbances outside of the tract would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. CCC estimates that the tract as proposed includes approximately 98.2 million tons of in-place coal and 87.5 million tons of mineable coal. Using CCC’s

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E3-1

Appendix E
11

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
S ta
13

8

9

10

11

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
Fairview Road

8

9

10

Union Chappel Road
18 17 16 15 14

ay ighw te H

14

13

18

17

16

15

R SF BN R

59
24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22

23

26

25

30

Four Corners R oad

29

28

27

26

25

30

29

28

27

T. 49 N. T. 48 N.

35

36

31

32

33

34

35

36

31

32

33

34

T. 49 N. T. 48 N.

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

6

5

4

3

11

12

7

8

9

10

11

12

7

8

9

10

op sh Bi Ro ad
17 16 15 14 13 17 16 15

14

13

18

18

23

24

19

20

21

22

23

24

19

BNSF RR

20

21

22

26

25

30

29

28

27

26

25

B

F& NS 30

RR UP

29

28

27

ay 5 9

T. 48 N.

S tate H ighw

35

36

31

32

33

34

35

36

31

32

33

34

T. 48 N. T. 47 N.

Bishop Road
1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3

T. 2 47 C reek N. Hoe
Road

11

12

7

8

9

10

11

12

7

8

9

10

14

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

17

16

15

14

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
13 18

17

16

15

LEGEND
Caballo Mine Permit Boundary Existing Caballo Mine Federal Coal Leases Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for
0 5000 10000 20000

BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2), BLM's Preferred Alternative

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure E3-1. Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives.

E3-2

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
35 36 31 32 33 34 35

T. 49 N. T. 48 N.

Four Corners Road

T. 49 N. T. 48 N.

T isdale
2

Cr ee k

1

6

5

4

3

2

11

12

7

8

9

10

11

op sh Bi Ro ad

ighw ay 5

9

14

13

18

17

16

15

14

S tate H

le da Tis
Cr ee k
21 22

23

24

19

20

23

26

25

30

29

28

27

26

e B on
le Pi

C aballo
36 31 32 33

Cre

ek

k ee Cr

T. 48 N. T. 47 N.

35

34

35

T. 48 N. T. 47 N.

allo C ab
2

Cree k

1

6

5

4

3

2

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

LEGEND
Caballo Mine Permit Boundary Caballo West LBA Tract as Applied for BLM's Study Area Foundation Coal West, Inc. James F. Rourke etal
0 3000 6000 12000

Paul D. Rourke Living Trust

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure E3-2. Surface Ownership Within the Caballo West LBA Tract Alternatives.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E3-3

Appendix E projected recovery factor of 93.5 percent, the tract would contain about 81.8 million tons of recoverable coal. E3-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

E3-1.2.1 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the application to lease the coal included in the Caballo West LBA tract would be rejected, the tract would not be offered for competitive sale, and the coal included in the tract would not be mined. This would not affect permitted mining activities and employment on the existing leases at Caballo Mine and would not preclude an application to lease the federal coal included in the Caballo West LBA tract in the future. No additional surface of the Caballo West LBA tract would be disturbed due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the adjacent existing leases. E3-1.2.2 Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2 for the Caballo West LBA tract, BLM would reconfigure the tract, hold a competitive coal sale for the lands included in the reconfigured tract, and issue a lease to the successful bidder. In evaluating the Caballo West coal lease application, BLM identified a study area, which includes unleased federal coal adjacent to the southwestern edge of the tract as applied for (Figure E3-1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be added to the tract to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the tract, and/or reduce the potential that some of the potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed in the future if it is not included in the Caballo West LBA tract. The modified tract would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and this tract if it is offered for sale, as discussed above. Alternative 2, holding a competitive coal sale for a modified tract, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 for the Caballo West LBA tract assumes that CCC would be the successful bidder on the tract if a lease sale is held and that the tract would be developed as a maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent Caballo Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. The lands that BLM is considering adding to the tract are: T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 17: Lots 11 (SW¼), 12 (NW¼, S½), 15 (SW¼); Section 18: Lot 12 (NW¼, S½), 13; Section 20: Lots 2 (NW¼, S½), 8 (SW¼); Section 21: Lots 11, 12. E3-4 51.42 acres 72.82 acres 41.02 acres 81.25 acres Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E Total: 246.51 acres

The legal description of BLM’s reconfiguration of the Caballo West LBA tract
 under Alternative 2 is as follows: T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 7: Lots 12, 19; Section 8: Lot 10; Section 17: Lots 1 through 12, 15, 16; Section 18: Lot 5, 12, 13; Section 20: Lots 1, 2, 8. Section 21: Lots 11, 12. Total: 81.88 acres 39.67 acres 573.18 acres 125.14 acres 122.88 acres 81.25 acres 1,024.00 acres

Some of the coal in Caballo West LBA tract under this alternative is not currently considered to be mineable due to the presence of the Bishop Road (County Road 12). A portion the Bishop Road overlies some of the coal included in the tract under Alternative 2. As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.1, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 ft on either side of the right-of-way of any public road (43 CFR 3461). There would also be a quantity of coal south of the Bishop Road that would be isolated from the mining operations if the coal under the road was not mined. The coal underlying the portion of the Bishop Road, its right-of-way, and the estimated layback needed on both sides of the county road to safely recover the coal (including the 100 ft buffer zone) within the Caballo West LBA tract under Alternative 2 could be mined if the Campbell County Board of Commissioners, the authorized agency, determines that the road can be moved [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. CCC is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the road at this time. CCC estimates that the reconfigured tract includes approximately 131.4 million tons of in-place coal and approximately 98.1 million tons of mineable coal. Using CCC’s projected recovery factor of 93.5 percent, the reconfigured tract would contain about 91.7 million tons of recoverable coal. E3-2.0 	 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The Caballo Mine began producing coal in 1978. Wildlife monitoring has been conducted annually for the mine since 1986. This wildlife monitoring was designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal requirements for annual monitoring and reporting of wildlife activity on coal mining areas. Detailed Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	 E3-5

Appendix E procedures and site-specific requirements have been carried out as approved by WGFD and USFWS. The monitoring program was conducted in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Because the areas covered in the wildlife surveys included the mine’s permit area and a large perimeter around the permit boundary, the entire Caballo West LBA tract has been included in baseline inventories and annual wildlife surveys conducted for the Caballo Mine since wildlife studies began in the early 1970s. The approved Caballo Mine Permit 433 Term T5 (CCC 2003) includes monitoring and mitigation measures for the Caballo Mine that are required by Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and Wyoming State Law. If the Caballo West LBA tract is acquired by CCC, these monitoring and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract when the Caballo Mine’s mining permit is amended to include the tract. This amended permit would have to be approved before mining operations could take place on the tract. These monitoring and mitigation measures are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 during the leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. Background information on T&E species in the vicinity of the Caballo West LBA tract was drawn from several sources, including: wildlife survey reports submitted by the Caballo Mine to the WDEQ/LQD from 1974 through 2005, the Final South Powder River Basin Coal EIS (BLM 2003), the Final South Powder River Basin Coal EIS (BLM 2003), the Maysdorf Coal FEIS (BLM 2007), a Wyoming Natural Diversity Database search (University of Wyoming 2001), and from WGFD and USFWS records and contacts in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the Caballo West LBA tract wildlife study area falls within the wildlife monitoring area for the nearby Belle Ayr Mine (Figure E3-1). Site-specific data for a substantial portion of the tract as applied for and the study area for Alternative 2 were obtained from several sources, including WDEQ/LQD permit applications and annual wildlife reports for the Caballo Mine and other nearby coal mines. Baseline wildlife studies were conducted by Thunderbird-Jones & Stokes, (TJS) expressly for the Caballo West LBA tract beginning in April of 2004 and continuing through December of 2004. Figure TJS surveyed T&E animal species within 2 miles of the Caballo West LBA tract. The Caballo West LBA tract is in an area of gently rolling terrain of moderate relief influenced by Tisdale Creek and its tributaries. Elevations range from 4,532 to 4,704 ft within the LBA tract and from 4,532 to 4,572 ft within the area added under Alternative 2. Within the LBA tract and the area added under Alternative 2, slopes range from flat to over 26 percent in the central portion of the tract. The slopes of the gently rolling uplands, which comprise most (about 60 percent) of the LBA tract, seldom exceed 4.5 percent. A slope analysis would be done for the LBA tract if a lease sale is held and it is proposed for mining.

E3-6

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E Predominant wildlife habitat types classified on the LBA tract and adjacent area correspond with the major plant communities defined during the vegetation baseline study and consist primarily of big and silver sagebrush, cropland, and grassland. Other habitats present in limited extent include disturbance and bottomlands. Networks of road, pipeline, tank battery, and well-pad disturbance areas associated with oil and gas development overlay much of the study area. The Caballo West LBA tract consists predominantly of upland topography between Tisdale and Caballo Creeks, although a portion of Tisdale Creek overlies an AVF. Tisdale Creek flows roughly east-southeast through the northern portion of the tract. Tisdale Creek is now interrupted to the north of the Caballo West LBA tract by Caballo’s T7 Reservoir, from where water is pumped around the mine to Gold Mine Draw. Gold Mine Draw and North Tisdale Creek are tributaries to Tisdale Creek, which is a tributary to Caballo Creek and the Belle Fourche River. All streams, including Tisdale Creek, within and adjacent to the tract are typical for the region, in that flow events are ephemeral. Stream runoff is typically of short duration and exhibits temporal patterns similar to precipitation events. All streams in the region show the characteristic extreme low-flow period from October through January. Flow events frequently result from snowmelt during the late winter and early spring. Although peak discharges from such events are generally small, the duration and corresponding percentage of annual runoff volume can be considerable. During the spring, general storms (both rain and snow) increase soil moisture which decreases infiltration capacity, and subsequent rainstorms can result in both large runoff volumes and high peak discharges. Portions of Tisdale Creek downstream of the Caballo Mine receive recharge from bank storage (groundwater stored in the alluvium and bedrock along the stream channel) creating intermittent reaches. Caballo West LBA Tract Wetlands Wetland inventories have been completed and confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on those portions of Caballo Creek and its tributaries that lie within the adjacent Caballo Mine’s existing permit area. A large portion of the Caballo West LBA tract is within Caballo Mine’s permit area; therefore, a wetland inventory on Tisdale Creek that lies within the BLM study area for the LBA tract has been conducted and is included in the mine’s approved mine permit. Figure S3-6 in the Supplementary Information document depicts the wetlands analysis area for the Caballo West LBA tract, which includes the BLM study area for the LBA tract plus a ¼-mile disturbance buffer around the study area sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the Caballo Mine operation. Caballo Mine conducted a preliminary wetlands inventory in 2007, based on USFWS NWI mapping and vegetation mapping in the field, on the portions of Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-7

Appendix E the wetlands analysis area that are outside of the current Caballo Mine permit area. A formal wetland delineation survey would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mining and reclamation permit process, if the tract is leased and proposed for mining. Based on preliminary wetlands mapping completed in 2007 and earlier wetland delineation confirmed by the COE, a total of approximately 15.0 acres of Waters of the U.S., including a total of 8.63 acres of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., occur within the entire wetlands analysis area. Approximately 6.51 of those acres are jurisdictional wetlands that occur along the water courses of Tisdale Creek. The 2.12 acres of jurisdictional other Waters of the U.S. that did not qualify as wetlands consist primarily of open water that is held within the in-channel impoundments along Tisdale Creek. The internally drained playa located near the center of Section 7, T.48N., R.71W., adjacent to the LBA tract as applied for and within the wetlands analysis area, was delineated in 1996 as a jurisdictional wetland, but was later declared non-jurisdictional by the COE following a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (No. 99-1178, January 9, 2001). Approximately 6.37 acres of non-jurisdictional wetlands are included in this playa. Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area there is no “critical” habitat designated by USFWS for T&E species. The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the Caballo West LBA tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 on federal T&E species. E3-2.1 Threatened Species

E3-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses Ute ladies’-tresses, a member of the orchid family, was listed as threatened on January 17, 1992, due to a variety of factors, including habitat loss and modification, hydrological modifications of existing and potential habitat areas, and invasion of exotic plant species. At the time of listing, Ute ladies’-tresses was only known from Colorado, Utah, and extreme eastern Nevada. Ute ladies’­ tresses orchids were discovered in Wyoming in 1993. It is currently known from western Nebraska, eastern Wyoming, north-central Colorado, northeastern and southern Utah, east-central and southeastern Idaho, southwestern Montana, and central Washington. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12 to 50 cm tall arising from tuberous-thickened roots. Ute ladies’-tresses occurs primarily on moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams. The elevation range of known occurrences is 4,200 to 7,000 feet in alluvial substrates along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, and moist to wet meadows. Most populations are found on alluvial E3-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E sand, coarse silt, or whitish loamy clay with a slightly basic pH. These soils are derived from Quaternary alluvial deposits or drab Eocene- age sandstones and claystones (Fertig 2000). Ute ladies’-tresses is not found in heavy, tight clay soils, saline, or alkaline soils. This orchid can be commonly associated with horsetail, milkweed, verbena, blue-eyed grass, reedgrass, goldenrod, bentgrass, and arrowgrass (USFWS 2005). Wyoming populations often occur in moist meadow communities dominated by redtop, common quackgrass, Baltic rush, foxtail barley, or switchgrass within a narrow vegetative band between emergent aquatic vegetation and dry upland prairie (Fertig 2000). Vegetative cover tends to range from 75-90 percent and is usually less than 45 cm tall (Fertig 2000). The orchid seems intolerant of shade. Plants usually occur as small scattered groups and occupy relatively small areas within the riparian system. In Wyoming, this species typically blooms from early August to early September, with fruits produced from mid-August to September (Fertig 2000). Leaves persist during flowering (Moseley 1998). Flowers are white or ivory and are clustered into a spike at the top of the stem. No direct observations of pollination have been made in Wyoming. In their 1994 report, Sipes and Tepedino indicated that large, long-tongued bumblebees in the genus Bombus are the primary pollinators in Utah and Colorado (Fertig 2000). Smaller bees may also visit these flowers, but have the incorrect body shape or mass to properly accommodate the orchid’s large, sticky anther/pollen clusters (Fertig 2000). This species reproduces basically by sexual reproduction and can produce as many as 7,300 tiny seeds per fruit (Fertig 2000). The plant requires mycorrhizal fungi to germinate and establish. Individual plants may not flower in consecutive years under adverse environmental conditions but will persist below ground with their mycorrhizal symbionts (Fertig 2000). Flowers are needed for positive plant identification. The species can be reliably located only when it is flowering (Heidel 2001). Plants probably do not flower every year and may remain dormant below ground during drought years. In general, the species’ best flowering years seem to correspond with extreme heat during flowering. Preliminary review of climate data also indicates that growing seasons that start out as relatively cold and wet correspond with low flowering levels (Heidel 2001). The orchid is well adapted to disturbances from stream movement and is tolerant of other disturbances such as grazing that are common to grassland riparian habitats (USFWS 1995). Populations are often dynamic and “move” within a watershed as disturbances create new habitat or succession eliminates old habitat (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Ute ladies’-tresses colonize early successional riparian habitats such as point bars, sand bars, and lowlying gravelly, sandy, or cobbley edges, persisting in those areas where the hydrology provides continual dampness in the root zone through the growing Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-9

Appendix E season. The orchid has been known to establish in heavily disturbed sites, such as revegetated gravel pits, heavily grazed riparian edges, and along welltraveled foot trails on old berms (USFWS 1995). Existing Environment: Prior to 2005, four orchid populations had been documented within Wyoming, all discovered between 1993 and 1997 (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Four additional sites were located in 2005 and one additional site was found in 2006 (Heidel, 2007). The new locations were in the same drainages or tributaries as the original four populations. Drainages with documented orchid populations include Antelope Creek and tributaries in northern Converse County, Bear Creek in northern Laramie and southern Goshen Counties, Horse Creek in Laramie County, and Niobrara River in Niobrara County. No occurrences have been recorded in Campbell County including the Caballo West vegetation general analysis. Areas of suitable habitat within the Caballo West LBA tract and adjacent study area were surveyed by BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. in the latter half of August 2007. Topographical and wetland delineation maps for the study area were reviewed to identify all drainages that may contain the orchid. Suitable habitat factors included less steep stream banks, light soil texture and well drained soils, close lateral or vertical distance to perennial water source during the flowering period, lack of plant competition, lack of general soil alkalinity/salinity, and current or historical management practices that did not promote overgrazing and extensive use of riparian areas. Suitable habitat was traversed on foot during the time of actual flowering of the known population, and it involved walking entire lengths of the drainages documenting locations of potential habitat and searching for this species. No individuals of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid were located during the 2007 survey. Most of the habitat suitable for Ute ladies’-tresses orchid within the Caballo West LBA tract and adjacent study area is found within the Lowland Grassland vegetation type. This area covers 21.6 acres of the Caballo West LBA tract. The ephemeral drainage containing Lowland Grassland generally flows from south to north through the northern portion of the Caballo West LBA tract. In response to surface discharge of groundwater associated with CBNG development within the drainage, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, streamflow occurrence is now more persistent and the drainage channel is seldom completely dry. A total of 8.63 acres of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., occur within the entire wetlands analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Caballo West LBA tract, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies’­ tresses. Marginal habitat for this species is present within the Lowland Grassland vegetation type only. Surveys of the existing suitable habitat at the Caballo Mine and other mines in this area have not found any Ute ladies’­ tresses. Because of the ability of this species to persist below ground or above ground without flowering, single season surveys that meet the current USFWS E3-10 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E survey guidelines may not detect populations. If undetected populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’-tresses within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. Jurisdictional wetlands located in the Caballo West LBA tract that are destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the exact function and landscape features of the pre-mine wetlands. COE considers the type and function of each jurisdictional wetland that will be impacted and may require restoration of additional acres if the type and function of the restored wetlands will not completely replace the type and function of the original wetland. Replacement of non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands may be required by the surface landowner and/or WDEQ/LQD. WDEQ/LQD allows and sometimes requires mitigation of nonjurisdictional wetlands affected by mining, depending on the values associated with the wetland features. WDEQ/LQD also requires replacement of playas with hydrologic significance. Cumulative Effects: Alterations of stream morphology and hydrology are believed to have extirpated Ute ladies’-tresses from most of its historical range (USFWS 2002). Disturbance and reclamation of streams by surface coal mining may alter stream morphology and hydrology. The large quantities of water produced with CBNG development and discharged on the surface may also alter stream morphology and hydrology. E3-2.2 Endangered Species E3-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret The black-footed ferret, a nocturnal mammal and an obligate associate of prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), was listed as endangered in March, 1967. This species is thought to have historically inhabited a nearly contiguous matrix of prairie dog colonies spanning the short-grass prairies of the eastern and southern Rockies and the Great Plains of North America (Forrest et al. 1985). Since the early 1930s, numerous factors have led to substantial declines in prairie dog colonies in that region. Reductions in some states are estimated as high as 90% from formerly occupied colonies (Rose 1973, Tyler 1968). Conversion of grasslands to agricultural landscapes, eradication of prairie dogs, and diseases such as the plague and canine distemper have resulted in severe reductions in prairie dog colonies across the west, colonies which provided food, shelter, and habitat for black-footed ferrets. This species of ferret is currently one of the most endangered mammals in North America and was thought to be extinct until a small population was discovered in Meeteetse, Wyoming in September, 1981. Since then, successful captive breeding and Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-11

Appendix E reintroduction programs have released black-footed ferrets back into the wild in several western and Great Plains states including Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ferrets rely on prairie dogs to provide both shelter and food (Hillman and Clark 1980). Ferrets produce one litter per year, typically giving birth to four or five kits. The decline in ferret populations has been largely attributed to the reduction in the vast prairie dog colonies that historically existed in the western United States. Despite extensive ferret surveys over the past 20 plus years throughout Wyoming, the last known wild black-footed ferret population was discovered near Meeteetse in 1981 (Miller et al. 1996). Those surveys included numerous USFWS-approved clearances for coal mining and other development in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, as well as the USFS surveys for ferrets on the TBNG. Reintroduction efforts involving captive bred individuals have successfully established one blackfooted ferret population in the Shirley Basin area in south-central Wyoming. Currently, this is the only known black-footed ferret population within the state, though other populations are present elsewhere in the United States and Mexico. Existing Environment: The Caballo West LBA tract is within the historical range of the black-footed ferret, although no black-footed ferrets are presently known to occur in northeastern Wyoming. During the 1980s, WGFD, in cooperation with other agencies, conducted searches for black-footed ferrets in Wyoming in the places they were most likely to be found, but these searches were not successful (Martin Grenier, personal communication, 10/14/2003). In a February 2, 2004 letter to interested parties, the USFWS declared that black-footed ferret surveys are no longer necessary in black-tailed prairie dog colonies within Wyoming. TJS has mapped the current acreage of prairie dog colonies in the vicinity of the Caballo Mine by walking the perimeters of colonies and delineating them on topographic maps. No black-tailed prairie dog colonies are currently present within the Caballo West wildlife general analysis area. No evidence of ferrets has been recorded during general or specific ferret surveys over conducted by wildlife consultants for the Caballo Mine and other mines in this area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Caballo West LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. Given the documented absence of black-footed ferrets in the region, including the general analysis area during specific surveys for this species, the block clearance issued by USFWS for black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout the entire state, and the distance of the LBA area from future reintroduction sites, mining the generally analysis area will not result in any direct or indirect effects on black-footed ferrets (USFWS 2004).

E3-12

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E Mine activities include, but are not limited to, large-scale topsoil stripping, the intense presence of heavy machinery, extended human presence, loud noise and various linear disturbances such as roads, power lines and fences. Additionally, ongoing disturbance (grazing, oil and gas production, etc.) from sources unrelated to mining would likely continue, with some activities occurring within prairie dog colonies in the area. These activities would result in less habitat disturbance than surface mining, but physical disturbance would occur. Based on more than 20 years of historic and recent survey efforts and other general analysis area data and information, it is unlikely that ferrets exist in the Belle Ayr North wildlife general analysis area. Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog colonies is a leading cause of ferret habitat loss in the PRB. Surface coal mining tends to have more intense impacts on fairly localized areas, while oil and gas development tends to be less intensive but spread over larger areas. Oil and gas development and mining activities have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as resources are depleted. In reclaimed areas, vegetation cover may differ from undisturbed areas. In the case of surface coal mines, re-established vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by WDEQ). The majority of the approved plant species are native to the area; however, reclaimed areas may not serve ecosystem functions presently served by undisturbed vegetation communities and habitats, particularly in the short-term, when species composition, shrub cover, and other environmental factors are likely to be different. Shifts in habitat composition or distribution following reclamation could increase or decrease potential habitat for prairie dogs and associated habitat for black-footed ferrets. However, black-tailed prairie dogs have been recorded invading and establishing towns on reclaimed coal mined lands in northeastern Wyoming (IR 2005). Potential ferret habitat is also affected by other impacts to prairie dog populations. Plague can infect and eliminate entire prairie dog colonies. Poisoning and recreational prairie dog shooting may locally reduce prairie dog populations, but seldom completely eliminate colonies. E3-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon Blowout Penstemon, a member of the figwort family, was listed as endangered on October 1, 1987. It is known from multiple populations in western Nebraska and in the Ferris dunes area in northwestern Carbon County, Wyoming. The plant was first discovered in Wyoming in 1877 and then rediscovered in 1996 (BLM 2008). The removal of fire, leveling of dunes, reduction of grazing, and cultivation of stabilizing cover crops drastically reduced the amount of habitat available for this species. Loss of habitat, coupled with impacts from insect outbreaks, drought, inbreeding, and potential over collection, has caused problems for the plant (University of Wyoming Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E3-13

Appendix E 2009). Only 3,500-5,000 plants are currently found in Nebraska at about a dozen sites. The Wyoming population is limited to three sites in northern Carbon County that contain several thousand plants (BLM 2008). Threats to the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic (USFWS 2008b). Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2 to 6 inches long and has six to ten compact whorls of milky-blue to pale lavender flowers. This species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current know range in Wyoming is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 percent vegetative cover; and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active blowouts with 25 to 40 percent vegetative cover (USFWS 2008b). Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial, perennial herb with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2 to 6 inches long and has six to ten compact whorls of milky-blue to pale lavender flowers. This species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current know range in Wyoming is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 percent vegetative cover; and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active blowouts with 25 to 40 percent vegetative cover (USFWS 2008b). Existing Environment: The Caballo West LBA tract is not within the documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. It is located approximately 150 miles northwest of the Nebraska known occurrences and approximately 150 miles northeast of the Wyoming occurrences. No suitable sand dunes (whether stable or blownout) are currently present on the Caballo West vegetation general analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, would have no effect on blowout penstemon. Typical suitable habitat for this species on the tract is non-existent. If undetected populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for blowout penstemon within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. Cumulative Effects: This species is potentially vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation resulting from sand mining, water development, energy development, ORV use, and associated destabilization of its sand dune habitat. It also could be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of non­ native species within its range.

E3-14

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E E3-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS

Table E3-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in the area of the Caballo West LBA tract that may result from implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative. Table E3-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the Caballo West LBA Tracts. Species Common Name Ute ladies’-tresses Black-footed ferret Blowout Penstemon Potential Effects May affect1 No effect No effect

Status Threatened: Endangered: Endangered:
1

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations.

E3-4.0 E3-4.1

CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL Jones & Stokes of Gillette, Wyoming

Gwyn McKee Ms. McKee obtained a Master of Science degree in Wildlife Ecology/Management from the University of Missouri-Columbia. She has accumulated nearly 20 years of professional experience, with the last 14 spent working with the energy industry in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. Ms. McKee has conducted the wildlife surveys and impact analyses for most of the surface coal mines in the Powder River Basin during her tenure in Wyoming, including two of the three properties analyzed in the South Gillette Area Coal EIS. She has also provided and/or reviewed the pertinent text related to impact assessments for vertebrate species of concern for most of the coal EISs that have been prepared in the Powder River Basin since 2000. Jennifer Ottinger Ms. Ottinger received a B.S. in Zoology from Colorado State University in 1993, with a minor in Microbiology. She has 12 years of professional experience with a variety of vertebrate species, including surveys for sage-grouse and mountain plovers, though her work has focused on raptors during that period. Ms. Ottinger has worked throughout the U.S. and abroad. She joined Jones & Stokes as a Wildlife Biologist in 2004. She has strong raptor identification and handling skills, research experience, proven abilities in data analysis and technical writing, and has presented and/or published several articles in a variety of professional meetings and publications, respectively.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E3-15

Appendix E E3-4.2 BKS Environmental Associates, Inc of Gillette, Wyoming

Dr. Brenda K. Schladweiler Dr. Brenda K. Schladweiler obtained her Ph.D. in Soil Science from the University of Wyoming, 2003. M.S. in Soil Science from University of Wyoming 1995, and B.S. Range Management (Land Rehabilitation) from Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 1980. Dr. Schladweiler has extensive experience over the last 26 years in conducting rare plant surveys. The following is a list of recent threatened and endangered plant studies she has conducted: Location
Wharf Mine, Lawrence Co., SD Ferris Haggerty Mine, Carbon Co., WY Crow AML, Big Horn Co., MT Caballo Mine Wright Clinic AML, Campbell Co., WY Kane Environmental, Campbell Co., WY Atlantic City Mine, Knight Piesold, Fremont Co., WY Eagle Butte Mine, Campbell Co., WY West Antelope Mine, Converse Co., WY BRS, Bighorn Basin Water Project, Washakie Co., WY URS, Transmission Line, Campbell Co., WY Wright, (bike path) Campbell Co., WY Gillette, PCA sewer line, Campbell Co., WY Gillette, PCA trunk line, Campbell Co., WY Pinehaven (Wester-Wetstein), Crook Co., WY Spotted Horse, (CBMA CH4), Campbell Co., WY Bowers Oil (Antelope Creek)Campbell/ Converse Co., WY Gillette, PCA Swanson Rd., Campbell Co., WY North Rochelle Mine USFS Survey, Campbell Co., WY Westport Oil & Gas, Nicholson POD, Campbell Co., WY Devon Energy, Mustang POD, Campbell Co., WY NARM, Beckwith Rd., Campbell Co., WY Yates Petroleum, Campbell Co., WY

Date
1992 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000

Plants Surveyed
Various, State of SD Heritage Plants Various, State of WY Various, State of MT Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Various, State of Wyoming Plant Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Various USFS Sensitive Species for TBNG Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis Spiranthes diluvialis; various USFS Sensitive Species for TBNG Spiranthes diluvialis

2001 2001 2001 2001 2002­ 2004 2002­ 2004 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

PRCC, Ridgeroad USFS, Campbell Co., WY

2004

E3-16

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
Lance, Black Thunder POD, Campbell Co., WY Devon Energy, Mulie POD, Campbell Co., WY Devon Energy Whitetail POD, Campbell Co., WY Devon Energy, Bighorn POD, Campbell Co., WY 2004 2004 2004 2004 Spiranthes Spiranthes Spiranthes Spiranthes diluvialis diluvialis diluvialis diluvialis

Numerous actions have been taken by Dr. Schladweiler to become acquainted with the known locations and the appearance of Spiranthes diluvialis. Research has been conducted through the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and the Internet for sensitive plants. In addition, she has actually visited the population on the Unnamed Tributary to Antelope Creek numerous times over the last approximate 10 years. This known population verification was completed as part of a field survey conducted for Yates Petroleum Company in the Rochelle Hills POD, Campbell County, Wyoming on August 29, 2004. She has also visited the known population near Chugwater, Wyoming. Dr. Schladweiler on numerous occasions has been in contact with Mr. Ernie Nelson, University of Wyoming, Rocky Mountain Herbarium, and George Jones, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. In addition, she has consulted with Mr. Walt Fertig, previously from the University of Wyoming. Katie Halvorson Katie Halvorson holds a B.S. in Environmental Studies with a minor in Biology from Bemidji State University, Bemidji, Minnesota (2005). Ms. Halvorson has been employed by BKS Environmental since the spring of 2005. She has been conducting mineland reclamation monitoring for various coal mines in Campbell and Converse County, Wyoming since her employment. She has also performed vegetation sampling for numerous CBM projects and baseline vegetation surveys in the Powder River Basin. In addition, she has conducted rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, and environmental compliance assessments. Threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive plant survey experience includes:
      

Visited a tributary of Antelope Creek and observed a Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid) population. 2005. Powder River Coal LLC – North Antelope Rochelle Mine Umbrella Botany Evaluation, in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005. Powder River Coal LLC – Gold Mine Draw AVF Exchange – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey, in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005. West Roundup Resources, Inc. – School Creek Mine – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2005 and 2006. Devon Energy Corporation – Juniper Draw Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Johnson County, Wyoming. 2005. Devon Energy Corporation – Crossroads Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Johnson County, Wyoming. 2005. Marathon Oil Company – Knudson 9 Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. E3-17

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E
  

Marathon Oil Company – Twenty Mile Butte Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. Marathon Oil Company – West Innes 27 Unit – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. Rio Tinto Energy America – Antelope Mine – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid habitat survey in Converse County, Wyoming. 2007.

Cindy Robinson Cindy Robinson holds a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and a B.S. in Environmental Science from the University of Denver, Denver, Colorado (2005). Ms. Robinson has been employed by BKS Environmental since April of 2006. She has been conducting mineland reclamation monitoring for various coal mines in Campbell County, Wyoming during the last year. In addition, she has conducted rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, and environmental compliance assessments. Ms. Robinson has also visited an Astragalus barrii site, on USFS lands at the proposed School Creek Mine area when the species was blooming. Threatened and endangered and sensitive plant survey experience includes:
   

West Roundup Resources, Inc., – School Creek Mine – Barr's Milkvetch survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. West Roundup Resources, Inc., – School Creek Mine – Ute Ladies’ Tresses orchid survey in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2006. Thunder Basin Coal Company, Black Thunder Mine – West Hilight – Barr's Milkvetch survey. August 2006. Wellstar Corporation (Jones and Stokes), Ute Ladies Tresses orchid survey. 2007.

Jamie Eberly Jamie Eberly holds a B.S. in Range Management, Rangeland Livestock Option with a Business Administrations minor from Chadron State College, Chadron, Nebraska (2005). Ms. Eberly has been employed by BKS Environmental since the fall of 2006. She has been conducting mineland reclamation monitoring for various coal mines in Campbell and Converse County, Wyoming since her employment. She has also performed vegetation sampling for numerous CBM projects and baseline vegetation surveys in the Powder River Basin. In addition, she has conducted rare plant species surveys, wetland delineations, and environmental compliance assessments. Threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive plant survey experience includes:
	

Williams Production Company, West Cripple Creek POD, Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment in Campbell County, Wyoming. 2007.

E3-18 	

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

SECTION 4
 MAYSDORF II LBA TRACT

Appendix E E4-1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES E4-1.1 The Proposed Action

On September 1, 2006, Cordero Mining Company filed an application with the BLM to lease federal coal reserves in a tract located west of and immediately adjacent to the Cordero Rojo Mine (figure E-1). The tract was assigned case file number WYW173360. Under the Proposed Action for the Maysdorf II LBA tract, the tract as applied for by CMC would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale. The boundaries of the tract would be consistent with the tract configuration proposed in the Maysdorf II LBA tract lease application (figure E4-1). The Proposed Action assumes that CMC will be the successful bidder on the Maysdorf II LBA tract if it is offered for sale. The legal description of the proposed Maysdorf II LBA tract coal lease lands as applied for by CMC under the Proposed Action is as follows: T. 46 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 4: Lots 8, 9, 16, 17; Section 5: Lots 5, 12, 13, 20; Section 9: Lots 6 through 8; Section 10: Lots 7 through 10; Section 11: Lots 13 through 16; Section 14: Lots 1 through 4; Section 15: Lots 1 through 4; T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and W½; Section 18: Lots 5 through 14, 19, 20; Section 20: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; Section 21: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; Section 28: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 490.18 acres 639.73 acres 481.50 acres 154.31 acres 157.69 acres 165.80 acres E4-1 163.79 acres 165.03 acres 122.86 acres 162.62 acres 161.87 acres 161.69 acres 162.59 acres

Appendix E
24 22 23


R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

20

21


22

23


R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
& SF BN 30
 RR UP

20


21


27

26

25

30

29


28

27

26

25


29


28


ay 5 9

Bishop
Ro

S tate H ighw

T. 48
 N. T. 47 N.

34

35


36

31


32

33

34

35


36

31

32

33

T. 48
 N. T. 47
 N.

ad
5 4

3

2

1

k Cree
e Ho

R oad

6


5

4


3

2


1

6

10

11


12


7


8

9

10

11


12


7


8

9


15

14


13

18


17


16

15

14


13

18

17

16


22

23

24

19

20

21

22


23

24


19

20

21


Haight Road
30 29
 28

27

26

25

30


29


28

27

26


25


T -7 ad Ro

T. 47 N. T. 46 N.

34

35

36

31

32

33

34

35

36

31


32


33

T. 47
 N. T. 46
 N.

3

2

1

6

5


4


3

2

1

6

5

4


10

11

12

7

8

9


10

11

12

7


8

9


15

14

13

18

17

16

15

14


13

18

17

16


State Highway 59

Hoadley Road

BNSF & UP RR

Hoadley R oad

ht Road Hilig

22

23


24


19


20


21


22


23


24

19

20

21


27

26


R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

25

30


29

28

27

26


25

30


R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

29

28


LEGEND
Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary Existing Cordero Rojo Mine Federal Coal Leases Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) North Tract Under Alternative 3, BLM's Preferred Alternative South Tract Under Alternative 3, BLM's Preferred Alternative

0

5000

10000

20000


GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure E4-1. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives.

E4-2

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E Section 29: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; Section 32: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; Section 33: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; T. 47 N., R. 72 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; Section 13: Lots 1 through 8. Total: 647.10 acres 325.04 acres 4,653.83 acres 164.45 acres 162.94 acres 164.64 acres

The coal estate underlying this tract described above is owned by the federal government and administered by the BLM. The surface estate of the tract is privately and federally owned. The federal surface estate is administered by BLM. Surface ownership is shown in figure E4-2. The tract as applied for includes approximately 4,653.8 mineable acres. It is assumed that an area larger than the tract would have to be disturbed in order to recover all of the coal in the tract. The disturbances outside of the tract would be due to activities like overstripping, matching undisturbed topography, and construction of flood control and sediment control structures. CCC estimates that the tract as proposed includes approximately 98.2 million tons of in-place coal and 87.5 million tons of mineable coal. Using CCC’s projected recovery factor of 93.5 percent, the tract would contain about 81.8 million tons of recoverable coal. The Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for contains approximately 504.0 million tons of in-place coal reserves. Excluding the federal coal reserves within the railroad right-of-way, the highway and county road rights-of-way and buffer zones, and taking into account the no-coal zone, CMC estimates that the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for contains approximately 482.7 million tons of mineable coal reserves. Using CMC’s projected recovery factor of 90 percent of the mineable coal reserves included in BLM’s tract reconfiguration, the tract would contain about 434.5 million tons of recoverable coal. At the average annual coal production rate of 46.3 mmtpy, mining this coal would extend mine life by over 9 years. E4-1.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

E4-1.2.1 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the application to lease the coal included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract would be rejected, the tract would not be offered for competitive sale, and the coal included in the tract would not be Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-3

Appendix E
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
35 36 31

T. 48 N. T. 47 N.

Cr ee k

32


33

34

35

36

T. 48
 N. T. 47 N.

Ca ba llo

2


1


6


5

4


3

2


1


Hoe Cree k Road

11


12

7


8


9

10


11


12


14


13

18


17


16

15


14


13


State Highway 59

23

24


19


20


21


22


T-7 Roa d

23


24

Haight

Road

Road

25
 27 26


R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

LEGEND
Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for BLM's Study Area Foundation Coal West, Inc. Cordero Mining Company Caballo Rojo, Inc. Dept of Interior/BLM Earl D. Thrush, etal Keidel Family LP Norma L. DuVall Trust Tony S. Hayden Western RR Properties Inc. & BNR
T. 47
 N. T. 46
 N.

Hilight

26

25

30


29

28


32

33

34


35


36


5


4


lle Be

Fo
3


he u rc

r ve Ri

T. 47
 N. T. 46
 N.

P RR BNSF & U
1

2


8

9

10

11


12


17
 0 3000 6000 12000


16

15


14

13


Hoadley
20 21 22

Road
23
 24


GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure E4-2. Surface Ownership Within the Maysdorf II LBA Tract Alternatives.

E4-4

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E mined. This would not affect permitted mining activities and employment on the existing leases at Cordero Rojo Mine and would not preclude an application to lease the federal coal included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract in the future. No additional surface of the Maysdorf II LBA tract would be disturbed due to overstripping to allow coal to be removed from the adjacent existing leases. E4-1.2.2 Alternative 2 Under Alternative 2 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract, BLM would reconfigure the tract, hold a competitive coal sale for the lands included in the reconfigured tract, and issue a lease to the successful bidder. In evaluating the Maysdorf II coal lease application, BLM identified a study area, which includes unleased federal coal adjacent to the northern edge of the tract as applied for (figure E4­ 1). BLM is evaluating the potential that some or all of these lands could be added to the tract to provide for more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest in the tract, and/or reduce the potential that some of the potentially mineable federal coal in this area would be bypassed in the future if it is not included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract. The modified tract would be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and this tract if it is offered for sale, as discussed above. Alternative 2 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract assumes that CMC would be the successful bidder on the tract if a lease sale is held and that the tract would be developed as a maintenance lease to extend the life of the adjacent Cordero Rojo Mine. Other assumptions are the same as for the Proposed Action. The lands that BLM is considering adding to the tract are: T.47N., R.72W., 6th P.M., Campbell County, Wyoming Section 1: Lots 9 through 13, and NW¼SE¼; 241.80 acres

The legal description of BLM’s reconfiguration of the Maysdorf II LBA tract under Alternative 2 is as follows: T. 46 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 4: Lots 8, 9, 16, 17; Section 5: Lots 5, 12, 13, 20; Section 9: Lots 6 through 8; Section 10: Lots 7 through 10; Section 11: Lots 13 through 16; Section 14: Lots 1 through 4; Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 163.79 acres 165.03 acres 122.86 acres 162.62 acres 161.87 acres 161.69 acres E4-5

Appendix E Section 15: Lots 1 through 4; T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and W½; Section 18: Lots 5 through 14, 19, 20; Section 20: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; Section 21: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; Section 28: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; Section 29: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; Section 32: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; Section 33: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; T. 47 N., R. 72 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 1: Lots 9 through 13, and NW¼SE¼; Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; Section 13: Lots 1 through 8. Total: 241.80 acres 647.10 acres 325.04 acres 4,895.63 acres 490.18 acres 639.73 acres 481.50 acres 154.31 acres 157.69 acres 165.80 acres 164.45 acres 162.94 acres 164.64 acres 162.59 acres

A portion Wyoming State Highway 59 and portions of the Haight Road (County Road 44) and the Hilight Road (County Road 52) overlie some of the coal included in the tract. As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.1, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits mining within 100 ft on either side of the right-of-way of any public road (43 CFR 3461). The coal underlying the portions of Highway 59, the Haight and Hilight Roads, and their rights-of­ way, and the 100 ft buffer zones within the Maysdorf II LBA tract could be mined if WYDOT and the Campbell County Board of Commissioners, the authorized agencies, determine that the road can be moved [30 CFR 761.11(d)]. CMC does not have plans to relocate the highway at this time but CMC is evaluating the feasibility of relocating the county roads. CMC estimates that approximately 3.0 million tons of mineable coal are included within the rightof-way of Highway 59 and associated 100 ft buffer zone that is within the LBA tract. CMC estimates that approximately 17 million tons of mineable coal are included within the rights-of-way of the Haight and Hilight Roads and associated 100 ft buffer zones that are within the LBA tract. E4-6 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E CMC estimates that the reconfigured tract includes approximately 533.2 million tons of in-place coal. After eliminating coal that lies within the railroad ROW, the public road rights-of-way and buffer zones, CMC estimates that the reconfigured tract includes approximately 510.5 million tons of mineable coal. Using CMC’s projected recovery factor of 90 percent, the reconfigured tract would contain about 459.5 million tons of recoverable coal. E4-1.2.3 Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract, BLM is considering dividing the tract and offering two tracts for sale at separate, competitive sealed bid sales (figure E4-1). The two tracts would each be subject to standard and special lease stipulations developed for the PRB and for each tract if they are offered for sale, as discussed above. Alternative 3, offering two tracts for sale, is BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Alternative 3 for the Maysdorf II LBA tract assumes that CMC would be the successful bidder on the two tracts if lease sales are held and that the tracts would be mined as maintenance leases for the Cordero Rojo Mine. Other assumptions would be the same as for the Maysdorf II LBA tract Proposed Action. As shown in figure E4-1, the Maysdorf II LBA tract is comprised of two noncontiguous blocks of federal coal. Under Alternative 3, the North Maysdorf II LBA tract would consist of the northernmost block of coal and the South Maysdorf II LBA tract would consist of the two southern blocks of coal, as shown in figure E4-1. BLM is considering dividing the tract because the north tract would potentially be of competitive interest to more than one mine. As discussed under Alternative 2, BLM has identified a study area, described above and shown in figure E4-1. Under Alternative 3, the BLM could add all, part, or none of the study area to the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for. The lands that BLM is considering including in the north tract are: T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 7: Lots 6 through 11, 14 through 19; Section 17: Lots 1 through 15, and W½; Section 18: Lots 5 through 14, 19, 20; T. 47 N., R. 72 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 1: Lots 9 through 13, and NW¼SE¼; Section 12: Lots 1 through 16; Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 241.80 acres 647.10 acres E4-7 490.18 acres 639.73 acres 481.50 acres

Appendix E Section 13: Lots 1 through 8; Total: 325.04 acres 2,825.35 acres

The lands that would be included in the south tract under BLM’s Alternative 3 are: T. 47 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 20: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; Section 21: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; Section 28: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; Section 29: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; Section 32: Lots 1, 8, 9, 16; Section 33: Lots 4, 5, 12, 13; T. 46 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Campbell County, Wyoming Section 4: Lots 8, 9, 16, 17; Section 5: Lots 5, 12, 13, 20; Section 9: Lots 6 through 8; Section 10: Lots 7 through 10; Section 11: Lots 13 through 16; Section 14: Lots 1 through 4; Section 15: Lots 1 through 4. Total: 163.79 acres 165.03 acres 122.86 acres 162.62 acres 161.87 acres 161.69 acres 162.59 acres 2,070.28 acres 154.31 acres 157.69 acres 165.80 acres 164.45 acres 162.94 acres 164.64 acres

Under Alternative 3 reconfiguration of the Maysdorf II LBA tract, the north tract would include approximately 2,825.4 acres containing approximately 326.4 million tons of in-place coal and the south tract would include approximately 2,070.3 acres containing approximately 206.8 million tons of inplace coal, according to information provided by the applicant. The north tract includes the area that would not be mined within the highway ROW and buffer zone, as discussed above. The south tract includes the areas that would not be mined within the Haight and Hilight County Roads and buffer zones, the BNSF & UP railroad ROW, as discussed under Alternative 2. E4-8 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E E4-2.0 	 SPECIES HABITAT AND OCCURRENCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The Cordero Rojo Mine began producing coal in 1976. Wildlife monitoring has been conducted annually for the mine since the early 1980’s. This wildlife monitoring was designed to meet the WDEQ/LQD, WGFD, and federal requirements for annual monitoring and reporting of wildlife activity on coal mining areas. Detailed procedures and site-specific requirements have been carried out as approved by WGFD and USFWS. The monitoring program was conducted in accordance with Appendix B of WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Because the areas covered in the wildlife surveys included the mine’s permit area and a large perimeter around the permit boundary, the entire Maysdorf II LBA tract has been included in baseline inventories and annual wildlife surveys conducted for the Cordero Rojo Mine since wildlife studies began. The approved Cordero Rojo Mine Permit 237 Term T8 (CMC 2007) includes monitoring and mitigation measures for the Cordero Rojo Mine that are required by SMCRA and Wyoming State Law. If the Maysdorf II LBA tract is acquired by CMC, these monitoring and mitigation measures would be extended to cover operations on the LBA tract when the Cordero Rojo Mine’s mining permit is amended to include the tract. This amended permit would have to be approved before mining operations could take place on the tract. These monitoring and mitigation measures are considered to be part of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 during the leasing process because they are regulatory requirements. Background information on T&E species in the vicinity of the Maysdorf II LBA tract was drawn from several sources, including: wildlife survey reports submitted by the Cordero Rojo Mine to the WDEQ/LQD from 1974 through 2005, the Final South Powder River Basin Coal EIS (BLM 2003), the Maysdorf Coal FEIS (BLM 2007), a Wyoming Natural Diversity Database search (University of Wyoming 2001), and from WGFD and USFWS records and contacts in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the Maysdorf II LBA tract wildlife study area falls within the wildlife monitoring areas for the nearby Belle Ayr and Coal Creek Mines (figure E-1). Site-specific data for a substantial portion of the tract as applied for and the study area for Alternatives 2 and 3 were obtained from several sources, including WDEQ/LQD permit applications and annual wildlife reports for the Cordero Rojo Mine and other nearby coal mines. Baseline wildlife studies were conducted by Intermountain Resources (IR) expressly for the Maysdorf II LBA tract in 2006-2007. Figure E4-3 depicts IR’s T&E animal species survey areas for the Maysdorf II LBA tract.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications	

E4-9

Appendix E
R. 72 W. R. 71 W.
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.
25

ay 5 9

& SF R 30 BN P R U Bishop

29

28

Ro

S tate H ighw

T. 4833 N. T. 47 4 N.
Hoe
9

T.
32 33 48

ad
31 Cab allo

34

35

36

31

32

33

34

35

36

Caballo

C reek

N. T. 47 N.

k ee Cr

3

d Roa

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

6

5

4

C
10

ek re
11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9

16

15

14

13

18

17

16

15

14

13

18

17

r ve Ri

16

21

22

23

24

19

20

21

22

23

24

19

Fo ur c he

20

21

Belle
29

Haight Road
28 27 26 25 30

28

27

26

25

30

29

28

7 Tad Ro

T. 4733 N. T. 46 4 N.

34

35

36

31

32

33

34

35

T.
32 33 47

36

31

N.

3

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

6

5

4

T. 46 N.

9

10

11

12

7

8

9

10

11

12

7

8

9

16

15

14

13

18

17

16

15

14

13

18

17

16

Belle Fo

ur

Hoadley Road

State Highway 59

BNSF & UP RR

ch e
er Ri v
21 22 23

Hoadley R oad

21

22

23

24

19

20

24

19

20

21

Hilight Road

28

27

25 26

30

29

28

27

26

25

30

29

28

R. 72 W. R. 71 W.

R. 71 W. R. 70 W.

LEGEND
Maysdorf II Wildlife General Analysis Area Two-Mile Buffer from the Maysdorf II Wildlife General Analysis Area Prairie Dog Colony Cordero Rojo Mine Permit Boundary Maysdorf II LBA Tract as Applied for BLM's Study Area (Alternative 2) North Tract Under Alternative 3, BLM's Preferred Alternative South Tract Under Alternative 3, BLM's Preferred Alternative

0

5000

10000

20000

GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)

Figure E4-3. T&E Species Survey Area for the Cordero Rojo Mine and the Maysdorf II LBA Tract.

E4-10

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E The Maysdorf II LBA tract is in an area of gently rolling terrain of moderate relief influenced by the Belle Fourche River and its tributary, Caballo Creek. Elevation ranges from 4,540 to 4,885 ft within the LBA tract and from 4,520 to 4,885 ft including the area added under Alternatives 2 and 3. Within the LBA tract and the area added under Alternatives 2 and 3, slopes range from flat in the Belle Fourche River floodplain to over 57 percent in the adjacent breaks. The breaks are sharp transitions between the bottomlands and the uplands. The slopes of the gently rolling uplands, which comprise most of the LBA tract, seldom exceed 10 percent. A slope analysis would be done for the LBA tract if a lease sale is held and it is proposed for mining. Predominant wildlife habitat types classified on the LBA tract and adjacent area correspond with the major plant communities defined during the vegetation baseline study and consist primarily of sagebrush/grassland, grassland, and seeded grassland. Other habitats present in limited extent include disturbance, bottomland, and rough breaks. Networks of road, pipeline, tank battery, and well-pad disturbance areas associated with oil and gas development overlay much of the study area. The Maysdorf II LBA tract consists predominantly of gently rolling topography, although the southern portion is dissected by the Belle Fourche River bottomlands and breaks. The Belle Fourche River flows roughly east-northeast through the southern portion of the tract and is currently diverted from its natural channel in this area to facilitate mining within the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit area. The diversion channel was constructed in 1995. All streams in the region show the characteristic extreme low-flow period from October through January. Flow events frequently result from snowmelt during the late winter and early spring. Although peak discharges from such events are generally small, the duration and therefore the percentage of annual runoff volume can be considerable. During the spring, general storms (both rain and snow) increase soil moisture; hence decreasing infiltration capacity, and subsequent rainstorms can result in both large runoff volumes and high peak discharges. Limited segments of the Belle Fourche River do receive recharge from bank storage (groundwater stored in the alluvium along the stream channel) and flow throughout the year, making the stream locally intermittent. Maysdorf II LBA Tract Wetlands The wetland analysis area includes the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for, the lands added under Alternatives 2 and 3, and a ¼-mile disturbance buffer around the tract sufficient to mine and reclaim the tract as a part of the existing Cordero Rojo Mine operation. Cordero Rojo Mine conducted a preliminary wetlands inventory in 2005 and 2006 of the lands within the wetlands analysis area, based on USFWS NWI mapping and vegetation mapping in the field ESCO (2007). The area investigated is located almost entirely outside of the existing Cordero Rojo Mine permit area, west and south of the current permit boundary. Some wetland areas previously mapped by the USFWS NWI project have been recently altered somewhat due to CBNG-related Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-11

Appendix E water production within and upstream of the Maysdorf II wetlands analysis area. The boundaries of the existing potential wetlands may vary to a greater or lesser extent from the boundaries shown on the NWI maps, and current field conditions may not be representative of the field conditions in the future. Due to the ephemeral nature of CBNG dewatering activities, the wetland boundaries and areas are likewise ephemeral. A formal wetland delineation survey of the area proposed for mining would be conducted and submitted to the COE for verification as part of the mining and reclamation permit process, if the LBA tract is leased. Based on the existing USFWS NWI mapping data (which may be somewhat outdated) and the vegetation mapping that was conducted in 2005 and 2006, a total of approximately 140.15 acres of wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. occur within the wetlands analysis area. Of this 140.15 acres identified, approximately 133.54 acres are vegetated wetlands and the remaining 6.61 acres are other Waters of the U.S. The majority of the wetlands are associated with the watercourses of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek, diked or impounded reservoirs, and internally drained depressions/playas, while the majority of the other Waters of the U.S. are associated with ephemeral stream channels and areas of open water. These areas that occur within and adjacent to the Maysdorf II LBA tract are shown on figure S4-6 in the SGAC Supplementary Information document. Within the proposed lease area and adjacent study area there is no “critical” habitat designated by USFWS for T&E species. The following discussion describes species’ habitat requirements and their occurrence in the area of the Maysdorf II LBA tract and evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2 and 3 on federal T&E species. E4-2.1 Threatened Species

E4-2.1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial, terrestrial orchid with erect, glandularpubescent stems 12 to 50 cm tall arising from tuberous-thickened roots. Ute ladies’-tresses occurs primarily on moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams. The elevation range of known occurrences is 4,200 to 7,000 feet in alluvial substrates along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, and moist to wet meadows. Most populations are found on alluvial sand, coarse silt, or whitish loamy clay with a slightly basic pH. These soils are derived from Quaternary alluvial deposits or drab Eocene- age sandstones and claystones (Fertig 2000). Ute ladies’-tresses is not found in heavy, tight clay soils, saline, or alkaline soils. This orchid can be commonly associated with horsetail, milkweed, verbena, blue-eyed grass, reedgrass, goldenrod, bentgrass, and arrowgrass (USFWS 2005). Wyoming populations often occur in moist meadow communities E4-12 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E dominated by redtop, common quackgrass, Baltic rush, foxtail barley, or switchgrass within a narrow vegetative band between emergent aquatic vegetation and dry upland prairie (Fertig 2000). Vegetative cover tends to range from 75-90 percent and is usually less than 45 cm tall (Fertig 2000). The orchid seems intolerant of shade. Plants usually occur as small scattered groups and occupy relatively small areas within the riparian system. In Wyoming, this species typically blooms from early August to early September, with fruits produced from mid-August to September (Fertig 2000). Leaves persist during flowering (Moseley 1998). Flowers are white or ivory and are clustered into a spike at the top of the stem. No direct observations of pollination have been made in Wyoming. In their 1994 report, Sipes and Tepedino indicated that large, long-tongued bumblebees in the genus Bombus are the primary pollinators in Utah and Colorado (Fertig 2000). Smaller bees may also visit these flowers, but have the incorrect body shape or mass to properly accommodate the orchid’s large, sticky anther/pollen clusters (Fertig 2000). This species reproduces basically by sexual reproduction and can produce as many as 7,300 tiny seeds per fruit (Fertig 2000). The plant requires mycorrhizal fungi to germinate and establish. Individual plants may not flower in consecutive years under adverse environmental conditions but will persist below ground with their mycorrhizal symbionts (Fertig 2000). Flowers are needed for positive plant identification. The species can be reliably located only when it is flowering (Heidel 2001). Plants probably do not flower every year and may remain dormant below ground during drought years. In general, the species’ best flowering years seem to correspond with extreme heat during flowering. Preliminary review of climate data also indicates that growing seasons that start out as relatively cold and wet correspond with low flowering levels (Heidel 2001). The orchid is well adapted to disturbances from stream movement and is tolerant of other disturbances such as grazing that are common to grassland riparian habitats (USFWS 1995). Populations are often dynamic and “move” within a watershed as disturbances create new habitat or succession eliminates old habitat (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Ute ladies’-tresses colonize early successional riparian habitats such as point bars, sand bars, and lowlying gravelly, sandy, or cobbley edges, persisting in those areas where the hydrology provides continual dampness in the root zone through the growing season. The orchid has been known to establish in heavily disturbed sites, such as revegetated gravel pits, heavily grazed riparian edges, and along welltraveled foot trails on old berms (USFWS 1995). Existing Environment: Prior to 2005, four orchid populations had been documented within Wyoming, all discovered between 1993 and 1997 (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). Four additional sites were located in 2005 and one additional site was found in 2006 (Heidel, 2007). The new locations were in the Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-13

Appendix E same drainages or tributaries as the original four populations. Drainages with documented orchid populations include Antelope Creek and tributaries in northern Converse County, Bear Creek in northern Laramie and southern Goshen Counties, Horse Creek in Laramie County, and Niobrara River in Niobrara County. No occurrences have been recorded in Campbell County including the Maysdorf II vegetation general analysis area. The Maysdorf II LBA includes a reach of the Belle Fourche River and along that reach are wetland and “moist-land” plant communities that offer seemingly possible habitat for Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid. Likewise, there exist isolated wet depressions along some upland drainages that support hydrophytes such as common spikerush or field clustered sedge. These latter sites were deemed unlikely though remotely possible habitat so were included in field searches. Pedestrian surveys of the Belle Fourche and isolated upland depression areas were conducted for Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid by ESCO Associates in August 2005 and 2006. Playa Grassland was suggested by USFWS (personal communication) as suitable habitat and the portion of the LBA site occupied by this type was also searched in August 2006 with the same results. Eastern Wyoming playas, except during hypothetically potential extraordinary years of unrelenting spring and summer rain, would probably never naturally sustain the moist conditions required by the orchid. Even following the springs when the playas do occasionally, but only temporarily, include standing water, subsequent summer conditions accompany a thorough drying that excludes any routine manifestation of moisture-loving perennial plant species such as the orchid. The highly saline nature of certain of these interior drainages also makes it unlikely that the orchid would occur. No individuals of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid were located during the 2005 and 2006 surveys. Other than limited areas along the Belle Fourche River and at isolated upland depressions, most of the land within the Maysdorf II LBA tract and adjacent study area is not potential Ute ladies’-tresses habitat. This includes highly disturbed or modified sites, upland habitat types, and sites inundated by standing water. A total of approximately 140.15 acres of wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. occur within the wetlands analysis area. Of this 140.15 acres identified, approximately 133.54 acres are vegetated wetlands and the remaining 6.61 acres are other Waters of the U.S. The majority of the wetlands are associated with the watercourses of the Belle Fourche River and Caballo Creek, diked or impounded reservoirs, and internally drained depressions/playas, while the majority of the other Waters of the U.S. are associated with ephemeral stream channels and areas of open water. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract, if the tract is leased under the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 and 3, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute E4-14 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E ladies’-tresses. Typical suitable habitat for this species on the tract is very limited and found along the CBNG-impacted bottomlands of the Belle Fourche River and its tributaries and at isolated upland depressions. However, the quality of potential habitat is extremely poor. Outside of the narrow riparian strips located along these impacted watercourses, typical suitable habitat is rare or non-existent in the study area. Multiple surveys of the existing suitable habitat at the Cordero Rojo Mine and other mines in this area have not found any Ute ladies’-tresses. Because of the ability of this species to persist below ground or above ground without flowering, single season surveys that meet the current USFWS survey guidelines may not detect populations. If undetected populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’-tresses within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. Jurisdictional wetlands located in the Maysdorf II LBA tract that are destroyed by mining operations would be replaced in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as determined by COE. The replaced wetlands may not duplicate the exact function and landscape features of the pre-mine wetlands. COE considers the type and function of each jurisdictional wetland that will be impacted and may require restoration of additional acres if the type and function of the restored wetlands will not completely replace the type and function of the original wetland. Replacement of non-jurisdictional and functional wetlands may be required by the surface land owner and/or WDEQ/LQD. WDEQ/LQD allows and sometimes requires mitigation of nonjurisdictional wetlands affected by mining, depending on the values associated with the wetland features. Cumulative Effects: Alterations of stream morphology and hydrology are believed to have extirpated Ute ladies’-tresses from most of its historical range (USFWS 2002). Disturbance and reclamation of streams by surface coal mining may alter stream morphology and hydrology. The large quantities of water produced with CBNG development and discharged on the surface may also alter stream morphology and hydrology. E4-2.2 Endangered Species E4-2.2.1 Black-footed ferret The black-footed ferret, a nocturnal mammal and an obligate associate of prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), was listed as endangered in March, 1967. This species is thought to have historically inhabited a nearly contiguous matrix of prairie dog colonies spanning the short-grass prairies of the eastern and southern Rockies and the Great Plains of North America (Forrest et al. 1985). Since the early 1930s, numerous factors have led to substantial declines in prairie dog colonies in that region. Reductions in some states are estimated as high as 90% from formerly occupied colonies (Rose 1973, Tyler 1968). Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E4-15

Appendix E Conversion of grasslands to agricultural landscapes, eradication of prairie dogs, and diseases such as the plague and canine distemper have resulted in severe reductions in prairie dog colonies across the west, colonies which provided food, shelter, and habitat for black-footed ferrets. This species of ferret is currently one of the most endangered mammals in North America and was thought to be extinct until a small population was discovered in Meeteetse, Wyoming in September, 1981. Since then, successful captive breeding and reintroduction programs have released black-footed ferrets back into the wild in several western and Great Plains states including Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona. Biology and Habitat Requirements: Ferrets rely on prairie dogs to provide both shelter and food (Hillman and Clark 1980). Ferrets produce one litter per year, typically giving birth to four or five kits. The decline in ferret populations has been largely attributed to the reduction in the vast prairie dog colonies that historically existed in the western United States. Despite extensive ferret surveys over the past 20 plus years throughout Wyoming, the last known wild black-footed ferret population was discovered near Meeteetse in 1981 (Miller et al. 1996). Those surveys included numerous USFWS-approved clearances for coal mining and other development in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, as well as the USFS surveys for ferrets on the TBNG. Reintroduction efforts involving captive bred individuals have successfully established one blackfooted ferret population in the Shirley Basin area in south-central Wyoming. Currently, this is the only known black-footed ferret population within the state, though other populations are present elsewhere in the United States and Mexico. Existing Environment: The Maysdorf II LBA tract is within the historical range of the black-footed ferret, although no black-footed ferrets are presently known to occur in northeastern Wyoming. During the 1980s, WGFD, in cooperation with other agencies, conducted searches for black-footed ferrets in Wyoming in the places they were most likely to be found, but these searches were not successful (Martin Grenier, personal communication, 10/14/2003). In a February 2, 2004 letter to interested parties, the USFWS declared that blackfooted ferret surveys are no longer necessary in black-tailed prairie dog colonies within Wyoming. Intermountain Resources has mapped the current acreage of prairie dog colonies in the vicinity of the Cordero Rojo Mine by walking the perimeters of colonies and delineating them on topographic maps. No black-tailed prairie dog colonies are currently present on the Maysdorf II LBA tract as proposed and on the area added by Alternatives 2 and 3. One black-tailed prairie dog colony is located less than 1 mile east of the Cordero Rojo Mine’s current permit area while two other small colonies are located within 2 miles of the Maysdorf II LBA tract. One of these colonies is within the Maysdorf II wildlife general analysis area (figure E43). The boundaries shown on figure E4- and 3 are historical town boundaries and, although black-tailed prairie dogs still exist E4-16 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E in the areas, their numbers and distribution may be much smaller than previously recorded. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Maysdorf II LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternatives 2 and 3, would have no effect on black-footed ferrets. There are no black-tailed prairie dog colonies present on the Maysdorf II LBA tract or in the BLM study area under Alternatives 2 and 3. The black-footed ferret is almost entirely dependent on the prairie dog for survival. The reductions in black-tailed prairie dog populations due to poisoning prior to 1972 and due to recent plague outbreaks have reduced the potential for black-footed ferret survival in northeastern Wyoming. Searches of the best remaining black-footed ferret habitat in Wyoming conducted in the 1980s were not successful in finding any ferrets. General wildlife surveys and specific ferret surveys have been conducted for many years at the Cordero Rojo Mine, and at other mines in this area. No black-footed ferrets were observed within BLM study area during these surveys. Two black-tailed prairie dog colonies are located within 2 miles of the Maysdorf II LBA tract (one within the Maysdorf II wildlife general analysis area), but they are west of Highway 59 and not within the anticipated Maysdorf II disturbance area (figure E4-3). Cumulative Effects: Mineral development within black-tailed prairie dog colonies is a leading cause of ferret habitat loss in the PRB. Surface coal mining tends to have more intense impacts on fairly localized areas, while oil and gas development tends to be less intensive but spread over larger areas. Oil and gas development and mining activities have requirements for reclamation of disturbed areas as resources are depleted. In reclaimed areas, vegetation cover may differ from undisturbed areas. In the case of surface coal mines, re-established vegetation would be dominated by species mandated in the reclamation seed mixtures (to be approved by WDEQ). The majority of the approved plant species are native to the area; however, reclaimed areas may not serve ecosystem functions presently served by undisturbed vegetation communities and habitats, particularly in the short-term, when species composition, shrub cover, and other environmental factors are likely to be different. Shifts in habitat composition or distribution following reclamation could increase or decrease potential habitat for prairie dogs and associated habitat for black-footed ferrets. However, black-tailed prairie dogs have been recorded invading and establishing towns on reclaimed coal mined lands in northeastern Wyoming (IR 2005). Potential ferret habitat is also affected by other impacts to prairie dog populations. Plague can infect and eliminate entire prairie dog colonies. Poisoning and recreational prairie dog shooting may locally reduce prairie dog populations, but seldom completely eliminate colonies.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E4-17

Appendix E E4-2.2.2 Blowout Penstemon Blowout Penstemon, a member of the figwort family, was listed as endangered on October 1, 1987. It is known from multiple populations in western Nebraska and in the Ferris dunes area in northwestern Carbon County, Wyoming. The plant was first discovered in Wyoming in 1877 and then rediscovered in 1996 (BLM 2008). The removal of fire, leveling of dunes, reduction of grazing, and cultivation of stabilizing cover crops drastically reduced the amount of habitat available for this species. Loss of habitat, coupled with impacts from insect outbreaks, drought, inbreeding, and potential over collection, has caused problems for the plant (University of Wyoming 2009). Only 3,500-5,000 plants are currently found in Nebraska at about a dozen sites. The Wyoming population is limited to three sites in northern Carbon County that contain several thousand plants (BLM 2008). Threats to the plant may occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic (USFWS 2008b). Biology and Habitat Requirements: Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2 to 6 inches long and has six to ten compact whorls of milky-blue to pale lavender flowers. This species typically flowers from mid-June to early-July. The plant’s current know range in Wyoming is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 percent vegetative cover; and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active blowouts with 25 to 40 percent vegetative cover (USFWS 2008b). Existing Environment: The Maysdorf II LBA tract is not within the documented historical range of the blowout penstemon. It is located approximately 150 miles northwest of the Nebraska known occurrences and approximately 150 miles northeast of the Wyoming occurrences. No suitable sand dunes (whether stable or blownout) are currently present on the Maysdorf II vegetation general analysis area. Effects of the Proposed Project: Mining the federal coal included in the Belle Ayr North LBA tract, if a lease is issued under the Proposed Action or Alternative 2, would have no effect on blowout penstemon. Typical suitable habitat for this species on the tract is non-existent. If undetected populations are present, they could be lost to surface disturbing activities. Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for blowout penstemon within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. Cumulative Effects: This species is potentially vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation resulting from sand mining, water development, energy development, ORV use, and associated destabilization of its sand dune habitat. It also could be vulnerable to negative effects related to the spread of non­ native species within its range. E4-18 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E E4-3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS

Table E4-1 summarizes the determinations for federally listed T&E species in the area of the Maysdorf II LBA tract that may result from implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative. Table E4-1. Effects Evaluation of Sensitive and Federal T&E Species in the Area of the Maysdorf II LBA Tracts. Species Common Name Ute ladies’-tresses Black-footed ferret Blowout Penstemon Potential Effects May affect1 No effect No effect

Status Threatened: Endangered: Endangered:
1

Not likely to adversely affect individuals or populations.

E4-4.0 E4-4.1

CREDENTIALS OF SURVEY PERSONNEL Intermountain Resources of Laramie, Wyoming

Jim Orpet Mr. Orpet obtained a Bachelors of Science degree in Wildlife Management and a Master of Science degree in Range Management from the University of Wyoming and has accumulated over 28 years of field experience in wildlife surveys. This experience includes surveys for T&E species, surveys for species of high state or federal interest and preparation of wildlife reports for over 100 projects throughout Wyoming. Mr. Orpet was qualified in 1987 by the WDEQ/LQD to conduct T&E and other plant and animal surveys on Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) projects within the state. Qualification at that time was based on review and approval of Mr. Orpet’s credentials by the WGFD and the USFWS. Mr. Orpet has also completed numerous wetland surveys that have been approved by the COE. Russel Tait Mr. Tait obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife Management from the University of Wyoming and has accumulated 14 years of field experience in wildlife surveys in Wyoming. Mr. Tait has assisted Mr. Orpet in completion of wildlife inventories for over nine years on coal mines and other resource development projects in Wyoming, including black-footed ferret surveys, bald eagle surveys, sage grouse lek surveys and surveys for other species of high federal or state interest.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E4-19

Appendix E E4-4.2 ESCO Associates Inc. of Boulder, Colorado

David Buckner Mr. Buckner obtained a Bachelors of Arts degree, Master of Arts degree, and Ph.D. in Plant Ecology from the University of Colorado and has accumulated over 21 years of field experience in vegetation and rare plant surveys. Mr. Buckner’s rare plant survey experience includes:  Asclepias ruthiae, Grand County, Utah, 1982;  Stellaria irrigua, La Plata County, Colorado;  Sclerocactur glaucus, Mesa and Garfield Counties, Colorado, 1987;  Penstemon harringtonii, Eagle, Grand, and Routte Counties, Colorado, 1982, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Mr. Buckner’s familiarity with Spiranthes diluvialis includes:  observation of flowering populations in Boulder County, Colorado, 1991­ 2004; 	 observation of vegetative sprouts of individuals occurring in Boulder County populations, January to April 1982, June 1993, and May 1995.H-9.0

E4-20 	

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E E5.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED

BKS Environmental Associates, Inc. (BKS), 2007, Report of Findings, Vegetation sampling and mapping in the West Coal Creek LBA Tract general analysis area, 2007. Prepared for Coal Creek Mine. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2001, Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, Wyoming. , 2003, Final South Powder River Basin Coal Environmental Impact Statement, December 2003, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming. , 2005, Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review, Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities. Prepared for BLM Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, by ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins, Colorado, October 2005. , 2007, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Maysdorf Coal Lease Application – WYW154432. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. , 2008. Wyoming’s Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Blowout Penstemon. Bureau of Land Management. U.S. Government Printing Office: 2008-760-342/48004 Region No. 8, BLM/WY/GI-08/020+1150. Caballo Coal Company (CCC), 2003, Caballo Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 433-T5, approved June 14, 2003. On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. Cordero Mining Company (CMC), 2007, Cordero Rojo Mine Permit, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit No. 237-T8, approved March 26, 2007. On file with WDEQ/LQD, Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. ESCO Associates Inc. (ESCO), 2007, Report of Findings, Vegetation sampling and mapping in the Maysdorf II LBA Tract general analysis area, 2005 and 2006. Prepared for Cordero Rojo Mine. Fertig, W. 2000. Survey for Ute Ladies Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Along the Sweetwater River in Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 15 pp. Fertig, W., and G. Beauvais, 1999, Wyoming Plant and Animal Species of Special Concern. Unpublished report. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

E5-1

Appendix E Forrest, S. C., T. W. Clark, L. Richardson, and T. M. Campbell III, 1985, Blackfooted Ferret Habitat: Some Management and Reintroduction Considerations, Wyoming BLM Wildlife Technical Bulletin #2, U.S. BLM, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 49 pp. Foundation Coal West, Inc. (FCW), 2003, Belle Ayr Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 214-T6, approved November 25, 2003. On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. , 2005, Coal Creek Mine Permit, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 428­ T5, approved November 1, 2005. On file with WDEQ in Sheridan and Cheyenne, Wyoming. Grenier, Martin, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, personal communication with Nancy Doelger, BLM Casper Field Office, October 14, 2003. , 2003. An Evaluation of Black-footed Ferret Block Clearances in Wyoming: Completion Report, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY, 16pp. Heidel, B. 2001. Monitoring Ute Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis), in Jefferson County, Montana, 1996-2000. Report to Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena. Hillman, C.N. and T.W. Clark, 1980. Mustela nigripes, Mammalian Species No. 126. , 2007. Personal communication between Jim Orpet (Intermountain Resources, Laramie, Wyoming) and Bonnie Heidel, botanist (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie). Hillman, C.N. and T.W. Clark, 1980. Mustela nigripes, Mammalian Species No. 126. Hillman, C.N. and T.W. Clark, 1980. Mustela nigripes, Mammalian Species No. 126. Intermountain Resources (IR), 2005, WWC Engineering’s personal communication with Jim Orpet, December 13, 2005. Intermountain Resources (IR), 2005, WWC Engineering’s communication with Jim Orpet, December 13, 2005. personal

Miller, B., R.P. Reading, and S. Forrest, 1996, Prairie night: Black-footed ferrets and the recovery of endangered species, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Moseley, R. 1998. Ute Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) in Idaho: 1997 and 1998 Status Reports. Idaho Bureau of Land Management, Technical Bulletin No. 98-16. 23 pp. E5-2 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix E Rose, B. J. 1973. History of prairie dogs in South Dakota. In: Black-footed Ferret-Prairie Dog Workshop Proceedings, Sep. 4-6, 1973. S. Dak. State Univ., Brookings, pp. 76-77. Tyler, J. D. 1968. Distribution and vertebrate associates of the black-tailed prairie dog in Oklahoma. Ph.D. Dissert., Univ. of OK, Norman. 85 pp. Thunder Basin Coal Company (TBCC), 2006, Coal Creek Mine Permit Application, WDEQ/LQD Surface Mine Permit 483-T5, approved June 20, 2006. On file with WDEQ/LQD in Cheyenne and Sheridan, Wyoming. University of Wyoming, 2001, Data search for species listed with the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Letter and computer printouts from A.J. Fedder to G. McKee (TWC), dated April 16, 2001. , 2009, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database - State Species Abstract (Penstemon Haydenii) Blowout Penstemon - Family: Scrophulariaceae, Available from website on the Internet as of January 2009: . U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USFS), 2002, Supplemental Information Report disclosing changes to black-tailed prairie dog habitat within proposed management area 3.63 of the Thunder Basin National Grassland Plan resulting from the 2001 Sylvatic plague outbreak. January 14, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1989, Black Footed Ferret Survey Guidelines for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado and Albuquerque, New Mexico. , 1995, Ute ladies’-tresses draft recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado, 46 pp. , 2002, Biological and Conference Opinion for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project, Campbell, Converse, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties, Wyoming, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 51 pp. , 2004, File letter ES-1411/BFF/WY7746 issuing block clearance for black-footed ferrets in all black-tailed prairie dog colonies throughout Wyoming, and select white-tailed prairie dog colonies, Wyoming Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne. , 2005, Memorandum from Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor, USFWS Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to James Murkin, BLM, Field Office Manager, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated February 15, 2005. Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications E5-3

Appendix E , 2008a, Letter from Brian Kelly, USFWS, Field Supervisor, USFWS Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Joe Meyer, BLM, Field Office Manager, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated December 19, 2008. , 2008b, Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat for Wyoming Counties, February 2008, available from website on the Internet: http://www.fws.gov/mountain­ prairie/endspp/CountyLists/Wyoming.pdf>, accessed October 2008. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2007, Letter from John Emmerich, Deputy Director, WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming, to Teresa Johnson, BLM, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming, dated April 10, 2007.

E5-4

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

APPENDIX F BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION FOR THE 
 SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL EIS 


Appendix F BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES EVALUATION
 INTRODUCTION The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming has prepared a list of sensitive species to focus species management efforts towards maintaining habitats under a multiple use mandate. The authority for this policy and guidance comes from the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended; Title II of the Sikes Act, as amended; the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1716); Department Manual 235.1.1A; and BLM Manual 6840.06 E. Sensitive Species. The goals of the sensitive species policy are to: • 	 Maintain vulnerable species and habitat components in functional BLM ecosystems. • 	 Ensure sensitive species are considered in land management decisions. • 	 Prevent a need for species listing under the ESA. • 	 Prioritize needed conservation work with an emphasis on habitat. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Under the Proposed Action, BLM will hold separate competitive lease sales for the federal coal lands in the Belle Ayr North Lease by Application (LBA) Tract as applied for by Foundation Coal West (FCW), the West Coal Creek LBA tract as applied for by Ark Land Company (ALC), the Caballo West LBA tract as applied for by Caballo Coal Company (CCC), and the Maysdorf II LBA tract as applied for by Cordero Mining Company (CMC) (see figures 2-1 through 2-4 and the land descriptions in section 2.1 of this environmental impact statement [EIS]). There are four Proposed Actions, one for each of the LBA tracts. For each tract, the Proposed Action assumes that the applicant for a tract would be the successful bidder and that the tract would be mined as a maintenance lease for an existing mine. The surface estate on each LBA tract is privately owned with the exception of the Maysdorf II Tract, which has approximately 284 acres of federally owned surface. This federally owned surface is managed by BLM. SPECIES OCCURRENCE AND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS Sensitive species were listed for the BLM Buffalo Field Office within its range. Some sensitive species could or do occur within the four LBA tracts. Specialized habitat requirements (i.e., caves, cliffs, calcareous rock outcrops) make occupation for other sensitive species unlikely. Tables F-1 through F-4 list BLM sensitive species, summarize their habitat requirements, and indicate if they have been observed on or around the general analysis areas for the LBA tracts. These tables represent the most current sensitive species lists (BLM 2002), and observations were based on field surveys and file searches completed in 2007 and 2008. Additional information on occurrences of these species on the tracts and surrounding wildlife survey areas can be found in section 3.10 of this EIS. Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications F-1

Appendix F Table F-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on Belle Ayr North LBA Tract.
Habitat Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills Ponds, sloughs, small streams No No1 Observed on Belle Ayr North LBA Tract

Common Name (scientific name) Amphibians Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Spotted frog (Ranus pretiosa) Birds Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Sage sparrow (Amphispiza billneata) Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)

Grasslands, weedy fields Basin-prairie shrub Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, rock outcrops Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands, basin-prairie shrubs Conifer and deciduous forests Cliffs Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Lakes, ponds, rivers Marshes, wet meadows Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves

No1 Yes, Presumed Breeder No, Historic Breeder No, Common Breeder in vicinity No, Common Breeder in vicinity No, Uncommon Breeder No, Infrequent Migrant No1 No1 No, Occasional Migrant No, Rare Visitor No, Rare Breeder ----1 ----1 No1

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F Table F-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on Belle Ayr North LBA Tract (Continued).
Habitat Cold water streams and lakes No1 Observed on Belle Ayr North LBA Tract

Common Name (scientific name) Fish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) Plants Northern Arnica (Arnica lonchophylla) Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) Soft Aster (Aster mollis) William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii) Mountain Lady's Slipper (Cypripedium montanum) Rabbit Buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule var. canum [E. Lagopus]) Hall's Fescue (Festuca hallii)

Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands Conifer forests, woodland chaparral, caves and mines Conifer and deciduous forest, caves and mines Cliffs over perennial water, basin-prairie shrub Grasslands Forests, basin-prairie shrub, caves and mines Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands Open woods and slopes on sandy-gravel or limestone and shady, moist north-facing birch-hazelnut forests. Elev. 6,500-8,000 ft. Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300 to 6,500 ft Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows on deep, calcareous soils at the edge of aspen or pine woodlands. Elev. 6,400-8,500 ft Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000 to 8,300 ft Shady moist forests and riparian shrublands. Elev. 5,400-5,500 ft. Barren sandy or clay soils and rock outcrops in juniper woodlands and sagebrush steppe communities. Elev. 3,800-5,500 ft. Meadows, slopes, and open woods. Elev. 7,400-10,500 ft.

No1 ----1 ----1 ----1 No ----1 ----1

----1 ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

F-3

Appendix F Table F-1. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on Belle Ayr North LBA Tract (Continued).
Habitat Basin and foothill areas on dry, sandy soils. Elev. 4,800-7,500 ft. Calcareous rock outcrops and rocky soil within sagebrush, juniper, Douglas fir, and limber pine communities. Elev. 5,200-8,500 ft. Boggy woods and marshes. Elev. 7,000-9,000 ft. Moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams 4,200-7,000’ Moist calcareous outcrops and boulders in shady canyons and streams. Elev. 4,600-8,200 ft. No Observed on Belle Ayr North LBA Tract

Common Name (scientific name) Contracted Indian Ricegrass (Oryzopsis contracta [O. hymenoides var. contracta]) Cary's Beardtongue (Penstemon caryi) Northern Blackberry (Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis [R. acaulis]) Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Hapeman's Sullivan (Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii)
1

----1 ----1 No ----1

Habitat generally lacking or very limited

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F Table F-2. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on West Coal Creek LBA Tract.
Common Name (scientific name) Amphibians Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Spotted frog (Ranus pretiosa) Birds Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Sage sparrow (Amphispiza billneata) Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Habitat Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills Ponds, sloughs, small streams ----1 No Observed on West Coal Creek LBA Tract

Grasslands, weedy fields Basin-prairie shrub Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, rock outcrops Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands, basin-prairie shrubs Conifer and deciduous forests Cliffs Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Lakes, ponds, rivers Marshes, wet meadows Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves

No1 Presumed Breeder Recent Breeder Common Breeder Common Breeder Infrequent Breeder Infrequent Migrant Never Recorded1 No1 Rare Migrant Rare Visitor Rare Breeder ----1 ----1 No1

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

F-5

Appendix F Table F-2. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on West Coal Creek LBA Tract (Continued).
Common Name (scientific name) Fish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) Plants Northern Arnica (Arnica lonchophylla) Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) Soft Aster (Aster mollis) William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii) Mountain Lady's Slipper (Cypripedium montanum ) Rabbit Buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule var. canum [E. Lagopus]) Habitat Cold water streams and lakes No1 Observed on West Coal Creek LBA Tract

Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands Conifer forests, woodland chaparral, caves and mines Conifer and deciduous forest, caves and mines Cliffs over perennial water, basin-prairie shrub Grasslands Forests, basin-prairie shrub, caves and mines Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands Open woods and slopes on sandy-gravel or limestone and shady, moist north-facing birch-hazelnut forests. Elev. 6,500-8,000 ft. Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300 to 6,500 ft Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows on deep, calcareous soils at the edge of aspen or pine woodlands. Elev. 6,400-8,500 ft Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000 to 8,300 ft Shady moist forests and riparian shrublands. Elev. 5,400-5,500 ft. Barren sandy or clay soils and rock outcrops in juniper woodlands and sagebrush steppe communities. Elev. 3,800-5,500 ft.

No1 ----1 ----1 ----1 No ----1 No.

----1 ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F Table F-2. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on West Coal Creek LBA Tract (Continued).
Habitat Meadows, slopes, and open woods. Elev. 7,400-10,500 ft. Basin and foothill areas on dry, sandy soils. Elev. 4,800-7,500 ft. Calcareous rock outcrops and rocky soil within sagebrush, juniper, Douglas fir, and limber pine communities. Elev. 5,200-8,500 ft. Boggy woods and marshes. Elev. 7,000-9,000 ft. Moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams 4,200-7,000’ Moist calcareous outcrops and boulders in shady canyons and streams. Elev. 4,600-8,200 ft. Observed on West Coal Creek LBA Tract ----1 No

Common Name (scientific name) Hall's Fescue (Festuca hallii) Contracted Indian Ricegrass (Oryzopsis contracta [O. hymenoides var. contracta]) Cary's Beardtongue (Penstemon caryi) Northern Blackberry (Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis [R. acaulis]) Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Hapeman's Sullivan (Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii)
1

----1 ----1 No ----1

Habitat generally lacking or very limited

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

F-7

Appendix F Table F-3. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on Caballo West LBA Tract.
Common Name (scientific name) Amphibians Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Spotted frog (Ranus pretiosa) Birds Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Sage sparrow (Amphispiza billneata) Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Habitat Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills Ponds, sloughs, small streams No No1 Observed on Caballo West LBA Tract

Grasslands, weedy fields Basin-prairie shrub Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, rock outcrops Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands, basin-prairie shrubs Conifer and deciduous forests Cliffs Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Lakes, ponds, rivers Marshes, wet meadows Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves

No1 Yes, Presumed Breeder No, Historic Breeder No, Common Breeder in vicinity No, Common Breeder in vicinity No, Uncommon Breeder No, Infrequent Migrant No1 No1 No, Occasional Migrant No, Rare Visitor No, Rare Breeder ----1 ----1 No1

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F Table F-3. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on Caballo West LBA Tract (Continued).
Common Name (scientific name) Fish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) Plants Northern Arnica (Arnica lonchophylla) Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) Soft Aster (Aster mollis) William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii) Mountain Lady's Slipper (Cypripedium montanum ) Habitat Cold water streams and lakes No1 Observed on Caballo West LBA Tract

Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands Conifer forests, woodland chaparral, caves and mines Conifer and deciduous forest, caves and mines Cliffs over perennial water, basin-prairie shrub Grasslands Forests, basin-prairie shrub, caves and mines Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands

No1 ----1 ----1 ----1 No ----1 ----1 No. Habitat is not present due to lack of limestone parent material and birch-hazelnut forests. Known populations in Wyoming are in Sheridan and Johnson Counties. No. Habitat was not present; soil type was a major limiting factor. Known populations in Wyoming are in Fremont county. No. Habitat is not present. Known populations in Wyoming are in Niobrara, Natrona, Sublette, Washakie, Big Horn and Sheridan counties. No. Habitat limitations on the tract include lower elevations and lack of limestone parent material. Known populations in Wyoming are in Johnson, Washakie, and Natrona counties. No. Habitat is not present due to lack of shady forests and lower elevations. Known populations in Wyoming are in Sheridan and Johnson counties.

Open woods and slopes on sandy-gravel or limestone and shady, moist north-facing birch-hazelnut forests. Elev. 6,500-8,000 ft. Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300 to 6,500 ft Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows on deep, calcareous soils at the edge of aspen or pine woodlands. Elev. 6,400-8,500 ft Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000 to 8,300 ft Shady moist forests and riparian shrublands. Elev. 5,400-5,500 ft.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

F-9

Appendix F Table F-3. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on Caballo West LBA Tract (Continued).
Habitat Barren sandy or clay soils and rock outcrops in juniper woodlands and sagebrush steppe communities. Elev. 3,800-5,500 ft. Observed on Caballo West LBA Tract No. This species was not identified during the vegetation survey of the tract and limited areas of habitat are present due to lack of juniper woodlands and rock outcrops. Known populations in Wyoming are in Sheridan and Big Horn counties. No. Habitat is not present due to lower elevations and lack of montane meadows and open woods. Known population in Wyoming are in Park and Johnson counties. No. Contracted Indian Ricegrass was not identified during the vegetation survey of the tract and limited areas of habitat are present. Known populations in Wyoming are in Campbell, Washakie, Hot Springs, Natrona, Sweetwater, Carbon, and Albany counties. No. Habitat is not present due to lower elevations and lack of soils and vegetation communities where this species is found. Known populations in Wyoming are found in Big Horn, Washakie, and Sheridan counties. No. Habitat is not present due to lower elevation and vegetation communities where this species is found. Known populations in Wyoming are found in Johnson county. No No. Habitat is limited due to lack of topography and moisture conditions where this species is found. Known populations in Wyoming are found in Sheridan, Johnson, Natrona, Big Horn, and Washakie counties.

Common Name (scientific name) Rabbit Buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule var. canum [E. Lagopus])

Hall's Fescue (Festuca hallii)

Meadows, slopes, and open woods. Elev. 7,400-10,500 ft.

Contracted Indian Ricegrass (Oryzopsis contracta [O. hymenoides var. contracta])

Basin and foothill areas on dry, sandy soils. Elev. 4,800-7,500 ft.

Cary's Beardtongue (Penstemon caryi)

Calcareous rock outcrops and rocky soil within sagebrush, juniper, Douglas fir, and limber pine communities. Elev. 5,200-8,500 ft.

Northern Blackberry (Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis [R. acaulis]) Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)

Boggy woods and marshes. Elev. 7,000-9,000 ft. Moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams 4,200-7,000’ Moist calcareous outcrops and boulders in shady canyons and streams. Elev. 4,600-8,200 ft.

Hapeman's Sullivan (Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii)
1

Habitat generally lacking or very limited

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F Table F-4. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on Maysdorf II LBA Tract.
Common Name (scientific name) Amphibians Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Spotted frog (Ranus pretiosa) Birds Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Sage sparrow (Amphispiza billneata) Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Habitat Beaver ponds, permanent water in plains and foothills Ponds, sloughs, small streams Observed on Maysdorf II LBA Tract Yes, incidental siting during wildlife surveys, Breeder ----1

Grasslands, weedy fields Basin-prairie shrub Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands, rock outcrops Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet meadows Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands, basin-prairie shrubs Conifer and deciduous forests Cliffs Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill shrub Lakes, ponds, rivers Marshes, wet meadows Open woodlands, streamside willow and alder groves

No, Rare Breeder Yes, Common Breeder No, Uncommon Breeder Yes, Common Breeder Yes, Common Breeder Yes, Uncommon Breeder No, Uncommon Spring Migrant or Breeder No, limited habitat, Rare Breeder ----1 No, incidental migrant sightings during previous wildlife surveys No, Rare Breeder Yes, Uncommon Breeder ----1 ----1 ----1

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

F-11

Appendix F Table F-4. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on Maysdorf II LBA Tract (Continued).
Common Name (scientific name) Fish Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncoryhynchus clarki) Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Swift fox (Vulpes velox) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) Plants Northern Arnica (Arnica lonchophylla) Porter’s sagebrush (Artemisia porteri) Soft Aster (Aster mollis) William’s wafer parsnip (Cymopterus williamsii) Mountain Lady's Slipper (Cypripedium montanum ) Rabbit Buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule var. canum [E. Lagopus]) Habitat Cold water streams and lakes ----1 Observed on Maysdorf II LBA Tract

Shortgrass/midgrass grasslands Conifer forests, woodland chaparral, caves and mines Conifer and deciduous forest, caves and mines Cliffs over perennial water, basin-prairie shrub Grasslands Forests, basin-prairie shrub, caves and mines Basin-prairie shrub, grasslands Open woods and slopes on sandy-gravel or limestone and shady, moist north-facing birch-hazelnut forests. Elev. 6,500-8,000 ft. Sparsely vegetated badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes; 5,300 to 6,500 ft Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows on deep, calcareous soils at the edge of aspen or pine woodlands. Elev. 6,400-8,500 ft Open ridgetops and upper slopes with exposed limestone outcrops or rockslides; 6,000 to 8,300 ft Shady moist forests and riparian shrublands. Elev. 5,400-5,500 ft. Barren sandy or clay soils and rock outcrops in juniper woodlands and sagebrush steppe communities. Elev. 3,800-5,500 ft.

No prairie dog towns on tract, found adjacent to tract ----1 ----1 ----1 No, Uncommon Breeder ----1 No.

----1 ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix F Table F-4. BLM Sensitive Species for the Buffalo Field Office and Habitat Requirements and Observations on Maysdorf II LBA Tract (Continued).
Habitat Meadows, slopes, and open woods. Elev. 7,400-10,500 ft. Basin and foothill areas on dry, sandy soils. Elev. 4,800-7,500 ft. Calcareous rock outcrops and rocky soil within sagebrush, juniper, Douglas fir, and limber pine communities. Elev. 5,200-8,500 ft. Boggy woods and marshes. Elev. 7,000-9,000 ft. Moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded soils bordering wetland meadows, springs, lakes, or perennial streams 4,200-7,000’ Moist calcareous outcrops and boulders in shady canyons and streams. Elev. 4,600-8,200 ft. Observed on Maysdorf II LBA Tract ----1 No

Common Name (scientific name) Hall's Fescue (Festuca hallii) Contracted Indian Ricegrass (Oryzopsis contracta [O. hymenoides var. contracta]) Cary's Beardtongue (Penstemon caryi) Northern Blackberry (Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis [R. acaulis]) Ute Ladies’ Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Hapeman's Sullivan (Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii)
1

----1 ----1 No ----1

Habitat generally lacking or very limited

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

F-13

Appendix F REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2002, BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List September 20, 2002, available on the Internet as of March 2009: .

F-14

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

APPENDIX G
CBNG AND CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS
 WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION 
 ON SECTIONS IN OR ADJACENT TO THE 
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, 
 AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS


Appendix G
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS

Api Number (Short) 532114 530420 534331 534389 534615 534616 542179 542180 542181 542182 543286 532393 532745 534278 534279 534280 532389 532392 532534 532585 532589 532736 551220 541898 541907 541913 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 0 0 39,515 38,480 46,697 10,354 5,402 5,938 16,224 13,623 14,758 259,396 125,341 34,556 92,916 41,862 317,601 113,509 136,355 240,727 318,413 220,184 1,479 25,056 46,071 111,389 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 0 0 92,183 114,558 186,410 110,197 41,816 433,622 53,111 101,278 4,882 36,960 75,270 67,924 1,104 9,896 0 1,726,935 1,203,790 4,483 0 50 0 0 1,114,524 741,662

LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC DCD INC RIM OPERATING INC RIM OPERATING INC RIM OPERATING INC RIM OPERATING INC RIM OPERATING INC RIM OPERATING INC RIM OPERATING INC RIM OPERATING INC RIM OPERATING INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC

No. 14-9 No. 11-11 No. 14-14 No. 24-14 No. 13-14 No. 23-14 No. 33-14 No. 43-14 No. 34-14 No. 44-14 No. 32-14 No. 24-15 No. 23-15R No. 42-15 No. 21-15 No. 44-15 No. 42-16 No. 13-16 No. 12-16 No. 43-16R No. 41-16R No. 22-16R No. 43-16 No. 6-24-47-71-A No. 6-23-47-71A No. 6-33-47-71-A

46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 46N 47N 47N 47N

71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W

SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 9 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 11 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 14 SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 14 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 14 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 14 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 15 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 15 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 15 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 15 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 15 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 16 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 16 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 16 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 16 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 16 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 16 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 16 SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 6 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 6 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 6

SP SI PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS SI PS FL PS PS FL FL PR FL FL FL FL SI SI SI SI

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

G-1

Appendix G
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (CONTINUED)

Api Number (Short) 541914 541915 541916 542112 542113 542186 542301 542363 542364 542458 530273 541908 541909 541910 541911 541912 541920 542746 542747 542748 544412 545410 545411 545412 529869 530790 530793 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 45,457 61,239 1,565 38,613 69,372 13,074 29,790 4,152 0 10,769 96,384 11,296 13,759 33,113 51,648 37,333 51,458 74,511 66,879 25,070 33,458 0 0 0 626,449 5,584 9,494 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 0 1,248,824 143,313 1,329,875 203,656 526,801 1,499,691 891,628 975,429 599,042 80,695 0 0 0 0 0 762,782 566,120 134,743 320,094 436,494 46,355 714,647 430,560 0 0 0

ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC PURE PETROLEUM LLC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC

No. 6-34-47-71-A No. 6-43-47-71-A No. 6-44-47-71-A No. 6-12-47-71-A No. 6-22-47-71-A No. 6-13-47-71-A No. 6-21-47-71A No. 6-42-47-71-A No. 6-32-47-71-A No. 6-31-47-71-A No. 7-13 No. 7-22-47-71-A No. 7-21-47-71-A No. 7-31-47-71-A No. 7-41-47-71-A No. 7-32-47-71-A No. 7-12-47-71-A No. 7-14-47-71-A No. 7-24-47-71-A No. 7-23-47-71-A No. 7-13-47-71-A No. 7-24-B No. 7-23-B No. 7-14-B No. 13-16 No. 1-16 No. 8-16

47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N

71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W

SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 6 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 6 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 6 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 6 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 6 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 6 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 6 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 6 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 6 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 6 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 16 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 16 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 16

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI TA TA

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (CONTINUED)

Api Number (Short) 533763 533764 533766 533767 533768 533769 533770 531369 533761 533765 535669 542357 542358 542359 542360 545406 545408 545409 530889 535670 535673 533762 530982 530983 544549 544551 544553 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 74,741 136,924 82,739 65,878 70,364 98,180 83,131 0 116,473 97,216 40,845 17,324 17,950 25,849 27,679 0 0 0 0 40,586 43,907 120,213 32,655 20,400 0 69,799 0 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 55,377 0 183,257 196,983 1,066 113,337 146,819 0 129,228 97,128 84,675 0 0 0 177,943 232,389 264,139 614,942 0 14,100 0 4,697 0 0 708,134 0 365,282

BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC LANCE OIL & GAS COMPANY INC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC PURE PETROLEUM LLC PURE PETROLEUM LLC CORDERO MINING CO CORDERO MINING CO CORDERO MINING CO

No. 44-17 No. 34-17 No. 12-17 No. 11-17 No. 22-17 No. 23-17 No. 13-17 No. 18-34 No. 41-18 No. 42-18 No. 18N No. 18-22-47-71-A No. 18-11-47-71-A No. 18-12-47-71-A No. 18-21-47-71-A No. 18-22-B No. 18-12-B No. 18-11-B No. 23-19 No. 19C No. 19F No. 31-20 No. 7-21 No. 4-21 No. 21-44 C No. 21-44 No. 21-43 C

47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N

71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W

SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 18 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 21 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 21 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 21 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 21 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 21

FL FL FL FL FL FL FL SP FL FL SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI PR SI SI FL SI SI PS FL SI

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

G-3

Appendix G
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (CONTINUED)

Api Number (Short) 544555 544557 544559 531776 531777 530433 530434 530435 530610 542361 542362 542384 542386 542387 542388 542389 530359 540857 540860 540861 540877 540878 530305 530381 530611 533777 533778 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 62,659 0 31,975 316,299 253,885 226,897 82,201 252,745 114,131 0 430 39,993 1,433 31,760 13,119 16,999 358,581 110,390 73,273 3,624 31,681 0 549,302 363,256 385,029 780 87,163 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 0 643,548 0 11 14 1,107,261 2,214,119 2,046,275 2,909,869 554,881 510,924 442,023 596,433 942,309 996,789 1,012,464 1,414,024 273,880 207,103 217,105 2 0 861,329 1,147,471 981,652 111,456 7,558

CORDERO MINING CO CORDERO MINING CO CORDERO MINING CO CITATION OIL & GAS CORPORATION CITATION OIL & GAS CORPORATION ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC SUNSHINE VALLEY PETROLEUM SUNSHINE VALLEY PETROLEUM LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC

No. 21-43 No. 21-42 C No. 21-42 No. 33-32 No. 44-32 No. 1-13 No. 1-22 No. 1-24 No. 1-12 No. 1-43-47-72-A No. 1-44-47-72-A No. 1-14-47-72-A No. 1-21-47-72-A No. 1-23-47-72-A No. 1-33-47-72-A No. 1-34-47-72-A No. 2-31 47-72 No. 2-42 47-72 No. 2-32 47-72 No. 2-41 47-72 No. 22-2 No. 21-2 No. 11-22 47-72 No. 11-33 47-72 No. 11-23 No. 11-13 No. 11-12

47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N

71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W

NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 21 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 21 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 21 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 32 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 32 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 1 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 1 SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 1 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 1 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 1 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 1 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 1 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 1 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 1 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 1 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 1 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 2 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 2 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 2 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 2 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 2 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 2 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 11 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 11 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 11 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 11 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 11

FL PS SI FL FL SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI FL SI

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (CONTINUED)

Api Number (Short) 533779 540859 541894 543621 530285 530307 534985 534986 535468 535469 541917 542414 542415 542417 542419 542420 534974 534975 534977 534981 534983 534990 534991 544593 544594 544597 544598 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 66,681 147,686 99,096 108,976 355,633 188,434 42,074 8,852 86 24,667 32,101 70,255 76,273 20,941 48,890 64,874 76,681 44,277 32,588 13,790 20,177 39,530 46,331 0 0 0 0 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 7,976 141,481 329,701 79,006 806,107 1,528,777 234,632 446,212 464,329 769,894 860,371 252,481 413,629 227,796 1,022,697 762,169 106,724 93,786 16,735 199,047 188,907 17,179 111,875 2,386,459 977,312 112,387 306,571

LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC PEABODY NATURAL GAS LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC

No. 11-11 No. 11-34 47-72 No. 11-21 No. 11-44-47-72 No. 12-11 No. 12-33 No. 12M No. 12L No. 12G No. 12B No. 12-43-47-72-A No. 12-12-47-72-A No. 12-22-47-72-A No. 12-21-47-72-A No. 12-34-47-72-A No. 12-44-47-72-A No. 130 No. 13L No. 13J No. 13G No. 13B No. 13E No. 13D No. 13K-D No. 13G-D No. 13G-D No. 13F-D

47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N

72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W

NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 11 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 11 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 11 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 11 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 12 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 12 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 12 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 12 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 12 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 12 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 12 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 12 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 12 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 12 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 12 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 12 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI PS PS PS PS

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

G-5

Appendix G
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (CONTINUED)

Api Number (Short) 556116 530430 530431 531518 531521 533773 533774 533775 533776 535662 535663 535664 535665 542844 533607 533608 533609 533612 533613 533614 534727 534728 534729 534730 535013 535014 536768 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 0 408,292 564,958 21,351 1,640 9,450 9,311 4,283 245 41,936 37,087 31,480 52,255 0 123,158 6,104 50,432 42,142 59,456 69,741 57,080 100,093 120,210 256,365 40,125 84,260 14,936 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 337,727 1,903,535 1,729,291 0 0 0 0 0 0 525,101 701,571 257,069 409,888 0 497,585 73,136 212,954 295,934 232,712 448,230 331,527 353,322 255,943 179,871 428,690 276,510 138,639

CNX GAS COMPANY LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC CNX GAS COMPANY LLC MTG OPERATING COMPANY PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC

No. 13F2-D No. 14-21 47-72 No. 14-22 47-72 No. 14-42 No. 14-41 No. 14-32 No. 14-31 No. 14-12 No. 14-11 No. 14 I No. 14 J No. 14 O No. 14P No. 14-12C No. 11-7-48-71A No. 4-7-48-71A No. 5-7-48-71A No. 6-7-48-71A No. 7-7-48-71A No. 10-7-48-71A No. 9-7-48-71A No. 14-7-48-71A No. 15-7-48-71A No. 16-7-48-71A No. 13-7-48-71A No. 12-7-48-71A No. 3-7-48-71A

47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N

72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W

SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 14 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 14 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 14 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 14 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 14 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 14 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 7 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 7 SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 7 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 7 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 7 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 7

PS SI SI SI SI SI SP SP SP SI SI SI SI SP SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (CONTINUED)

Api Number (Short) 538277 538715 538716 538280 538281 543705 551841 551843 554361 557544 554360 554362 542941 542942 542944 542948 542187 547183 547184 547185 547186 547190 557530 557531 557532 557533 557534 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 275,886 29,461 35,368 273,077 201,773 38,376 64,174 72,295 12,307 0 14,368 56,542 113,693 92,478 100,275 60,791 108,017 52,715 80,297 52,397 86,117 55,292 0 0 0 0 0 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 195,481 252,093 140,052 218,656 237,222 0 0 0 0 181,750 0 0 411,372 641,676 161,750 300,406 396,783 660 0 26 24 15 95,659 103,344 295,158 135,797 151,084

PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC PRB OIL & GAS INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC

No. 1-7-48-71A No. 8-7-48-71A No. 2-7-48-71A No. 3-8-48-71A No. 5-8-48-71A No. 8-32 No. 8-43 No. 8-34 No. 8-41 No. 34-8-48-71M No. 9-12 No. 9-23 No. 16-21 No. 16-23 No. 16-14 No. 16-12 No. 17-14-48-71-A No. 43-17 No. 23-17 No. 21-17 No. 34-17 No. 12-17 No. 23-17-48-71 M No. 32-17-48-71 M No. 21-17-48-71 M No. 12-17-48-71 M No. 43-17-48-71 M

48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N

71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W

NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 7 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 8 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 8 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 8 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 8 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 8 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 8 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 8 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 9 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 9 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 16 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 16 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 16 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 16 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 17 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI PS SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI PS PS PS PS PS

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

G-7

Appendix G
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (CONTINUED)

Api Number (Short) 534731 534732 534733 534734 534735 534736 534737 534738 534739 540318 540319 540320 542007 542008 542009 536481 536482 536483 536484 536485 536486 536487 536488 536489 542003 542004 542005 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 250,201 99,556 105,148 100,807 67,223 44,148 36,586 81,723 159,917 30,742 22,231 19,700 72,913 30,676 25,913 90,500 90,500 90,500 90,500 74,208 90,500 90,500 90,500 33,280 14,584 20,976 14,189 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 169,106 274,655 380,813 340,395 308,452 387,337 507,930 493,530 191,231 48,049 5,740 84,970 705,701 190,821 494,532 1,204,090 432,758 1,379,147 1,491,195 1,707,180 1,374,459 733,003 2,433,892 725,739 180,761 194,478 250,918

PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC

No. 1-18-48-71 No. 5-18-48-71A No. 6-18-48-71A No. 7-18-48-71A No. 8-18-48-71A No. 10-18-48-71A No. 9-18-48-71A No. 11-18-48-71A No. 12-18-48-71 No. 31-18 No. 21-18 No. 11-18 No. 18-34-48-71-A No. 18-44-48-71-A No. 18-24-48-71-A No. 19-12 No. 19-13 No. 19-14 No. 19-22 No. 19-23 No. 19-24 No. 19-32 No. 19-33 No. 19-34 No. 19-41-48-71-A No. 19-42-48-71-A No. 19-31-48-71-A

48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N

71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W

NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 18 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 18 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 18 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 18 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 19 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 19 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (CONTINUED)

Api Number (Short) 542006 542069 556640 556643 556644 556645 556646 556647 556650 556651 556652 556653 556654 556655 556656 556744 556745 556746 556747 556748 556749 542115 542190 542191 547187 547188 547189 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 15,222 20,190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,694 20,965 11,799 86,025 38,030 39,085 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 243,899 163,662 207,762 242,291 188,490 198,836 273,813 194,531 142,511 258,186 266,643 310,715 107,662 136,494 212,944 303,092 259,680 225,175 279,660 209,294 284,286 442,013 671,157 770,728 29,249 128,265 7

ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC

No. 19-21-48-71-A No. 19-11-48-71-A No. 19-23N-48-71 No. 19-33NW-48-71 No. 19-32SW-48-71 No. 19-32NW-48-71 No. 19-13SW-48-71 No. 19-31SW-48-71 No. 19-22S-48-71 No. 19-22N-48-71 No. 19-13NE-48-71 No. 19-12SE-48-71 No. 19-12NE-48-71 No. 19-11SE-48-71 No. 19-21S-48-71 No. 19-12-48-71 No. 19-13-48-71 No. 19-22-48-71 No. 19-23-48-71 No. 19-32-48-71 No. 19-33-48-71 No. 20-12-48-71-A No. 20-11-48-71-A No. 20-22-48-71-A No. 21-20 No. 32-20 No. 41-20

48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N

71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W

NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 19 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 19 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 19 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 19 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 20 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 20 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 20 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 20 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20

TA SI PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS SI SI SI SI SI SI

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

G-9

Appendix G
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (CONTINUED)

Api Number (Short) 543831 543833 544857 536507 536508 536509 536510 530419 530470 530523 533053 539382 539393 539394 539395 539405 539406 539407 539408 541880 542409 544704 544705 542067 542068 542336 542337 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 61,270 91,327 40,587 69,692 69,692 69,692 69,692 833,848 93,209 631,588 120,654 77,878 40,669 87,250 75,764 62,410 55,542 35,352 63,781 54,379 83,713 23,722 22,543 104,180 79,438 44,586 20,588 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 516,265 244,652 167,176 1,524,960 1,305,297 1,240,657 1,920,434 1,011,352 1,372,088 698,233 324,980 204,043 63,640 106,431 94,848 166,607 194,914 92,684 90,753 10,392 29,526 0 0 127,286 100,217 2,430 458,480

BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC BLACKSTONE OPERATING INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC LORAL OPERATING LLC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC PRB OIL & GAS INC LORAL OPERATING LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC

No. 21-21 No. 21-12 No. 21-32 No. 30-11 No. 30-12 No. 30-13 No. 30-14 No. 13-12 48-72 No. 13-13 No. 13-11 No. 13-14 48-72 No. 9-13-48-72A No. 8-13-48-72A No. 15-13-48-72A No. 10-13-48-72A No. 7-13-48-72A No. 3-13-48-72A No. 2-13-48-72A No. 1-13-48-72A No. 13-22 No. 13-44-48-72-A No. 13-23 No. 13-24 No. 24-41-48-72-A No. 24-31-48-72-A No. 24-44-48-72-A No. 24-34-48-72-A

48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N

71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W

NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 21 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 21 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 21 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 30 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 30 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 30 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 30 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 13 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 SE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 13 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 24 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 24 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 24 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 24

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G
CBNG WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION ON SECTIONS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS (CONTINUED)

Api Number (Short) 542400 542401 542402 542403 542404 542405 542406 542407 542408 544707 536496 536497 536498 536499 536500 536501 536502 544708 544709 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 58,338 9,368 24,575 21,622 21,045 18,614 43,460 49,287 48,386 21,327 67,993 69,692 69,692 67,993 57,016 69,692 69,692 34,024 0 Cumulative Production Water (BBL) 0 0 0 33,181 107,450 0 492,961 605,495 504,855 0 1,211,944 510,814 310,747 803,946 1,168,673 148,407 1,093,890 0 38,262

ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS INC

No. 24-23-48-72-A No. 24-11-48-72-A No. 24-13-48-72-A No. 24-43-48-72-A No. 24-22-48-72-A No. 24-21-48-72-A No. 24-33-48-72-A No. 24-32-48-72-A No. 24-42-48-72-A No. 24-14 No. 25-31 No. 25-32 No. 25-33 No. 25-34 No. 25-41 No. 25-43 No. 25-44 No. 25-11 No. 25-21

48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N 48N

72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W 72W

NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 24 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 24 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 24 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 24 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 24 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 24 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 24 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 24 SE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 24 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 24 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 25 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 25 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 25 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 25 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 25 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 25 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 25 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 25 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 25

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

Status Code: FL = Flowing, PR = Pumping Rods, PS = Pumping Submersible, SI = Shut-In , SP = Well Spudded, TA = Temporarily Abandon Well data from WOGCC 12/13/07

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

G-11

Appendix G
CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK,
 CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS' GENERAL ANALYSIS AREAS 

Api Number (Short) 522675 556853 526188 526189 524327* 524394* 524991 525072 527775* 530089 530110 530225* 529208 529372 530469 532016* 532437 524219 524311 524418 524498* 527871* 527872 528223 528376 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 12,412 69,069 416,573 1,038,540 4,228 0 4,606 10,994 0 3,288 18,449 598 4,177 16,174 4,623 20,730 0 28,237 6,312 0 0 6,198 29,586 5,046 136 Cumulative Production Oil (BBL) 11,493 9,224 63,076 316,579 496,360 30,026 146,288 500,964 18,026 48,294 307,777 6,519 67,057 254,674 119,305 33,954 24,301 294,216 276,426 0 19,567 132,120 647,210 106,299 6,572

PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCES INC CHACO ENERGY COMPANY CHACO ENERGY COMPANY BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC

No. 4-3 No. 30-4 No. 14-11 No. 32-14 No. 34-17 No. 2-17 No. 3-17 No. 1-17 No. 5-17 No. 6-17 No. 44-17 No. 7-17 No. 1-18 No. 2-18 No. 3-18 No. 1 No. VIII No. 41-20 No. 43-20 No. 1-20 WSW No. 2-20 No. 4-20 No. 5-20 No. 44-20 No. 1

46N 46N 46N 46N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N

70W 70W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 71W

SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 30 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 30 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 11 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 14 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 17 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 17 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 17 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 18 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 18 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 19 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20 NE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 20 NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 20 SW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 20 SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 20 SE1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 20 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 20

PR PR PR PR AI AI PR PH AI PR PH AI SI PR PH AI SI PH PR PS AI AI PH TA TA

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix G
CONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS WELLS CAPABLE OF PRODUCTION WITHIN THE BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK,
 CABALLO WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS' GENERAL ANALYSIS AREAS (CONTINUED)

Api Number (Short) 524721 524738 527396* 524593 528261 506395 522352 530578* 530912* 523424 Company Well Name/No. TWP RNG Location WOGCC STATUS Cumulative Production Gas (MCF) 35,926 7,180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cumulative Production Oil (BBL) 31,315 277,021 46,713 389 13,629 275,773 260,846 0 251,091 467,642

BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC BOWDEN ENERGY COMPANY INC WELLSTAR CORPORATION WELLSTAR CORPORATION WELLSTAR CORPORATION WELLSTAR CORPORATION WILDFIRE PARTNERS INC

No. 1-21 No. 1-28 No. 2-28 No. 1-29 No. 2-29 No. 14-12A No. 22-13 No. 33X-13 No. 11X-13 No. 3

47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 47N 48N

71W 71W 71W 71W 71W 72W 72W 72W 72W 71W

SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 21 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 28 NW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 28 NE1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 29 NW1/4 NE1/4 Sec. 29 SW1/4 SW1/4 Sec. 12 SE1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 NW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 13 NW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 13 SW1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 8

PR PR AI PR AI PR PR AI AI SI

* Injector well - Not capable if production but important to area production Status Code: AI = Active Injector, DH = Dry Hole, PH = Pumping Hydraulic, PR = Pumping Rods, PS = Pumping Submersible, SI = Shut-In , TA = Temporarily Abandon Well data from WOGCC 12/13/07

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

G-13

APPENDIX H SUPPLEMENTAL AIR QUALITY INFORMATION FOR THE
 BELLE AYR NORTH, WEST COAL CREEK, CABALLO 
 WEST, AND MAYSDORF II LBA TRACTS 


Appendix H H-1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this appendix is to provide background information on air quality issues, including the regulatory framework, regional air quality conditions, dispersion model methodologies, and the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) process. The air quality discussion in Chapter 3 of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) focuses on potential air quality impacts specific to the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines and the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II Lease by Application (LBA) Tracts (Figure H-1). Cumulative air quality-related impacts associated with coal leasing in the Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming are addressed in Section 4.2.3 of this EIS, which summarizes the results the Task 1A (Current Air Quality Conditions) and Task 3-A (Cumulative Air Quality Effects) Reports of the Powder River Basin Coal Review, prepared by the ENSR Corporation for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Office, BLM Wyoming Casper Field Office, and BLM Montana Miles City Field Office, September 2005. H-2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Ambient air quality and air pollution emissions are regulated under federal and state laws and regulations. In Wyoming, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) is responsible for managing air quality through state regulations promulgated in the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) and through the Wyoming SIP. WDEQ/AQD has also been delegated authority by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement federal programs of the Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) of 1990. The WDEQ/AQD implements WAQSR and CAAA requirements through various air permitting programs. A proponent initiating a project must undergo new source review and obtain a pre-construction permit or a permit waiver authorizing construction of the project. This process ensures that the project will comply with the air quality requirements at the time of construction. To ensure on-going compliance, WDEQ/AQD also implements an operating permit program that can require on-going monitoring of emissions sources and/or source control systems. H-2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. These standards define the maximum level of air pollution allowed in the ambient air. The Act established NAAQS for six pollutants, known as “criteria” pollutants, which “…cause or contribute to air pollution which may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare and the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-1

Appendix H

14 16

59

LEGEND
Existing Leases (Prior to Decertification) LBA's Issued

Hay Creek II Buckskin Mine Rawhide Mine Eagle Butte Mine To Buffalo 38 Miles Dry Fork Mine Wyodak Mine
90
ROZET

LBA's Pending LBA Tracts As Applied For (This EIS) Coal-Fired Power Plant (Existing, Proposed, or Under Construction)
14 90

Crook County

GILLETTE

MOORCROFT

90

50

59

Campbell County

16

CABALLO WEST BELLE AYR NORTH
Campbell County Johnson County

Belle Ayr Mine Cordero Rojo Mine

MAYSDORF II WEST COAL CREEK Coal Creek Mine

Weston County

Caballo Mine

116

North Hilight Field West Jacobs Ranch
RENO JUNCTION

WRIGHT

Jacobs Ranch Mine To Newcastle 29 Miles
450

50

West Hilight Field
387

South Hilight Field North Porcupine South Porcupine

Black Thunder Mine North Rochelle Mine School Creek Mine (Proposed) North Antelope Rochelle Mine

387

Campbell County Converse County

West Antelope II Antelope Mine

Weston County Converse County Niobrara County

SCALE: 1"= 10 MILES

59

To Douglas 46 Miles

Figure H-1.

General Location Map with Federal Coal Leases and LBA Tracts.

H-2

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H sources.” The six, present-day criteria pollutants are lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), where PM10 is coarse particulate with mean aerodynamic diameters less than 10 microns and PM2.5 is fine particulate with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less. The CAA and CAAA allow states to promulgate additional ambient air standards that are at least as stringent, or more stringent, than the NAAQS. A list of the criteria pollutants regulated by the CAA, and the currently applicable NAAQS set by the EPA for each, is presented in Table H-1. The Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS), set by the WDEQ/AQD are also listed in this table. In some instances, the Wyoming standards are more stringent than the NAAQS. During the new source review process, applicants must demonstrate that the facility will not cause or significantly contribute to exceedance of these standards. These demonstrations are made via atmospheric dispersion modeling or other means, including monitoring data approved by the WDEQ/AQD administrator. H-2.2 Attainment/Non-Attainment Area Designations Pursuant to the CAA, the EPA has developed a method for classifying existing air quality in distinct geographic regions known as air basins, or air quality control regions, and/or Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). For each federal criteria pollutant, each air basin (or portion of a basin or MSA) is classified as in “attainment” if the area has “attained” compliance with (that is, not exceeded) the adopted NAAQS for that pollutant, or is classified as in “non­ attainment” if the levels of ambient air pollution exceed the NAAQS for that pollutant. Areas for which sufficient ambient monitoring data are not available to define attainment status are designated as “unclassified” for those particular pollutants. States use the EPA method to designate areas within their borders as being in “attainment” or “non-attainment” with the NAAQS. Existing air quality throughout most of the PRB in Wyoming, including the South Gillette Area Coal analysis area, is designated an attainment area for all pollutants. However, the town of Sheridan, Wyoming, located in Sheridan County about 150 miles northwest of the project area, is a moderate non-attainment area for PM10 due to localized sources and activity within the town. There are no other non-attainment areas within 150 miles of the project area. H-2.3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Under requirements of the CAA, the EPA has established PSD rules, intended to prevent deterioration of air quality in attainment (and unclassifiable) areas. Increases in ambient concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10 are limited to modest increments above the existing or “baseline” air quality in most Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-3

Appendix H Table H-1. Assumed Background Air Pollutant Concentrations, Applicable AAQS, and PSD Increment Values (in µg/m3).
Criteria Pollutant Car bon m onoxi de N ir togen di de oxi 1O zone Sulurdi de f oxi 8hour 3hour 24hour 7 A nnual 24hour A nnual 24hour A nnual 1326 1417 717 117 709 169 1510 610 147 -365 80 150 35 15 147 1, 300 --150 35 15 157 1, 300 260 60 150 50 65 15 -25 5 2 8 ­ 4 --512 91 20 30 17 --Averaging Time1 hour 8hour A nnual Background Concentration 3, 4 336 1, 381
5

Primary NAAQS2 40, 000 10, 000 100

Secondary NAAQS2 40, 000 10, 000 100 WAAQ

S 40, 000 10, 000 100

PSD Class I Increments --2. 5

PSD Class II Increments --25

PM 108 PM 2. 8 5
1

A nnuals andar t dsar enott beexceeded;s tt m s andar o hor-er t dsar enott beexceeded m or han onceperyear o et .
 Prm ar s andar i y t dsar edes gned t pr ectpublchealh;s i o ot i t econdar s andar y t dsar edes gned t pr ectpublc welar i o ot i f e.
 3 A l EPA anal i lN ys scom pars i onst t o hePSD i em ent ei ended t eval eat es d ofconcer and do notr es ncr sar nt o uat hr hol n epr entar at y PSD I em entCons pton
 egul or ncr um i A nal i . ys s 
 4 D at acolect by A m oco atRyckm an Cr f l ed eek oran ei - ont perod durng 1978ghtm h i i 1979,s m arzed i Riey Ri um i n l dgeEI ( S BLM 1983) .
 5 D at acolect ats t ocat 15 SSW ofG il t l ed iel ed lete,Cam pbel lCount y,W yom i ng,20052008.
 6
 h gh) t acolect atW yodak Sie 4,Cam pbel l ed t lCount y,W yom i ng,20052008 ( hour4t hi . 87 D at acolect atW yodak Sie 4,Cam pbel l ed t lCount y,W yom i ng,20052008. Da 8 O n O ct ober17,2006,EPA publs fnalr s onst t N A A Q S f i hed i evi i o he orpari at m atert ook ef ecton D ecem ber18,2006. Ther s on
 tengt tcul e t hatt f evi i s r henst he24hour
 d r o m evokest heannualPM 10 s andar of50 µg/ 3. TheSt eofW yom i w ilent nt r em aki t r s he W A A Q S. 
 t d m at ng l eri o ul ng o evi et PM 2. s andar f om 65 t 35 µg/ 3 and r 5 t 9 D at acolect att l ed heBeleA yrM i l ne,Cam pbel lCount y,W yom i ng,20052008.
 10 D at acolect att l ed heBeleA yrM i SieBal ne( t 4,5n,5s ,Cam pbel ) lCount y,W yom i ng,20052008.
 Sour BLM 2005aand W D EQ / Q D ) 
 ce:( A
2

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H attainment areas of the country (Class II areas discussed below), and to very small incremental increases in pristine attainment areas (Class I areas discussed below). For the purposes of PSD, the EPA has categorized each attainment area within the United States into one of three PSD area classifications. PSD Class I is the most restrictive air quality category, and was created by Congress to prevent further deterioration of air quality in national and international parks, national memorial parks and national wilderness areas of a given size threshold which were in existence prior to 1977, or those additional areas which have since been designated Class I under federal regulations (40 CFR 52.21). All remaining areas outside of the designated Class I boundaries were designated Class II areas, which allow a relatively greater deterioration of air quality over that in existence in 1977, although still within the NAAQS. No Class III areas, which would allow further degradation, have been designated. The federal land managers have also identified certain federal assets with Class II status as “sensitive” Class II areas for which air quality and/or visibility are valued resources. Table H-2 is a list of mandatory federal Class I areas, tribal Class I areas, and federal Class II areas that are of special interest in the region and their distance from the general South Gillette Area Coal analysis area. The closest Class I area to the South Gillette Area Coal analysis area is Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota, located about 98 miles east-southeast of the site. The next closest Class I area is the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation (tribal federal Class I area), located about 108 miles to the north-northwest. The closest sensitive Class II areas are the Devils Tower National Monument, the Jewel Cave National Monument, and the Cloud Peak Wilderness Area, which are approximately 50 miles northeast, 80 miles east-southeast, and 81 miles west of the South Gillette Area Coal analysis area, respectively. PSD regulations limit the maximum allowable increase (increment) in ambient PM10 in a Class I airshed resulting from major stationary sources or major modifications to 4 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) (annual geometric mean) and 8 µg/m3 (24-hour average). Increases in other criteria pollutants are similarly limited. Specific types of facilities listed in the PSD rules which emit, or have the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of PM10 or other criteria air pollutants, or any other facility which emits, or has the potential to emit, 250 tons per year or more of PM10 or other criteria air pollutants, are considered major stationary sources and must therefore demonstrate compliance with those incremental standards during the new source permitting process. However, fugitive emissions are not counted against the PSD major source applicability threshold unless the source is so designated by federal rule (40 CFR 52.21). As a result, the surface coal mines in the PRB have not been subject to permitting under the PSD regulations because the mine emissions that are subject to PSD applicability levels fall below these thresholds. Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-5

Appendix H Table H-2.	 Approximate Distances and Directions from the General South Gillette Analysis Area to PSD Class I and Class II Sensitive Receptor Areas. Distance (miles) Mandatory Federal PSD Class I Area Badlands Wilderness Area1 147 Bridger Wilderness Area 206 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 208 Gates of the Mountain Wilderness Area 364 Grand Teton National Park 256 North Absaroka Wilderness Area 202 Red Rocks Lake Wilderness Area 312 Scapegoat Wilderness Area 408 Teton Wilderness Area 215 Theodore Roosevelt National Park (North Unit) 266 Theodore Roosevelt National Park (South Unit) 218 U.L. Bend Wilderness Area 264 Washakie Wilderness Area 183 Wind Cave National Park 98 Yellowstone National Park 224 Tribal Federal PSD Class I Fort Peck Indian Reservation 275 Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 108 Federal PSD Class II Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area 210 Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 137 Badlands National Park 127 Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 150 Black Elk Wilderness Area 91 Cloud Peak Wilderness Area 81 Crow Indian Reservation 103 Devils Towner National Monument 50 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 302 Fort Laramie National Historic Site 134 Jewel Cave National Monument 80 Mount Rushmore National Memorial 96 Popo Agie Wilderness Area 201 Soldier Creek Wilderness Area 126 Receptor Area
1

Direction to Receptor E WSW WSW NW W WNW W WNW W NNE NNE NNW W ESE WNW N NNW WNW SE ESE WNW E W NW NE NNW SSE ESE E WSW SE

The U.S. Congress designated the Wilderness Area portion of Badlands National Park as a mandatory Federal PSD Class I area. The remainder of Badlands National Park is a PSD Class II area.

H-6

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H H-2.4 Best Available Control Technology (BACT) All sources being permitted within Wyoming must meet state-specific BACT requirements, regardless of whether the source is subject to state/federal PSD review. During new source review, a BACT analysis is developed for the proposed project. The BACT analysis must evaluate all control options on the basis of technical, economic and environmental feasibility. BACT for mining operations in the PRB is largely dictated by categorical control requirements defined in the WAQSR. BACT decisions are mandated through the new source review pre-construction permit. H-2.5 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) The NSPS are a program of “end-of-stack” technology-based controls/ approaches required by the CAA and adopted by reference into the WAQSR. These standards, which apply to specific types of new, modified or re­ constructed stationary sources, require the sources to achieve some base level of emissions control. For surface coal mining in the PRB, this includes certain activities at coal preparation plants. Specifically, the applicable requirements can be found at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Y (Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants), and in the WAQSR. However, in Wyoming these standards are typically less stringent than state-level BACT limits. H-2.6 Federal Operating Permit Program The CAAA of 1990 required the establishment of a facility-wide permitting program for larger sources of pollution. This program, known as the Federal Operating Permit Program, or “Title V” (codified at Title V of the 1990 CAAA), requires that “major sources” of air pollutants obtain a federal operating permit. Under this program, a “major source” is a facility that has the potential to emit more than 100 tpy of any regulated pollutant, 10 tpy of any single HAP, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAPs, from applicable sources. An operating permit is a compilation of all applicable air quality requirements for a facility and requires an ongoing demonstration of compliance through testing, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The potential to emit for PM10 under the existing air quality permits for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines were well below the 100 tpy applicability threshold. H-2.7 Summary of Pre-Construction Permitting Procedures The WDEQ/AQD administers a permitting program to assist the agency in managing the state’s air resources. Under this program, anyone planning to construct, modify, or use a facility capable of emitting designated pollutants into the atmosphere must obtain an air quality permit to construct. Coal mines fall into this category. A new coal mine, or a modification to an existing Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-7

Appendix H mine, must be permitted by WDEQ/AQD, pursuant to the provisions of WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 2. Under these provisions, a successful permittee must demonstrate that it will comply with all applicable aspects of the WAQSR including state and federal ambient air standards. When a permittee decides to construct a new surface coal mine or modify operations at an existing surface coal mine that will cause an increase in pollutant emissions, they must submit an application, which is reviewed by WDEQ/AQD new source review staff and the applicable WDEQ/AQD field office. Typically, a company will meet with the WDEQ/AQD prior to submitting an application to determine issues and details that need to be included in the application. A surface coal mining application will include the standard application, BACT measures that will be implemented, an inventory of point and fugitive sources for the mine in question as well as neighboring mines and other sources, and air quality modeling analyses addressing cumulative impacts in the mining region. BACT must be employed at all sources permitted/exempted in Wyoming. Per WAQSR Chapter 6, Section 2, BACT at large mining operations typically include but may not be limited to: paving of access roads, treating of haul routes with chemical dust suppressant (and water) and storage of large amounts of materials/coal awaiting shipment in enclosures such as silos, troughs or barns. These (and other) mitigation measures are considered in the development of emission inventories used for modeling/permitting. For the modeling analyses, an applicant must compile an emission inventory of PM10 from their mining operation, neighboring mines and other surrounding sources. For PM10 from the applicant mine, both point source and fugitive dust emissions are quantified. The emissions are based on the facility’s potential to emit in each year of the life of mine (LOM). The applicant also examines the surrounding coal mining operations and their previous air quality permits to determine their emissions throughout the LOM. Two or more worst-case years (generally with the highest potential emissions) are then modeled in detail. Other surrounding emission sources, such as power plants, compressor stations, paved highways, long-haul railroad lines and municipalities are also considered in the modeling analysis. Coal mines in the PRB are also required to quantify NOx emissions from their operations. Dispersion modeling is required to demonstrate compliance with the ambient NO2 standard. Potential emissions from diesel powered mining equipment, blasting and locomotive emissions (on mine property) are considered in the modeling analyses. In a fashion similar to the PM10 analysis, neighboring mining operations and other surrounding sources are also included in the NOx /NO2 analysis.

H-8

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Long-term PM10 modeling is conducted for the permit application to demonstrate compliance with the annual PM10 standard. For both point and area sources, the Industrial Source Complex Long Term model, version 3 (ISCLT3) is typically used. The AQD has recently required all mines in the PRB to “submit and justify a background PM10 concentration with each permit application” (WDEQ-AQD, 2006b). Based on monitoring from 2001 through 2004 at the Belle Ayr Mine, a site specific PM10 background concentration of 15 µg/m3 was developed in the modeling analysis for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo Mines, while a background concentration of 14.4 µg/m3 was developed for the Caballo Mine. The modeling results are added to the background and compared to the annual standard. Likewise, compliance with the annual NO2 standard is verified using ISCLT3 and an NO2 background concentration of 20 µg/m3. Short-term PM10 modeling is not required by WDEQ-AQD, nor does WDEQ­ AQD consider it to be an accurate representation of short-term impacts. Section 234 of the 1990 CAAA mandates the administrator of the EPA to analyze the accuracy of short-term modeling of fugitive particulate emissions from surface coal mines. A June 26, 1996 letter from EPA Region VIII to Wyoming state representative, Ms. Barbara Cubin, details the results of an EPA study wherein the short-term model failed to meet evaluation criteria and tended to significantly overpredict 24-hour impacts of surface coal mines. The memorandum of agreement of January 24, 1994 between EPA Region VIII and the state of Wyoming allows WDEQ-AQD to conduct monitoring in lieu of shortterm modeling for assessing coal mining-related impacts in the PRB. This agreement remains in effect and ambient particulate monitoring is required of each coal mine through conditions of their respective permits. The 1994 Memorandum of Agreement also requires WDEQ/AQD to implement “Best Available Work Practice” mitigation measures at any mine where an exceedance of the PM10 air quality standard has occurred. The permit application is reviewed by WDEQ/AQD to determine compliance with all applicable air quality standards and regulations. This includes review of compliance with emission limitations established by NSPS, review of compliance with ambient standards through modeling analyses, and establishment of control measures to meet BACT requirements. The WDEQ/AQD proposed permit conditions are sent to public notice for a 30-day review period after which a final decision on the permit is made (or a public hearing is held prior to a final permit decision). The Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines have prepared permit applications and conducted air quality modeling analyses when mine plan changes have dictated and as required by WDEQ/AQD. These applications and analyses demonstrate that mining operations have complied,

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

H-9

Appendix H and will continue to comply, with all applicable aspects of the WAQSR and the federal CAAA. In conducting an analysis of air quality impacts in the PRB for the Wyoming and Montana BLM, the Task 1a Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review reports a background concentration of 5 µg/m3 for NOx for the entire PRB. The air permit actions for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo Mines used a background concentration of 15 µg/m3 for PM10 and the Caballo Mine used a background concentration of 14.4 µg/m3. These concentrations are based on recently monitored values in Gillette, Wyoming and at the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines, and include all sources operating at the time the value was measured, including existing coal mine operations located around Gillette. H-2.8 Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) In response to the measured exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in certain areas of the PRB and in anticipation of possible future exceedances, the WDEQ/AQD has collaborated with the Wyoming Mining Association to develop a Natural Events Action Plan for the coal mines of the PRB, based on EPA Natural Event Policy guidance. The plan was submitted to and approved by EPA. A report describing the plan can be accessed on the WDEQ/AQD’s website on the Internet (). The Natural Events Action Plan recognizes that certain NAAQS exceedances due to natural events are uncontrollable. While all practical mitigation measures need be implemented during those events, the exceedances should not be considered against the NAAQS attainment designation for the region. Specific NEAP goals include:      Provide for the protection of public health, Develop public information program, Provide a mechanism for “flagging” exceedances due to uncontrollable natural events, Implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and Reactionary Control Measures (RACM) based on the severity of the event, and Provide mechanism for excluding flagged data when they meet specific wind speed criteria and BACM and RACM are in place.

The Natural Events Action Plan identifies, in addition to the BACT measures generally included in individual mine air quality permits, two other categories of control measures designed to prevent exceedances during high wind events (WDEQ/AQD 2007). One of these, BACM, is an additional list of control measures that the mines can implement continuously so that they are in place before a high wind event occurs. These measures are not current requirements

H-10

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H in all of the mines’ air quality permits. They primarily address the principal mine-controlled sources of fugitive dust, which are large contiguous disturbed areas. These measures include: 1.	 Stabilizing topsoiled area as soon as practicable following topsoil replacement. 2.	 Ripping, windrowing, mulching, temporarily seeding or chemically treating areas greater than 300 contiguous acres in size that have been stripped of topsoil but will not be mined in the near future. 3.	 Ripping, windrowing, temporarily seeding or chemically treating graded backfill areas greater than 300 contiguous acres in size. 4.	 Ripping, mulching, temporarily seeding or chemically treating longterm out-of-pit overburden and topsoil stockpiles that have been graded. 5.	 Applying non-vegetative barriers such as gravel or other largediameter particles to erodible surfaces to reduce surface erosion where appropriate. 6.	 Cleaning, treating, and maintaining pads in front of truck dumps to prevent accumulations of spilled materials from getting pulverized. 7.	 Scheduling topsoil removal, backfill grading and topsoil replacements concurrently to minimize open areas when possible. 8.	 Requiring contractors to apply water and/or chemical dust suppressants in their haulage areas. The second additional category of control measures discussed in the Natural Events Action Plan includes measures that are not currently required by all individual air quality permits but are actions that can be taken during a high wind event, depending on site specific conditions (WDEQ/AQD 2007). These include: 1.	 The mine operator will consider relevant information, including National Weather Service (NWS) forecasts and local meteorological information, to confirm that a high wind event is occurring. 2.	 The mine operator will visually determine areas of mining activity that are generating excessive visible dust and direct water trucks to those areas. 3.	 The mine operator should direct overburden operations to the shortest haul distance available during a high wind event. 4.	 The mine operator will evaluate the practicality of dumping the overburden as low as possible. 5.	 Mine employees will inspect for and extinguish coal fires. 6.	 The mine operator will evaluate shutting down scoria crushing operations that appear to be generating excess dust. 7.	 The mine operator will evaluate shutting down road maintenance activities that are generating dust.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

H-11

Appendix H 8.	 The mine operator will evaluate ordering contractors to increase water, reduce operating equipment or shut down haulage. 9.	 The mine operator will evaluate the need to shut down and/or reduce earthmoving activities as the mine schedule and conditions will allow. If a Natural Events Action Plan is designed and implemented to minimize PM10 concentrations, EPA will exercise its discretion, under Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, not to redesignate areas as nonattainment, provided that the exeedances are demonstrated to be the result of natural events. Based on EPA’s Natural Events Policy, PM10 concentrations due to dust raised by unusually high winds will be treated as uncontrollable natural events under the following conditions: 1) the dust originated from non-anthropogenic sources, or 2) the dust originated from anthropogenic sources controlled with BACM. The WDEQ/AQD Natural Events Action Plan includes a public education plan, a public notification and health advisory program, and a plan to abate or minimize appropriate contributing controllable sources of PM10, which includes three categories of control measures. The Natural Events Action Plan approved by EPA only includes measures for control of coal mine sources since it is the ambient monitoring systems around the large surface coal mines that have recorded the exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. If it is demonstrated that there are non-coal sources contributing to elevated measurements in an area of concern, WDEQ/AQD may address these additional sources separately from the approved Natural Events Action Plan or as a future update of the plan. H-3.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY H-3.1 Regional Particulates The federal and state standards for particulate matter pollutant are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2.1 of the EIS. As a result of WDEQ/AQD requirements for the PRB mines to collect air quality data, which is discussed in Section 3.4.2.3 of the EIS, the eastern PRB is one of the most intensely monitored areas in the world. There are numerous monitors located at and adjacent to mining operations in the PRB, as shown in Figure H-2. According to EPA AirData, in 2007 there were six total suspended particulates (TSP) monitors, five PM2.5 monitors and 36 PM10 monitors in the Wyoming portion of the PRB. Data for TSP date back to 1980 and data for PM10 date back to 1989. Through 2004, approximately 57,000 TSP samples had been collected and approximately 47,550 PM10 samples had been collected through 2007. Table H-3 summarizes the annual arithmetic average of these data from 1980 through 2007 of all sites located at Campbell and Converse County mining operations.

H-12

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H
MONTANA SHERIDAN SHERIDAN COUNTY CROOK COUNTY

BUFFALO

GILLETTE

SOUTH DAKOTA

JOHNSON COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY WESTON COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CASPER

DOUGLAS

LEGEND
PM2.5 Monitoring Station, Active in 2006 PM10 Monitoring Station, Active in 2006 Source: EPA(2007)
0 12.5 25 50

GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES)

Figure H-2. Active Particulate Monitoring Stations in Northeastern Wyoming.

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

H-13

Appendix H Table H-3. Summary of WDEQ/AQD Reports on Air Quality Monitoring for Surface Coal Mines1 in Wyoming's PRB, 1980-2007.
Number of Mines Number of TSP PM10 Coal Overburden Operating/ TSP/PM10 Produced Moved Monitoring TSP/ Monitoring Average Average Sites2 Monitoring PM101 (µg/m3) (µg/m3) Year (mmtpy) (mmbcy) 1980 58.7 105.3 10/14/0 34/0 35.5 na3 1981 71.0 133.4 11/13/0 35/0 39.4 na 1982 76.1 141.1 11/14/0 40/0 31.2 na 1983 84.9 150.9 13/14/1 41/1 32.6 11.2 1984 105.3 169.5 14/16/1 42/1 33.9 11.1 1985 113.0 203.4 16/17/0 49/0 32.3 na 1986 111.2 165.7 16/17/0 45/0 29.3 na 1987 120.7 174.6 16/17/0 43/0 31.7 na 1988 138.8 209.7 16/17/0 43/0 37.7 na 1989 147.5 215.6 15/17/3 40/3 32.1 15.9 1990 160.7 220.1 17/17/5 47/5 34.3 14.8 1991 171.4 242.3 17/17/5 46/6 32.7 16.5 1992 166.1 296.0 17/17/7 41/7 31.7 15.9 1993 188.8 389.5 17/17/8 40/11 27.8 14.5 1994 213.6 483.9 17/18/8 44/11 31.7 15.5 16/18/8 41/12 29.6 12.9 1995 242.6 512.7 1996 257.0 605.4 17/18/8 41/12 35.4 16.0 1997 259.7 622.0 16/17/10 39/15 33.3 15.9 1998 293.5 669.0 16/17/12 36/17 33.9 15.9 1999 317.1 762.9 15/17/12 36/18 55.3 21.6 2000 322.6 868.9 15/15/12 31/17 56.1 23.4 2001 354.1 927.7 12/11/12 29/29 57.5 27.2 2002 359.7 1,032.1 13/11/13 23/38 56.0 23.3 2003 363.6 1,044.2 13/10/13 16/34 51.9 20.8 --4 20.3 2004 381.6 1,184.4 13/6/13 7/33 --4 21.5 2005 390.3 1,147.6 12/6/12 7/33 --4 24.2 2006 431.9 1,256.7 13/5/13 6/33 --4 25.2 2007 436.5 1,268.5 14/4/14 4/33 1	 Mines include Buckskin, Rawhide, Eagle Butte, Dry Fork, Fort Union (acquired by Dry Fork), Clovis Point (acquired by Wyodak), Wyodak, Caballo, Belle Ayr, Caballo Rojo, Cordero (Caballo Rojo now combined with Cordero), Coal Creek, Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, North Rochelle, North Antelope, Rochelle (North Rochelle, North Antelope & Rochelle now combined), Antelope, and Dave Johnston (no longer producing coal). 2	 Some sites include more than one sampler, so the number of samplers is greater than the number of sites. 3	 Not applicable because no monitoring for PM10 was done. 4	 Data no longer pertinent due to paucity of monitoring sites. Sources:	 1980 through 1996 emissions and production data from April 1997 report prepared by WMA for WDEQ/AQD. 1997 through 2007 emissions data from EPA AirData and WDEQ/AQD databases (EPA 2005a, WDEQ/AQD 2005c). 1997 through 2007 production data from WDEQ/AQD and Wyoming State Inspector of Mines (WDEQ/AQD 2005c and 2008 and Wyoming Department of Employment 1997-2004).

H-14

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H As indicated in Table H-3, the long-term trend in particulate emissions remained relatively flat through 1998. The overall average annual TSP concentration was 33.1 µg/m3 from 1980 through 1998, with annual averages ranging between 27.8 µg/m3 and 39.4 µg/m3. There were increases in 1988 and 1996, which may have been the result of fires in the region during those years. Annual average PM10 concentrations from 1989 through 1998 were similarly relatively flat, ranging between 12.9 µg/m3 and 16.5 µg/m3, with an overall average of 15.4 µg/m3. The 1980-1998 time period was associated with significant growth in the surface coal mining industry. Coal production increased from about 59 million tons per year (mmtpy) to over 293 mmtpy (an increase of almost 400 percent), and associated overburden production increased from 105 million bank cubic yards (mmbcy) to 669 mmbcy per year (an increase of over 537 percent). From 1990 through 2007, the average annual increase in coal production was 6.3 percent, while annual overburden production increased an average of 11.3 percent over the same time period. The larger annual increase in overburden production is probably due to the fact that the mines are gradually moving into deeper coals as the shallower reserves are mined out. The relatively flat trend in particulate emissions from 1980 through 1998 is due in large part to the Wyoming Air Quality Program that requires BACT at all permitted facilities. BACT control measures, which include watering and chemical treatment of roads, limiting the amount of area disturbed, temporary revegetation of disturbed areas to reduce wind erosion, and timely final reclamation, are discussed in Section 3.4.2.3 of the EIS. The average annual TSP concentration increased from 33.9 µg/m3 in 1998 to 55.3 µg/m3 in 1999, and remained greater than 50.0 µg/m3 through 2003, when tracking of TSP concentrations was discontinued. The average annual PM10 concentration was 15.9 µg/m3 in 1998 and peaked in 2001 (27.2 µg/m3) and have been less than 27.2 µg/m3 since that time as shown in Table H-3. The increases in coal production over the last 5 years (an average of 4.0 percent per year and 15.4 mmtpy per year over the 5-year period) and associated overburden production (an average of 6.6 percent per year and 68.8 mmbcy per year over the 5-year period) were less than a majority of the previous 20 5-year running average periods, but the particulate concentrations remained relatively constant. There were no major fires in the region between 1998 and 2005 but major fires were experienced in the region in 2006 and 2007. There was an increase in CBNG development in the PRB between 1998 and 2005 and northeastern Wyoming has experienced extreme drought conditions as well as a dramatic increase in surface disturbance activities associated with CBNG development since 1999. All of these factors have exacerbated particulate emissions. There were no monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standards anywhere in the Wyoming PRB through year 2000. From 2001 through 2006, there were Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-15

Appendix H 29 monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard, at seven operating mines and in 2007 a total of 11 exceedances were reported at six mines. A majority of the 29 exceedances reported between 2001 and 2006 were associated with elevated winds exceeding 20 mph, which could have qualified as a high wind event under the NEAP. Of the 11 exceedances reported in 2007 within the PRB, five have been designated as exceptional events by EPA under the NEAP and will be treated as uncontrollable natural events (not considered when determining the region’s air quality designation). Five of the remaining six exceedances are currently under review by EPA and may be designated as an exceptional event under the NEAP (Shamley 2008). Within the PRB, 27 of 30 of the valid exceedances (not considered exceptional events under NEAP) took place in the group of mines located south and east of the town of Wright; the remaining three valid exceedances occurred in the group of mines located north of Gillette (Figure H-1). There were no monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standards anywhere in the Wyoming PRB through year 2000. From 2001 through 2006, there were 29 monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard, at seven operating mines and in 2007 a total of 11 exceedances were reported at six mines. A majority of the 29 exceedances reported between 2001 and 2006 were associated with elevated winds exceeding 20 mph, which could have qualified as a high wind event under the NEAP. Of the 11 exceedances reported in 2007 within the PRB, five have been designated as exceptional events by EPA under the NEAP and will be treated as uncontrollable natural events (not considered when determining the region’s air quality designation). Five of the remaining six exceedances are currently under review by EPA and may be designated as an exceptional event under the NEAP (Shamley 2008). Within the PRB, 27 of 30 of the valid exceedances (not considered exceptional events under NEAP) took place in the group of mines located south and east of the town of Wright; the remaining three valid exceedances occurred in the group of mines located north of Gillette (Figure H-1). H-3. 2 Regional NOX and O3 Concentrations Nitrogen oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures. They can be formed naturally or by human activities. The primary manmade sources are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other fuel-burning sources. According to EPA, motor vehicles produce about 55 percent of the manmade NOx emissions, utilities and industrial/commercial/residential activities each produce about 22 percent of the manmade NOx emissions, and other sources account for the remaining 1 percent of the manmade emissions (EPA 2007b). The primary direct source of emissions of nitrogen oxides during coal mining operations is tailpipe emissions from large mining equipment and other vehicle traffic inside the mine permit area. O3 has been included in discussions on concentrations of NOX since NOX is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground level O3.

H-16

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Blasting that is done to remove the material overlying the coal (the overburden) can result in emissions of several products, including NO2, as a result of the incomplete combustion of nitrogen-based explosives used in the blasting process. When this occurs, gaseous, orange-colored clouds may be formed and they can drift or be blown off mine permit areas. NO2 is a product of incomplete combustion at sources such as gasoline- and diesel-burning engines or from mine blasting activities. Incomplete combustion during blasting may be caused by wet conditions in the overburden, incompetent or fractured geological formations, deformation of bore holes, and blasting agent factors. Generally, blasting-related NOx emissions are more prevalent at operations that use the blasting technique referred to as cast blasting (Chancellor 2003). Cast blasting refers to a type of direct blasting in which the blast is designed to cast the overburden from on top of the coal into the previously mined area. The Belle Ayr Mine has never conducted cast blasting but may use that blasting procedure in the future. Annual mean NO2 concentrations have been periodically measured in the PRB since 1975. NO2 was monitored from 1975 through 1983 in Gillette and from March 1996 through April 1997 at four locations in the PRB. Due to public concerns about emissions of nitrogen dioxides as a result of blasting and a general concern of the WDEQ about levels of nitrogen dioxides due to development of all types in the eastern PRB, the coal mining industry instituted a monitoring network in cooperation with WDEQ/AQD to gather data on NO2 beginning in 2001. Industry funded and operated the network for approximately 3 years. Ownership of the monitoring equipment was transferred to WDEQ by the mines and WDEQ now funds and operates the NO2 monitoring network. The mines have been given ongoing access to the monitoring sites and provide electrical power for the instrumentation. WDEQ/AQD and the mines now share maintenance of these monitoring stations, and the AQD is relying on the ongoing monitoring data and emission inventories in the mines’ air quality permit applications to demonstrate compliance with the annual NO2 ambient air standard (Table H-1). The 2002 through 2008 data from this regional network are summarized in Table H-4. With respect to the general South Gillette analysis area, the Thunder Basin National Grassland Site is approximately 41 miles north-northeast, the South Campbell County Site is approximately 8 miles west, and the Tracy Ranch Site is approximately 29 miles southeast. In the mid-to late-1990s, OSM received complaints from several citizens about blasting clouds from several mines in the PRB. EPA expressed concerns that NO2 levels in some of those blasting clouds may have been sufficiently high at times to cause human health effects. In response to those concerns, several studies have been conducted, the mines have modified their blasting techniques, and the WDEQ has imposed blasting restrictions on several mines. More information about these studies and restrictions is presented in the following discussion. Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-17

Appendix H Table H-4. 2002 Through 2008 Mean Annual NO2 Concentration Data (µg/m3).
Site Address Thunder Basin National Grassland1 Belle Ayr Mine1 Antelope Mine1 South Campbell County1 Tracy Ranch2 Average
1 2

2002 5.7 ---6.2 5.95

2003 5.7 13.2 7.5 13.2 5.6 9.04

2004 3.8 13.2 7.5 9.4 5.8 7.94

2005 3.8 15.1 9.4 7.5 7.7 8.70

2006 3.8 17.0 7.5 5.7 11.8 9.16

2007 3.8 --7.5 8.2 6.50

2008 3.8 --5.6 6.1 5.17

Monitor values from EPA (2009) Monitor values from TBCC (2009)

On the order of the Director of the WDEQ, members of the mining industry in the PRB conducted a comprehensive, multi-year monitoring and modeling study of NO2 exposures from blast clouds. The Black Thunder Mine also conducted a study designed to provide information on safe setback distances for blasting activities at that mine (TBCC 2002). Results of the study (TBCC 2002), conducted pursuant to protocols reviewed and approved by the WDEQ, were provided to the WDEQ and the public in July 2002. Monitors for that study were located close to blasts in order to collect data for a modeling project; they were located within the mine permit boundary in areas that are not and would not be accessible to the public during mining operations and these areas are also cleared of employees during blasting. The measured NOX levels ranged from non-detectable to 21.4 ppm. The highest value was measured 361 feet from the blast. Using a combination of NO2 measurements collected near 91 blast sites (78 valid runs) and a conservative modeling/extrapolation approach, the authors developed a series of “safe” setback curves for coal, overburden and cast shots for various wind speed classes. The curves were derived from the sampled data, conservative projections of concentrations at greater/lesser distances than measured and an assumed safe level (based on a comprehensive review of available health effects data) of 5.0 ppm for 10 minutes. Subsequently, the data in the 2002 report (collected at the Black Thunder Mine) were augmented with monitored data/analyses from an additional 45 validated blast events at the Eagle Butte, North Antelope Rochelle, Buckskin and Cordero-Rojo mines. New curves, based on the entire basin-wide data set encompassing 123 valid tests, were developed but differed only slightly from the original Black Thunder curves. To date, there have been no exceedances of the annual NO2 standards documented at the five sites that monitor NO2. There here have been no reported events of public exposure to NO2 from blasting activities at the Belle H-18 Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Appendix H Ayr, Coal Creek, and Cordero Rojo mines. There were two complaints of public exposure to NO2 at the Caballo Mine prior to September 2007 (Emme 2009). WDEQ/AQD investigated these complaints of NO2 exposure resulting from cast blasting at the Caballo Mine and met with mine officials regarding the complaints. The mine instituted voluntary measures to eliminate NOX production, including the use of different blasting agents, different blends of blasting agents, different additives, different initiation systems and sequencing, borehole liners, and smaller cast blasts. There have been no subsequent reports of exposure, to date. Measures that are used by the mines to control NO2 emissions related to blasting by the PRB mines are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3.3 of the EIS. O3 has the same chemical structure whether it occurs miles above the earth or at ground-level and can be "good" or "bad," depending on its location in the atmosphere. In the earth's lower atmosphere, ground-level O3 is considered "bad." Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOX and VOC that help form O3. Ground-level O3 is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level O3 to form in harmful concentrations in the air. As a result, it is known as a summertime air pollutant. Many urban areas tend to have high levels of "bad" O3, but even rural areas are also subject to increased O3 levels because wind carries O3 and pollutants that form it hundreds of miles away from their original sources. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has set protective health-based standards for O3 in the air we breathe. Prior to May 27, 2008, the NAAQ 8-hour standard for O3 was 0.080 ppm (157 µg/m3). On March 27, 2008 (effective May 27, 2008) EPA revised the 8-hour standard to 0.075 ppm (147 µg/m3). Ozone monitoring is not required by WDEQ at the SGAC mines but levels have been monitored at WDEQ/AQD operated and maintained ambient air quality monitor sites in the PRB since 2001 (Table H-5). An exceedance of the O3 8-hour standard occurs if the 4th-highest daily maximum value is above the level of the standard (0.08 ppm prior to 2008 and 0.075 ppm since 2008). Table H-5. 2001 Through 2008 Annual 4th Max, 8-Hour O3 Value (ppm).
Site Address Thunder Basin National Grassland1 South Campbell County1
1

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0.069 0.071 0.074 0.065 0.063 0.072 0.072 0.074 --0.077 0.061 0.063 0.065 0.072 0.064

Monitor values from EPA (2009)

No exceedances of the O3 standard have occurred at either of the two monitoring sites if evaluated under the standard in place at the time the values Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications H-19

Appendix H were recorded (Table H-5). If the strengthened 2008 standard was applied retroactively, one exceedance would have occurred in 2003 at the South Campbell County site (Table H-5). H-4.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED All references cited within this appendix are included within Section 6.0 of this EIS.

H-20

Final EIS, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

APPENDIX I 
 COMMENT LETTERS ON THE 
 DRAFT EIS AND RESPONSES 


,

j

1'-, -"-'_ .
1
FOUNDA TlON COAL WEST, INC.
BeIe Ayr &EBQIe Butte Mnes P.o. Box 3030 GIIeIIe, WY 82717-3039

December. 23. 2008

Theresa Johnson Bureau of Land Management Casper District Office 2987 Prospector D~e Casper, WY 82604
RE: Draft South Gillette Area EIS Comments Dear Ms. Johnson: Please accept the following comments on the . raft EIS. The comments are generally directed D toward sections of the EIS that are specifIC to the Belle Ayr Mine.

PaM ES-34. paraGraph 5; There is a statement that adverse noise Impacts would occur if mining occurs within 2500 feet of dwellings. This statement appears to be in conflict with the statements made on page 3-218. Table 3-17 points out potential impacts. Are potential impacts considered adverse? The last sentence on page 3-218 states -Because of the remoteness of the LBA tracts and because mining is already ongoing in the area noise would have few off-site impacts-. The statements on these two separate pages don't seem to comptinent each other.

A

p . 1.5. StctIon 1.1.1 Belle Ayr North Tract The discussion of minable and recoverable If Bish~ Road is not mobeVedinstates 168 2 m T i : : B tone COI ·"'1 witHhHo!" the as a~ folyr tractThese ntai •. tons and 158. m n tons respective . estimates appear to COllet nfti
ES-2 and the discussion of tons on page 2-10. Table ES-2 and page 2-10 list the minable and recoverable tons as 164.7 million tons and 154.8 million tons respectively. PlAt 2-12. paragraPh 2; The discussion states that all crushing operations and conveying, transferring and storage facilities at Belle Ayr Mine are equipped with atomlzerlfoggers. This is incorrect. Belle Ayr utilizes baghouses. atomizerlfoggers. and PEe's as control equipment

3

C

Pa. 3-2. """,ph 1; The nOO1ber of acres under lease as it appears was confusing until the footnote on Table 3-1 was read. It might be helpful to state that the lease acnt8 are comprIeed of federal. state and private coal on page 3-2 paragraph 4. Table ES-2 states 4,946.5 acnt8. Please check the lease acres as Belle Ayr's records show 4,845.5 acres. Belle Ayr records may be incorrect but please confirm. Page 2-13, paragraph 3 again states the lease acres at approximately 4,946?,
not be using the latest survey in~.

D
E

PaM 3-• • Stc1Ion 3.12,1.1 BtIIt Ayr North Tract; The write-up 88 presented appears t o )
It states 54 acres of the general analysis area .. ~OUNDATION CC)AL
Phone: 307.887.3400 Fax: 307.tJB7.3470

1 1

not being surveyed at a Class III level. It further states that areas previously surveyed at a Clasa III level prior to 1980 may be substandard in terms of current methodology. Belle Ayr has surveyed the project area to a Class III level and has resurveyed specific areas Identified by the Buffalo Field Office to be substandard. The DEIS was published October 2008 and the latest survey Infonnatlon was finalized November 2008. Belle Ayr reconvnende the FInal EIS be updated with the information that was submitted following consultation with the Buffalo FIeld OffIce Archeologist. Additionally, please note that the text stated that the Sawyer Expedition Trail (48CA1570) is unevaluated for the NRHP. This may be the case but survey information suggests that the site might not be located in the project area. If you have any questions regarding the comments please feel free to contact me at 307-6873410. Sincerely,

E

. ,....') alL '-,< v .
Cc:

~ ._->c~\..

___ .

William L. Boger Environmental Manager

File John Berry, WWC

t:60NDATION COAL
Ptton.: 307...,.3«Jt) Fax: 307.".3470

Response to Comment Letter 1: Foundation Coal West Comment Response 1A: The statement on page ES-34 does state that an adverse noise impact would occur to dwellings and businesses located within 2,500 feet of mining activities. As depicted on Table 3-17, an adverse impact would occur to the buildings located near West Coal Creek and Maysdorf II as the LBA tracts are above the 55 dBA level designated by the EPA. A statement has been added to the “Noise” section of the Executive Summary for clarification. Also, the text in Section 3.14.1 states that “At distances of approximately 2,500 ft (0.47 mile) or greater, the intensity of this blast would be reduced to 55 dBA (no adverse impact level).” Comment Response 1B: A revision has been made to Section 1.1.1 to correct the error in the coal tonnages. It now states, “Excluding the federal coal reserves within the Bishop Road right-of-way and buffer zone and any isolated coal, FCW estimates that the Belle Ayr North LBA Tract contains approximately 164.7 million tons of mineable coal reserves and that approximately 154.8 million tons would be recovered from the tract.” Comment Response 1C: A revision has been made to Section 2.1.1 in the paragraph where it talks about coal being produced from the WyodakAnderson coal seam in the final EIS to include baghouses, atomizer/foggers, and PECs (pass enclosure control systems) as control equipment. Comment Response 1D: A revision has been made in Chapter 3 in the discussions for Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo to clarify that the lease acreage includes federal, state, and private coal. The acreage figure (4,945.5) is correct according to our records. Comment Response 1E: Section 3.12.1.1 EIS has been updated with the November 2008 cultural resources survey information. Also, the reference to the Sawyer Expedition Trail was removed. The removal of the Sawyer Expedition Trail resulted in revisions to the number of cultural resources sites.

under the Clean Air Act. With literally the fate of our planet at stake, the DEIS must be revised to properly evaluate the global warming impacts of all reasonably foreseeable consequences of leasing the LBA Tracts.

I.

The DEIS Falls to Adequately Describe Global Warming as Part of the Environmental Setting.

The warming of our climate system is unequivocal. 2 There have been significant increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. 3 Eleven of the past twelve years rank among the warmest in the instrumental record of global surface temperature, and it is likely that average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have been the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. 4 On August 17, 2007, the National Snow and Ice Data Center ("NSIDC',) reported that Arctic ice had diminished to its alltime lowest recorded level. s Climate scientists, including those from the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") and the U.S. government, have become increasingly certain about the causes of anthropogenic climate change and what those causes portend if left unchecked. Noted climatologist Dr. James Hansen recently stated that "if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse etTect"-i.e., a relatively rapid increase of C02 concentrations in the atmosphere that can stimulate the potentially unstoppable release of massive amounts of stored carbon and methane into the atmosphere, eventually boiling the oceans and destroying all life on earth.6 The inescapable fact is that global warming and climate change now presents a dire situation for life on Earth, and as a major emitter ofGHGs, the United States must act quickly and deliberately, using any and all the tools at its disposal to eliminate or reduce the dangers to human health and the environment. NEPA requires project analyses to be of high quaJity, and requires agencies to insure "the professional integrity, including scientific integrity" of those analyses? Yet, the DEIS vastly

A

2 California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Notice of Decision Denying a Waiver ofCIean Air Act Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles, 73 Fed. Reg. 12156,12163-69 (Mar. 6, 2008). 3 Id. at 12167. 4 IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds»), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, at 2. 5 National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIOC). 2007a. Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007. www.nsidc.orglnewsipressl2007_seaiceminimuml20070810_index.html(lastvisitedDec.24.2008).Atl.63 million square miles, the minimum sea-ice extent on September 16,2007 was about one million square miles (equal to the area of Alaslca and Texas combined) below the average minimum sea ice extent between 1979 and 2000 and 50 percent lower than conditions in the 1950s to the 1970s. Stroeve, J. et aI. 2008. Arctic sea ice extent plummets in 2007. EO$ 89:13-20. This minimum was lower than the sea-ice extent most climate models predicted would be reached after 2050. Id. 6 Hansen, J. Climate Threat to the Planet: Implications for Energy Policy and Intergenerational Justice. Bjerknes Lecture (slides), American Geophysical Union (Dec. 17,2008). 7 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24.

Comments of Center for BiologIcal Diversity

DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

December 24, 2001 Page 2of23

underestimates the gravity of the threat of climate change to life on Earth, and the contribution to the problem that leasing the LBA Tracts would make. 8 Not surprisingly, as a consequence of the disconnect between the true nature of the climate change problem and the discussion about climate change in the DElS, the DEIS omits altogether or glosses over many important and sobering facts about climate change.

A.

The DEIS Falls to Account for All Greenhouse Gases.

The DEIS states that GHGs "currently" include carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, ozone, and nitrous oxide.9 No support is provided in the DEIS for this list, which omits widelyrecognized GHGs such as chlorofluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, pertluorocarbons, and nitrogen tritlouride. lo As a result of the omission of all GHGs from the list, the DEIS fails to account for all existing GHG emissions and all GHG emissions that will occur as a result of the proposed action. This renders the DEIS incomplete. II

B.

The DEIS Vastly Underestimates the Existing Effects and Threat of Global Warming.

A

In qualifying statements about global warming, the DEIS fails to adequately retlect the dire situation posed by this problem. For example, the DEIS fails to account for the fact that at 383 ppm of C02 currently, we are already in a danger zone that could potentially disasterous consequences. Hansen et al. (2008) use "paleoclimate data to show that long-tenn climate has high sensitivity to climate forcings and that the present global mean C02, 385 ppm, is already in the dangerous zone.,,12 Their findings are briefly summarized as follows: If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that C02 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-C02 forcings. An initial 350 ppm C02 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where C02 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target C02 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects. 13

S See, e.g., OEIS at 3-253 (stating that GHGs "may" playa role in climate change); id. at 4-104 (ruminating that solar variability-i.e., sunspots-may be a cause of climate change). , OEIS at 3-253. 10 Prather, M.1. and J. Hsu. 2008. NF3, the greenhouse gas missing from Kyoto. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35: L12810. \I See, e.g., OEIS at 3-254 (estimating combined ~ emissions for the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines). 12 Hansen, J., et 01. 2008. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? The Open AtmO.Jpheric ScinrceJouma/, 2008,2,217-231. 13 Id. at 217.

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity DEIS for the South Gillette Are. Coal Ltue Applications

December 24, 2008 Page 3 of 23

Due to the slow response time for the full effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to be manifested in the climate system, "[w]arming 'in the pipeline', mostly attributable to slow feedbacks, is now about 2°C (Fig.2). No additional forcing is required to raise global temperature to at least the level of the Pliocene, 2-3 million years ago, a degree ofwanning that would surely yield 'dangerous' climate impacts.,,14 Hansen et al. (2008) define several concepts: "(1) the tipping level, the global climate forcing that, if long maintained, gives rise to"a specific consequence, and (2) the point ofno return, a climate state beyond which the consequence is inevitable, even if climate forcings are reduced. A point of no return can be avoided, even if the tipping level is temporarily exceeded. Ocean and ice sheet inertia permit overshoot, provided the climate forcing is returned below the tipping level before initiating irreversible dynamic change."IS However, reducing atmospheric C02 concentrations to 350 ppm would not be enough to stabilize Arctic sea ice and save imperiled species such as the polar bear and the entire Arctic web of life: Stabilization of Arctic sea ice cover requires, to first approximation, restoration of planetary energy balance. Climate models driven by known forcings yield a present planetary energy imbalance of +0.5-1 W1m2. Observed heat increase in the upper 700 m of the ocean confirms the planetary energy imbalance, but observations of the entire ocean are needed for quantification. C02 amount must be reduced to 325-355 ppm to increase outgoing flux 0.5-1 Wlm2, if other forcings are unchanged. A further imbalance reduction, and thus C02 -300-325 ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago. 16 Atmospheric C02 concentrations must be reduced quickly: "Indeed, if the world continues on a business-as-usual path for even another decade without initiating phaseout of unconstrained coal use, prospects for avoiding a dangerously large, extended overshoot ofthe 350 ppm level will be dim." 17 Yet, as Hansen et al. (2008) note, "[ r]ealization that we must reduce the current C02 amount has a bright side: effects that had begun to seem inevitable, including impacts of ocean acidification, loss of fresh water supplies, and shifting of climatic zones, may be averted by the necessity of finding an energy course beyond fossil fuels sooner than would otherwise have occurred. ,,18 Ultimately, these authors conclude [w]ith simultaneous policies to reduce non:-C02 greenhouse gases, it appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change. Present policies, with continued construction of coal fired power plants without C02 capture, suggest that decisionmakers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued growth of. greenhouse gas
Id !d. Id Id Id
at 225 (internal citation omitted). at 226 (internal citations omitted). at 227. at 228.

A

14

IS
16 17

18

I
I I,

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

December 24, 2008
Page 4 of 23

emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near­ term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects. The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture C02, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable. 19 Unfortunately, the DElS vastly underestimates-and indeed, even ignores altogether-the gravity of this situation, the stakes for life on Earth, and the need to phase-out coal use immediately in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. The DElS similarly avoids disclosing information about the effects to the quality of the human environment that global warming is already causing. There is now a massive body of peer­ reviewed literature on the science and impacts of global warming, demonstrating unequivocal, current harm to both public health and welfare, and the certainty of far greater harm to come if GHG emissions are not rapidly and deeply reduced. 20 Thus, the EPA has explicitly acknowledged that climate change resulting from elevated GHG levels would result in human health risks such as heat-related mortality, exacerbated air qualitY, aggravated risks for respiratory infection, aggravation of asthma, and potential premature death for people in susceptible groups,21 and thus has in effect already made an endangerment finding for GHGs. The World Health Organization has estimated that as of the year 2000, 154,000 deaths and the loss of 5.5 million daily adjusted life years per year worldwide were already attributable to global warming. 22 These figures have clearly mounted over the past eight years and will continue to grow until effective emissions reductions are implemented. In addition, the EPA has published or cited favorably to mUltiple documents evaluating the harms associated with the climate crisis and by highlighting many ofthese impacts. 23 The EPA's recent decision document denying California's application for a waiver under § 209(b) of the CAA, while legally fatally flawed, explicitly used the word "harm" when discussing continued GHG emissions. 24 Moreover, the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4), a conservative synthesis of the most reliable scientific knowledge available about climate change, leaves absolutely no question that the emissions ofGHGs and the resulting changes to Earth's climate are endangering the public health and welfare. 25
19

A

Id at 229.

20 Much ofthis literature-none of which is cited in the DEIS--was cited by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, and by the Environmental Protection Agency in a recent Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under 

the Clean Air Act and supporting documents. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 121 S.Ct. 1438, 1462 (2001); Advance 
 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, 13 Fed. Reg. 
 44354 (July 30, 2008). 
 21 13 Fed. Reg. at 44426-21. 
 22 World Health Organization, 2002. The World Health Report 2002. Available at 
 www.who.intlwhr/2002lenlindex.html. 
 23 13 Fed. Reg. 44426-21. 
 24 73 Fed. Reg. 12156-01 (Mar. 6,2008). 
 25 IPeC 2001. 


Comments of Center for Biological Diversity DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Decernber24,2008 Page 5of23

Also not mentioned in the DEIS is the fact that the climate crisis the most significant and pervasive threat to biodiversity worldwide, affecting both terrestrial and marine species from the tropics to the poles. The IPCC AR4 recognizes this, finding that the resilience of several ecosystems is likely to be overcome this century by a dangerous brew of climate change, associated disturbances (such as flooding, drought, wildfire, insects and ocean acidification) and 
 other environmental drivers such as pollution and over-exploitation of resources. 26 Along with 
 increases in global average temperatures beyond 1.5-2.5° C and accompanying increased levels 
 of atmospheric C02 concentrations will come major changes in ecosystem structure and function, 
 species' ecological interactions, and species' geographical ranges. 27 
 Other scientific reports have reached the same conclusion as the IPCC that anthropogenic warming has had a recognizable influence on biological systems. In a study published in Nature in 2003, the authors reported a "globally coherent fingerprint ofclimate change impacts across natural systems.,,28 In documenting this "fingerprint" of global warming on ecosystems, scientists have predicted three categories of measurable impacts from recent warming: (1) earlier timing of spring events and later autumn events (i.e., changes in "phenology"), (2) extension of species' range poleward or upward in elevation, and (3) a decline in species adapted to cold temperatures and an increase in species adapted to warm temperatures. 29 And leading herpetologists believe that global warming has already resulted in the extinction of dozens of harlequin frog species. 3o Moreover, the DEIS omits disclosure or consideration of information about the effects of 
 climate change to the western United States, where the proposed mines are located. The 
 Scientific Assessment Report made the following factual findings regarding the social and 
 environmental impacts resulting from increased GHG emissions, such as: 


A

• 	 "[A] severe drought 2007,,·31
,

has affected the southwestern United States from 1999 through

• 	 "Streamflow

has decreased region over the past century,,;3

bi about 2% per decade in the central Rocky Mountain

26 Bernstein et al. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Synthesis Report in Climate Change 2007: A Report o/the 
 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch. 
 27 [d. 28 Parmesan, C. & G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural
s~stems.

2
30

Nature 421: 37-42. 
 Parmesan, C. & G. Hector. 2004. Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S. Prepared for the Pew 


Center on Global Climate Change. 
 Pounds, lA., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, lA. Consuegra, M.P. L. Fogden, P.N. Foster, E. La Marca, K.L. 
 Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S.R. Ron, G.A. Slinchez-Azofeifa. C.l. Still. B.E. Young. 2006. 
 Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439: 161-167. 
 31 Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States: A Report of the Committee on 
 Environment and Natural Resources National Science and Technology Council (May 2008) at 5. 

32

Id.

Comment. of Center for Biological Diversity DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal lease Applications

December 24, 2008 Page 6 of 23

• 	 "The annual peak of streamflow in snowmelt-dominated western mountains is now generally occurring at least a week earlier than in the middle of the 20th century. Winter stream flow is increasing in basins with seasonal snow cover. The fraction of annual precipitation falling as rain (rather than snow) increased in the last half century,,;33 • 	 "Most climate models project an increase in winter precipitation ih the northern tier of states and a decrease in portions of the Southwest during the 21st century,,;34 • 	 "[I]t is very likely that the human-induced increase in greenhouse gases has contributed to the increase in sea surface temperatures in the hurricane formation regions. There is a strong statistical connection between tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures and Atlantic hurricane activity as measured by an index that accounts for storm intensity, frequency, and duration on decadal timescales over the past 50 years. This evidence suggests a substantial human contribution to recent hurricane activity',;3s • 	 "The snow-covered area of North America increased in the November to January season from 1915 to 2004 due to increases in precipitation. However, spring snow cover in mQuntainous regions of the western United States generally decreased during the latter half of the 20th century. The IPCC determined that this latter trend is very likely due to long-term warming ...,,;36 • 	 "In the last three decades, the wildfire season in the western United States has lengthened and bum durations have increased. Climate change has also very likely increased the size and number of insect outbreaks and tree mortality that help to fuel wildfires in the interior West, the Southwest, and Alaska. These trends are very likely to continue,,;37 • 	 "Projections suggest that efforts to offset the declines in available surface water by increasing withdrawal of groundwater will be hampered by decreases in groundwater recharge in some water-stressed regions, such as the southwestern United States,,;38 • 	 "Less reliable supplies of water are expected to create challenges for managing urban water systems as well as for industries that depend on large volumes of water. Across North America, vulnerability to extended drought is increasing as population growth and economic development create more demands from agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses, resulting in frequent over-allocation of water resources;39 • 	 "Wildfires pose significant direct health threats. They can also have substantial effects 
 through- increased eye and respiratory illnesses due to fire-related air pollution and 
 mental health impacts from evacuations, lost property, and damage to resources" and 

33 Id. 34Id. 35 Id. at 3. 36 Id. at 6. 37 Id. at 10. 31 Id. at 12. 39 Id. at 12.

A

I

I
I

I

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity 	 DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications 	

December 24, 2008 Page 70'23

'I 


"associated decrements to air quality and pulmonary effects, are likely to increase in frequency, severity, distribution, and duration in the Southeast, the Intermountain West and the West,,·40 , • 	 "Another example of the ecological consequences of climate change involving insects and affecting adaptability is the devastation of millions of acres of western U.S. and Canadian pines by bark beetles during the wannth and drought of 2000 to 2004. Recent modeling and observations revealed that beetles invading the northernmost lodgepole pine trees are now only a few miles from previously pristine jack pine populations (Logan and Powell, 2007). This may create a direct pathway of invasion to valued pine forests in the eastern United States and Canada,,;41 • 	 "As the climate wanns, stream temperatures are likely to increase, with effects on aquatic ecosystems. There is some evidence that temperatures have increased in some western U.S. streams, although a comprehensive analysis has yet to be conducted. Temperature changes will be most evident during low flow periods, when they are of greatest concern,,;42 • 	 "The forested area burned in the western United States from 1987 to 2003 is 6.7 times the area burned from 1970 to 1986 (Westerling et aI., 2006),,;43 • 	 "In regions with winter snow, wanning has shifted the magnitude and timing of hydrologic events (Mote et aI., 2005; Regonda et aI., 2005; Stewart et at., 2005). The fraction of annual precipitation falling as rain (rather than snow) increased at 74% of the weather stations studied in the western mountains of the United States from 1949 to 2004 (Knowles et aI., 2006),,;44 • 	 "Streamflow peaks in the snowmelt-dominated western mountains of the United States occurred one to four weeks earlier in 2002 than in 1948 (Stewart et at, 2005),,;45 • 	 "The most recent (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) climate model simulations project
increased runoff over the eastern United States, gradually transitioning to little change in

A

the Missouri and lower Mississippi, to substantial decreases in annual runoff in the interior of the West (Colorado and Great Basin). The projected drying in the interior of the West is quite consistent among models. These changes are, very roughly, consistent with observed trends in the second half of the 20th century, which show increased streamflow over most of the United States, but sporadic decreases in the West'.46;

40
41

42
43
44
45

46

[d. at 14-15. 
 [d. at 39-40. 
 [d. at 89. 
 [d. at 113. 
 [d. at 147. 
 [d. 
 [d. at 148.

Comments of Canter for Biological Diversity DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

December 24, 2008 Page 8 of 23

• 	 The area that is expected to face the most serious water constraints is southwestern United States;47 and • Stream temperatures are likely to increase as the climate warms and are very likely to have effects on aquatic ecosystems and water quality. Changes in tem~erature will be most evident during low flow periods, when they are of greatest concern. 4

Given the tremendous significance and far-reaching implications of the analysis and conclusions in the Scientific Assessment Report, and the direct relevance of this information in this instance, it is patently arbitrary and capricious for BLM to ignore the federal government's own Scientific Assessment Report in the nEls. The information presented in the Scientific Assessment Report specifically addresses the nature, extent, and causation of impacts caused by man-made GHG emissions (especially C02). BLM may not make a decision on leasing the LBA Tracts that fails to evaluate the significance of each of the concerns raised in the Scientific Assessment Report and to explore all available opportunities to ameliorate any contribution ofthe proposed project to adverse health, welfare, or environmental effects.49 By failing to disclose the true nature of the problem of climate change, the DElS is fatally flawed, as BLM is required to "describe the environment ofthe areas to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration.,,50 The establishment of the baseline conditions of the affected environment is a fundamental, practical requirement of the NEPA process. S1 To comply with NEPA, the DElS must be revised to include this information and recirculated for public comment.

A

II.

The DEIS Fails to Take a Hard Look at the Environmental Consequences of Leasing the LBA Tracts.

Agencies must take a "hard look" at their actions under NEPA. 52 NEPA requires that federal agencies consider "any adverse environmental effects" of their "major ... actions."s3 The analysis of GHG emissions in the DElS---and the contribution of all reasonably foreseeable
[d. at 191. 
 /d. at 12. 
 49 See also Barnett, T.P., et al. 2008. Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States. 
 Science DOl: 10.1 126/science. 1 152538. Based on observations showing that the hydrological cycle of the western 
 U.S. has changed significantly over the last half of the twentieth century, Barnett et al. (2008) presented a regional, muItivariable climate-change detection and attribution study, focusing on the changes that have already affected this primarily arid region with a large and growing population. The results show up to 60 percent of the climate-related trends of river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 are human-induced. They ~rtend, in conjunction with previous work, a coming crisis in water supply for the western United States. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15. 51 See HalfMoon Bay Fisherman's Marketing Ass 'n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988) (''without establishing ... baseline conditions ... there is simply no way to determine what effect [an action] will have on the environment, and consequently, no way to comply with NEPA"). 52 Muckleshootlndian Tribe v. United Slates Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350,104 L. Ed. 2d 351,109 S. Ct. 1835 (1989» ~internal quotation marks omitted). 3 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).
47

B

41

Comments of Center for Biological Div....,ty DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

December 24, 2008 Page 9 of 23

consequences of leasing the LBA Tracts-fails to meet this basic requirement in the numerous ways discussed below. These omissions render the DEIS inadequate under NEPA.

A. 	

The DEIS Fails to Account for All GHG Emissions Resulting from Leasing the LBA Tracts.

In quantifying the GHGs that will be emitted as a consequence of leasing the LBA Tracts, the DEIS inventories only those emissions resulting from mining operations themselves, including electricity used on site and mining processes. 54 The OEIS expressly omits inventories ofGHGs emissions resulting from on-site transport and rail transport to buyers~oal-fired power plants for electricity generation-stating that such infonnation is lacking. ss This conclusory assertion is flatly inadequate under NEPA, which requires environmental impact statements to "insure the scientific integrity" of their analyses, contain "accurate scientific analysis," and "provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts."s6 Indeed, it is not at all clear that such infonnation is, in fact, elusive or lacking, but even assuming that it is, the "CEQ has devised a specific procedure for 'evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment' when 'there is incomplete or unavailable infonnation. ",57 Thus, after disclosing that infonnation is lacking, "if the infonnation relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known," the agency must include in the environmental impact statement" a statement "that such infonnation is incomplete or unavailable"; a statement of "the relevance ofthe incomplete or unavailable infonnation to evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment"; a "summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment," and the agency's "evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community.,,58 None of this infomlation was provided in the DEIS.

B. 	

The DEIS Falls to Account for the GHG Emissions Resulting from Combustion of the Coal.

The DEIS contains no mention of the GHG emissions resulting from combustion of the coal that would be mined as a direct consequence of leasing the LBA Tracts. While the DEIS acknowledges that the proposed action would result in a "major commitment of resources" in the fonn of the "minin§ and consumption" of 731.2 to 760.8 million tons of coal for "electrical power generation," 9 the OEIS fails to inventory the GHGs that will be emitted as a result of consumption (i.e., combustion) of this coal.
~ DEIS at 3-254.

ld. 
 S6 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24, §1500.l(B), §1502.l; see also Mid States Coal.for Progress v. Surface Transp. Rd., 345 
 F.3d 520,549-50 (8th Cir. 2003) (when the nature of the effect is reasonably foreseeable but its extent is not, we 
 think: that the agency may not simply ignore the effect") (emphases in original). 
 51 ld. (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22). 
 S8 ld at § 1502.22(b). 
 S9 DElS at 3-255. 

55

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

December 24, 2008 Page10of23

This is flatly inadequate under NEPA. Again, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider "any adverse environmental effects" of their "major ... actions.,,60 The CEQ regulations, which are binding on the agencies, explain that "effects" include both "direct" effects and "indirect" effects. 61 Indirect effects are defined as those that "are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.'.62 "Indirect effects may include ... effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.',63 This language leaves little doubt that the type of effect at issue here, GHG emissions, is indeed something that must be addressed in an ElS if it is "reasonably foreseeable,,,64 and an environmental effect is "reasonably foreseeable" if it is "sufficiently likely to occur that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a decision.'.65 Accordingly, it is arbitrary to disclose and consider basic information about the GHG emissions resulting from all phases ofthe mines' life-cycle in the DEIS.66

C. 	

The DEIS Falls to Account for Impacts of the Proposed Action Resulting from Combustion By.Products like Black Carbon.

The DEIS excludes any and all considemtion of combustion by-products like black carbon, or soot, which is generated (among other things) by combustion of fossil fuels including coal. Black carbon is a particulate that deposits to the surface of the Earth, often in Alaska, Greenland, or the Arctic Ocean, within about a week of its emission, which usually occurs in the northern hemisphere. Black carbon influences the climate both in the atmosphere and at the surface, before and after it is deposited; the contrast between black carbon, the darkest aerosol, and snow and ice, the brightest surfaces of the planet, causes black carbon to absorb sunlight and to warm the Arctic atmosphere by approximately the same amount as human-injected C02 in spring and

/ill 61

42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) (emphasis added). 40 C.F.R. § 150S.S.

[d. [d. 64 [d. 6S Mid Slales, 456 F.3d at 549 (citing Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 1992». 66 [d. (holding that "it would be irresponsible for the [Surface Transportation] Board to approve [an upgrade and
62 63

construction of coal rails lines] without first examining the effects that may occur as a result of the reasonably foreseeable increase in coal consumption"). This analysis must also include disclosure and consideration of the cumulative effects ofieasing the LBA Tracts. 40 C.F.R. § 150S.7. (Cumulative impact is the "impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.") The cumulative impact analysis is intended to address the classic "one cigarette at a time" problem: a chain smoker can always claim that the cigarette he is currently smoking is too insignificant to have an effect upon his health. But the action, repeated over and over again, surely does. Similarly, NEPA's cumulative impacts analysis requirement is intended to address problems like GHG emissions that may appear individually insignificant, but cumulatively create a serious environmental problem. It is difficult to imagine a more important cumulative impact analysis than that of coal, and the American public and our decision-makers are entitled to understand the impacts that result from the greenhouse gas emissions of our coal use.

Comm.nts of Center for Biological DIv.rslty DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Leale Applications

December 24, 2008

Page 11 0123

summer, when snow and ice are most vulnerable to melting.61 The DElS must be revised and recirculated to include black carbon in its analysis of climate impacts.68

D. 	

The DEIS Fails to Address the Impacts of the Proposed Action to Species that are Threatened by Climate Change.

Species-including species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act-are threatened by the effects of global warming and therefore, the GHG emissions that would result from leasing the LBA Tracts may affect such species. BLM cannot reasonably dispute that leasing the LBA Tracts would affect species through climate impacts. Thus, in both the EIS and through consultation under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. ("ESA") (where applicable), BLM must analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project on species that may not necessarily occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, but will nonetheless be impacted by the proposed project's GHG emissions. Species affected by global warming include two listed coral species, elkhorn and staghorn corals, as the final listing rule for these species specifically discussed the impacts of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions on the species. 69 Indeed, coral reefs are among the first ecosystems to show the significant adverse impacts of global warming. As the National Marine Fisheries Service stated in the listing rule: "The major threats to these species' persistence (i.e., disease, elevated sea surface temperature, and hurricanes) are severe, unpredictable, have increased over the past 3 decades, and, at current levels of knowledge, the threats are unmanageable. ,,10 Each of these threats is directly related to GHG emissions. Moreover, CO2 emission themselves are reSUlting in acidification of the ocean, inhibiting coral growth. Along with elevated sea surface temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased in the last century, and the trend is likely to continue. As atmospheric carbon dioxide is dissolved in surface seawater, seawater becomes more acidic, shifting the balance of inorganic carbon away from carbon dioxide and carbonate toward bicarbonate. This shift decreases the ability of corals to calcify because corals are thought to use carbonate, not bicarbonate, to build their aragonite skeletons. Experiments have shown a reduction of coral calcification in response

Zender, C.S. 2007. Arctic Climate Effects ofB1ack Carbon. Written testimony to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, U.S. House of Rcpresentatives. See also Schwartz, J. 2007. Testimony for the Hearing on Black Carbon and Climate Change House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform United States House of
61
~tatives.
61

HalfMoon Bay Fishermans' Marketing Au 'n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 770-71 (9th Cir. 1982» (''NEPA's public comment procedures are at the heart ofthe NEPA review process" and "reflect 'the paramount Congressional desire to internalize opposing viewpoints into the decision making process to ensure that an agency is cognizant of all the environmental trade-offs that are implicit in a decision.'" Thus, "[i]t is only at the stage when the draft EIS is circulated that the public and outside agencies

have the opportunity to evaluate and comment on the proposal" and "[n]o such right exists upon issuance ofa final EIS".); id. ("an agency's failure to disclose a proposed action before the ilsusnce ofa final EIS defeats NEPA's goal of encouraging public participation in the development of information during the decision making process"). 69 See 71 Fed. Reg. 26852.
70

Id. at 26858.

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity DEIS for the South Oillette Area Coal Lease Applications

December 24, 2008

Page 120f23

to elevated carbon dioxide levels; therefore, increased carbon dioxide levels in seawater may be contributing to the status of the two species. 71 In 1998, which at the time was the warmest year on record, bleaching occurred in every ocean, ultimately resulting in the death of 10-16 percent of the world's living coral.72 In 2005, which eclipsed 1998 as the warmest year on record, a major bleaching event swept through the Caribbean, bleaching more than 90 percent of live coral in some areas and resulting in the ultimate death of about 20 percent of living coral region-wide. 73 Before this unprecedented single-year die-off even began, the Caribbean contained the world's most degraded coral reefs, having already lost as much as 80 percent of live coral over the preceding 30 years. 74 It will not take many more episodes like the 200S bleaching event before living coral reefs in the Caribbean disappear entirely.75 While coral reefs are threatened by many additional factors, including pollution and direct destruction from dredging and other activities, climate change is an increasingly dominant threat. There is clear evidence that the record-setting ocean temperatures of 1998 and 200S that triggered widespread bleaching and mortality are the product of global warming. 76 And while the link between coral bleaching and global warming is relatively intuitive, even the outbreaks of coral disease that ravaged the elkhorn and staghorn coral species have been linked to elevated water temperatures. 77 FinaUy, scientific evidence indicates that global warming increases the probability of severe weather events like the series of intense hurricanes that have so impacted Caribbean reefs in recent decades. 78 While bleaching is perhaps the most well-known impact of global warming on coral reefs, it is far from the being the only such impact. At the same time the oceans absorb increased heat
71

Id. at 26858-59. 


Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 2005. Marine Ecosystems and Climate Change. Climate Change & Biodiversity, [Lovejoy, 
 T.E., L. Hannah (eds.)]. 
 73 Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, O. W. Lea, M. Medina-Elizade. 2006. Global temperature change. 
 Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Published online September 25, 2006, 
 doi: 10. t 073/pnas.060629 I I03; Federal Response to the 2005 Caribbean Bleaching event, available at 
 http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/caribbean2005/docsl2005~bleaching~federal ~response. pdf (last accessed 
 Jan. 29, 2008). 
 74 Gardner, T. A., I. M. Catc, J. A. Gill, A. Grant, and A. R. Watkinson. 2003. Coral reef decline in the Caribbean: 
 Response to Buddemeir and Ware. Science 302:392-393. 
 75 Hoegh-Guldberg 2005. 
 76 Hansen et 01.2006; see also Alley et 01.2007. Summary for Policy Makers In Climate Change 2007: The 
 Physical Science Basis Contribution ofWoriting Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report ofthe Intergovernmental 
 Panel on Climate Change. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch. 
 77 Harvell, C.O., C.E. Mitchell, lR. Ward, S. Altizer, A.P. Dobson, R.S. Ostfeld, M.D. Samuel. 2002. 
 Climate Wanning and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota. Scie1fCe 296: 2158-2162. 
 71 Santer, B. D., T. M. L. Wigley, P. J. Glecltlera, C. Bonfilsd, M. F. Wehnere, K. AchutaRaoa, T. P. 
 Barnettf, J. S. Boylea, W. Brilggemanng, M. Fiorinoa, N. GiIlettb, J. E. Hanseni, P. D. Jonesh, S. A. Kleina, 
 G. A. Meehlc, S. C. B. Raperj, R.W. Reynoldsk, K. E. Taylora, W. M. Washington. 2006. Forced and 
 Unforced Ocean Temperature Changes in Atlantic and Pacific Tropical Cyclogenesis Regions. 
 Proceedings ofthe National Academy ofSciences (PNAS). Published online September 19, 2006, 
 doi:10.I073/pnas.060286J 103; see also Alley et a1. 2007. 

72

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity DeIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

December 24, 2008 Page 13 of 23

added to the climate from the burning of greenhouse gases, so, too, do they absorb the increased levels of the most important greenhouse gas--C02. The growth in atmospheric C02 concentrations leads to increasing acidification ofthe ocean, and this acidification only adds to the global warming-induced changes threatening the survival of coral and other important marine species. 79 A letter signed by the top 25 marine scientists who study ocean acidification emphasized that the decrease in EH due to un-checked C02 emissions will be devastating and irreversible on human time scales. 0 The authors predict that without immediate carbon dioxide emissions reductions, pH will decrease by more than 0.2 units by midcentury, and the IPCC estimates that over the 21st century, the ocean's pH level could decrease to as much as 0.35 units. 81 Already, the oceans have taken up about 50 percent of the C02 that humans have produced since the industrial revolution, and this has lowered the average ocean pH by 0.11 units. 82 Currently, the ocean takes up about 22 million tons of C02 each day.83 While preindustrial levels of atmospheric C02 hovered around 280 ppm, they have now increased to over 380 ppm; if current trends continue, they will increase another 50 percent by 2030.84 These rising C02 levels are irreversible on human timescales, and over time, the ocean will absorb up to 90 percent of this C02, greatly affecting the oceans' pH level. 8s This foretells a stark future for marine life. Due to acidification, within our lifetimes, coral reefs may erode faster than they can rebuild. 86 Corals are extremely vulnerable to ocean acidification and scientists studying acidification predict that coral reefs will decline in density and diversity unless C02 emissions are stabilized at present levels. 87 Under conservative models of future C02
Alley et al. 2007. Acidification occurs as a natural result of the ocean's carbonate buffer system. Carbon dioxide that is absorbed by seawater reacts to form carbonic acid, which dissociates to fonn bicarbonate and releases hydrogen ions, which then bond with carbonate ions to form more bicarbonate. This reaction reduces the amount of carbonate ions and decreases pH. Reduction in carbonate is an important concern because many organisms depend on it to form their shells and skeletons. Thus, as C02 enters the oceans' waters, there is a profound impact on the entire marine ecosystem, for ocean acidification severely affects many calcifying species like coral and ~ytoplankton that playa crucial role in supporting marine life. Caldeira, K. and 25 others. 2007. Comment on "Modem-age buildup of C02 and its effects on seawater acidity and salinity" by Hugo A. Loaiciga, Geophysical Research Letters 34: L18608. II Id; Alley et al. 2007. 82 Sabine, C.L., R.A. Feely, N. Gruber, R.M. Key, K. Lee, J.L. Bullister, R. Wanninkhof, C. S. Wong, D.W. R. Wallace, B. Tilbrook, F.J. Millero, T. Peng, A. Kozyr, T. Ono, A.F. Rios. 2004. The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic C02. &ience 305: 367-371.; Alleyet al. 2007. • 3 Feely, R.A., et al. 2006. Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy (2006). 
 84 Orr, lC., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. 
 Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray. A. Mouchet, R.G. Najjar, 
 G. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, lL. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, U. Totterdell, M. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, A. Yool. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its il!'Pact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437: 681-686. 
 85 Kleypas, 1.A., R.A. Feely, V.J. Fabry, C. Langdon, C.L. Sabine, L.L. Robbins. 2006. Impacts of Ocean 
 Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A Guide for Future Research. Available at 
 www.ucar.edulnewslreleasesl2006/report.shtml. 
 S6 Feely 2006. 
 87 Hoegh-Guldberg, 0., PJ. Mumby, A.J. Hooten, R.S. Steneck, P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, C.D. Harvell,
79

CorNntnts of Center for BIological DiversIty DEIS for the South GINette Arta Coal L.... Applications

December 24, 2008 Page 14 of 23

emissions, most of the world's coral reefs, already bleaching in the warmer waters, will erode to rubble by the end ofthe century.88 Corals provide vital functions for marine ecosystems, and their loss will likely bring grave impacts to the oceans and the species that inhabit them. Ocean acidification also impacts calcifying plankton species at the base of the marine foodchain. Like coral, plankton also playa vital role in the marine ecosystem. These organisms contribute much of the organic material entering the marine food chain and are responsible for about 50 percent of the earth's primary production. 89 Carbon dioxide uptake by the ocean causes impaired growth and development for calcifying plankton, and acidification dissolves the protective armor of some plankton, limiting their ability to survive. Thus, as the ocean absorbs more C02 and pH levels continue to decrease, the marine environment is expected to undergo profound changes due to impacts at many different levels in the food chain. Marine ecosystems and species are not the only species threatened by the effects of global warming. The leading study on the quantification of risk to species from climate change, published in 2004 in Nature, included over I, I 00 species distributed over 20 percent of the earth's surface area. 90 Under a relatively high emissions scenario, 35 percent, under a medium emissions scenario 24 percent, and under a relatively low emissions scenario, 18 percent of the species studied would be committed to extinction by the year 2050.91 Extrapolating from this study to the Earth as a whole reveals that over a million species may be at risk. It is important to note that we are currently on a traject07 to exceed the emissions assumed in the high warming scenario used by Thomas et a1. (2004.). 2 The essential message is that we must reduce emissions immediately in order to save many thousands of species and protect the ecosystems upon which we all depend. The Edith's checkerspot butterfly is one of the first species for which scientists have documented a clear range shift due to global warming. The butterfly's range has moved both northward and upward in elevation in response to a 0.72 0 C increase in regional warming. 93 The range shift was not due to butterfly populations actually moving, but instead to a higher proportion of population extinctions in the southern and lowland portions of the range. 94 These population extinctions are
P.F. Sale, A.J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R.H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, M.E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Science 318: 1737-1742. 88 [d.

89 Royal Society. 2005. Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Available 

at: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249 (last accessed Dec. 24, 2008). 
 Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, Y.C. CoIlingham, B.F.N. 
 Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. van Jaarsveld, G.F. 
 Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend Peterson, O.L. Phillips, S.E. Williams. 2004. 
 Extinction Risks from Climate Change. Nature 427: 145-148. 
 91 /d.
90

Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, Y.C. CoIlingham, B.F.N. 
 Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. van Jaarsveld, G.F. 
 Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend Peterson, O.L. Phillips, S.E. Williams. 2004. 
 Extinction Risks from Climate Change. Nature 427: 145-148. 
 93 Parmesan &; Yohe 2003. 
 94 /d.
92

Comments of Center for Biological Diversity DEIS for the South GIHette Area Coal Lease Applications

December24,2008 Page 150f23

the result of the fact that the species' host plant, Plantago erecta, now develops earlier in the spring, while the butterfly's caterpillars continue to hatch at the same time. 9s As a result, the caterpillars now hatch on plants that have already completed their lifecycle and dried up, instead of on younger edible plants. 96 The tiny checker:rot caterpillars are unable to move far enough to find other food and, as a result, starve to death. 9 Another animal struggling under the heavy hand of climate change is the American pika. This small mammal, a relative of the rabbit, is adapted to life in talus piles on high, treeless mountain peaks. Fossil evidence demonstrates that pikas once ranged widely over North America, but their range has contracted to a dwindling number of isolated peaks during the warm periods of the last 12,000 years. 98 Pikas are limited by their metabolic adaptation to their cold habitat niche. 99 Hence, while more mobile alpine species such as birds may be able to shift their ranges poleward as warming temperatures and advancing treelines, competitors, and predators impact their mountain habitat, pikas are generally incapable of such long range dispersal. 100 Rather, they can only migrate upslope as the climate warms. IOI In large portions of its range, however, the American pika is already occupying the highest elevation talus habitats that exist on a given mountain range; in such cases there is no upslope habitat to migrate to, and the mountain's population will ultimately disappear as the climate continues to warm. Already, at least 9 of 25 (36 percent) of pika populations found in the Great Basin have been extirpated, and the pika range has shifted upslope by 900 feet in this region. This small creature may well become one of global warming's first victims. Species such as the checkerspot butterfly and American pika demonstrate how climate change brought about by global warming will influence the earth's biodiversity as various species struggle to adapt to their changing habitats. Likewise, sensitive ecosystems, some literally melting under the impacts of global warming, have provided even more evidence ofthe dire consequence global warming will have on the earth's biological balance. The Arctic has experienced the effects of global warming earlier and more intensely than any other area on the planet. Over the past 100 years, average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate. 102 Specifically, in parts of Alaska and western Canada, winter temperatures have increased by as much as 3.5 0 C in the past 30 years. l03 Over the next

B


9J 96

/d.

Id. 
  To  


12/2212008 02:31 PM

cc Subject 	 Comments on Draft EIS for South Gillette Area Coal lease Applications

TO: Ms. Teresa Johnson Following are comments on the Draft EIS for South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications. • 	 Section 2.4.1, Page 2-34: The last paragraph discusses coal handling at the two Cordero 
 Rojo Mine facilities (north and south). Please note the Cordero Rojo north facility 
 consists of two coal storage silos while the Cordero Rojo south facility consists of four coal storage silos and a covered storage slot (a total of six coal storage silos, not four as stated). • 	 Section 3.6.1.4, Page 3-125: The last paragraph discusses the most recent alluvial valley 
 floor (AVF) study along the Belle Fourche River that was completed by Cordero Rojo 
 Mine in 2001. This paragraph states "Formal declaration of the presence or absence of an 
 A VF, its significance to agriculture, and the appropriate areal extent would be made by 
 the WDEQ/LQD as part of the mine permitting process if the LBA tract is leased and 
 proposed for mining." While it is true the "fonnal" declaration is made during the mine 
 permitting process, the WDEQ/LQD Coal Rules & Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 2(a) 
 allow for "a pre-application determination of the presence or absence of an alluvial valley 
 floor ... ". This pre..application determination has already been made by WDEQ/LQD for 
 the 2001 AVF study. WDEQlLQD determined there are no AVFs in the Maysdorf 
 application area. A copy of the pre-application determination letter from WDEQILQD is 


A

B

attached. Thank you for the opportunity to comment

Roy Liedtke

Sr. Environmental Engineer
Cordero Rojo Mine .. Rio Tinto Energy America P.O. Box 1449 748 T-7 Road Gillette, WY 82717-1449
307...685..4544

rov.liedtke@riotinto.com
CONFIDENTIAL and PROPRIETARY information of Rio Tinto Energy America. All rights reserved. This work contains Information that Is confidential and proprietary to Rio Tlnto Energy Amenca. The senders contact Information is also protected by the Rio Tinto Energy America Data Protection Polley. and should not be circulated. Removal of this notice, use, transfer, republication, disclosure and/or copying of all or part of this message, or its attachments, is strtctty prohibited. except with the express, written permission of Rio Tinto Energy America. If you have received this e-mail message In error please return it and contact Roy Liedtke at 301-685-4544.

~
Maysdorf AVF Predetermination pdf

................ 


.. ,
:

..

Or
Department of Environmental Quality
To protect, conserve and enhance the quality of "'Yoming's environment for the benefit of current and future generations.
John Corra, ~ctor

~

October 2. 2007

Mr. Roy Liedtke Cordero Mining Company P. O. Box 1449 Gillette, WY 82111-1449
RE: 	 Cordero Mining Company's Cordero Mine, Permit No. 137..1'8, Approval of Maysdorr Pre-permit Alluvial Valley Floor (AVF) Study, TFN 4 4/360

Dear Mr. Liedtke:

TIle Land Quality Division (LQD) District III staffreviewed the referenced application which was initially received March 19, 2007, under cover of Aqua Terra ConsUltants;< (ATe) Steve Stresky's letter of March 16,2007. Modifications of the application were received 011 July 30, 2007.
This letter approves the Alluvial Valley Floor Predetennination application as set out in the July 30, 2007, revisions. nus AVF Predetenninatiol1 declares that:
1. 	

There are no AVF units as detailed within this application for portions of the Belle Fourche River (from near the northeast comer of Section 10, T.46N" R.71 W. and ending approxinlately 7.4nutes upstream in the SWy..NW~ of Section 21, T.46N. J R.71 W.). The Land Quality Division agrees that there are no AVFs within these described lands.

You shouJd note that:
2. 	

This approved AVF Predetennination does not constitute review of nor approval for Appendix 0-11 as it nlay appear in the Maysdorf BDlenchnent appljcation. All materials submitted in the amendment application's Appendix D-Il will be fully reviewed by the LQD staff. ATe should write this AVF Predetennination approval and the supporting infonnation into the Ap~endix D-11 for the Ma~do(j am~ndment. appli~tion. This approval letter closes TFN 4 4i360; subseq~ent ~ori-eSpo~d~n'ce should r~fer~n~e the approved AVF Predetermination.

3.. 	 4. 	

Herschler Building • 122 West 25th Street • Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 • bttp:lldaa.8tata.wy.ul
ADMINIOUTRIACH (307) 777-7758
FAX 711-3110

A8ANDONl!D ItINl!S (307, m.a14S
FAX 777-8461

AIR QUALITY
(301) 777-1391

INDUSTRIAL smNG (307) m-7381
PAX m..fi937

LAND QUALm (307) m-TI5t
FAX 777-5164

SOUD • HAZ. WASTE (307'777-7752
FAX 717-5973

WA11!R QUALITY ('307) 777-7781
FAX 771-5973

FAX 777-11816

..

,.

"..

Cordero Mining Compony's Cordero Rojo Mine, Permit No. 137-T8 MaysdorCPre-permlt Alluvial Valley Floor (AVF) Study, TFN 44/360 September ,2008 Page 2 If you or the ATC have any questions, please contact Glenn Mooney in the District ill Office.

Sincerely,

~~~
LQD Administrator RAC\gm cc: 	 District III 
 Steve Stresky, ATC 


2l1ov(acccptlcL1am

Response to Comment Letter 3: Cordero Rojo Mine – Rio Tinto
 Energy America
 Comment Response 3A: Revisions have been made in Section 2.4.1 in the final EIS to correct the discussion on Cordero Mine facilities to state: “There are six existing coal storage silos (two at the north facility and four at the south facility) and a covered slot storage structure.” Comment Response 3B: Revisions have been made to the last paragraph of Section 3.6.1.4 updating the status of AVF inventories within the Maysdorf II tract. It now states that “WDEQ/LQD has determined that there are no AVFs within the 7.4 mile section of the Belle Fourche River described above (WDEQ/LQD 2007).”

II

4
NadoMlII~l1arca. 


........

11)0 17th

Str,~.

~

"'.w. ....... 
 I

Wa,llington. D.C. !col(j-~

I rell01.•6g?..~)4(lO I fa'l' 7o,..681.rUI 


Bureau ofLand Management Casper Field Office Attn: Teresa Johnson 2987 Prospector Drive Casper, Wyoming 82604 casper wymail@blm.gov December 23, 2008
Re: Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease

Dear Ms. Johnson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the South Gillette Coal Lease and Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"). These comments are submitted on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife ("Defenders"), a non-profit public interest conservation organization with over 500,000 members nationally. Defenders is dedicated to protecting imperiled species and their habitats by combining scientific research, public organizing, and administrative and legal advocacy. Defenders relies on the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), and other federal conservation Jaws to protect endangered and threatened species, and imperiled species not currently benefiting from ESA protections. In addition to species-specific litigation, Defenders is a committed advocate for the protection of the nation's wildlife refuges, parks, forests and other public lands. In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") declared, "[w]arming ofthe climate system is unequivocal," and it is "very likely" that most ofthe warming since the middle ofthe 20th century is the result ofhuman pollutants. Global warming is a global crisis with well-documented and considerable local impacts. In addition to its other disruptive direct effects, the mining ofcoal will likely result in the generation of high quantities of greenhouse gas emissions, a significant contributor to global warming. The Bureau ofLand Management ("BLM") was obligated to consider the impacts ofa coal lease sale in the DEIS. The DEIS failed to considered global warming on four notable fronts. The DEIS fails to: (1) analyze the greenhouse gas emissions inevitably reSUlting from a lease sale; (2) analyze the observed and projected effects ofglobal warming on the welfare ofecosystems; (3) analyze alternatives to coal based energy in meeting energy needs; and (4) analyze the
COlDDlenta on the Soutb Gillette Area Coal Leue AppUcation Draft Environmental Impact Statement

I I

NatJar.aj 1Ic:"u.ar••a

1I~ 17th

Strc«.1\7.W.

I Wullington. D.C. "coJ6-46o.a. I «':1 ',01..6I.h..~)~O I fax 10".68".I)J'

.".....defe.dcrLOl'l

impacts of the lease sale on threatened and endangered species protected under the ESA, as well as imperiled species that have yet to be listed. These comments address and analyze the effects ofa coal lease sale on greenhouse gas emissions and the deficiencies ofthe DEIS. Federal agencies, including the BLM, are required to incorporate global warming and its impacts in their decision calculus under a number of mandates, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4331 et~. (''NEPA"). In addition, the project fails to comply with the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544. We believe that the DEIS must be revised, as it violates NEPA, and must be supplemented to integrate global warming in its analysis. The DEIS Fails to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") failed to consider and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the lease sale ofthe South Gillette Area Coal ("SGAC") tract in the Powder River Basin ("PRB") in Wyoming. The BLM administers mineral resources owned by the federal government. It leases these resources for development under the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. § 221 et~, and manages them according to resource management plans developed under the Federal Land and Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA"), 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et~. BLM's failure to consider the greenhouse gas and global warming considerations in the DEIS is arbitrary and capricious. NEP A requires federal agencies to "ensure 'that the agency analyzes the probable environmental aspects oftbeir ordinary duties." Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n v. Cartwright, 29 F.Supp.2d 1100, 1110 (D. Ariz. 1998). NEPA requires that the agency prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality ofthe human environment." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(c). The EIS is "a procedural obligation designed to assure that agencies give proper consideration to the environmental consequences oftheir actions." Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n at 1110 (citing Merrell v. Thomas, 807 F.2d 776, 777-78 (9th Cir. 1986». In addition, the EIS serves to inform both decision makers and the public about the alternatives and adverse impacts ofthe project. See Columbia Basin Protection Ass'n v. Scb1esinm. 643 F.2d 585, 592 (9th Cir. 1981) ("[T]be preparation ofan EIS ensures that other officials, Congress, and the public can evaluate the environmental consequences independently."). Coal-fIred electric power plants are the nation's largest emitter ofgreenhouse gases, the leading culprit ofglobal warming, yet the BLM failed to do more than a cursory analysis of the impacts that will result from the lease sale on global warming. This is especially egregious given that Wyoming coal production has increased at a more rapid rate than other domestic coal sources. DEIS, 4-109. The Department ofEnergy estimates that by 2030, the
Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUcation
Dnft Environmental Impact Statement

A

2

........ n ' ....... 

au ,.' ..

nlO.,.. ..... M•• I - -..... o.C 1CGI~ I teI ...-..,.. I ....

1GLAII..,,, 


,

coal abare of total eDerJJY 1111 wiD iDc.nue iolD 23 pen:eat ia 2006 tID 25 pen:eat ill 2030. DBlS, 4-109.

The SOAC MiMI produced 100.1 miDioa toDI ofcom iD 2006, totaIiDa approximately 22.7 perceDI oftile com produced iD tire W,.,.... Powder Riwr BaIiD iD 2006, or abOut 3.2 pen:eat ofdle .duidod u.s. cubon cIioxide llDillioDi iD 2006. Dms, 4­ 111. UDder tile No AdioD ~ CQa emiIIioIII aarIIutable to ...... coal procIuced by the Belle Ayr, ColI Creek CabI., ... Cordero Roao Ma. would be at..... at tbiI lewl." up to IppIUXimItely 16 )WIll, ill which time the miaea recowr .... OItimato 1,564 miIIioa toIII of~ . . . coal lall1 NL 14

_at rema--.

,.. d_ _ fbrtber below, the public .... 1pII:)' decilioa ..... ..., entitled. to 
 bow die true COllI .... jll'l_ ofaD IIpOCII of'" coal,.... iaclacliai die UbI)' 
 . . . . . . . 1M emiIIioDL OutIiDiq the true COllI oftile cIhct .... c:umalltiw 
 ...,....,.... . eaduio. hili the coaI"'~'" clilcloaiq aJtmuativeIaad 
 . _iptioa ....... would \WY Ubly'" to _a_ad --u COIIICnIIioa ....a. of reaewable eDIIJY I01IICeI. III Cef« ... DmnilJ, CoII""O" oa PIOpoJecI 
 OUter CoaIi.... SheIf(OCS) on .... 011 DriIUq ...._ ... 2007-2012. CoameatI 
 on Iapat StII_ . . die PIOpoJecI oc:s ......." 2007-2012, 71 
 Ped. . . . 50457-.504S (2006) ("CBD eo,,·,_"). to the .....0 ofNBPA to 
 clilclole the fbII 0Jl¥ir0ameJdaI COIIIeqIIOJICeI ofdle Souda Gillette Ana ColI Leue, die 81M produced DBIS dill bit die true . . . . . . . . . . ofb JIft1PDIII. TIle BLY 
 It8ted thIt it iI "Dot poIIibIe to pmject tile .... ofCOa el' illl. . thIt ....... the coal ill die 
 SOAC LBA tmcI would procD:e clue to tile . -........... wIIIt ....iDa IimitI wiD be 
 ia place II thIt time or wbere ........ the coal ill tile SOAC tmcI would be UIed after • ill 
 ....." DBlS, ....112. 1'111 BLM'.1dIIn to COIIIider die ...............foDi oftire 
 coal reI018'CeI fIaWI..-y IIpICt oftile DBIS ... tile cIeciIiD. wIrin. pmceII. 1'111 BLM 
 _ ...... anMled DBJS tIIIt pmperIy co.idIJI iqllicata- ofdle . . . ..." prior to pmceodina'" die FiaaI HIS. III CBD CoIIJIIIeIllL

in..-....

DraI_
a

Rip.,.'

CoatI_"

A

e."".

tile......,..... ad..,.,........

'DI DR' rl"'. A··... 1M,......,'....tCt!41t1es!r ""..... w.....
O............ bioctiveniIy warldwide, aact.. bolla ta......... -WlJIICiII. TIle periodic 


_*_.. . . . . . . . . . . .. ,. . . .
a_

of 


- - tile IOCiDecoaoI.............'--ID........... 
 c. . . . . . . . i,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . idIpI............ioa(IPCC 
 MtncIIte). The tedlaiNI ..... ....".,.. dIIDII periocIic I.e . _.... , . ... ofdle 


• •1 1 _ . . . . . iIIued by till UIIiIed ~ lIIa..,_ _•• Palloa a...,..("IPCC').". • • - .....~ ..... _ o f.... ' 
 . .10. . . . . ..,.,.. ........ TIle IPCC'....... II to ~."'Iy"" oIJjectMly 


cu... 


.-iftc.......... ,.....1

c. G-...AnllCeil "-A..Ie..... 
 DnlI K............1 ..........- , 


I"".........

3

I

I

IIa..Ltwuter. 
 Srr,,,(,(. N.W. I \,,"ullington. D.C. ,.co,6"-460+ www.cIefaMk..... 

NatJa.aj
11)0 17fh

I (\",;1 ,.o1.• 681..~J400 I f.11' 1o,".Qb.1Hf 


existing scientific and technical literature compiled by the world's leading climate change experts, representing the collective wisdom ofthousands of scientists from around the world, including hundreds ofacademic and government researchers within the U.S. The reports represent the ''best available science" addressing climate change and its impacts on the natural world. The IPCC reports convincingly indicate that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide ("C02"), endanger public health, welfare, and the environment. The IPCC's fourth assessment report, issued in February 2007, determined that the evidence ofwarming global temperatures is "unequivocal" and that observed changes in temperatures since the mid-20th century have been "very likely" (>9()O!o chance) caused by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the largest growth in global greenhouse gas emissions between 1970 and 2004 has come from the energy supply sector (an increase of 145%) (IPCC). Many ofthe public resources managed by the Department of the Interior are being harmed by global warming resulting from increased greenhouse gas emissions (see generally GAO, Climate Change). As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, "[t]he harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 1455 (2007). These harms-already occurring worldwide-include "the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes, [and] the accelerated rate of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years." Id. (quoting National Research Counci~ Climate Change: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, at 16). The impacts from global warming on species and ecosystems are not too uncertain to predict. For example, one ofthe most immediate general effects of climate change on terrestrial plants and wildlife are shifts in geographical ranges, catalyzed by changes in the normal patterns oftemperatures and humidity that generally determine such ranges (Thuiller 2007). As a result of warming temperatures, significant range shifts averaging 6.1 kilometers per decade towards the poles and an advancement of spring events by 2.3 days per decade have already occurred (Parmesan & Yohe 2003). Because many ecosystems and species cannot make such "shifts," global warming presents risks ofwidespread extinctions (Thomas et a1. 2004; Thuiller 2007). In addition to general impacts, different regions throughout the world will be increasingly affected in ways specific to those locations. The Arctic region has been the most obvious early indicator of the effects ofglobal warming on the planet. While the planet as a whole warmed approximately 1°F during the
Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Appleatlon Draft EnvironmeDtal Impact Statement

4

I

I

National II~uar~r. 
 UJO 17th SrlX"rr. N.W. I \V'ullington. D.C. ,cOJ6-~0+ W'WW.d.cfcaden... 


I I'd ,.o1'.. 6Ih.~)400 I

fn ,o,..6~b.l~~r




20th century, some regions of the Arctic experienced warming of4-5°P since the 1950s alone, and the region continues to warm at rates approximately twice that in the rest of the world (ACIA 2004).' Most notably, the melting of Arctic sea ice due to global warming has occurred much more rapidly and on a scale that scientists believed would not happen for another half century. At the end of summer in 2007, the volume of Arctic sea ice was half what it was only four years ago, nearly 23 percent below the previous record-Iow. (Borenstein 2007). The rapid melting of the Arctic ice has grave repercussions for the many Arctic species that rely wholly or partially on the ice for feeding, nesting, breeding, sheltering, and other essential behavioral functions. The melting of Arctic sea ice caused by global warming directly threatens the polar bear, which is completely dependent on the ice for every aspect of its life cycle. Melting sea ice will shorten the time frame in which polar bears can hunt seals due to earlier ice break-up and later freeze-up dates, reduce availability ofprey, increase distances bears need to swim because of melting ice, and increase bear-human conflicts as bears move into terrestrial and populated areas in search of food. Additionally, the world's oceans, occupying 70 percent of the planet, are being profoundly affected by global warming, as primarily evidenced by warming temperatures and increasing acidification of the oceans (Rosenzweig 2007). Coral reefs have served as an early bellwether of these changes, and NMFS on May 9,2006 determined two species-the elkhorn (Acropora palmata) and staghom (A. cervicornis) corals-to be threatened, the first coral species to be give protection under the ESA. 71 Fed. Reg. 26,852. In addition to the precipitous declines in staghorn and elkhorn coral popUlations as a result ofglobal-warming inducted bleaching, global warming also adversely affects coral species by increasing the acidification ofocean waters (Hoegb-Guldberg 2007). Ocean acidification is especially driven by C02; as greater levels ofCO2 enter the ocean, it reacts with seawater to produce carbonic acid, which ultimately reduces the amount ofcarbonate available to the reefs, leading to decreased calcification and increased erosion. In a recent study, a team ofresearchers presented three scenarios based on the business-as­ usua1lalternative scenario approach, and found that even if C02 emissions leveled at 380 ppm, coral reefs worldwide would still undergo fundamental changes (Hoegh-Guldberg 2007). Ifcarbon dioxide levels rise to double that ofpreindustrial levels under a business-as­ usual approach, "[t ]hese changes will reduce coral reef ecosystems to crumbling frameworks
I A phenomena known as the "Ice-Albedo feedback" is largely responsible for these disproportionate effects. Because the arctic ice has high albedo, meaning it reflects much more solar radiation than other sources, once that ice melts, the uncovered land and water absorbs more solar radiation, leading to a positive feedback loop and rising temperatures.

Comments on the South GUlette Area Coal Lease Appleation Draft Envlronmentallmp.t Statement

5

Nadoaalllt!ad.. uar~••
lIJO 11ch SrlX"(,c. ".,,:.

I \VI~hinltton. D.C. '!cOJ6--460+ I

(\'":1 "o1.. 6lh.~)400

I

fAx ,o,..68~.IHr

www.defeade...·OIJ

with few calcareous corals ... Under these conditions, reefs will become rapidly eroding rubble banks" (Hoegh-Guldberg 2007). Like the rapidly accumulating evidence addressing the negative effects of global warming on coral reef species and the polar bear, new scientific information demonstrates that global warming is increasingly having negative effects throughout the western United States. The west has warmed more than any other area in the country outside of Alaska, with projections of future warming varying from 3 to 7°F, to as much as 14°F in the Southwest (Leung and Qian 2005; Overpeck 2005). As new scientific information developed since 1996 convincingly demonstrates, global warming is already affecting the West by causing wetter and warmer winters wjth reduced snowpacks and earlier springs with associated early-season melting of the already-reduced snowpack (Mote et al. 2005). In addition, many areas ofthe West are in the midst ofthe worst drought in hundreds of years, and researchers believe global warming could cause drought to become essentially permanent. This combination of effects is already having real-world consequences for biological resources. For example, scientists identified high temperatures as one ofthe likely causes of a massive die-offofpifton and ponderosa trees across 3.5 million acres of Arizona and New Mexico (Breshears et a1. 2005). In addition, less snowpack and earlier snowmelt have been correlated with increasing numbers of large forest ftres in the west, as earlier snowmelt acts to dry out forest fuels (Westerling 2006). The effects of global warming present heightened risks to species already imperiled by other causes, especially those with restricted ranges or highly specific ecological needs (Randall 2006). Climate change during the past 30 years has in fact already been implicated in one species-level extinction, and a potential mass extinction (an estimated 67 percent of 110 species) of Ate/opus, a genus ofamphibians endemic to the American tropics (Pounds et al. 1999; Pounds et al. 2006). If levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise unabated, newly­ developed science indicates that extinction levels in the U.S. and worldwide would likely be catastrophic. As stated by James Hansen, senior scientist at Columbia University Earth Institute and Director ofthe NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies: In my opinion there is no significant doubt (probability >99%) that (] additional global warming of 2°C would push the Earth beyond the tipping point and cause dramatic climate impacts including eventual sea level rise of at least several meters, extermination of a substantial fraction of the animal and plant species on the planet, and major climate disruptions. Much remains to be learned before we can define these effects in detail, but these consequences are no 10nKer speCUlative climate model results.

B

C8mments 8. the S8uth Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUcation Draft EnviroDmental Impact Statement

6

I I

NatiouJ lIadquarteli uJO 11th Srr,,·("C'. ~.w. I ''''uhinRton. D.C. '!col6-~o.tW'WW.deleadel'LOl'l

I (\,,:1 ,.o?,6tc1'~c}..f.t)O I

fay 1'ol..6H?,IJlJ

(Hansen 2006). Echoing this assessment, a team of 18 scientists recently estimated that 15-37 percent ofterrestrial species within sample regions covering approximately 20 percent of the Earth's surface would be "committed to extinction" by 2050 if greenhouse gas emissions continue rising on current trajectories (Thomas et at. 2004). If those percentages of loss are extrapolated to a planetary level, more than 1 million species could be driven extinct in the next fifty years (Thomas et at. 2004). Many ocean species will also suffer pronounced losses (Hunter 2007). The BLM is required under NEPA to analyze global warming impacts that result from its actions In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that recognized the severity ofthe climate change crisis, and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's obligation to confront the problem. The Supreme Court held, in Massachusetts v. EPA,. 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007), that the "unambiguous" definition of "air pollutants" includes carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This case was initiated by a dozen states and numerous environmental organizations, and the Supreme Court's ruling is widely viewed as a landmark recognition of the global warming crisis by the judiciary. The Court noted that the "[t]he harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." Id. at 1455. The Court also acknowledged "the enormity ofthe potential consequences associated with man­ made climate change," and the contribution ofcarbon dioxide emissions to global warming. Id. at 1457-58. Given the Supreme Court's conclusion that, "[t]he harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized," the federal government has a responsibility to take action to reduce it, even if such action may not completely reverse global warming. Id. at 1458. BLM is not exempt from that responsibility. Since 1990, 19 coal leases containing more than five billion tons of federal coal have been issued following competitive sealed-bid sales in the Powder River Basin. DEIS, 4­ 4.This mined coal will inevitably be used in coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired power plant emissions include carbon dioxide (C02), which is the principal anthropomorphic greenhouse gas. C02 emissions represent about 84 percent of the total U. S. greenhouse gas emissions. DEIS, 3-168. Ofthat 84 percent, estimated CO2 emissions from the electric power sector totaled 2,343.9 million metric tons, or about 39.5 percent of total U.S. energy...related C02 emissions in 2006. ~ Massachusetts, 127 S. Ct. at 1446 '("A well documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related ... It is therefore a species-the most important species--ofa 'greenhouse gas."'). The concentration ofC~ in the Earth's atmosphere now exceeds 380 parts per million (''ppm''), more than 80 ppm greater than the maximum levels ofat least the last
Comments on the South GlUette Area Coal Lease AppUcation Draft Environmental Impact Statement

B

7

UlO 17rh Srr('("(". ]\;. w. www.c&efeadc:n.cN.J 


Nadaaalllc:ad.llar~,. 


I \'fullington. D.C. "co~(j-#o+ I

(\.~I

,.r)1.. 6lt1.. ~J-VlO

I

fno 1o,..6)b.IH' 


740,000 years, and perhaps the last 20 million years (Hoegh-Guldberg et aI2007). Because coal-ftred power plants are one ofthe two "largest and fastest growing" sources of carbon dioxide emissions, their greenhouse gas outputs "must be addressed to move emission trends off the Business-as-Usual path and onto something approximatin& the Alternative scenario" (Hansen 2006; EPA 2007:8) (emphasis added). Greenhouses gases emissions are within the direct, indirect and cumulative effects that NEPA documents must analyze. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. Not only are increased greenhouse gas emissions ''reasonably foreseeable" but so too are their climate consequences. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.8. As discussed previously, the overwhelming consensus of national and international scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the build-up ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming, and that the subsequent changes will adversely affect local, regional and global environments. ''The OEIS should have disclosed and analyzed the greenhouse gas emissions from past, proposed, and estimated future coal production. The OEIS should also have examined other major sources of greenhouse gas emissions to provide an adequate overall description ofcumulative impacts. The OEIS fails to do so." CBO Comments. Coal-fIred power plants are a significant contributor to the generation ofgreenhouse gases, and consequently, to global warming. The BLM has a responsibility to examine not only the increase in greenhouse gases from the proposed leasing and development ofthe SGAC tract, but also the regional and global impacts ofglobal warming on resources. The current OEIS neither discusses these impacts nor attempts to quantify them. There is now growing scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emission reductions must begin within the next decade; otherwise, the planet will cross a "tipping point," beyond which "it is virtually certain that there will be large-scale disastrous climate impacts for humans as well as for other inhabitants ofthe planet," including "extermination ofa substantial fraction ofthe animal and plant species on the planet" (Hansen 2006: 15, 30). The impacts ofclimate change, which are exacerbated by coal leasing and development are much more than ''reasonably foreseeable"-and the BLM must analyze them in the OEIS.
The DEIS Fails to Analyze the Alternative. to Coal Based Energy and the "No Action" Alternadve

c

The OEIS correctly acknowledges that the demand for power is increasing in the U.S. and throughout the world. DEIS, 4-107. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council, peak demand for electricity in the U.s. is expected to double in the next 22 years. DEIS, 3-169 (citin& Associated Press, 2007). There are methods ofgenerating electricity that resuh in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than burning coa~ including natural
COlDJIIeots 00 the South GWette Area Coal Leue AppUeatlon Draft Environmental Impact Statement

8

N.doaai 1I1E.d.llarller. 1fJO l1rh Srr('('(. N.W: I 'Vul.. in~ton. D.C. "cOJ6-#o+
'tI'WW.dJeadc:ra_OIJ

I

fI.., :1

,.0'1.• 6tc,..~J400

I

fax ,o1..6S,.. IHJ

gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal resources. DEIS, 4-101. According to the IPCC, "there is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilization levels can be achieved by deployment ofa portfolio oftechnologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialized in coming decades .... " DEIS, 4-105. The existence ofa viable but unexamined alternative renders an EIS inadequate. An agency must look at every reasonable alternative. Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Ass'n v. Morrison 67 F.3d 123, 129 (9th Cir.1995) NEPA mandates that federal agencies "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses ofaction in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses ofavailable resources." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2XE). Yet the DEIS failed to consider alternative methods. NEPA "requires that alternatives ... be given full and meaningful consideration." Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel 852 F.2d 1223, 1229 (9th Cir. 1988). The BLM failed to meet NEPA's requirements. Climate change scientists have shown that imminent action is necessary to stabilize and reverse the rapid climate change already occurring. Regardless ofwhat actions are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, some level of global warming is already "in the pipeline," because ofpast and current emissions. Scientists, however, have generally outlined two broad scenarios based on levels of future emissions: the "Business-as-Usual" scenario and the "Alternative" scenario. Under the alternative scenario, which would yield global warming of less than 1°C in the 21 st century, carbon dioxide emissions must moderately decline before 2050 and then have a subsequent steeper decline in order that atmospheric carbon dioxide peaks at 415 ppm in 2100 and declines slowly thereafter. Under the business-as-usual scenario, if emissions continue to rise 2 percent a year, the same rate of increase as the first five years of the 21 st century, there will be at least 2°C ofglobal warming by 2100. Ifwarming approaches these levels, the Earth will be a "different planet," and "it is virtually certain that there will be large-scale disastrous climate impacts for humans as well as for other inhabitants ofthe planet" (Hansen 2006). The window ofopportunity to implement the alternative scenario is exceedingly narrow. Ifcarbon dioxide emissions continue to rise at 2 percent per year for another decade, "the 35% increase [] (between 2000 and 2015) will make it implausible to achieve the Alternative scenario"). As the same time, ''the tripwire between keeping global warming less than 1°C, as opposed to having a warming that approaches the range 2-3°C, may depend upon a relatively small difference in human-made direct forcinas" (Hansen 2006). The BLM was required to compare all of the environmental impacts from the coal lease, including the utilization of the anticipated coal resources, to the environmental impacts of not using them and instead relying on ahemative energy sources. NEPA requires
Comments on the South GUlette Area Coal Lease AppUeation Draft Environmental Impact Statement
9

D

NadouJ Ilad.aar~l'.
UJO 17m Str~('f.

".w.

I Washington. D.C. lco~6-~ I

eel ,.o1.. 6~",,'J4I.\o

I

fay 101.68,..IHI

www..defe.dclll.GII

disclosure to facilitate better decision making, and allow the public and decision makers to change harmful behavior. CBD Comments. The BLM's attempt to discount the impact of the greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed coal production, "has prevented this process from functioning and attempted to turn its assumption about the continuing use of fossil fuels into a self-fulfilling prophecy." Id. ''This violation cannot be countenanced in light ofthe severe environmental consequences ofcontinued fossil fuel use." M.

D

The DEIS FaDs to Analyze tbe Impacts of tbe Coal Lease on Threatened and Endangered Species
In both generalities and particulars, extensive new scientific information strongly demonstrates that global warming will adversely affect and jeopardize the continued existence of many threatened and endangered species. Statutory Background Congress enacted the ESA, in part, to provide a "means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved... [and] a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species ... " 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). The ESA "is the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation ofendangered species ever enacted by any nation." Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978). The Supreme Court's review ofthe ESA's "language, history, and structwe" convinced the Court "beyond a doubt" that "Congress intended endangered species to be afforded the highest of priorities." Id. at 174. As the Court noted, "the pJain intent of Congress in enacting this statute was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." Id. at 184. Under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, every federal agency "shall ... insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ("action agency") is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence ofthe endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification ofhabitat of such species ...determined ... to be critical. ... " 16 U.S.C. § 1536(aX2) (Section 7 consultation). Agency "action" is defined in the ESA's implementing regulations to include "all activities or proarams ofany kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas. Examples include, but are not limited to: (a) actions intended to conserve listed species or their habitat; (b) the promulgation ofregulations; (c) the granting of licenses, contracts, leases, easements, rights-of-way, permits, or grants-in-aid; or (d) actions directly or indirectly causina modifications to the land, water, or air." 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. (emphasis added). Comments on the South GUlette Area Coal Lease AppHeation Draft Environmental Impaet Statement

E

10

Nationalilcad.uuter.
lIJO 17fh St~(,f. J\.\X~

I \Vullington. D.C. "!cOJ6-460+ I rei 1.o1..6lh.9400 I

fa'!' 'o".6~b.1Hr

www.defendcn_OJ'I

The South Gillette Area Coal Lease "Affects" ESA-Listed Species The scientific community has made enormous strides in its understanding of the nature and scope of anthropogenic global warming, as well as the enormous risks it poses to wildlife, birds, fish, and piants-especially those species that are already imperiled. Numerous species will be affected by global warming. Species that are already imperiled by habitat destruction and fragmentation, pollution, over-harvesting and other mctors will be especially prone to extinction as a result ofglobal warming (Hannah et at. 2005:3-14). Therefore, the greenhouse gas emissions ofthe South Gillette Area Coal Lease "may affect" such species, triggering the consultation requirement. More pronounced global warming effects in the western U.S. pose particular risks to the region's many threatened and endangered species. For example, the "sky island" mountains of Arizona, so named because they contain "islands" of forested habitat rising above a "sea" of desert and grasslands, contain at least 28 threatened or endangered species listed under the ESA. Because many ofthe mountain ranges are isolated from one another, their forested expanses contain a high proportion ofendemic wildlife with highly restricted ranges. The U.S. Forest Service, which administers most of the land within these ranges, recently concluded that rising temperatures associated with global warming had adverse impacts on the sky islands, stating that its plants and wildlife "have not evolved to tolerate these new conditions" (Egan 2007). For species that exist at the higher elevations ofthese ranges, there may be no opportunity to adapt; as temperatures rise, their habitat will simply disappear. As stated by one prominent scientist, "[a]s the climate warms, these species on top of the sky islands are literally getting pushed off into space." Or in the words ofanother researcher, "I honestly believe that we are standing at the edge ofa very, very large mass extinction, and top-of-mountain species are going to be the fust to go" (Erickson 2005). The highly imperiled Mt. Graham red squirrel, listed as endangered, vividly illustrates this risk. Endemic to a sky island range known as the Pinalenos, its population numbers have already been dramatically reduced through historic habitat loss. Beginning in 1996, the species' only forest habitat bas been akered through a series of insect outbreaks driven by warmer and drier conditions caused by global warming (Koprowski et a1. 2005). As noted by scientists studying the species, "these impacts are expected to increase with current trends in global climate change" (Koprowski et a1. 2005: 491; Ayres and Lombardero 2000). Ifthose trends do continue, "[i]n a sense, the topmost community [of the Pinalenos] (the spruce-fir community [will] literally he[! burned up into the sky," causing the Mt. Graham red squirrel to go extinct (Warsha1l2007).

E

Global warming and, in particular, longer drought, is also predicted to negatively impact another squirrel species endemic to the eastern U.S., the Delmarva fox squirrel (Hilderbrand et al. 2007). Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppHcatton 11 Draft EnvlronlDental Impact Statement
2

Natloaal IIcad.. uar~•• UJO 17fh Srr("C'C'. "".w: I \'(fullington. D.C. '.cOJ6-#04www.dJcadct.LOI'I

I t'C1 '.Q1•• 6lC",,~)400 I fax 10l.6·"?.IHr

The adverse effects of global warming on listed species within the western U.S. are by no means limited to mountaintop species, however. For example, global warming has been identified as a driving factor in the extirpation ofthirty ofthe eighty peninsular bighorn sheep populations in California, as researchers have correlated those extirpations with those places where the climate has been the warmest and driest (Epps et al. 2004). In addition, decreasing snowfall associated with global warming has been found to negatively affect the Canada lynx, through decreased prey availability and decreased competitive advantage over other carnivores (Carroll 2006). BLM is Violating Section 7 the ESA Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to insure that any "action" they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to '~eopardize the continued existence ofany endangered [] or threatened species," or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitats. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). As noted in TVA v. Hill, ''this language admits of no exception. 437 U.S. 153, 173. The applicable regulations direct agencies, in considering whether formal consultation is required, ''to determine whether any action may affect listed species or critical habitat." 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). A later portion ofthe same regulation confirms that agencies must consider the "effects ofthe action as a whoIe." 50 C.F.R. § 402. 14(c). The "[e]ffects ofthe action" include the "direct and indirect effects ofan action on the species or critical habitat," and "[i]ndirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur." 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. Despite increasing recognition that global warming poses grave threats to both human society and the natural world, and the fact that the mining and burning ofcoal is one ofthe paramount contributors to such warming, the BLM continues to approve new coal leases, which will in turn feed new coal-rued power plants. Coal mining emissions, and their contribution to global warming and species endangerment, are thus an "effect" ofthe BLM coal leasing program triggering a duty to initiate formal consultation. The BLM and Services are currently in violation of section 7, as they have failed to commence formal consultation. Under these regulations, federal agencies are required to consider the ''total impact'" ofa proposed project on listed species when conSUlting under section 7. Riverside Irrigation Dist. v. Andews, 758 F.2d 508, 512 (10th Cir. 1985); North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (agency must look at "all ramifications" of its action). By requiring federal action agencies to broadly assess the effects of their proposed actions, and to consider such effects in the context of independent, baseline harms already occurring to a species, ESA regulations ensure that the section 7 consultation process is not conducted "in a vacuum," and that agencies will "not take action that will tip the species from a state of
Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUeation Draft Environmental Impact Statement

E

12

II

NadoaaJ lIead.Dar~r. IIW 17(h Str(,(,f. ~. W. I Wul1 ington. D.C. '!cOJ6-~0+ www.dJe.de..·OIJ

I rei ,.o1.,6l<'~~J.oVlO I fax lOl.ti8,.. IHf

precarious survival into a state of likely extinction." NWF v. NMFS, 481 F. 3d 1224 (9th Cir.2007). By defining "effects of an action" broadly, the ESA regulations do not distinguish between direct and indirect effects-both must be considered during consultation. Indeed, the centrality 0 f indirect effects analysis to the consultation process is highlighted throughout the section 7 regulations. In addition to "effects ofthe action" encompassing both "direct and indirect effects," the regulatory definition of "action" (actions include those "indirectly causing modifications to the land, water, or air"), "action area," ("all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action") and "destruction or adverse modification" ofcritical habitat ("a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat") all explicitly include indirect effects. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (emphasis added); see also Village of False Pass v. Qm:k, 733 F.2d 605,611 (9th Cir. 1984) (consultation must insure that direct and indirect effects of agency action will not jeopardize listed species); COnnor v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1452 (9th Cir. 1988) (section 7 requires preparation of biological opinion analyzing all phases of agency action). In determining what constitutes an indirect effect, the regulations demand only that they be ''reasonably certain to occur," 50 C.F.R. § 402.02, a standard that is consistent with normal tests ofproximate causation and foreseeability. While "[p]roximate causation is not a concept susceptible ofprecise defmition ... It is easy enough [] to identify the extremes." Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter ofCmtys. for a Great Ore., 515 U.S. 687, 713 (0' Connor, 1., concurring). As such, questions ofcausation "depend[] to a great extent on considerations ofthe fairness of imposing liability for remote consequences ... [A]t the least, [] proximate cause principles inject a foreseeability element into the statute." Id. Under even the most rigid of formulations, the contribution of coal-burning power plants on global warming are reasonably foreseeable indirect effects of the BLM coal leasing program under ESA regulations. 3 The causal chain at issue is, in fact, short and unattenuated: the BLM permits the lease ofcoal, the Office of Surface Mining ("OSM") approves the mining of coal under its coal regulatory program, and the mined coal is then utilized at coal-fired generating stations that comprise the largest source of C02 in the country. The greenhouse gas emissions and their contnbution to global warming-which pose greater risks of mass extinctions that any other activity in human history-are consequently a reasonably foreseeable consequence ofthe BLM's action. C.t: Friends ofthe
3 As noted above, the actual process of coal mining, and the handling and transportation of the mined coal, both result in significant greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane. Thus, global warming is also a direct effect of the OSM coal mining program.

Comments on the Soutb G"tte Area Coal Lease AppHcation Draft Environmental Imp.t Stateme.t

13

NadoMJ Jle.d.uartz••
IIJO J1 rh Str..;'~(. "t\.W: .......~1'iI·0IJ
0

I \Vul\inRton. D..C. 'COJ"-#O+ I

rei "01..6tc,.. ~)400

I

f.1Y ,o".6~b.IHr

Earth v. Watson, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42335 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2005) (finding causation for standing purposes in action against agencies that provide loans, loan guarantees, and insurance to U.S. companies that invest in large international energy projects which contribute to global warming). It is equally clear that the mining and burning ofcoal within the U.S., by contributing to global warming, poses threats to listed species far beyond the regulation's de minimis "may affect" threshold. See 51 Fed. Reg. 19,926, 19,949 (June 3, 1986) (section 7 rulemaking in which FWS and NMFS interpreted the "may affect" threshold for initiation and reinitiation ofconsultation as a very low bar, finding that "any possible effect, whether beneficial, benign, adverse, or ofan undetennined character, triggers the formal consultation requirement.") (emphasis added). Consequently, greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, and their effect on global warming and listed species, are an indirect effect ofthe BLM's coal mining program compelling formal consultation. In addition to the requirement to consider greenhouse gas emissions as an indirect effect ofthe coal program, the ESA regulations create an independent duty on the BLM to consider coal-fired power plant emissions as an interrelated and interdependent action. ''The test for interrelatedness or interdependentness is 'but for' causation: but for the federal project, these activities would not occur." Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F. 2d 1376, 1387 (9th Cir. 1987) (Quoting 51 Fed. Reg. 19,932 (1986». Here, U.S. coal-fired power plants would not and could not operate without the domestic coal mining program possible through coal leases administered by the BLM. In recent years, approximately 90 percent ofcoal mined in the U.S. has been utilized at domestic power plants, while importation has always "represented a negligible share ofU.S. coa~" and has not risen above 3.5 percent of domestic consumption for the past 35 years (EIA 2006:17; EIA 2007:3). Because these coal­ frred power plants are interrelated to, and interrelated with the BLM coal leasing program, their effects on threatened and endangered species present an additional and independent basis compelling the BLM to initiate consultation.
Conclusion

Although the BLM does not authorize mining by issuing a lease for federal coa~ it is a logical consequence of issuing a maintenance lease to an existing mine that coal will be mined. Although the use ofthe coal after it is mined is not detennined at the time ofleasing, almost all of the coal that is currently being mined in the Wyoming Powder River Basin is being used by coal-flfed power plants to generate electricity. Therefore, and based on the aforementioned deficiencies, we believe the BLM must revise the DEIS and update it to include an accurate, current, and complete discussion ofthe impacts ofgreenhouse gas emissions from the lease sale, ofthe impacts ofglobal warming on the resources affected, and of impacts on listed species and non-listed' species.
CommeDts OD the South Gmette Area Coal Lease Application Draft Environmental Impact Statement

14

NadouJ Ilcad.uartIClI
Ill<> 17rh Srr('("c. 'P\.W: WWW.dJeadc....OI'I

I \Vul,inRton. D~C. 'coJ6-46001- I

rei "o1.. 6ttl.. ~J4f.lO

I

fn 1o,..682.1Hf

All references cited in the text are listed in the Literature Cited section below. We request that the BLM carefully review and consider these important references. A CD with the scientific studies will be provided at a later date and under a different cover. They are also part ofthe administrative record for this rulemaking. Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments. Please contact me at (202) 682-9400 or at the address on this letterhead if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely,
C(..~_ ~.
tI"" _ •

l.vuA-

Erin Lieberman Legal Fellow

Literature Cited

COlDIDents on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUcation Draft Environmental Impact Statement

15

Natiaealllc:M4UartE... 
 1IJO 17th Srr,·C'C'. ".W: I ''fuhington. D.C. !cOJ6-..J.6o+ .........dc:,....... 


I

rd

'.0?.• 61.(1..')400

I fay 10l.6~b,):nr 


ACIA. Impacts 0/ a Warming Climate,' Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press. (2004). Ayres, M.P., Lombardero, M.J. Assessing the consequences ofglobal change for forest disturbance from herbivores and pathogens. Science o/the Total Environment 262, 263-286. Borenstein, S. Arctic sea ice gone in summer within five years? National Geographic News, Dec. 12, 2007. Breshears, D.O., Cobb, N.S., Rich, P.M., Allen, C.D., Balice, R.G., Romme, W.H., Kastens, J.H., Floyd, M.L., Belnap, J., Anderson, J.J., Myres, O.B., and Meyer C.W. Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type-drought. Proceedings 0/ the National Academyo/Science 102,15144-15148. Center for Biological Diversity, Comments on Proposed Outer Continental Shelf(OCS) Oil
and Gas Drilling Program/or 2007-2012 and Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Program/or 2007-2012, 71 Fed. Reg. 50457-50463. Nov. Statement/or the Proposed

oes

21, 2006. Egan, T. Heat Invades Cool Heights Over Arizona Desert. New York Times. Mar. 27,2007. EIA (Energy Information Administration, Office ofCoa~ Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, U.S. Department ofEnergy). Coal Production in the United States. (2006). EIA. Quarterly Coal Report July-September 2007 (2007). Erickson, 1. Vital Signs: Taking the Pulse ofGlobal Warming. Rocky Mountain News. Dec. 14,2005. GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources. Aug. 2007.
Hannah, L., Lovejoy, T.E. & Schneider, S.H. 2005. Biodiversity and climate change in context. In: Climate Change and Biodiversity (T.E. Lovejoy & L. Hannah, eds). Yale University Press: New Haven.

Hansen, J. E. Expert Declaration, Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge-Jeep v. Torti, Consolidated Cases 2:05-CV-302, and 2:05-CV-304 (D. Vt. Aug 14, 2006).

Comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUcation Duft Environmental Impact Statement

16

Nationallladquartaa IIJO l1rh S(f("({.. l\.w. I \VuhinRron. D.C. '!coJ6-..J.60+ .....~n·OII

I ~I ,.o1.. 6tc1..~J..f.OO I fax 701.68z.1Hf

Hoegh-Guldberg, 0 et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318, 1737-42 (2007). Hunter, P. The impact ofC02. The global rise in the levels ofC02 is good for trees, bad for grasses and terrible for corals (2007). IPCC. IPCC's Second Assessment, Climate Change 1995 (1995). IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution o/Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report o/the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press (2007). Koprowski, J.L., Alanen, M.I., and Lynch, A.M. Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide: Response ofendemic Mt. Graham red squirrels to catastrophic forest damage. Biological Conservation 126, 491-498 (2005). Leung, L.R., and Y. Qian. Hydrological Response to Climate Variability, Climate Change, and Climate Extreme in the USA: Climate Model Evaluation and Projections, Proceedings of Symposium S6 held during the Seventh IAHS Scientific Assembly at Foz do 19uacu, Brazil, April 2005, IAHS Publ. 295, 37-44 (2005). Overpeck, J.T. Climate Change: What's Ahead/or the Southwest. Presentation to New Mexico Climate Change Advisory Group, Santa Fe, New Mexico. July 27, 2005. Mote, P.W., Hamlet, A.F., Clark, M.P., Lettenmaier, D.P. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin o/the American Meteorological Society 86, 39-49 (2005). Parmesan, C. & G. Yohe. A globally coherent fingerprint ofclimate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 411, 37-42 (2007). National Research Council, Climate Change: An Analysis 0/ Some Key Questions Pounds, I.A., Fogden, M.L.P. & Campbell, J.H. Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain. Nature 398, 611-615 (1999). Pounds, J.A., Bustamante, M.R., Coloma, L.A., Consuegra, lA., Fogden, M.P.L., Foster, P.N., La Marca, E., Masters, K.L., Merino-Viteri, A., Puschendorf, R., Ron, S.R., Sanche­ Azofeifa, G.A., Still, C.J., Young, B.E. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439, 161-167 (2006). Randall, lA. Climate change, wildlife, and endangered species. (2006).
Comments on the South GDlette Area Coal Lease AppUcatlon

17

Draft Environmental IlOpact Statement

I I

Nationallladquarcaa lIJO 17fh Srn:t'r. ".~: I \Vl5hjn~ton. D.C. ,co~6-..jii0+

I

(\~I "o1.. 6Ih·.~)400

I

faY lo,..682.1:nr

W'WW·cWe.dc:"'·ora

Rosenzweig, C., Casassa, G., Karoly, OJ., Imeson, A., Liu, C., Menze~ A., Rawlins, S., Root, T.L., Seguin, B., Tryjanowski, P. Assessment ofobserved changes and responses in natural and managed systems. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution o/Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report o/the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 79-131. Sauders S. Warming in the West.' Evidence o/Climate Disruption in Western Sates. The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and Natural Resources Defense Council (2008). Thomas, C.D. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145-148 (2004). Thuiller, W. Climate change and the ecologist. Nature 448, 550-552 (2007). Warhsall, P. A battered squirrel faces global warming, too. Restoring Connections: Newsletter ofthe Sky Island Alliance 10, 7 (2007). Westerling, A.L., Hidalgo, H.G., Cayan, D.R., and Swetnam, T.W. Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfwe activity. Science 313, 940-43 (2006).

COlDIDeDts on the South Gillette Area Coal Lease AppUcatioD Draft EDviroDmental Impact Statement

18

Response to Comment Letter 4: Defenders of Wildlife Comment Response 4A: Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and changes in biologic carbon sequestration on the global climate. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these changes cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat radiated by the earth back into space. Although natural GHG levels have varied for millennia, recent industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2e concentrations to increase dramatically and are likely to contribute to overall global climatic changes. Tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with those factors for specific activities like mining of an LBA tract are presently unavailable. As a consequence, impact assessment of effects of specific anthropogenic activities cannot be performed. Additionally, specific levels of significance have not yet been established. Therefore climate change analysis in this EIS is limited to accounting and disclosing factors that contribute to climate change. To the extent that emission data were available or could be inferred from representative type data, we have identified potential GHG emissions that could result from development of the proposed LBAs, as well as emissions that will result from selection of the No Action Alternative. The site-specific impacts analyzed in this EIS are based on the assumption that if LBA tracts are offered for competitive lease, a lease would be issued, and mining would be permitted. We further assume that the applicant would be the lessee and that the lease would be permitted as an extension of their current mining operations. In Chapter 3 (3.18.2), Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, we have estimated the change to emissions of GHG under each alternative LBA configuration, including the No Action Alternative (please see table 3-19 in the DEIS). In Chapter 4, Cumulative Environmental Consequences, the contribution of the site-specific alternatives to cumulative effects on the environment is evaluated. To do this, it is assumed that coal mining will proceed in accordance with permit conditions. We further assume that this coal will be sold to coal users in response to forecasts of demand for this coal. Historically these users have been electric utilities in the United States, although there are currently some sales outside the U.S. This coal market is open and competitive and users can buy from the most cost effective suppliers that meet their needs. In Section 4.2.14.1 in the DEIS, we estimated the amount of GHG emissions that could be attributed to coal production that could result from leasing of the proposed LBAs, as well as from the forecast coal production from all coal mines in the Wyoming PRB. This information is included in Chapter 4 (4.2.14.1). This was done by relating the portion of coal mined to the total emission of

GHG from all coal mined in the U.S. We assumed that all PRB coal was used for coal fired electric generation as part of the total U.S. use of coal for electric generation. This gives an upper estimate of the GHG resulting from use of the coal that would be produced from the proposed LBAs, and for forecast total PRB coal production. Specific levels of significance have not yet been established for GHG emissions. Given the state of the science, it is not yet possible to associate specific actions with the specific climate impacts. Since tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with these GHG emissions are presently unavailable, the analysis cannot reach conclusions as to the magnitude or significance of the emissions on climate change. The impacts of climate change represent the cumulative aggregation of all worldwide GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. The EIS does provide a meaningful context and measure of the relative significance of coal use from the proposed LBAs and overall projected PRB coal production on total GHG emissions. Comment Response 4B: Climatic change analyses are comprised of several factors, including GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. We have identified the effects of recent global climate change on the environment in the area of the proposed action. We have assumed that existing land and resource conditions within the analysis area have been and will continue to be affected by climate change under all alternatives. Existing climate prediction models are not at a scale sufficient to estimate potential impacts of climate change within the analysis area. We have referenced national and regional data that is available, most recent being the report, The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States (U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2008). Comment Response 4C: Again, we direct you to the above referenced analysis in Sections 3.18 and 4.2.14 of the DEIS. In the Chapter 3 section, we have estimated the change to emissions of GHG under each alternative LBA configuration, including the No Action Alternative. We have added a reported GHG emission level from all coal mining in the U.S. as a frame of reference in the FEIS. The analysis in Chapter 4 gives an upper estimate of the GHG resulting from use of the coal that would be produced from the proposed LBAs, and for forecast total PRB coal production. As noted in that analysis, specific levels of significance have not yet been established for GHG emissions. Given the state of the science, it is not yet possible to associate specific actions with the specific climate impacts. Since tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with these GHG emissions are presently unavailable, the analysis cannot reach conclusions as to the magnitude or significance of the emissions on climate change. The impacts of climate change represent the cumulative aggregation of all worldwide GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. The EIS does provide a meaningful context

and measure of the relative significance of coal use from the proposed LBAs and overall projected PRB coal production on total GHG emissions. Comment Response 4D: This EIS addresses a full range of alternatives to the proposed action, a lease by application submitted by the lease applicant. The range includes an alternative which would represent all lands that include coal reserves that are comparable to those applied for, which may be efficiently recovered with the LBA, which may enhance competitive interest in the tract, and which could be bypassed if not leased. On the other end of the range is the No Action Alternative. The scope and affect of the decision on this proposed action is reflected within this range of alternatives. The BLM is a multiple use land management agency that manages the federal coal reserves under the predominantly private land surface in the Gillette area of the Powder River Basin. In the land area covered by these LBAs, only 3% of the surface ownership is federal land. Although there are many wind and solar resources that can be used for energy development, the BLM does not have authority over private land surface use and surface development. The BLM neither permits for the surface disturbance nor for the mining operations in coal mining operations. Therefore, the reasonable alternative options available for BLM to review in this EIS are leasing alternatives exploring the lease size, and shape, and the No Action Alternative where leasing one or more of these LBAs does not occur. As discussed in the DEIS, if this coal is leased, and if mining is permitted, coal sales would likely be into the steam coal open market which is competitive and where users can buy from the most cost effective suppliers that meet their needs. This market is influenced by electric demand. The DEIS contains an analysis of the likely portfolio of electric supply and the relative proportion expected to be met by coal fired electric generation. Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of GHG emissions on the global climate. The addition of non-carbon based electric generation sources could reduce GHG emissions, which may influence the electric supply portfolio. Further, the addition of alternate sources of electric generation would conserve carbon fuels, which are not renewable in the short term, and would provide a broader portfolio of electric sources, likely enhancing national security and the national economy. This EIS estimates likely long term electric generation portfolios, assuming some constraint on carbon based fuels. However the specific environmental effects of the variety of alternative electric generation technologies are not in the scope of decisions on the proposed actions for which this EIS was done. These technologies would be evaluated under NEPA as they are proposed to be permitted and built. Comment Response 4E: The USFWS is responsible for the administration of the Endangered Species Act. This is the lead agency that manages threatened and endangered species and consults, through the Section 7 process, with

other agencies in how proposed projects might impact and affect listed species. All federal agencies have a responsibility under Section 7 (a)(1) of the ESA to conserve federally listed threatened and endangered species. BLM is partnered with USFWS in fulfilling our Section 7 consultation obligations and responsibilities. Biological assessments (Appendix E) and the BLM sensitive species evaluation (Appendix F) for each proposed LBA have been prepared and provided to USFWS for their review. We continue to work with USFWS in order to address concerns and provide any additional information needs. The EIS has been revised based on comments and oral discussions with the USFWS. Section 7 consultation will be completed before a decision is made on each LBA. It is the mandate and responsibility of USFWS to provide guidance to federal agencies in how to avoid adverse impacts to protected species and habitats. Comments that we received from USFWS on December 19, 2008 indicated that they felt the DEIS was well written and, with some additional specific information, effectively addressed BLM sensitive species, threatened, and endangered species and migratory bird issues. USFWS is currently monitoring trust resources to see how they are affected by changing climate. The USFWS endangered species program is working to develop interim guidance regarding relevant aspects of ESA implementation involving climate change with a focus on how to evaluate and include the best available scientific information on climate change information in the decision making process. BLM will continue to coordinate and consult with USFWS on plant and animal species and follow direction from the USFWS on the handling of threatened and endangered species on BLM projects. One of the contributors linked to climate change is greenhouse gas emission. As discussed in our response to your earlier comments, the DEIS has estimated GHG emissions. Although the BLM does not authorize or permit either surface disturbance or mining, mining is addressed as it is a logical consequence of leasing. The WDEQ and OSM handle the permitting for coal operations. Again, we direct you to the above referenced analysis in sections 3.18 and 4.2.14 of the DEIS. In the Chapter 3 section, we have estimated the change to emissions of GHG under each alternative LBA configuration, including the No Action Alternative. We have added a reported GHG emission level from all coal mining in the US, as a frame of reference in the FEIS. The analysis in Chapter 4 gives an upper estimate of the GHG resulting from use of the coal that would be produced from the proposed LBAs, and for forecast total PRB coal production. As noted in that analysis, specific levels of significance have not yet been established for GHG emissions. Given the state of the science, it is not yet possible to associate specific actions with the specific climate impacts. Since tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with these GHG emissions are presently unavailable, the analysis cannot reach conclusions as to the magnitude or significance of the emissions on climate change. The impacts of climate change represent the

cumulative aggregation of all worldwide GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. This EIS does provide a meaningful context and measure of the relative significance of coal use from the proposed LBAs and overall projected PRB coal production on total GHG emissions.

5

Kenneth Duvall 
 9498 State Hwy. 59 S 
 HeR 83 
 Gillette, WY 82718 


December 24, 2008

Teresa Johnson Bureau of Land Management, High Plains District 2987 Prospector Drive Casper, WY 82604

Dear Ms. Johnson: Please accept this letter as comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Sta~ement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications dated October 2008 ("EIS"). Initially, please let me state that the EIS appears to be written to favor coal mine development and minimizes impact to the environment, the citizens affected by the coal mine, wildlife, and other industries. In fact, unless I missed it, the report does not address the devastation to the surface owner or to the historical agriculture operations which has historically been Wyoming's primary industry.

The EIS fails to address the income which mineral owners have been and will be deprived as a result ofcoal mining activity pertaining to the escape ofmethane gas and significant time delay in producing conventional oil and gas. Additionally, the EIS fails to address enforcement problems by the BLM and the failure of the BLM to require coal mines to actively and timely reclaim the mined areas in order to allow mineral owners the right to develop conventional oil and gas reserves below coal seams. Because the coal mine companies are not required to actively and timely reclaim mined areas,' 25 to 35 years can lapse before a mineral owner can benefit from the oil and gas reserves beneath coal seams. It seems contrary to fundamental citizen rights that the interest of the federal government are placed above the interest of individual citizens. It would seem equitable that mineral owners are given a period of years to explore for and develop oil and gas reserves located under coal seams prior to coal mine production. Once the oil and gas reserves are depleted, then coal mining activities can commence with no financial detriments to mineral owners. Similarly, while the conventional oil and gas reserves are being developed, coalbed methane development can also occur rather than having such resources lost forever as a result ofcoal mine activity.

B

With regard to the level ofconventional oil and gas production as stated in the EIS, at first reading, the EIS places at the forefront the fact that current oil production is from old fields and the production is declining. Burried within the paragraph is an acknowledgment that production is expected to increase in the Powder River Basin. More emphasis should have been placed on the fact that productio.n is increasing, new fields are being developed, and new technology is being implemented to recover oil and gas reserves. The report also fails to address the nwnber of active, producing wells that are plugged and abandoned due to coal mine activities. Again, the practice of plugging and abandoning in order to advance a coal mine seems contrary to a citizen's right to protect property interests. It is no secret that large corporate mining companies "buyout" oil and gas operators in order to plug wells depriving mineral owners of income and property rights.

c

In general, there has historically been conflict between surface coal mining and the development ofoil and gas reserves. Obviously, both industries require use of the earth's surface for production. It would seem that in order to balance the rights of citizens and property owners against the federal government, an emphasis should be placed on and a priority given to which ever industry can impact the surface least and which ever industry can recover the natural resources in the least amount of time. In other words, if the oil and gas industry can disturb only a small portion of the surface and recover most of the oil and gas reserves in 10 to 20 years, then the oil and gas industry should be given priority for such mineral extraction over a coal mine which will destroy the entire surface and take 20 to 30 years to restore the property back to its natural state.

The Bureau of Land Management has an obligation and duty to protect the environment, manage natural resources to the greatest benefit of all, preserve historical sites, and other such preservation activities. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management must be a "watch dog" over big corporations that seek only to profit from the earth's natural resources. This "watch dog" duty must include an eye toward protecting individual citizens, their property rights, and obtaining the greatest gain from mineral development. The greatest gain would be developing oil and gas first, then coal. The EIS should address this issue. Because there seems to be a demand for clean coal initiatives, coal to liquids development and other environmental initiatives pertaining to our country's natural resources, it would seem that placing coal mine development on hold for a period of years makes sense to allow companies and organizations to develop methods which will benefit our environment in the long run. These would include methods to efficiently and cost effectively burn coal for power production in a clean and environmentally safe manner and utilize coat to produce hydrogen as a clean energy source. Perhaps in the process ofcreating clean fuel initiatives, methods can be developed to ensure that air quality is protected in the mining process. Currently, the dust and emissions created by the mining and blasting activities of a coal mine are detrimental to citizens living in the vicinity of a coal mine.

E

With all due respect, the EIS was obviously prepared with a slant towards coal mine development versus responsibly using the land for the greatest good ofall natural resource development. The BIS should also address the impact and destruction ofthe surface as it relates to the surface owner.

E

Sincerely,

Kenneth Duvall, Karen Duvall & Kenna Lou Duvall

Response to Comment Letter 5: Kenneth Duvall, Karen Duvall, and
 Kenna Lou Duvall
 Comment Response 5A: The EIS addresses impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to existing agricultural operations, as well as other land uses that exist (see sections 3.11 and 4.2.10. The BLM does not lease coal under lands where the surface is private without the consent of the surface owner, if that surface owner is qualified (43CFR3400.0-5(gg). Often the applicant is the surface owner. In situations where the applicant is not the surface owner, and the surface owner is qualified, BLM cannot offer a lease unless the surface owner has filed consent with the BLM. Comment Response 5B: The DEIS addresses the oil and gas activity that exists in the area of the proposed LBAs. Mineral owners have the right to develop mineral resources subject to the laws and regulations of the state of Wyoming. Our policies promote the optimum development of oil and gas resources in the coal seams prior to mining, and provide royalty incentives in areas permitted for coal mining, or areas expected to be leased for coal. BLM does not restrict the development of private or state oil and gas resources. Mining activities are long term, and publicly permitted, so that mineral developers can assess the economic feasibility of drilling and producing for predictable periods in advance of mining. BLM does not enforce reclamation of mined lands in Wyoming. That is under the authority of the WDEQ/LQD. We are unaware of any problems with the timeliness of reclamation. Comment Response 5C: No conventional gas wells have been completed within the four LBA tract study areas since 1997. Oil and gas production in the PRB has declined sharply since 2000. As stated in the EIS, analyses indicate that most of the recoverable conventional oil and gas and CBNG resources on the LBA tracts have been extracted by the existing wells. There are currently 18 wells capable of producing oil or conventional gas located on the four-tract study area. Of the 18 wells, 13 are considered to have recoverable reserves using in-place recovery methods. While it is true that new fields are being discovered in the PRB, there is no indication that these new fields will be discovered on the four LBA tracts or reverse the downward trend of oil and gas production. Appendix G contains further information on conventional oil and gas. Coal mining companies will need to attempt to come to an agreement with oil and gas operators to plug wells prior to mining through the well bore. If such an agreement is reached, production may be able to be reestablished after mine through or the well may be redrilled if reserves are sufficient to justify the cost. These possibilities would be addressed in the terms of an agreement. BLM is

not a party to these types of agreements, and we are unsure of a mineral owner’s involvement and legal recourse in such agreements. Comment Response 5D: The BLM policy advocates optimizing the recovery of both coal, and oil and gas reserves. The EIS includes a substantial discussion of the impacts to oil and gas operations as a result of mining activity. Within Section 3.3.2 of the EIS is a discussion the current activity and expected impact of each alternative for the four proposed LBAs. In particular, Section 3.3.2.3 discusses the mechanisms in place that can be used to facilitate the recovery of both conventional oil and gas and CBNG resources prior to mining. The time between the leasing of the LBA tracts, should they be offered and awarded, and the time of disturbance from coal operations is sufficient that some conventional oil and gas operations may continue until they are depleted or the operation becomes economically unproductive. Comment Response 5E: The proposed actions before the BLM are four leasing actions to maintain the production of four operating mines. As noted in the analysis, particularly the No Action Alternative, a decision to not offer these leases will not stop mining in the short term. Mining would continue on the adjacent permitted leases operated by these four mines. Coal mining is permitted under the authority of OSM and WDEQ. For dust and emissions created by the mining operations, please see Section 4.2.3., Section 3.18.2 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), and Section 4.2.14.1 (Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions). There will be no leases offered where qualified surface owner consent has not been obtained.

6

NAME: ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: CITY/ST ATE/ZIP: December 22, 2008

Brad Mohrmann Sierra Club 45 E. Loucks Sheridan, WY 82801

Comments on the South Gillette Area EIS I am submitting comments on behalf of the Sierra Club. Sierra Club has over 1.3 million supporters and members with approximately 1000 members in Wyoming. The Sierra Club has members who live and recreate in the areas that would be impacted by the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications. Sierra Club's goals are to ensure that citizens have safe, healthy communities in which to live, find smart energy solutions to combat global warming, and protect Ainerica's wild places.
Air Quality Concerns

Air quality concerns are a very real problem for areas around the proposed mine expansions. Particulate matter is of special concern. The BLM should work to address air quality wues. CampbeU County is among one of the worst counties in the nation for PM 2.5 and PM 10 emission levels. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions are also elevated in the area. The BLM needs to address these serious health concerns when deciding to lease more land to development. Studies have shown that even low levels of PM 2.5 can lead to premature death along with other serious health problems. There are no safe levels of particulate matter. Expanding aU four mines will only compound this problem for years to come. The health of citizens in CampbeU County should be taken seriously. The BLM should work in conjunction with the Wyoming Department of Health and the US Department of Health and Human Services in order to assess the health risks on local communities from expanded coal mining operations.
Water Resources Concerns

A

In an area with scaree water resourees we ak that the BLM take into aecount the impaeta on the ranching community. With expanded mining operations water resources will continue to be .tretched thin putting a strain on the local ranchers who depend on that water for their operations. CHmate change will make water increasingly scarce in the future.

B

Climate Change Concerns and expansion need The BLM should take future climate change legislation into aecount. President-elect Obama has stated his desire to make fighting climate change a priority. New legislation would likely put limits on C02 emissions maldng coal less desirable as an energy source. Mine expansions should be held off until it is clear what future legislation will require. As the country moves to find more emcient measures and demands more renewable, clean energy expanding coal mining in the region may not be the best choice for this area. These mine expansions include approximately 12,000 acres and 800 million tons of coal. The environmental impacts of these expansions would be immense. Many states are adopting renewable energy portfolios and pushing to reduce their dependence on coal-fired power generation. Expansion on this scale may not be needed. The BLM needs to do a detailed assessment of current coal reserves to determine need for these expansions. Reclamation Reclamation should be taken very seriously. No new mine expansions should be allowed until all existing reclamations projects are complete. Currently lands in Wyoming are being reclaimed at a 3 to 1 ratio. The BLM needs to address this growing divide. Reclamation is extremely important for the health of our ecosystem and needs to be analyzed and addressed. Poor reclamation can lead to a number of problems including loss of habitat, decrease in wildlife diversity, and increased invasive weeds. Sage Grouse Sage grouse numbers have been in alarming decline in recent decades. Energy development from coal and caolbed methane has had adverse affects on sage grouse populations. Sage grouse leks have been indentified in the areas of the lease expansions. Great care must be taken by the BLM to make certain that sage grouse populations, habitat, and leks are protected. Surface mining effectively takes away possible sagebrush habitat for the sage grouse. The nutrients the sage brush need are depleted in topsoil removed for strip mining. This makes it dimcuk for sage brush to re-establish during the reclamation process. The loss of sage brush will make it extremely unlikely that sage grouse numbers will recover even after mining operations are complete. This loss of sage brush will also open land to invasive weeds that could have large impacts on surrounding ranchland. This habitat needs to be protected. These mine expansions will have negative impacts on sage grouse especially considering that mine reclamation is not on par with new development. We are removing habitat without taken mealures to mitigate this loss. Noise and commotion from mining operations will allo negatively Impact sage grouse activities. All of the development in the area wiD have a cumulative negative Impact on the sage grouse.

c

D

E

Comment Period

A major concern is that of the comment period itself. More time should be given to allow involvement from citizens. As well as more time, the BLM should avoid comment periods between Thanksgiving and the ChristmaslNew Year season. Numerous projects have comment periods during this time. Many citizens who would normally get involved in the process will miss the opportunity due to time and family constraints brought on by the holiday season. This time of the year should be avoided for the purpose of public comments. A democracy only works when citizens are able to take part in the process. Every opportunity should be given to make sure citizens get that opportunity.

F

Cumulative Impacts

These four mine expansions are not the only current or planned development in the area. BLM needs to take this into consideration. The industrial development in the Powder River Basin has reached an alarming rate. This current level of development is not sustainable. When viewed as part of a whole, as opposed to a stand alone development, it becomes dear that these mine expansions will just add to the current environmental problems in the Powder River Basin. Water and air quality, citizen health, loss of public land access, loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation, as well as a loss of the scenic value that many citizens of Wyoming have come to love will only get wone as a result of expanded mining operations. The BLM's Buffalo Resource Management Plan Revision is in beginning stages and it would be beneficial to allow a new management plan to be worked out before committing to mine expansions. Sierra Club asks that the BLM not accept these coal mine expansions. It is not in our nation's best interest to continue using coal as an energy source. The health of our citizens and the health of our environment are at risk from the continued use of coal.

G


Sincerely, Brad Mohrmann

Brad Mohrmann 45 .E. Loueks Sheridan, WY 82801 (307) 672-0425 brad.mohrmann@sierraelub.org

Response to Comment Letter 6: Sierra Club Comment Response 6A: Air pollution is controlled by state and federal air quality regulations and standards established under the Clean Air Act and amendments. State implementation plans are in place to ensure that proposed actions like coal mining comply with all associated air quality regulations and criteria. The WAAQS for the PM10 annual and the SOx annual and 24-hour levels are more stringent than the NAAQS and are enforced by the WDEQ/AQD. As stated in Section 3.4.2.3 of the EIS, WDEQ/AQD has developed a Natural Events Action Plan for the coal mines of the Powder River Basin. The plan, based on EPA Natural Event Policy guidance, identifies potential control measures for protecting public health and minimizing exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS. All mines are required to conduct long-term air quality modeling to show that their proposed operations comply with the National and Wyoming ambient air quality standards. Please see Section 3.4.2.3 to review air quality mitigation measures that WDEQ/AQD implemented in order to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS and WAAQS by surface coal mines. According to recorded data collected from air quality monitors in the field, the four mines in the South Gillette area comply with the current ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 and NO2. To date, there have been two reports of public exposure related to the Caballo Mine. Text in Section 3.4.3.1.1 has been revised to include updated discussions. NO2 emissions have been monitored near these mines since 2002 (Table 3-8). The maximum annual NO2 concentration measured at these mines ranged from 4 to 17 ug/m3, as compared to the NAAQS of 100 ug/m3. The WDEQ/AQD coal mining permit process requires air quality modeling of the primary air pollutants (PM10 and NO2). If the four LBAs are leased, it is not anticipated this would cause any exceedances of state or annual federal air quality standards. If exceedances do occur, they will be documented, analyzed, and acted upon accordingly by the WDEQ. Cumulative impacts to air quality are analyzed in Section 4.2.3. In this section the effect of foreseeable development in the PRB, added to the impacts of the continued operation of the four South Gillette mines, is analyzed. In the FEIS, we have added specific modeling results for cumulative impacts by year 2015, to the 2010 impact discussion presented in the draft. This was done to provide trends in predicted cumulative air quality impacts. Section 3.17.9.1 concerns human health impact assessments. BLM does not have jurisdiction in regard to conducting human health assessments. BLM

has contacted the Wyoming Department of Health/Environmental Health Section and has invited them to review and provide comment on the EIS. BLM has also contacted the Center for Disease Control and Prevention but have not received a response. Comment Response 6B: As with ongoing mining, water of adequate quantity and quality for the ranching community will continue to be available from the shallow Wasatch aquifers as well as from zones below the coal to be mined. Mining is currently only occurring in the upper coals of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation. The shallower Wasatch Formation is comprised of a multitude of primarily discontinuous lenticular sandstones which are typically not areally extensive. If existing ranching operations are currently using water from the coal seam to be mined or one of these lenticular deposits that is interrupted by mining, there is a potential for conflict between the two operations. Any water rights disputes that may develop would follow standard procedures as described in the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office Regulations and Instructions (Part 2 Section 17). The discontinuous, lenticular nature of the Wasatach sands will likely continue to provide water for local use. Deeper coals and sands, particularly the sands of Tullock Member of the Fort Union, will not be directly impacted by mining in the upper seams. We have identified the effects of recent global climate change on the environment in the area of the proposed actions. We have assumed that existing land and resource conditions within the analysis area have been and will continue to be affected by climate change under all alternatives. Existing climate prediction models are not at a scale sufficient to estimate potential impacts of climate change within the analysis area. We have referenced national and regional data that is available, most recent being the report, The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States (U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2008). Comment Response 6C: The BLM has done a detailed assessment of current coal reserves for each applicant mine, and has assessed the amount of coal required for each mine to maintain its current rate of production. The coal applications involved in the EIS are for maintenance leases and not for mine expansions. If leased, the LBAs represent the amount of coal needed for continued activity with possible annual increases in production based on each applicant’s air quality permit limits and national demand. The national demand may be influenced by the political climate set forth by the new presidential administration or the national cultural climate. We have updated the EIS to reflect the fact that President Obama, in an address to Congress in February, 2009, advocated congressional action on a cap and trade program addressing climate change. Possible future national policies and legislation, because of this proposal or congressional action, is unknown. Any climate change bills that were previously submitted to the 110th Congress had not been resubmitted to the 111th Congress as of the President’s cited address.

Comment Response 6D: Lands that are disturbed to recover coal must be reclaimed following mining in accordance with the requirements of state and federal law. Wyoming DEQ has strict parameters for coal mine reclamation procedures, species composition, final land surface contour, and environmental sustainability. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 requires sufficient bonding to cover anticipated reclamation costs. When mining is permitted, the WDEQ/LQD sets the bond amount for reclamation of all disturbed lands, and the operator posts an acceptable bonding instrument for this amount with the State of Wyoming. The reclamation bond is not released until a minimum of ten years have elapsed from the date of final seeding and the WDEQ/LQD has determined that all reclamation verifications have occurred. Individual coal mine annual reports are available to the public at WDEQ/LQD offices which include specific reclamation information. The OSM also prepares reports describing reclamation activities in Wyoming. Currently, the BLM is using a regional technical study, the PRB Coal Review, to evaluate cumulative impacts of coal and other mineral development in the PRB. The study includes a look at past and present coal development and develops a forecast of reasonably foreseeable development in the PRB through 2020. Tables 4-2 and 4-3 in the FEIS address baseline and projected reclaimed and unreclaimed mining acres in the PRB. BLM is also completing work on a comprehensive database to use in tracking development activities in the PRB. The database will track cumulative actual reclaimed and unreclaimed acreages of coal mines. The EIS discusses reclamation in Chapter 2 for each applicant. Not all disturbed land has been mined. Some of the surface acres disturbed contain permanent structures such as buildings and rail lines. Reclamation follows as mining progresses. It is true that as coal deepens, additional surface disturbance is required in advance of operations to allow a series of benches or a stable incline to reach the coal depth while maintaining a safe and stable working area, and this practice does increase disturbance. Further explanation on the reclamation process has been added in Chapter 2. Comment Response 6E: The EIS discusses greater sage grouse and other sensitive species in the “Wildlife” section (3.10) and in Appendices E through I in Volume 2 of the draft EIS. Among other important habitat components, sage grouse require vast expanses of sagebrush-steppe communities with extensive mosaics of sagebrush of varying densities and heights. As stated in the EIS, there are no large expanses of contiguous sagebrush in the South Gillette EIS general analysis area. Please see Section 3.10.5.1 for a discussion on sagegrouse.

There are no known leks within the South Gillette EIS general analysis area. About 25 years of annual or biannual monitoring studies from 1982 to 2006 performed by the mines in the South Gillette area documented that sagegrouse are rare in the survey areas. Requirements to protect sage-grouse during mining operations are addressed as part of the existing mining and reclamation plan for each individual mine. An approved raptor mitigation plan is also in place for the applicant mines. If the proposed tract is leased and permitted for mining, the wildlife monitoring and mitigation plans would be amended, as required by WDEQ/LQD and USFWS, to include newly leased tracts. In 2007, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal commissioned a Statewide Sage-Grouse Implementation Team. On March 17, 2008, the team preliminarily identified and mapped recommended sage-grouse focus areas in Wyoming in an effort to better understand what types of habitat grouse prefer and what areas should be protected. The South Gillette EIS applicant mines’ general analysis areas are not located within any of the mapped focus areas as the EIS states in Section 3.10.5.1. In the “Affected Environment” section (3.10.5.1.2) there is a discussion of the focus area outside and adjacent to the West Coal Creek LBA. Also, the South Gillette Supplementary Information document contains a more detailed discussion. The EIS analyzes and thoroughly describes how proposed activities will impact habitats and species. Like all proposed projects at BLM, we consult with USFWS to fulfill Section 7 consultation obligations and responsibilities. USFWS has determined that our analysis effectively addresses sage-grouse issues. The WGFD also assessed that the EIS adequately addresses potential impacts to game species. Professional wildlife biologists at the WGFD, USFWS, and the BLM Buffalo Field Office have also reviewed the wildlife analysis. Comment Response 6F: The BLM’s Departmental Manual 516-chapter 4.26A states that “The minimum review period for a draft EIS will be forty-five (45) days from the date of publication by the EPA of the notice of availability.” The revised BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 January 2008, Section 9.3.2, page 99, second paragraph, states that, “The public comment period for all draft EISs must last at least 45 days (516 DM 4.26)…”. This information can also be found at 40 CFR 1506.10. We allowed 60 days for review, as stated in the “Abstract A and the “Dear Reader” letter in the DEIS. The 60-day review period on the South Gillette draft EIS commenced on the date the EPA published the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Comments received after the comment period are still accepted for the record, reviewed, and are addressed to the extent practicable. Comment Response 6G: Chapter 4 is dedicated to addressing current or planned development in the PRB. The mines that exist today have been operating since 1990 or before. The Executive Summary contains a map of all

pending and issued LBAs in the PRB (Figure E-1). Tables 1-1 and 1-2 also show existing and pending LBAs and exchanges in the Powder River Basin. The EIS discusses other federal, state, and private activities in the PRB in Section 4.1.3. The discussion of development activities has been projected to the year 2020 with calculations and predictions for both upper and lower production scenarios. The Powder River Basin Coal Review reports have been incorporated into this EIS, and a discussion can be found at the beginning of Chapter 4. The Buffalo RMP was approved initially in 1985, and updated in 2001. The RMP was based on an older system of land use planning done by BLM in the 1970s, called management framework plans. Coal planning has run consistently through these comprehensive, multiple use plans and has been done consistent with the BLM’s land use planning and coal management regulations. The proposed actions in this EIS were reviewed against the existing planning requirements and were determined to be in conformance.

7
Lesley Collins/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI 
 12/16/2008 02:30 PM 
 To 
 Teresa Johnson/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI@BLM 
 cc 
 bcc 
 Subject 
 Fw: So. Gillette Area LBA Draft EIS 


History: 
 This message has been forwarded. 
 Lesley A. Collins 
 Public Affairs 
 High Plains District 
 Office: 307-261-7603 
 ----- Forwarded by Lesley Collins/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI on 12/16/2008 02:30 PM 
 "McKenzie, Don"  
 12/15/2008 02:41 PM 
 To 
  
 cc 
 "Ogle, Kathy" , "Emme, Douglas" , 
 "Rogaczewski, Mark" , "Hunter, Joe" , 
 "Clark, Dan"  
 Subject 
 So. Gillette Area LBA Draft EIS 


Teresa, 
 I have enclosed a few comments by our LQD CHIA Supervisor regarding the 
 referenced EIS. I also had a couple comments that are listed below: 
 Volume 1 of 2, Chapter 2, Section 2.7, page 2-54, first full paragraph, 
 fourth sentence - Reportable quantities of hazardous or extremely hazardous substances require immediate notice to the WDEQ Emergency Coordinator, Mr. Joe Hunter, not the WDEQ Solid and Hazardous Waste Division. Mr. Hunter relays the information of a reportable release to the other WDEQ Divisions as appropriate.

3

A
B

Volume 2 of 2, Appendix A, page A-1 under ~STATEH header - Solid waste ~ disposal, such as a landfill type of facility, are addressed through th~

WDEQ Land Quality Division coal mine permit. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Don McKenzie

Memo

To: 	 From: 	 Date: 	 Subject: 	

Don McKenzie, Administrator, WYDEQILQD Kathy Muller Ogle, Geological Supervisor December 9, 2008 Review of marked sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the South Gillette Area Coal lease Applications (dated October 2008), Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Introduction Per your request, I have examined the marked pages of the above referenced document for consistency with Wyoming Department of Environmental QualitylLand Quality Division's (WDEQILQD) cumulative hydrologic impact assessments (CHIA) work. No significant problems were found in those sections. Since WDEQILQD does not complete a CHIA on the lease areas until after an amendment is submitted to WDEQILQD, individual impacts could not be assessed but the general approach was evaluated. Only two areas are recommended for revision (Items 2. and 4.). First, the discussion on the Coal Creek alluvial aquifer water quality should be revised to reflect current data or alternatively, the supporting data for the conclusions presented in the EIS should be cited in the document. Second, the alluvial valley floor (AVF) discussion should be revised to reflect that the responsibility for AVF determination lies with WDEQILQD and is based on site specific conditions. Individual Sections:

1.:. 	

Page ES-29: The general cumulative descriptions are comparable to our analysis approach, 
 but WYDEQ/LQD has not completed a CHIA analysis for these amendments. 
 Recommendation: No change

2. 	 Page 3-77: The statement that "In addition, Coal Creek alluvial groundwater is generally 
 poor quality and does not meet WDEQIWQD standards for domestic and agricultural uses, 
 and is marginal for livestock and wildlife use." was examined using total dissolved solids 
 (TDS) concentrations as an overall indicator ofwater quality. 
 Recommendation: Based on the data examined (attached as addendum 1), it is recommend that either the statement be revised as follows or that the BLM include a discussion of the data supporting the statement. Currently. the document characterizes the water quality in the Coal Creek alluvial groundwater as poorer than what WDEQILQDs data and analysis reflect.

c

Suggested Revision: "Based on TDS concentrations, Coal Creek alluvial groundwater generally meets the WDEQIWQD standards for livestock use. However, the quality is variable from well to well and at some locations it may exceed the livestock standard and at other locations it may be suitable for both livestock and agricultural use. " Or the data supporting the conclusions in the document should be cited. 3. Page 3-85: The general discussion is based primarily on the GAGMO 25-Year report. WDEQILQD also uses that report as part of the CHIA analysis. However, the sentence "Hydro-Engineer (2007) states that the extent ofdrawdown caused by mining alone to the west ofthe mines can no longer be defined due to the much larger drawdown caused by CBNG development" is likely an accurate summary of what is presented in the GAGMO report. However, WDEQILQD has found that statement to be applicable in some areas of the basin but not to other areas. When data from individual coal monitor wells are examined, some data support that statement, while other data show different trends.

Recommendation: No change. The statement accurately reflects the cited report, but some ofWDEQILQD's data indicates that that statement is not accurate for all areas.
4. Page 3-122 to125: The general discussion of the AVF appears appropriate. Two phrases do raise flags. There are statements like "There are no streams that meet the definition ofan A VF within one-halfmile ofthe proposed pennit amendment area, because the streams are incised and contain few stream laid deposits. " in several sections.
It should be noted that an EIS document does not determine if there is an AVF. The responsibility and authority for an AVF determination lies with WDEQILQD.

Recommendation: It is suggested that those statements be rephrased.

D

Under individual LBA Tract discussions, there are statements like "Based on previous non-AVF declarations made on the Belle Fourche River within and adjacent to the MaysdorfII LBA Tract, it is unlikely that the WDEQILQD would declare that an AVF is present. "
It should be noted that site specific conditions often determine an AVF declaration and the assumptions supporting this statement may not hold true at individual sites. A VF determinations will be made by the WDEQILQD based on data, mapping, site visits and analysis of site specific conditions.

Recommendation: It is suggested that those statement be rephrased.

5. 	 Page 4-45: This general discussion reflects the fmdings in LQD's latest CHIA in the area and the CHIA is correctly cited. Ofcourse, LQD has not assessed the impacts of these LBAs yet, since they will not be submitted to LQD as an amendment until after the leave process.
Recommendation: No change.

cc: 	 Carol Bilbrough

Addendum 1

Summary of Alluvial Aquifer Data Examined from the Coal Creek Mine:

In the latest CHIA in that area, WDEQILQD found the overall alluvial aquifer water quality concentrations ofTDS were below the livestock standard of 5,000 mg/l with a median concentration of3,314 mg/l. That data support the conclusion that the alluvial aquifer is suitable for livestock, but probably not for domestic or agricultural. In that CHIA, WDEQ/LQD did not analyze discrete alluvial aquifers on individual streams.
However, to assess the accuracy of the statement in this BIS, WDEQI LQD's most recent hydrology data for alluvial wells on the Coal Creek Mine were examined. Over the years of mining in the area, Coal Creek Mine has installed 39 alluvial monitor wells. Eight of those wells are listed as still actively monitored. Further examination reveals that four of those eight are monitored for water quality. Those four alluvial monitor wells are completed from 15.5 feet to 19.7 feet in depth. Ta~le 1 below summarizes TDS concentrations at those four wells.
Table 1. Summary of the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations at four alluvial aquifer monitor well, Coal Creek Mine, middle Powder River Basin, 2008. [As a point of reference, TDS of 500 mgll is the maximum Water Quality Division (WQD) standard for domestic use; 2,000 for agricultural use, and 5,000 mgll for livestock use.] Dates Mine, Aquifer, Well Name COAL CREEK, ALLUVIUM, CCA-14C COAL CREEK, ALLUVIUM, CCA-2C COAL CREEK, ALLUVIUM, CCA-4C COAL CREEK, ALLUVIUM, CCA-5C Total Dissolved Solids @ 180 C in mg/l Number of Samples

First Sample

Latest Sample

Latest Concentration

Minimum Concentration

Maximum Concentration

4/26/1989

1111512007

2,210

1,360

2,230

25

4/26/1989

1111412007

880

582

1,060

24

4/26/1989

11119/2007

2,050

1,824

4,170

25

5/19/1989

11114/2007

6,850

2,434

8,300

26

Data from these four wells indicate that only one, CCA-5A, exceeds the livestock standard for TDS for the latest's concentration and the maximum concentration. Time series plots are shown for IDS concentrations at each of the wells in Figures 1,2,3, and 4. Please note the concentration scale for Figure 4 is twice the concentration scale for the other figures. Based on TDS alone, well CCA-2C

is suitable for agricultural use and CCA-14C and CCA-4C have been or are approaching the agricultural use standard. Of course, there may be other constituents that impact the alluvial aquifer's use. If that is the case, those constituents and the supportive information should be included in the EIS.
TDS DRIED AT 180 C (mg/l)
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500
.6 ....

I

~CCA·14C ..

J

....

;...

~

......

~

......

~

o
811111987 5",1990 113111993 1012811995 712411998 411912001 111412004 1011012006 71612009

Figure 1. Time series plot of total dissolved solids at 180 C at alluvial aquifer monitor well CCA-14C, Coal Creek Mine, middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming, 2008.

TDS DRIED AT 180 C (mg/l)
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500
-"'0.

I

~CCA-2C ..

1

~
5"'1990 113111993

~
1012111995 712411998

~

......"..
111412004

.. -­
1011012006 71812009

o
811111987 411912001

Figure 2. Time series plot of total dissolved solids at 180 C at alluvial aquifer monitor well CCA-2C, Coal Creek Mine, middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming, 2008.

TOS DRIED AT 180 C (mg/l)
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 
 1000 
 500 

A

I

-+-CCA-4C..

l

.-.-.----­

..I

A

~...-

/\ \ ~

\

....................

~
~

""

o
8/11/1987 sn/1990 1/31/1993 10/2811995 7124/1998 4/19/2001 1/1412004 10/1012006 71812009

Figure 3. Time series plot of total dissolved solids at 180 C at alluvial aquifer monitor well CCA-4C, Coal Creek Mine, middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming, 2008.

TDS DRIED AT 180 C (mg/l)
10000 
 9000 
 8000 
 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 

~

~

'-- ...

/1

..

¥

I
 I
 J


r'-...... .....

,.,.

~

....

\. V'

.....

-+-CCA-5C.. 


o
8/11/1987 5/711990 1/31/1993 10/28/1995 712411998 411912001 1/1412004 1011012006 71612009

Figure 4. Time series plot of total dissolved solids at 180 C at alluvial aquifer monitor well CCA-5C, Coal Creek Mine, middle Powder River Basin, Wyoming, 2008.

Response to Comment Letter 7: Department of Environmental Quality,
 Land Quality Division
 Comment Response 7A: Section 2.7 of the final EIS, where it discusses release of reportable quantities of hazardous or extremely hazardous substances has been revised to read “If a reportable quantity of a hazardous or extremely hazardous substance is released, immediate notice must be given to the WDEQ Emergency Response Coordinator.” Comment Response 7B: Appendix A has been revised to reference the WDEQ/LQD as the agency responsible for solid waste disposal management. Comment Response 7C: Section 3.5.1.1.1 where it discusses alluvial deposits for the West Coal Creek tract has been changed to incorporate your suggested revision in the final EIS. Comment Response 7D: The suggested revisions have been made in the final EIS to Sections 3.6.1.2, 3.6.1.3, and 3.6.2.1 to indicate that the WDEQ/LQD makes AVF determinations, and that those determinations are made based on data, mapping, site visits, and analysis of site-specific conditions.

8
Lesley Collins/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI 12/24/2008 10:19 AM To Teresa Johnson/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI@BLM cc bcc Subject
Fw: Comments on DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Lesley A. Collins Public Affairs High Plains District Office: 307-261-7603 ----- Forwarded by Lesley Collins/CFO/WY/BLM/DOI on 12/24/2008 10:19 AM "Downing, Doug"  12/23/2008 03:05 PM To , ,  cc "Rowlands, Mike" , "Sturgill Jr, BJ" , "Addison, Jeff"  Subject Comments on DEIS for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications

Teresa, below are Ark Land Company comments on the above mentioned DEIS. Ark's comments focus on the broader issue of Global Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions as opposed to grammatical and typographical anomolies. My contact Information is listed below if you wish to discuss our comments further. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to the completion of the NEPA process. Happy Holidays! The discussion of Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Draft EIS, page 4-103 to page 4-113, generally provides the requisite analysis of the reasonably foreseeable effects of climate change. However, the narrative style of the presentation at times makes it hard to follow how the section is tracking the CEQ requirements for discussion of cumulative effects, and in particular, what steps the agency undertook to determine when data were lacking to carry the analysis of effects further.

.'

Following are specific section comments: 1. Section 3.18.2 (Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences, ~ Greenhouse Gas Emissions). This section should include some discussion of mitigation measures that would mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action. If there are no feasible mitigation measures, the document should state that and explain why. 40 C.F.R. 1502.16(h). 2. Section 4.2.14.1 (Cumulative Environmental Consequences, Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions). The document should contain a meaningful discussion of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on climate change when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. See 40 C.F.R. 1508.7. In particular, the current draft does not give a completely clear sense of the project's relationship to past, present, and future actions related to the leasing of federal coal. If the information needed to estimate the incremental effects of the proposed action on global climate change is unavailable, the document should clearly follow the steps in 40 C.F.R. 1502.22 regarding unavailable information. The BLM should update the entire discussion under Section 4.2.14.1 with current information that is available at the time the Final EIS is prepared. The BLM appropriately described the percentage of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane gas emissions that are attributed to Powder River Basin coal mines. 3. The BLM stated that 'it is not possible to project the level of C02 emissions that burning the coal" mined from the proposed lease tracts would have. Draft EIS at 4-112. The BLM should take a second look at this matter. It should make a reasonable estimate of the level of C02 emissions that would occur if the coal mined from the proposed lease tracts is burned, perhaps by using published emissions factors that exist today for bituminous coal. The BLM should estimate what cumulative effect those anticipated emissions would have on the percentage of greenhouse gas emissions attributed to coal on page 4-107. The BLM should disclose whether the C02 emissions from the proposed lease tracts would change the estimates of C02 emissions presented in Tables 4-36 and Tables 4-37. It should be noted that t~e last bullet on page 4-107 should indicate that the coal mined from the Wyoming PRB, not the "surface coal mines H were responsible for about 13.9 percent of the U.S. C02 emissions in 2006. 4. The BLM should make similar estimates for methane gas emissions associated with the proposed lease tracts on pages 4-112 to 4-113 of the Draft EIS. The BLM should identify whether the methane gas emissions associated with the proposed lease tracts will change the percentage of greenhouse gas emissions attributed to Powder River Basin surface coal mines on page 4-112. 5. At the end of the first paragraph under Table 4-37 on page 4-111, it ~ is suggested that the text be revised as follows: "Both EIA and EPRI forecast increases in electricity costs with regulation of C02 emissions and the associated shifts projected in the sources of power away from

~

B


c

o

E

coal." Douglas Downing One City place St. Louis, MO 63141 ddowning@archcoal.com 314-994-2954 314-378-3462 (cell) ********** Email Disclaimer ********** The information contained in this e-mail, and in any accompanying documents, may constitute confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information is intended only for use by the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system.

Response to Comment Letter 8: Ark Land Company Comment Response 8A: A discussion of monitoring and mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions during mining operations has been added as Section 3.18.3, “Regulatory Compliance, Monitoring and Mitigation.” Comment Response 8B: We have updated the discussion of direct and indirect effects of the proposed leasing actions when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions as it relates to climate change. As stated in Section 4.2.14 in the final EIS, climatic change analyses are comprised of several factors, including GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. Tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with those factors for specific activities like mining of an LBA tract are presently unavailable. Therefore, impact assessments for effects of specific anthropogenic activities cannot be performed. Additionally, specific levels of significance have not yet been established. Consequently, climate change analysis in this EIS is limited to accounting for and disclosing of factors that contribute to climate change. To the extent that emission data were available, or could be inferred from representative type data, we have identified potential GHG emissions that could result from development of the proposed LBAs, as well as emissions that will result from selection of the No Action Alternative. The site-specific impacts analyzed in this EIS are based on the assumption that if LBA tracts are offered for competitive lease, a lease would be issued, and mining would be permitted. We further assume that the applicant would be the lessee, and that the lease would be permitted as an extension of their current mining operations. In Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, we have estimated the change to emissions of GHG under each alternative LBA configuration, including the No Action Alternative. A table has been added to Section 4.2.14 in the final EIS to assist in describing the combined effects of leasing all currently pending LBAs. Also, in Chapter 4, Cumulative Environmental Consequences, the contribution of the site-specific alternatives to cumulative effects on the environment is evaluated. To do this, it is assumed that coal mining will proceed in accordance with permit conditions. We further assume that this coal will be sold to coal users in response to forecasts of demand for this coal. Historically these users have been electric utilities in the United States, although there is potential for sales outside the U.S. This coal market is open and competitive and users can buy from the most cost effective suppliers that meet their needs. We have estimated the amount of GHG emissions that could be attributed to coal production that could result from leasing of the proposed LBAs, as well as from the forecast coal production from all coal mines in the Wyoming PRB. This information is included in Chapter 4 (4.2.14.1). This was done by relating

the portion of coal mined to the total emission of GHG from all coal mined in the U.S. We assumed that all PRB coal was used for coal fired electric generation as part of the total U.S. use of coal for electric generation. This gives an upper estimate of the GHG resulting from use of the coal that would be produced from the proposed LBAs, and for forecast total PRB coal production. Specific levels of significance have not yet been established for GHG emissions. Given the state of the science, it is not yet possible to associate specific actions with the specific climate impacts. Since tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with these GHG emissions are presently unavailable, the analysis cannot reach conclusions as to the magnitude or significance of the emissions on climate change. The impacts of climate change represent the cumulative aggregation of all worldwide GHG emissions land use management practices, and the albedo effect. The EIS does provide a meaningful context and measure of the relative significance of coal use from the proposed LBAs and overall projected PRB coal production on total GHG emissions. Comment Response 8C: Wyoming Powder River Basin coal is sold on the open market; therefore, it is not possible to know with any reasonable certainty what power plants would use this coal or in what amount. The variety of burning and emission control apparatus installed in the many facilities to which PRB coal is sold would also make calculating CO2 emissions difficult. We agree that some sort of calculation is possible for CO2 released during laboratory combustion of coal. The following information has been added to the final EIS in section 4.2.14.1: “In 2006, the Wyoming Powder River Basin coal mines produced approximately 432.0 million tons of coal. Using factors derived from laboratory analyses, it is estimated that approximately 716.9 million metric tons of CO2 would be generated from the combustion of all of this coal (before CO2 reduction technologies are applied). This number is based on an average Btu value of 8,600 per pound of Wyoming coal and using a CO2 emission factor of 212.7 pounds of CO2 per million Btu (DOE 1994). The estimated 716.9 million metric tons of CO2 represents approximately 33.6 percent of the estimated 2,134.1 million metric tons of U.S. CO2 emission from coal combustion (DOE 2007a). In 2006, Wyoming PRB mines accounted for approximately 37.2 percent of the coal produced in the U.S (DOE 2007d).” Comment Response 8D: A new discussion on coal bed methane released from the coal face has been added to Chapter 3 at the end of Section 3.18.3. Table 3-19 was calculated to show the effects of all greenhouse gases released during mining operations. The calculations have been edited from those presented in the draft EIS. Comment Response 8E: The last two sentences of the first paragraph under Table 4-37, “Carbon based sources such as coal, gas and petroleum are reduced as compared to the EIA forecast. Both EIA and EPRI forecast increases in electricity cost.”, has been reworded to say: “Use of carbon based

sources such as gas and petroleum are less than forecasted by the EIA, while coal use remains about the same in the EPRI forecast, mostly due to forecasted improvement in GHG emission reduction in coal fueled generation. Both EIA and EPRI forecast increases in electricity cost.”

II

9

rWILDEAim
GUARDIANS
A FORCE FOR NATURE

December 24, 2008

BYE-MAIL

Casper Field Office 
 Bureau of Land Management 
 Attn: Teresa Johnson 
 2987 Prospector Drive 
 Casper, WY 82604 
 casper :wymail@blm.gov 

Re: 	 Comments on South Glliette Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Four Federal Coal Lease by Applications, Wyoming

Dear Ms. Johnson: WildEarth Guardians, Clean Energy Action, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, the Sierra Club, and Mark Squillace submit the following comments on the Bureau of Land Management's ("BLM"s") draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS") for four coal lease by applications ("LBAs") in the South Gillette Area of the Powder River Basin of Wyoming (hereafter "South Gillette LBAs"). The four LBAs include the Belle Ayr North Coal Tract, the West Coal Creek Tract, Caballo West Coal Tract, and Maysdorf II Coal Tract. For the foregoing reasons, we oppose the proposed LBAs and request the BLM withdraw its proposal to offer for lease the four tracts. These comments are timely submitted within 45 days of the publication of the notice ofavailability ("NOA") of the DEIS in the Federal Register. See 73 Fed. Reg. 61903­
61905.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), we also request an extension of the comment period regarding this DEIS. Although we have attempted to provide thorough comments to the BLM with regards to the DEIS, because the deadline for comments has fallen so close to the holiday season, we do not feel that we have been provided adequate opportunity to comment. We request an additional 30 days to submit more detailed comments to the BLM with regards to the South Gillette LBAs OBIS. The Powder River Basin has been Erroeneously Decertified al • Coal Production Region The Powder River Basin was "decertified" as a Federal coal production region coal production region in January of 1990. In other words, the BLM has asserted that the Powder River Basin is outside a coal production region in accordance with 43 CFR § 3400.5. This
312 Montezuma Ave. Santa Fe, NM 87501 505·988·9126 (p) 505·989·8623 (f)

A

www.wildearthguardians.org

SANTA FE

OENVER

PH()ENIX

I

I

"decertification" was made on the recommendation of the Powder River Regional Coal Team in October of 1989. At the time, this decertification was deemed appropriate "based on decreasing industry interest in new competitive Federal coal leasing and the condition of the coal market." See Environmental Assessment of the West Black Thunder Coal Lease Application as Applied for by Thunder Basin Coal Company (Federal Coal Lease Application WYWl18907) (August 1991) at 1. Although it is questionable whether the "decertification" of the Powder River Basin as a coal production region was appropriate in 1990, it is clear that it is inappropriate today. Indeed, coal production in the Powder River Basin region is significant and has increased substantially over the years. According to data from the BLM's own website, coal production in the Powder River Basin has increased from 293 million tons to more than 436 tons in 2007. See, Chart below. The region is currently producing record amounts of coal.

A
Buckskin

Coal Creek
Rawhide Wyodak

Coal produced in Powder River Basin (data in millions of tons). Chart available at 
 http://www.blm.gov/wv/stJen/programs/energy/CoaIResources/PRBCoal/production.html. 


Furthennore, the Powder River Basin region produces more coal than any other region in the United States. Currently, the Powder River Basin provides more than 35% of the nation's coal, a figure that has grown substantially over the years. See, Chart below. According to the

2

Energy Information Administration, the Powder River Basin currently produces more coal than all the coal mines combined east of the Mississippi River. Indeed, in 2007, the Powder River Basin produced more than 479,000 tons of coal while mines east of the Mississippi produced 477,006. See htt.p:llwww.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coaUpage/acr/tablel.htmI.This is a significant amount of coal to be produced from a single region.
Percent of Total U.S. Coal Production MIned 'rom The Powder RIVer Basin, Wyoming
40.0%

350%

30.0%

25.0%

J

200%

150%

100%

5.0%

A
"..9
~s
",9
(90

00%

Sources' Energy Information Administratiol'VAnnuaiEnergy Review. State Inspector of Mines of 'l'.Y. & 0 0.1. Federal Coal Management Report

Chart available at www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wv/programs/energy/coaI/prb.Par.5321.1mage.-1.-1.1.gif.

Because the Powder River Basin remains a decertified coal production region, leasing is done on an application filed by a private company. The LBA process allows private coal company, and not the federal government, to design the tract of land subject to leasing. In the Powder River Basin this has allowed each major federal coal producer in the area to submit applications for lease federal coal leases in areas and on tracts that they have designed. This raises significant concerns that coal companies have designed tracts that are immediately adjacent to their existing mines. The result is that the lease applicant is typically the only bidder for the tract when the "competitive bidding" auction is held. This raises concerns that the Federal government is not ensuring fair market value of any privately designed and nominated lease tracts. Regardless, the "decertification" of the Powder River Basin is contrary to 43 CFR § 3400.5, which requires the BLM to identify coal production regions and to adhere to the competitive leasing procedures of43 CFR §§ 3420-3422. At the least, it is clearly arbitrary and capricious in light of the fact that the Powder River Basin is the nation's leading producer of coal. Ifthe BLM moves to lease the South Gileue LBAs, it will be acting contrary to its coal

3


leasing regulations and arbitrarily and capriciously. If the BLM believes it cannot assess through the South Gillette LBAs whether or not the Powder River Basin should be certified as a coal production region in accordance with 43 CPR § 3400.5, then we hereby the BLM consider these comments a request for rulemaking submitted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 USC § 553(e). Pursuant to the APA, we petition the BLM to revise its prior "decertification" of the Powder River Basin as a coal production region and appropriately identify the region as a coal production region in accordance with 43 ~FR § 3400.5. The Charter of the Powder River Regional Coal Team, as well as BLM Regulations Regarding the Function of the Coal Team, Violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act Although the Powder River Regional Coal Team has been established as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA"), the Team's role in coal leasing decisions appears to go beyond what is allowed under FACA. Indeed, the Charter of the Powder River Regional Coal Team provides that "[t]he team's recommendations on regional leasing levels, tracts to be offered, and sales scheduled, shall be accepted, except in the case of an overriding national interest, or in the case that the advice of the Governor(s) is accepted pursuant to 43 CFR § 3420.4-3(c)." Charter, 6.b(ii) (emphasis added). Furthennore, BLM regulations provide that with certain exception, Regional Coal Team recommendations on leasing levels and on regional lease sales "shall be accepted" by the Secretary. 43 CFR § 3400.4(d) (2006). The Charter of the Powder River Regional Coal Team provides, however, that and administration of the team will be in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA). 5 U.S.C. Appendix (1982).... " Charter, 13.e. The FACA states clearly that "the function of advisory committees should be advisory only, and that all matters under their consideration should be determined in accordance with law, by the official, agency, or officer involved" (emphasis added). Given that the recommendations of the Powder River Regional Coal Team are not "advisory only," it thus appears that the RCf Charter, as well as the BLM regulations, violate the FACA. See 5 U.S.C. Appendix I (Supp. III, 1973), as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix I (Supp. I, 1975).
"[0 ]peration

A

B

The Draft EIS Fails to Adequately Analyze and Assess Global Warming Impacts We appreciate the attention given to global warming concerns in the DEIS. However, the DEIS falls short in key regards and fails to adequately analyzing and assessing global warming impacts. Further, ,the PElS falls short of exploring reasonable alternatives that would address the global warming impacts of future mining that would be authorized by the South Gillette LBAs. • 	 The Draft EIS Falls to Address the Cumulative Impacts of Other Department of Interior-authorized actions BLM needs to consider the cumulative impact of this action and other actions undertaken by the Department of Interior on climate change. These other actions include other BLM oil and gas lease sales such as the upcoming February 9, 2009 oil and gas lease sale by the Wyoming State Office of the BLM, as well as recent lease sales in other states such as Colorado, Montana,

c

4


New Mexico, Utah. These other actions also include BLM's revision of its plan for oil and gas extraction at the Pinedale Anticline in Wyoming and the actions covered in the Great Divide Resource Management Plan. These other actions also include the issuance of all Applications for Pennits to Drill for oil and gas activities that are occurring now or are reasonably foreseeable. The BLM's sister agency, the Minerals Management Service, also authorizes offshore oil and gas drilling and development of production and processing facilities. Furthennore, the cumulative actions that BLM must consider in tenns of greenhouse gas emissions are not limited to oil and gas activities. For example, coal fired power plants are the largest source ofgreenhouse gas emissions in the United States. BLM is currently considering authorizing the construction of the Toquop coal fired power plant in Nevada. Additionally, the Bureau of Indian affairs is preparing an EIS over the Desert Rock coal-fired power plant in northwestern New Mexico. Emissions ofgreenhouse gases from this plant, and any other coal fired power plant BLM and other Interior agencies are considering, must also be considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. Livestock is also a major source ofgreenhouse gas emissions. See e.g. Henning Steinfield, Livestocks Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, (2006). Thus, BLM must consider its actions which involve livestock grazing in its cumulative impacts analysis ofgreenhouse gas emissions. Coal mining is also a major source ofgreenhouse gases. Indeed, the DEIS discloses that the coal mines in the South Gillette area contribute to more than 3% of the United States' total greenhouse gas emissions. As the DEIS discloses, greenhouse gases are released during mining activities, during coal processing and transport, and when the coal is burned. This is a significant amount, indicating that mining authorized by other Interior agencies--including the BLM, the Office of Surface Mining, and the Secretary's Office-likely cumulatively amount to a significant source of greenhouse gases. Therefore, BLM must consider the impacts of its proposal to authorize the South Gillette LBAs cumulatively with other Department of Interior authorized activities that also contribute to global wanning. Until such time as BLM analyzes the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from other Department of Interior authorized oil and gas development, coal-fired power plants, livestock grazing, coal mining, and other activities activities, BLM cannot move forward with the South Gillette LBAs in compliance with NEPA.

c

•

The Draft EIS Fails to Consider Alternatives that Address Global Warming

The DEIS fails to consider alternatives that limit or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. Such alternatives could include requiring capture and use ofany methane vented as a result ofcoal mining activities, alternatives that require more efficient mining equipment, such as mine hauling trucks, alternatives that require the mine operators to secure offsets ofgreenhouse gases attributed to mining activities, alternatives that limit annual coal production to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gases from coal combustion, and alternatives that factor in the cost of greenhouse gas emissions and global wanning when determining the fair market value of the coal

D

5


to be leased.

The Draft EIS Fails to Adequately Analyze and Assess Air Quality Impacts
The BLM must analyze and assess the impacts of the South Gillette LBAs to air quality to ensure compliance with Sate and Federal air pollution standards in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA"). 43 USC § 1712(c)(8). Unfortunately, the DBIS falls short in key regards in adequately analyzing and assessing air quality impacts under NEPA, raising questions over whether authorization ofthe LBAs will comply with State and Federal air quality standards.

•

Ozone

The DEIS does not analyze impacts to the current ozone standards. On March 27, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established new national ambient air quality standards ("NAAQS") for ozone, limiting concentrations to no more than 0.075 parts per million over an eight hour period. See, 73 Fed. Reg. 16436-16512. Ozone fonns when precursor pollutants volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") and nitrogen oxides ("NO x") react with sunlight. While the DEIS recognizes ozone as a harmful air pollutant, there is no analysis of impacts to ambient ozone concentrations. This is particularly troublesome given that EPA monitoring data online at http://iaspub.epa.gov/airsdataiadags.monvals?geotype=co&geocode=56005+56009&geoinfo=co --56005+56009--Campbell+Co%2C+Converse+Co%2C+Wyoming&pol=03&year=2008+2007+ 2006+2005+2004+2003+2002+ 200 1+2000&fld=monid&fld=siteid&fld=address&fld=city&fld= county&fld=stabbr&fld=regn&rpp=25 shows that there have been a number of exceedances of the ozone NAAQS over the years in Campbell County, Wyoming. Also of concern is that the results of the modeling prepared for the Western Regional Air Partnership strongly indicate that attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is at risk throughout the Western States, including in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. See, Tonnesen, G., Z. Wang, M. Omary, C. Chien, Z. Adelman, and R~ Morris, "Review of Ozone Perfonnance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning," presentation given at WRAP Workshop on Regional Emissions and Air Quality Modeling Studies (July 30, 2008). This modeling in fact shows that the annual fourth maximum 8-hour ozone concentration will exceed 0.075 ppm throughout much of Wyoming. See Figure below.

E

6


03
WRAP ~rp~~ 4th8-HR MAX

0.100 94

o.oso
0.080 0.070
0.080

0.050
0.040 0.030

0.020 32 "--_ _ _ _

~.a..._~

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.......

ppmv

10
tAin- 0.031 at(l4.73~ Max- 0.103 at (41 ..85) January 12002 o~:oo

79

Projected 2018 annual fourth maximum ozone concentrations. Orange and red indicate exceedances and/or violations of the ozone NMQS of 0.075 parts per million.

•

PSD Increments

The DEIS indicates the BLM does not believe it has to perform an analysis of impacts to Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD"). This belief is flawed. FLPMA requires the BLM to ensure compliance with Federal and State air quality standards, and that includes PSD increments. The BLM must assess the degree to which any mining activities authorized by the LBAs will consume Class I and Class- II PSD increments in the region to ensure compliance with Federal and State air quality standards as required by FLPMA. • PM-tO Impacts

The DEIS claims that modeling shows that mining authorized by the South Gillette LBAs will not exceed and/or violate NAAQS for PM-tO. nis claim is undennined by the fact that monitoring shows the PM-I0 NAAQS of 150 micrograms/cubic meter has been exceeded on

7


I

I

numerous occasions at coal mines in the Powder River Basin over the last several years. Data 
 accessible on the EPA's website at 
 http://iaspub.epa.gov/airsdata/adaqs.monvals?geotype=co&geocode=56005+56009&geoinfo=co 
 --56005+56009--Campbell+Co%2C+Converse+Co%2C+Wyoming&pol=PM I 0&year=2008+20 
 07+2006+2005+2004+2003+2002+200 1+2000&fld=monid&fld=siteid&fld=address&fld=city& 
 fld=county&fld=stabbr&fld=regn&rpp=25 shows that PM-l 0 NAAQS have likely been violated 
 over the years. It is unclear how this monitoring data factored into the BLM's analysis and 
 unclear how the BLM can reasonably conclude that PM-l 0 NAAQS will be complied with 
 pursuant to FLPMA. 


E

The Draft EIS Fails to Analyze the Impacts of Connected Actions
Regulations implementing NEPA require an agency to consider connected actions - those "closely related" - and similar actions in an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(I); (a)(3). The purpose of the 'connected action' requirement "is to prevent an agency from dividing a project into multiple actions, each of which individually has an insignificant environmental impact, but which collectively have a substantial impact." Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F .3d 955,969 (9th Cir. 2006). A connected action is defined as being "closely related" to other actions, and are considered "connected" if they: (i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact 
 statements; 


(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or 
 simultaneously; 
 (iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for 
 their justification. 


F

Id. Similar actions are those that "when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities ,that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(3).
In this case, there are a number of connected actions that appear connected with the South Gillette LBAs, namely a number of pending LBAs at coal mines in the Powder River Basin. The OEIS at page 1-2 indicates there are a number of pending LBAs. It does not appear that the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of these pending LBAs were addressed in the DEIS, in violation ofNEPA.

The Draft EIS Falls to Analyze a Range of Reasonable Alternatives
NEPA requires agencies to "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternatives uses of available resources." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E). To achieve these ends, an EIS must "[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14; Utahns/or Better Tramp., 305 F.3d at 1166 (emphasis added). The alternatives analysis is ''the heart" of any environmental review pursuant to NEPA. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. Here, the BLM failed to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate alternatives that would reduce air quality impacts, reduce global warming impacts, or otherwise present a range of reasonable alterative to ensure the decisionmaker can make a fully informed decision.

G

8


The action alternatives analyzed in detail for the South Gillette LBAs amount fail to represent a range of reasonable alternatives that address unresolved conflicts. For every LBA, the BLM either analyzes the proposed action (Le., the action recommended by the private coal company) or a modified alternative that seeks to "enhance" coal recovery. No action alternative attempts to address significant issues, namely concerns over global wanning, air quality, and other environmental impacts. In fact, it does not appear that environmental conflicts were even considered by the BLM in developing alternatives to the proposed actions. Rather, it appears that all action alternatives to the proposed actions seek primarily to maximize direct economic gain for the federal government. Although the BLM analyzes a "no action" alternative for every LBA, this is not an action alternative and therefore cannot serve, alone, to fulfill the agency's duties to analyze a range of alternatives. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely,

G

Jeremy Nichols 
 Climate and Energy Program Director 
 WildEarth Guardians 
 1536 Wynkoop, Suite 301 
 Denver, CO 80202 
 (303) 573-4898 x 537 
 inichols@wildearthguardians.org 
 on behalf of: Erik Molvar 
 Executive Director 
 Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 
 Laramie, WY 
 Leslie Glustrom 
 Clean Energy Action 
 Boulder, CO 
 Aaron Isherwood 
 Senior Staff Attorney 
 Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 
 San Francisco, CA 
 Mark Squillace

9


Response to Comment Letter 9: Wild Earth Guardians Comment Response 9A: You are correct in that the Powder River Coal Production Region was “decertified” as a federal coal production region in 1990, and that it remains “decertified” currently. This is similar to most of the original federal coal production regions established as part of the Federal Coal Management Program. Coal leasing in the PRB operated as a certified federal coal production region, with leasing developed under the regional leasing process as described under 43 CFR 3420, through the 1980s. Many of the federal coal production regions were decertified in the later 1980s, in large part because of a decline of interest in leasing federal coal. The Powder River Coal Production Region had no leasing interest during the late 1980s. The mines that exist today were operating or already had adequate reserves to begin operating. The PRB had become a mature mining region, that is, a region where sufficient mining operations had been established to meet expected coal demand. In 1990, based on the advice of the Powder River Regional Coal Team, BLM decertified the region. However, there were certain conditions of the decertification established in part based on the RCT’s advice. The region was decertified for production maintenance leasing, and the RCT would remain active and periodically review BLM’s leasing activity to provide advice on the leasing in a regional perspective. In a region that is decertified, BLM is able to consider leasing by application under the rules at 43 CFR 3425. The RCT has met about once each year since the decertification. BLM has presented lease by applications to the RCT and has considered their advice on how to proceed with those applications. You are correct that production of PRB coal has increased steadily since decertification. Part of this growth is due to an increase in the demand for electric power and the related increase in demand for steam coal as a fuel for low cost electric generation. There are also cost (mining and reclamation) advantages that have favored PRB coal over other domestic coal regions as well as the low sulfur content which results in cost-effective air pollution control. The production increase has been made with no new mining operations opening since decertification, although several of the operations have consolidated. As shown in Figure 4-2 in the EIS, leasing under the LBA process has essentially been at the same rate as reserves existing before decertification have been being depleted. This level of leasing activity remains consistent with the 1990 decertification action.

The interpretation of the lease by application process made in this comment is incorrect, and it is not borne out by practice or results. The lease application is made to identify those lands that the applicant has identified as needed to maintain production at an existing mine. BLM identifies alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3 in this EIS) which include more lands than are included in the application. Under these alternatives, BLM is able to reconfigure the tract in the public interest to conserve coal resources, enhance competitive potential, and mitigate impacts. BLM has frequently (in almost every LBA offered) delineated a preferred alternative smaller or larger than the application, and containing some different lands than those applied for. It is logical, and prudent, for the lease tracts to be adjacent to one or more existing mines. These are production maintenance tracts and, as such, are located so that existing operations can pass onto these tracts without gaps requiring the significant additional disturbance and cost required to open a new pit rather than extend an existing one. We have had several sales where there were multiple bids and sales where the applicant was not the successful bidder. The sales are always competitive, even if there is only one bidder, because the BLM sets a fair market value and will not accept any bid that does not meet that value. These values are not disclosed, and bidders recognize that they need to bid a fair value or the bids will be rejected. BLM has rejected numerous bids that were the apparent high bid. All of this evidence demonstrates that BLM’s practice has ensured fair market values are received for LBA tracts that are designed by BLM to allow production to be maintained at already operating mines, with the coal resource being managed to avoid bypass, isolation, and to encourage competition. The BLM properly established the Powder River Coal Production Region as required by 43 CFR 3400.5. The change to the region was published in the Federal Register. BLM has, and continues to manage the lease by application process in conformance with the status of the Powder River Coal Production Region, and the criteria and conditions for the change to a decertified coal region. Processing the South Gillette LBAs is consistent with the practice we follow in the decertified Powder River Coal Production Region. These are production maintenance tracts, have been reviewed by the Powder River Regional Coal Team, and are being reviewed under the leasing by application process (43 CFR 3425). The Powder River Regional Coal Team meetings are public and provide an opportunity for public comment and statements. BLM staff will provide the team a briefing of your request at the team’s meeting later this year. You are

welcome to present your petition, either in person or in writing, to the team at that meeting. The meetings are published in the Federal Register and a press release is posted on the BLM web site. To accommodate you better we have added your name and the email address you provided with your comment letter to the email notification list for the RCT meetings. Comment Response 9B: The Powder River Regional Coal Team was established under the coal program regulations (43 CFR 3400.4) for the purpose of the duties specified in 43 CFR 3420. The RCT is not an advisory group as established under the regulations for advisory committees under 43 CFR 1784, although it is bound to use the public participation procedures (43 CFR 1784.4-2, 43 CFR 1784.4-3, and 43 CFR 1784.5) as in the advisory committee regulations. The item you point out (from Charter PRBRCT, approved October 24, 1995, Section 6.c (11)), where the RCT’s advice shall be accepted, with certain exceptions, pertain only to one specific duty: regional leasing in a certified coal production region. The Powder River Coal Production Region has not operated in the regional leasing mode since 1990. The section of the charter defining the team’s duties when operating in the LBA mode (Charter PRBRCT, approved October 24, 1995, Section 6.b) is relevant to the way the team is presently operating. The role is that of an advisor to solicit and consider public views. In section 6.a of the charter, which defines all operations of the team, if BLM chooses not to accept the team’s recommendations, “a written explanation of the reasons will be prepared by the BLM Director’s authorized representative and provided to the team and the public.” Comment Response 9C: The purpose of this EIS is to disclose the potential effects to the natural and human environment from the proposed leasing of four LBAs that have been requested to maintain production of four currently operating mines in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. The EIS assesses the site-specific impacts resulting from a range of alternative actions to the proposed action of leasing a specific tract of land. The EIS also assesses the cumulative impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the proposed LBA when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that would add to the impact of the proposed action. In this EIS, cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapter 4. The analysis of cumulative impacts in this EIS is based on a comprehensive study designed to provide a basis for assessing the level of cumulative impacts resulting from reasonably foreseeable actions occurring in the Powder River Basin. The analysis recognizes that the areal extent of each type of effect depends on the environmental value affected. In recognition, the “effect area”

for each value is scaled to be that area where the effects of development in the PRB can be estimated. In some cases this is a multiple county area, in others it is multi state, in others it is just the actual lands that are affected. For each environmental value, the effect area extends the analysis of the cumulative impact to where that impact is no longer quantifiable or is at a level as to be insignificant. The comment suggests that this EIS look at actions in a variety of areas with the only connection being that the actions are under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. This approach does not recognize that each of these proposals are federal actions in their own right, and must be evaluated in light of the effects of that action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Comment Response 9D: The EIS addresses a full range of alternatives to the lease by application submitted by the lease applicant. The range includes an alternative which would represent all lands that include coal reserves that are comparable to those applied for, which may be efficiently recovered with the LBA, which may enhance competitive interest in the tract, and which could be bypassed if not leased. On the other end of the range is the No Action Alternative. The comment suggests this is not a “no action” alternative, but does not provide a reason. This alternative assumes that the lease as applied for is rejected, and that no lands are offered for lease. The BLM is a multiple use land management agency that manages the federal coal reserves under the predominantly private land surface in the Gillette area of the Powder River Basin. In the land area covered by these LBAs, only 3% of the surface ownership is federal land. Although there are many wind and solar resources that can be used for energy development, the BLM does not have authority over private land surface use and surface development. The BLM neither permits for the surface disturbance nor for the mining operations in coal mining operations. Therefore, the reasonable alternative options available for BLM to review in this EIS are leasing alternatives exploring the lease size, and shape, and the No Action Alternative where leasing one or more of these LBAs does not occur. Other forms of addressing increasing electric demand are noted in this EIS. Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of GHG emissions on the global climate. The addition of non carbon fueled electric generation sources could reduce GHG emissions. Further, the addition of alternate sources of electric generation would conserve carbon fuels, which are not renewable in the short term, and would provide a broader portfolio of electric sources. The EIS estimates likely long term electric generation

portfolios. However, the specific environmental effects of the variety of alternative electric generation technologies are not in the scope of this EIS. These technologies would be evaluated under NEPA as they are proposed to be permitted and built. Comment Response 9E: Ozone has been included in discussions on emissions of NOX since NOX is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground level ozone. Ozone has the same chemical structure whether it occurs miles above the earth or at ground-level and can be "good" or "bad," depending on its location in the atmosphere. In the earth's lower atmosphere, ground-level ozone is considered "bad." Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOX and VOC that help form ozone. Ground-level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause groundlevel ozone to form in harmful concentrations in the air. As a result, it is known as a summertime air pollutant. Many urban areas tend to have high levels of "bad" ozone, but even rural areas are also subject to increased ozone. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has set protective health-based standards for ozone in the air we breathe. Prior to May 27, 2008, the NAAQ 8-hour standard for ozone was 0.080 ppm (157 µg/m3). In May of 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour standard to 0.075 ppm (147 µg/m3). According to the EPA AirData website, ozone levels have been monitored in the PRB since 2001. An exceedance of the ozone 8-hour standard occurs if 4th-highest daily maximum value is above the level of the standard (0.08 ppm prior to 2008 and 0.075 ppm since 2008). There are two ozone monitoring stations available: one with data starting in 2001 and the other with data starting in 2003. The Thunder Basin National Grassland monitor read 0.074 ppm in 2003 and 0.074 ppm in 2008. All other values read at the Thunder Basin National Grassland monitor were below that level. The south Campbell County monitor read 0.077 ppm in 2003 and 0.072 ppm in 2007. All other values read at the Thunder Basin National Grassland monitor were below that level. This discussion as well as associated tables has been included in the final EIS. The EIS evaluates PSD, and it is addressed in Chapters 3 and 4. Section 169 of the Clean Air Act addresses visibility protection. On June 15, 2005, EPA issued final amendments to its July 1999 regional haze rule. These amendments apply to the provisions of the regional haze rule that require emission controls known as Best Available Retrofit Technology, or BART, for industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility. The nearest Class I PSD areas to the general analysis area for this LBA are Wind Cave National Park (about 100 miles east), and the Badlands Wilderness Area (about 150 miles east). There are also five Class II PSD areas 80 to100 miles away from the LBA general analysis area; all others are at least 100 miles away. These are listed in Table 3-9 in the DEIS. This EIS uses two tools to evaluate visibility impact. Regional modeling is used to estimate and disclose the

change in the number of days that a change of 10% or more in extinction would occur by 2010, in relation to a baseline, also modeled, for 2002. On site, monitoring at Class I areas is included to show actual measured changes in visibility over the period of record (1989 to 2005). While monitoring results show annual variability in visibility impairment at the two sites illustrated in Figure 3-20 in the DEIS, the trend is stable overall with some slight lessening of impairment in recent years. We were unable to locate the statement in the EIS where BLM does not believe it has to perform an analysis of impacts to the PSD. There is a statement in Section 4.2.3 explaining Table 4-11, where it is clarified that the cumulative air quality modeling “did not separate PSD increment-consuming sources from those that do not consume increment.” This explains that the modeling was designed to include both known and predicted sources, regardless of regulatory status. Also, Appendix H (old Appendix K) does include an explanation of the fact that PRB surface mines have not been subject to permitting under the PSD regulations because the mine emissions that are subject to PSD applicability levels fall below regulatory thresholds. Because the WDEQ/AQD requires the PRB mines to collect air quality data, which is discussed in Section 3.4.2.3, the eastern PRB is one of the most intensely monitored areas in the world. According to EPA AirData, in 2007 there were six TSP monitors, five PM2.5 monitors and 36 PM10 monitors in the Wyoming portion of the PRB. Data for TSP dates back to 1980 and data for PM10 dates back to 1989. Approximately 57,000 TSP samples had been collected through 2004, and approximately 47,550 PM10 samples had been collected through 2007. Information about the regulatory framework, the monitoring network, and PM10 concentration trends since monitoring began are included in Appendix H (old Appendix K). Existing site-specific air quality information is included in the SGAC EIS Supplementary Information document, which is available on request. No exceedances of the 24-hour or annual PM10 particulate standards have been documented by the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, or Cordero Rojo mines through 2006. The federal standard for particulate matter was measured as TSP until 1987. This measurement included all suspendable dust (generally less than 100 microns in diameter). In 1987, EPA changed from a TSP-based standard to a PM10-based standard. In 2006, EPA again revised the air quality standards for particulate matter by changing the 24-hour fine particle standard from the previous level of 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 and revoking the annual PM10 standard of 50 µg/m3. EPA retained the existing annual PM2.5 standard of 15 µg/m3 and the 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 µg/m3. These revisions took effect on December 18, 2006. The current federal ambient air standards are shown in Table 3-6. Wyoming added the PM10 standard in 1989. Even with the evolution of state or federal small size particulate standards, TSP is still

monitored in some PRB locations as a surrogate for PM10 and as an indication of overall atmospheric levels of particulate matter. The Task 1A Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005a) documents the modeled air quality impacts of operations during a baseline year (2002), using actual emissions and operations for that year. Emissions from permitted minor sources were estimated due to unavailability of actual emissions data. The baseline year analysis evaluated impacts both within the PRB itself and at selected sensitive areas surrounding the region. The analysis specifically looked at impacts of coal mines, power plants, CBNG development, and other development activities. The Task 2 Report for the PRB Coal Review (BLM 2005d) identifies reasonably foreseeable development activities for the years 2010, 2015, and 2020. The updated Task 3A report for the PRB Coal Review Cumulative Air Quality Effects (BLM 2006b) for 2015 uses a revised base line year of 2004 with revised projected 2015 scenarios. Impacts for 2020 were projected qualitatively based on evaluation of anticipated changes in emissions and on modeled impacts for the 2015 lower and upper coal production scenarios. BLM has updated the model and conducted impact analysis for the year 2015. Air quality modeling indicates the projected mine activities at the four South Gillette area operating mines will be in compliance with the PM10 and PM2.5 near-field and short-term NO2 air standards for the 2015 modeled air quality impacts at their currently permitted mining rates. All applicants have indicated that they propose to mine the respective LBA tracts at a rate below the permit levels. Based on the modeling results the annual PM10 and PM2.5 in Wyoming is predicted to be over the Wyoming SAAQS for the 2015 lower and upper development scenarios. The 2004 maximum modeled 24-hour PM10 are greater than the 150 µg/m3 ambient air standard for some near-field receptors near PRB sources in Wyoming. For the Wyoming near-field receptors, the modeling projects maximum 24-hour PM10 levels greater than the 150 µg/m3 ambient air standard for the 2015 lower and upper coal production scenarios at some receptors. For the 2015 upper development scenario, the modeled levels are above150 µg/m3 for several relatively small areas surrounding coal mines and CBNG operations in the Wyoming PRB. As shown in Table 4-10, the maximum modeled PM10 impacts from all sources for the 2015 upper coal production scenario are nearly three times the 24-hour WAAQS standard. As discussed in Section 3.4.2.2.1, modeling tends to over-predict the 24-hour impacts of surface coal mining and, as a result, WDEQ/AQD does not consider short-term PM10 modeling to be an accurate representation of short-term impacts. In view of this, a memorandum of agreement between WDEQ/AQD and EPA Region VIII, dated January 24, 1994, allows WDEQ/AQD to conduct monitoring in lieu of short-term modeling for assessing coal mining-related impacts in the PRB. This agreement also requires Wyoming to implement “Best

Available Work Practice” mitigation measures at any mine where an exceedance of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS has occurred. The monitored exceedances at surface coal mines in the Wyoming PRB and the measures that WDEQ/AQD has implemented or is proposing to implement to prevent future exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS are discussed in Chapter 3, Sections 3.4.2.1 and 3.4.2.3. It should be noted that WDEQ/AQD issues permits to mine coal. AQD cannot issue any permit that violates ambient air quality standards. Comment Response 9F: You are correct that a number of LBAs are pending in the PRB. We have grouped the applications for NEPA evaluation. Each grouped EIS considers those LBAs that are geographically clustered in that group. It also includes a comprehensive analysis of cumulative direct and indirect impacts of all reasonably foreseeable development activity, including all the applications shown on Figure 1-1. LBAs are combined by mine group, in the same mine groupings that are studied in the PRB coal review. Chapter 4 discusses development in the Powder River Basin and the consequences of that development. Both low and high production scenarios with projections to the year 2020 are also discussed. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable development and the cumulative environmental consequences of that development are also detailed. Comment Response 9G: The EIS addresses a full range of alternatives to the lease by application submitted by the lease applicant. The range includes an alternative which represents all lands that include coal reserves that are comparable to those applied for, which may be efficiently recovered with the LBA, which may enhance competitive interest in the tract, and which could be bypassed if not leased. On the other end of the range is the No Action Alternative. This alternative assumes that the lease as applied for is rejected, and that no lands are offered for lease. Action alternatives assume the decision is to offer a lease, with the assumed result that the coal is leased and ultimately mined. No action assumes the coal is not offered. The affects of these alternatives are evaluated both specific to the lands that would or would not be offered for lease, as well as the effects of leasing added to the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future PRB development. The EIS recognizes that coal mining will continue at the mines adjacent to the proposed LBAs under any of the alternatives. This activity is permitted, and impacts of this activity would not be mitigated by any alternative to the proposed action. Your comment suggests, but does not specify, alternatives to activity already permitted. We did not include alternatives for this purpose, since they are beyond the scope of the decision options proposed in this EIS.

The BLM is a multiple use land management agency that manages the federal coal reserves under the predominantly private land surface in the Gillette area of the PRB. The BLM does not regulate the uses for which coal can be used. In the land area covered by these LBAs, only 3% of the surface ownership is federal land and 97% is privately owned surface. Although there are many wind and solar resources that can be used for energy development, the BLM does not have authority over private land surface use and surface development. The BLM neither permits for the surface disturbance nor for the mining operations in the Powder River Basin. Therefore, the reasonable alternative options available for BLM to review in this EIS are leasing or not leasing alternatives which explore the lease size, and shape, and the No Action Alternative where leasing one or more of these LBAs does not occur.

10

December 22, 2008 BLM Casper Field Office A1TEN110N: Teresa Johnson 2987 Prospector Drive Casper, WY From: Kenneth Duvall

9498 Hwy 59, HeR 83
Gillette, WY 82718

Fax: (307) 261-7578
On page 3-20 of the BLM October 2008 Environmental Impact S~ent, it is stated the Maysdorf II LBA area is ''unfavorable'' for conventiopal oil and gas discoveries. One oil and gas representative has told us th$ ''it is a big stretch for the BLM to state the cummt outlook for conventi~ oil and gas discoveries in the vicinity of the Maysdorfn LBA is "unfiJv~le". Another oil representative wrote "don't you believe that the oil is ~lng completely depleted in your area". As we understand. it, 1abeling ~ conventional oll and gas as ''unfavorable'' would be risking dopreqiation of the present value aftho patented OJ" "fee" oil and SO estates in du$ area, including landowners, the state ofWyoming and the fcdcral gov~t.

A

Since the ms states that the " study area bas not been tested", Duvalls) request that a study be done for "conventional" oil and Ms in the Maysdorfn LBA before a permit is issued.
We request this for the following reasons: . At the present time an oil and gas company is negotiating for l~ of available land for drilling in the Maysdorfarea. : We understand there is moratorium on all drilling on federal Ian4s where coal is available, due to a lawsuit. :
,

we 12/24/2008 08:22 PM To "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  cc bcc Subject South Gillette DEIS--Glustrom Comments

Hi Teresa--Attached are some comments on the South Gillette Coal Lease Application Draft Environmental Impact Statement. I truly appreciate all your work, but am concerned about the seriousness of leasing over 700 million tons of federally-owned coal and of the myriad extremely serious environmental impacts that will ensue. I hope your holiday is/was fun. Sincerely, Leslie

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

I I

III
4492 Burr Place, Boulder, CO 80303 303-245-8637 Bureau of Land Management 2987 Prospector Drive Casper, Wyoming 82604 December 24, 2008

RE: The South Gillette Coal Lease Applications Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Ms. Johnson,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications issued in October 2008. First of all, thank you to you and the team that has prepared the Draft EIS. Clearly a lot of work went into the document and I appreciate that hard work. Nonetheless I am very concerned about the quality of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The correct measure of quality is not the number of pages, but rather the quality of the information in the pages-and the clarity with which the direct, indirect, cumulative impacts and the irretrievable loss of resources are discussed and presented. Unfortunately, this DEIS fails very seriously to properly analyze and present these impacts. Major new analyses must be completed and a very serious rewriting is needed to properly present impacts and irretrievable loss of resources so that the decision maker has a clear presentation of the environmental impacts, as envisioned by the National Environmental Policy Act. Presently, the DEIS is so dense and difficult to read that it is almost impossible to tease the most important information out of it and it really serves as a several hundred page smoke-screen rather than as a document that clearly informs the decision maker. Before presenting my comments, I request that commenters be given another 30 days to review the Draft EIS. The EIS is very dense and extremely difficult to read in a comprehensive fashion for the reasons explained below. Also, the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Antelope II Lease Application was recently released and an analysis of how the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") replied to the extensive comments on that document can help inform the comments on the South Gillette DEIS since in many cases the BLM used the same (often seriously flawed) data and analysis for

A

"

both the West Antelope II and the South Gillette EISs. As a result, I ask that the comment deadline for the South Gillette DEIS be extended until January 24,2009. My comments are as follows: 1) Lease by Application is Inappropriate in the Powder River Basin-the Largest Coal Producing Region in the United States. It is highly inappropriate for coal mining companies to be designing lease applications in the Powder River Basin, the largest coal producing region in the United States. Rather, the PRB should designated a coal producing region under 43 CFR ~~ 3400.5 and the lease tracts should be designed and leased in accordance with 43 CFR ~~ 3420-3422. It is clearly an abuse of administrative discretion to designate the Powder River Basin as not a coal producing region and allow "lease by application" sales as it is presently doing. This must be addressed before any further action is taken on the South Gillette or any other coal lease in the Powder River Basin. 2. The Draft EIS is so Dense as to Be Essentially Unreadable: While I appreciate the tremendous effort that goes into these EISs-the decision to lease over 700 million tons of federal coal is an extremely serious decision given the multitude of impacts that will follow from both the mining and the use of the coal. Presently these impacts are buried in pages and pages of dense text and justified by old data and serious impacts mentioned in passing but not clearly highlighted in either the Executive Summary or the text of the £IS. This needs to be addressed through better formatting of both the Executive Summary and of the text of the EIS. Presently the Executive Summary is approximately 40 pages of dense text and tables with no subheadings or clear delineation of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts and irretrievable loss of resources. These should all be clearly identified in the Executive Summary, with references provided to the pages in the text where the conclusions are drawn. In the text of the EIS, each chapter should be prefaced with a Table of Contents and for each heading and subheading, the conclusions drawn in that section should be clearly stated at the beginning of the heading or subheading-e.g. in bold type at the beginning of the subheading. As it is presently, the reader has to comb through hundreds of pages of dense text looking for impacts and comparing data and analytical methods spread all over the document. While I sincerely appreciate the efforts of the staff to produce these large documents, unless these readability issues are addressed through major rewriting and highlighting of key conclusions, the document is close to useless for readers-and presumably for busy decision makers. 3. Assumptions About Reclamation Must Be Replaced with An Analysis of Existing Reclamation Efforts for Each Mine: Throughout the DEIS it is assumed that the mine will be reclaimed. This is a highly questionable assumption. I was unable to locate where existing reclamation efforts for each mine were tabulated. If that information is not provided then it should be provided in an easily accessible location and all analyses related to what happens after reclamation is complete need to be rewritten in light of how much of the existing mine is presently reclaimed and reasonable projections are made as to how much of the proposed lease tract will be reclaimed in light of the 2

B

c

D
.....---.----~.--.-.-.-.-.-.--.-

....

~.~.~.~.~.-.-.-.-.-.-.-----------------.,.

, ~;~;~~;p~,:~;;I;;u~~cal: ~_~~:tIV:

'lFOrmatted: Position: Horizontal: Center,

!

to:

,

I:

increasing overburden that will have to be moved and moved back again as the mine expands.

4. The EIS Needs to Present Existing Overburden Statistics So That Proper Comparisons Can be Made on Everything from Air Pollution Analyses to Mine Reclamation Assumptions: Page 3-10 presents the average overburden thickness for the proposed lease areas. This should also be presented as a range-and preferably as sort of a weighted average (e.g. what percentage of the land is at what overburden level) and this should be translated into stripping ratios, preferably providing a range, an average and a weighted average for each lease area. The overburden and stripping ratio also needs to be provided for the existing mines so that proper comparisons can be made related to air pollution modeling and reclamation projections. Generally speaking, it can be assumed that the more overburden and the greater the stripping ratios the worse the air pollution and the more difficult it will be to reclaim the mine. 5. Air Pollution Data Needs to be Updated and Adjusted for Stripping Ratios: Others are likely to comment on the air pollution data. Some of the modeled PMlO values are very close to the Annual NAAQS and there are violations of 24 hour standards (e.g. see pages ES 19-23 and ES-37). This is all of concern and it isn't clear that the models have properly accounted for increasing overburden. As overburden and stripping ratios increase, more blasting will be required and more dirt will need to be moved affecting the quantity of air pollutants that are created. Also, some baseline data was taken from mines that are north of Gillette-many miles away from these mines. (See page 3-29.) The reasons for this are not clear and it doesn't make much sense if, as is claimed on page 3-30 the Powder River Basin is "one ofthe most intensely monitored areas in the world." 6. Visibility Impacts and the Clean Air Act Provisions Need to Be Clearly Presented: Visibility issues are discussed on pages 3-68 to 3-70 and the key table is on page ES-38. This is a prime example of the DEIS serving to confuse rather than clarify a key issue. The requirements of the Clean Air Act are to remedy existing and prevent future impairment of visibility in Class I areas. (This concept is buried in a paragraph at the bottom of page 3-68.) There are numerous Class I areas near the Powder River Basin (see page 3-70) and existing violations of visibility standards are numerous (see page ES­ 38). Importantly, in order to make sense of this data the reader has to know what he or she is looking for and then flip back and forth between the pages. Table ES-9 does not appear to be explained in the text of the EIS yet it is critical to an evaluation of the issue. The Badlands National Park violated the 10% impairment standard 238 days of the year or 65 % of the time. (238/365 x 100 = 65%) The federal government is supposed to be remedying existing impairments and preventing future ones rather than obscuring the issue. The graphs on page 3-71 are not informative as to the goals of the Clean Air Act. They only show how badly the standards are being violated over time. They do not show that existing impairments are being remedied, as called for in the Clean Air Act. The data in the graphs on page 3-71 is a little like saying "Gee Officer-this week I was only going 55 in a 30 mile per hour zone and last week 1 was going 60 so shouldn't you let me off because I'm improving??" Clearly, the goal is not j LIst to reduce how badly the
3

E

F

G

, Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center,
~~~~~----------------

Relative to: Margin, Vertical: 0", Relative to: Paragraph, Wrap Around

standards are being violated, but to eliminate the violations. Also these graphs should be} updated to include 2006 and 2007 data before making a decision about leasing more federal coal in the Powder River Basin.

j

G

H
 "

4) The Use of Old Data Needs to Be Addressed: Using old data is to fail to comply with the goal of the National Environmental Policy Act regulations to use the best possible scientific data and analyses. In many cases the DEIS uses embarrassingly old data. For example the discussion of Alluvial Va1ley Floors on page ES-31 cites a study from 1988. This, and all other citations to old references should be updated. Mining in the Powder River Basin has been expanding rapidly in the past 15 years and using data more than a couple of years old is not likely to provide the best possible information. 5) Ute Ladies'-Tresses Surveys Are Inadequate: The DEIS is clear that Ute Ladies' -Tresses are notorious for potentially flowering over a several month period and potentially laying dormant for several years. (e.g. see page H-18 and the references cited therein). Yet, surveys for Ute Ladies'-Tresses were typical1y conducted only once during F-!5, G­ one or possibly two years on the tracts under consideration. (e.g see pages 14 and H-19 in Volume 2). The nature of these surveys is obscured on page ES-33 in the Executive Summary and the Executive Summary is not very c1ear about when and where the surveys were conducted. Ute Ladies'-Tresses are a threatened species. No further action should happen on the coal leases until surveys are conducted during each month of potential blooming (e.g. July-October) for a minimum of three years on each of the tracts under consideration. 6) Raptor Impacts Should be Carefully Assessed and Highlighted: Figures 3­ 25 through 3-28 show the large number of raptor nests inc1uding many golden eagle nests in the eval uation areas. The presence of these nests in and near the lease tracts should be clearly identified in both the Executive Summary and the text of the EIS so that the probable loss of raptor nests in the, tracts being considered and the possible disruption of nesting raptors (including eagles) in areas surrounding the lease tracts is clearly identified for both readers and the decision maker. Note that Bald Eagles are discussed on pages 3­ 178 and 3-179 and this discussion is buried in a discussion of "Other Birds," (rather than with the discussion of raptors that starts on page 3-161). Once again this is very confusing for the reader who is already having a hard time finding the key issues of concern. 7) Sage Grouse Impacts Should be Clearly Highlighted: The body of the DEIS has an extended discussion of sage grouse on pages 3-166 through 3-177 and notes the steadily declining populations of sage grouse (e.g. page 3-173) and the location of 18 sage-grouse leks in the evaluation area with 13 having been active during the survey years (see page 3-170 and Figures 3-25 through 3-28) and of the possible impacts of coal mining and oil and gas development that could reduce sage-grouse populations and breeding success (see page 3-174 to 3-177). Yet, the Executive Summary buries the discussion of sage-grouse impacts in the middle of a paragraph on page ES-33 and implies that reclamation efforts will keep the impacts on sage-grouse habitat to a minimal and apparently acceptable level. This is not the conclusion that is drawn from the body of 4

I


K
Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin, Vertical: 0", Relative to: Paragraph, Wrap Around

I I

the DEIS. Given the concern about the sage-grouse, this is another critical issue that } should be clearly highlighted in both the Executive Summary and the body of the DEIs.l 8) Information on Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Should be Summarized and Highlighted in the Body of the DEIS: On page 3-184 the reader that wants to know about threatened, endangered or sensitive species needs to refer to Appendices E through I which most readers won't have unless they thought to ask for a copy of Volume II. This is critical information that should be clearly summarized in the body of the DEIS in Volume I. In addition to making information on threatened and endangered species easy to find, the EIS should also summarize the information in Appendix I on sensitive species as several of them are found as "Common Breeders" in some of the tracts (e.g. see Table 1-4 on the Maysdorf II tract.) 9) The Relationship Between Climate Change and Species Extinction Should be Thoroughly Discussed and Highlighted: Global warming and the resultant changes in climate and habitat are expected to have extremely serious impacts on species extinction. This is discussed in Working Group II report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change available at www.ipcc.ch. The IPCC results as well as the scientific studies cited in the IPCC report should be highlighted in the EIS. I have also submitted e­ mail comments noting the need to discuss this indirect consequence on species. All of this should be thoroughly discussed in the EIS. 10) Ocean Acidification Should Be Included as a Key Indirect Impact: Ifwe take the coal out of the ground and oxidize it to form C02, one of the clearly predictable impacts will be further acidification of the oceans and loss of sensitive ocean species. This should be clearly discussed and highlighted in both the body of the EIS and the Executive Summary. Acidification of the oceans is a clear irreversible impact that must be considered before leasing over 700 million tons of federally-owned coal. 11) The Loss of Carbon Stored in the Soils Should Be Analyzed and Highlighted: Disturbing the soils of the lease tracts will lead to the loss of carbon stored in the soil. This should be analyzed and quantified and clearly highlighted in the body of the EIS and the Executive Summary.

K
L

M

N

Jo

12) The Discussion of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Chapter 3 Should be Largely Replaced with a Thoughtful Discussion of This Critical Environmental Issue: The amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the leased coal should be calculated (and supplemented with other GHG emissions such as methane from the coal deposits and the carbon released during the mining operations) and then discussed in the context of the overwhelming amount of science that is available and that is referenced in the IPCC reports-as well as in the scientific papers I've submitted with my e-mail comments. In general the discussion in Chapter 4 (See pages 4-101 through 4-112) is generally better, but the comment on "solar variability" on page 4-104 should be eliminated and replaced with an analysis based on the IPCC reports. The issue of natural forcings (such as solar variability) has been carefully assessed by the IPCC (See Working Group I report and the extensive references therein) and vetted through that extensive 5

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin, Vertical: 0", Relative to: Paragraph, Wrap Around

..

'

scientific review process. Making unsubstantiated claims that reflect the knowledge typically found on an internet blog has no place in an EIS. The emission of carbon dioxide molecules that endure for thousands of years represent indirect impacts and irretrievable loss of resources that must be thoroughly discussed and then clearly highlighted in both the Executive Summary and the body of the EIS. 13) All the Impacts to Ground and Surface Water Quantity and Quality as Well as Wetlands Need to be Clearly Presented and Highlighted: Once again, there are serious impacts to ground and surface water quantity and quality as well as wetlands (see Chapter 3). These need to be clearly presented and highlighted in both the Executive Summary and the body of the EIS. Presently they, as with so many of the impacts and irretrievable losses, are buried in the endlessly dense text and difficult to tease out for the interested reader or the responsible decision maker. 14) The claim that Socioeconomic Impacts are Significant and Presumably Positive Needs to Be Carefully Assessed: When compared to both quantity and quality ofjobs, typically development of renewable energy resources is more productive than coal mining and fossil fuel developments-and certainly a local economy is much more sustainable if it is built on resources that are not depletable, as coal is. This needs to be thoroughly analyzed and clearly presented in the EIS. Well, that is all for now. I sincerely appreciate how much work these EISs must be-but until they clearly highlight the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts and the irretrievable loss of resources through rigorous analysis and clear highlighting of the consequences, the EISs are not fulfilling their purpose under the National Environmental Policy Act and cannot be used to support an agency decision. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed leasing of over 700 million tons of coal owned by the federal government in trust for our country-and, if we are wise, for future generations.

Q

R

Sincerely,

Leslie Glustrom 4492 Burr Place Boulder, CO 80303

, • ~ Relative to: Margin, Vertical: 0", Relative to: Paragraph, Wr.~p.~r_ou_nd _ _ _ _ _..J _

1Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center,

. - - - -...

---------~

l

6

I:

"Leslie Glustrom"  12/24/2008 02:03 PM To "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  cc bcc Subject South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 10--Alternatives and National Transmission

HI Teresa--The final key (for now) when considering alternatives to burning coal is to consider the concept of "shipping electrons" instead of "shipping coal" as we do presently--with all of the terrible environmental consequences from mercury emissions to climate change to coal combustion wastes to obscuring visibility to acidifying lakes and watersheds to causing premature deaths and contributing to childhood asthma and elevated levels of ozone ets. etc. The last is to build national transmission and ship electrons instead of shipping coal. I've attached a news article and a PPT about American Electric Power's vision as well as a Scientific American concept article on the idea of a national grid. Also, Argonne National Lab has done a background paper on High Voltage DC lines for long distance transmission of electricity. I don't have a copy of that study but it should be cited and summarized in the EIS. Presently our transmission system is like a system of two lane highways and what is being said is that we need to do for transmission what Eisenhower did for the highway system. While no one likes transmission (including me) it is a lot better than continuing on our present trajectory towards run away climate change. It is just about making electrons flow and then shipping them long distances. We know how to do that, but we don't know how to "build" another planet... All of this should be discussed under Alternatives in the Final EIS on the West Antelope II Final EIS. Well-that's all for now... sorry to have just given you a huge of work-but we must stop blithely leasing coal just because that's what we've always done in the past. We only have one planet-and it is absolutely irreplaceable. Coal is easily replaced. The planet is not. It is that simple and I'm afraid you will now be in the middle of that discussion.
11m

s

II

Thanks in advance for all your work-both past and future! Best Regards. Leslie

Leslie Glustrom 4492 Burr Place Boulder, CO 80303 19lustrom@gmail.com 303-245-8637

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

.. Leslie Glustrom"  12/24/2008 12:35 PM To "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  cc bcc Subject South Gillette DEIS Comments 2 -Irretrievable Loss of Coal USGS 2008-1202

Hi Teresa--The South Gillette EIS must consider USGS 2008-1202 (Abstract and Link Below). Most of the coal in the Powder River Basin is buried too deep to be economically recoverable. Before leasing over 400 million tons of federally owned coal, the BLM must clearly discuss the irretrievable loss of this very valuable national resource and discuss (in detail) all the alternatives to burning coal to produce electricity in power plants that are less than 40% efficient. This is what the NEPA act is for--to make sure that we don't do something massively stupid--like burning all the coal in inefficient power plants before we've built the solar, wind, geothermal, smart-grid and transmission infrastructure that will power our country in the 21st century. The Easter Islanders are said to have cut down all the trees before they built the boats to get off the Island--As wild as it sounds, we also risk doing something that remarkably stupid if we don't soon pay attention to the very real geologic and economic constraints facing our country's coal supplies. All of this should be thoroughly discussed and highlighted before leasing 400 million tons of federally owned coal. Thanks. Leslie Leslie Glustrom 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1202/ Open-File Report 2008-1202 (Issued in August 2008) Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserves in the Gillette Coalfield, Powder River Basin, Wyoming By James A. Luppens, David C. Scott, Jon E. Haacke, Lee M. Osmonson, Timothy J. Rohrbacher, and Margaret S. Ellis ABSTRACT The Gillette coalfield, within the Powder River Basin in east-central

T


I

I

Wyoming, is the most prolific coalfield in the United States. In 2006, production from the coalfield totaled over 431 million short tons of coal, which represented over 37 percent of the Nation's total yearly production. The Anderson and Canyon coal beds in the Gillette coalfield contain some of the largest deposits of low-sulfur subbituminous coal in the world. By utilizing the abundance of new data from recent coalbed methane development in the Powder River Basin, this study represents the most comprehensive evaluation of coal resources and reserves in the Gillette coalfield to date. Eleven coal beds were evaluated to determine the in-place coal resources. Six of the eleven coal beds were evaluated for reserve potential given current technology, economic factors, and restrictions to mining. These restrictions included the presence of railroads, a Federal interstate highway, cities, a gas plant, and alluvial valley floors. Other restrictions, such as thickness of overburden, thickness of ~oal beds, and areas of burned coal were also considered. The total original coal resource in the Gillette coalfield for all eleven coal beds assessed, and no restrictions applied, was calculated to be 201 billion short tons. Available coal resources, which are part of the original coal resource that is accessible for potential mine development after subtracting all restrictions, are about 164 billion short tons (81 percent of the original coal resource). Recoverable coal, which is the portion of available coal remaining after subtracting mining and processing losses, was determined for a stripping ratio of 10:1 or less. After mining and processing losses were subtracted, a total of 77 billion short tons of coal were calculated (48 percent of the original coal resource). Coal reserves are the portion of the recoverable coal that can be mined, processed, and marketed at a profit at the time of the economic evaluation. With a discounted cash flow at 8 percent rate of return, the coal reserves estimate for the Gillette coalfield is10.1 billion short tons of coal (6 percent of the original resource total) for the 6 coal beds evaluated. Available Products Download OFR 2008-1202 (92.3 ME)  This report is available online in Portable Document Format (PDF). If you do not have the Adobe Acrobat PDF Reader  , it is available for free download from Adobe Systems Incorporated. Document Accessibility: Adobe Systems Incorporated has information about PDFs and the visually impaired. This information provides tools to help make PDF files accessible. These tools and the accessible reader may be obtained free from Adobe at Adobe Access  . The citation for this report, in USGS format, is as follows: Luppens, J. A., Scott, D. C., Haacke, J. E., Osmonson, L. M., Rohrbacher, T. J., and Ellis, M. S., 2008, Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserves in the Gillette Coalfield, Powder River Basin, Wyoming: U.S.

II

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1202, 127 p.

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

"Leslie Glustrom"  12/24/2008 12:06 PM To "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  cc bcc Subject South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 1 Irreplacable Loss of Coal

History: This message has been forwarded.

Hi Teresa--I will be sending a series of e-mails with reports that need to be considered and summarized before preparing the Final EIS on the South Gillette area. At the very least these documents should be cited in the FEIS because they are all from very credible sources and the BLM should be using the best science and information that it has available before making a decision to lease over 400 million tons of federally owned coal. To begin with I'd like you to consider the 2007 Inventory of Assessed Federal Coal Resources that is attached. In particular, the diagrams on pages 25 and 33 are key and should be included in the Final EIS. Page ix reminds us that 70% of the coal in the Powder River Basin has a stripping ratio of greater than 10:1. The key point is that increasing overburden means that coal that has less overburden is very valuable and we should be considering the need to leave this coal in the ground, so future generations will have some relatively accessible coal to use for purposes that don't have good alternatives. The irretrievable loss of reasonably economically accessible coal is a key issue that should receive extended discussion. The supply of coal that is reasonably economically accessible is a key national security resource--and it is much more constrained than is widely understood. We have other ways of making electricity--but we don't have any way of making new sources of coal, and leaving some for critical needs of future generations is both economically and morally imperative. This should be clearly addressed in the EIS and underscored in the Executive Summary and ultimately in the Record of Decision. We have lots of way to make electricity, but the planet won't be making any more coal anytime soon and there are some purposes (e.g. making steel) for which it may be difficult to find other alternatives.

More e-mails to follow. Thanks. Leslie

Leslie Glustrom 4492 Burr Place Boulder, CO 80303 19lustrom@grnail.com 303-245-8637

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@grnail.com

I I

"Leslie Glustrom"  12/24/2008 01:01 PM To "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  cc bcc Subject South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 3 Carbon Dioxide Persistence Articles

Hi Teresa-Part 3 of the South Gillette DEIS Comments. It is critical to realize that once coal (highly reduced carbon) is taken out of the ground and oxidized into C02 we've made a molecule that will be us for hundreds and thousands of years--trapping heat, warming the planet, contributing to extreme weather events and species extinction for such a time that it might as well be considered "forever. In the process we will be irretrievably losing some of the assimilative capacity of the oceans and the atmosphere. These articles need to be cited, summarized in the EIS and the consequences clearly highlighted in both the Executive Summary and in the body of the EIS.
II

Carbon Dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a really long time. The attached talk about approx 25% staying for over a thousand years. -Archer Journal of Geophys Research 110, C09S05 (2005) - Montenegro Geo Physical Research Letters 34, L19707 (2007)

These are important to consider when we take coal out of the ground. Once the carbon becomes oxidized and turns into C02 it will stay in the atmosphere essentially forever. Before we take coal out of the ground we have to give this the deepest of thought. We have many ways of making electricity but once the C02 is in the atmosphere it will be there essentially forever heating up our planet and accelerating feed back cycles. This is critical to think about before we take the coal out of the ground. More e-mails to follow. Thanks. Leslie

II

Leslie Glustrom 4492 Burr Place Boulder, CO 80303 19lustrom@gmail.com 303 245-8637

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245 8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

Action

.. Leslie Glustrom"  12/24/2008 01:03 PM To "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  cc bcc Subject South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments Part 4--Caldeira on C02 Reductions

HI Teresa-The attached paper from Caldeira Geo Phys Res Letters 35 L04705 (2008) discusses the need to essentially reduce C02 emissions to zero to start stabilizing the climate of the planet. This is a paper which should be cited and summarized in the Final EIS and the implications clearly highlighted in the Executive Summary and in the body of the EIS. Thanks. Leslie

Leslie Glustrom 4492 Burr Place Boulder, CO 80303 19lustrom@grnail.com 303-245-8637

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@grnail.com

I I

"Leslie Glustrom"  12/24/2008 01:24 PM To "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov  cc
ll

bcc Subject South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 6 Accelerated Ice Melt-­ IPCC AR4 Too Conservative

Dear Teresa-With respect to the South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS it is critical that the EIS discuss the strong evidence that, as dire as its predictions were, the IPCC Fourth Assessment was probably remarkably conservative when predicting the rate of climate . While there will always be natural variability and cold winters to let us think that maybe all those scientists were wrong, but it is unscientific to think that a trend is made by one or two seasons. The climate scientists have carefully gathered and analyzed the actual data (not of bloggers on the Internet ... ) and after 20 years of extensive scientific work (backed by the hundreds and hundreds of papers cited by the IPCC) they have concluded that global warming is "unequivocal." (See www. .ch) Moreover, the rate of change is much faster than the most conservative IPCC models predicted--as shown by the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice in the summer. As you probably know, it is now clear to the scientists that underestimated the rate of loss of ice sheets in the IPCC Assessment 4. A few scientific articles (or their abstracts) are attached. These issues were generally not covered in the IPCC AR4. The articles are: "Changes in the Velocity Structure of the Greenland Ice and Kanagaratnam, Science 311, 986 (2006) 2) "Abrupt Increase in the Permafrost Degradation in Arctic Alaska," Jorgensen et. al. Geo Res Letters 33, L02503 (2006) 3) IIPermafrost and the Global Carbon Budget, " Zimov et.al. Science 312, 1612 (2006) 4) "Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise," Overpeck et al. Science 311, 1747 (2006) 5) "Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming," Margaret Torn, Geophys Res Letters 33, L10703 (2006) Sheet, " All of this should be discussed in the Final EIS with the attached articles cited and summarized and the consequences clearly highlighted in the Executive Summary and the text of the EIS. The dynamic melting processes that are beginning to occur are stunning the climate change scientists and I wish I was exaggerating when I say you can see, hear and 1)

I.

feel the panic when these scientists speak about what is happening to the planet. Before taking more coal out of the ground just to produce electricity when we have so many other good low- or non-carbon ways of producing the same electricity we need to carefully consider the impacts on the only planet we know of that supports life. I'll send some of the data and articles from 2007 and 2008 when I next get a chance. Thanks. Leslie

Leslie Glustrom 4492 Burr Place Boulder, CO 80303 Iglustrom@gmail.com 303-245-8637

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 Iglustrom@gmail.com

"

"Leslie Glustrom"  12/24/2008 01:35 PM To "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  cc bcc Subject South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 7 2007 Ice Melt Data

Hi Teresa, With respect to the South Gillette the following articles as well as those identified from a thorough literature search should be cited and summarized in the EIS and the consequences clearly highlighted in the Executive The science on the dire consequences of the build up of C02 in the atmosphere is telling us that things are probably even worse than the IPCC stated in the Fourth Assessment Report. This must be thoroughly discussed the consequences clearly stated before approving the coal lease application. Here are the articles: 1) "Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast, " Geo Phys Res Letters 34, L09501 (2007) 2) "Greenland Surface Melt Trends 19730-2007: Evidence of a Large Increase in 2007 Geo Phys Res Letters 34, L22507 (2007) 3) A Younger, Thinner Arctic Ice Cover: Increased Potential for Rapid, Extensive Sea-Ice Loss," Geo Phys Res Letters 34, L 24501 (2007) 4) "Pushing the Scary Side of Global Warming," Science 316, 1412 (2007) 5) "Why is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?" Science 318, 629 (2007) 6) "Climate Change and Trace Gases," Phil Trans Royal Society A 365, 1925 (2007) 7) "Disappearing Arctic Lakes," Science 308, 1429 (2005) Thanks. Leslie

Leslie Glustrom 4492 Burr Place Boulder, CO 80303

II

19lustrom@grnail.com 303-245-8637

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@grnail.com

I I

"Leslie Glustrom"  12/24/2008 01:44 PM To "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  cc bcc Subject South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments Part 8- Risks to Species from C02 Accumulation Plus Carbon Loss From Soils and Southwest Drying

Hi Teresa--With respect to the South Gillette DEIS, the C02 that will be formed once the coal is taken out of the ground poses very serious risks to species all around the planet and this should be carefully analyzed and considered before issuing the Final EIS. I've attached a few articles to get you going. They all contain many references that should also be discussed in the FEIS along with any scientific articles that appear before the FEIS is issued. I've added a couple of more on related subjects including the drying of the interior west and the increasing loss of carbon from the soils-one of the feedback loops that appears to be beginning. I've also included a classic Jim Hansen paper from 2005 on the energy irrillalance on the planet. It is key to a thorough discussion of the science. All of these articles should be cited and summarized in the EIS and the consequences clearly highligted in the Executive Summary and the text of the EIS. The articles are: 1) "Past Peak Water," SW Hydrology (2006) 2) "Carbon Losses From All Soils Across England and Wales from 1978-2003," Nature 437, 245 (2005) 3) "Extinction Risk From Climate Change," Nature 427, 145 (2004) 4) "Climate warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota," Science 296, 2158 (2002) 5) "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications," Science 308, 1431 (2005) 6) "Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification," 318, 1737 (2007) Clearly, the threat to species is much broader than just what will happen in the vicinity of the mines in the Powder River Basin. This must all be discussed and carefully considered before approving a lease to take more coal out of the ground. Also the EIS should thoroughly discuss the irretrievable loss of sequestered carbon contained in the soils that will be disturbed by mining. Once disturbed it is highly likely that the carbon contained in

II

the soils will be lost to the atrnoshpere as either C02 or CH4, further accelerating the feedback cycles of global warming and increased loss of carbon from the soils, permafrost, vegetation and oceans. All of this should be quantified and discussed in the EIS and the consequences clearly highlighted in the Executive Summary and the text of the EIS. Thanks. Leslie

Leslie Glustrom 4492 Burr Place Boulder, CO 80303 19lustrom@grnail.com 303-245-8637

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

I I

"Leslie Glustrom"  12/24/2008 01:52 PM To "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  cc bcc Subject South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments Part 9A--Alternatives--CSP

Dear Teresa-Before finalizing the EIS for the South Gillette coal lease it is imperative that alternative ways of generating electricity be discussed in detail. A key technology for displacing coal plants is Concentrating Solar Power--which produces steam to drive a steam turbine by harvesting and concentrating sunlight. There are several summaries of the potential for Concentrating Solar Power attached--as well as many articles about utilties that are moving ahead with CSP developments. Instead of burning coal to boil water and produce electricity in power plants that are less than 40% efficient, we can boil water to produce the steam with the "sunlight and mirrors" of CSP technology. Then A second e-mail will follow with more references. There is lots of information readily available on wind and geothermal. A key technology for replacing steam fired plants is Concentrating Solar Power. I've attached:

1) A two page information sheet with a few key references on
it. 2) An Introduction to Concentrating Solar Power (e.g. Solar Thermal Electric) by Ausra (with much more information available at www.ausra.com) 3) David Mills conceptual paper on meeting most of our electric needs with CSP 3) Several media clips on utilities moving ahead with CSP Technical information is available at www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet We can boil water with sunlight and mirrors-we don't need to burn coal just to boil water. The key to making this work is to build national transmission and start shipping electrons around the country instead of shipping coal on mile long trains. The key is to ship the finished product (i.e. electricity) not shipping the fuel (i.e. coal.) Some references on the concept of national transmission will be forwarded.

II

We have more than enough solar potential to run the country many times over-but we have to decide the planet is worth it and not keep burning coal just to boil water because that is how they did it 100 years ago! Thanks. Leslie

Leslie Glustrom 4492 Burr Place Boulder, CO 80303 19lustrom@gmail.com 303-245-8637

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303 245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

II

"Leslie Glustrom"  
 12/26/2008 03:17 PM 
 To 
 "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov  
 cc 

ll

bcc 
 Subject 
 Fwd: South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 9B--Alternatives--CSP 


Hi Teresa--9B is on CSP as an alternative to mining and transporting coal 
 to boil water. The original "9B" e-mail is below but perhaps it bounced 
 back. 
 With CSP we use the country's abundant solar resource in the southwest 
 and 
 ship electrons instead of shipping coal. 
 I've attached Dr. David Mills"concept paper on the ability of CSP to meet 
 grid demand for electricity. It is also available on the Ausra website 
 www.ausra.com 
 Ive split this e-mail up and will forward the California study on CSP in 
 the next e-mail. 
 Thanks. Leslie 


Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 
 Boulder, Colorado 
 www.cleanenergyaction.org 
 303-245-8637 
 19lustrom@gmail.com 


-- ------ Forwarded message -------­ 
 From: Leslie Glustrom  
 Date: Dec 24, 2008 1:58 PM 
 Subject: South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 
 9B--Alternatives--CSP 
 To: "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  


Dear Teresa-Before finalizing the South Gillette EIS it is imperative 
 that 
 alternative ways of generating electricity be discussed. 
 There is lots of information readily available on wind and geothermal. A 
 key technology for replacing steam fired plants is Concentrating Solar 
 Power. This e-mail provides the following paper: 
 1) David Mills conceptual paper on meeting most of our electric needs with CSP

..

2) The Black and Veatch study of CSP benefits for California. These summaries should be cited and summarized as part of a discussion of alternatives to blindly going forward with the mining and burning of coal. The availability of a cost-competitive, semi-dispatchable steam technology that is ready to scale now must be thoroughly discussed in the E1S and clearly highlighted in the Executive Summary and the text of the E1S.

Technical information is available at www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet We can boil water with sunlight and mirrors-we don't need to burn coal just to boil water. The key to making this work is to build national transmission and start shipping electrons around the country instead of shipping coal on mile long trains. The key is to ship the finished product (i.e. electricity) not shipping the fuel (i.e. coal.) We have more than enough solar potential to run the country many times over-but we have to decide the planet is worth it and not keep burning coal just to boil water because that is how they did it 100 years ago! Thanks. Leslie

Leslie Glustrom 4492 Burr place Boulder, CO 80303 19lustrom@gmail.com 303-245-8637

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

II

"Leslie Glustrom"  
 12/26/2008 03:19 PM 
 To 
 "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  
 cc 
 bcc 
 Subject 
 Fwd: South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 9C--Alternatives--CSP 


Hi Teresa--I've attached the Black and Veatch study on CSP for 
 California. 
 It provides lots of background information on this important alternative 
 for producing solar (thermal) electricity. 
 Thanks. Leslie 
 Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action 
 Boulder, Colorado 
 www.cleanenergyaction.org 
 303-245-8637 
 19lustrom@grnail.com 
 ---------- Forwarded message --------- ­ 
 From: Leslie Glustrom  
 Date: Dec 24, 2008 1:58 PM 
 Subject: South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 
 9B--Alternatives--CSP 
 To: "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  


Dear Teresa-Before finalizing the South Gillette EIS it is imperative 
 that 
 alternative ways of generating electricity be discussed. 
 There is lots of information readily available on wind and geothermal. A 
 key technology for replacing stearn fired plants is Concentrating Solar 
 Power. This e-mail provides the following paper: 
 1) David Mills conceptual paper on meeting most of our electric needs with CSP 2) The Black and Veatch study of CSP benefits for California. These summaries should be cited and summarized as part of a discussion of alternatives to blindly going forward with the mining and burning of coal. The availability of a cost-competitive, semi-dispatchable stearn technology that is ready to scale now must be thoroughly discussed in the EIS and

II

clearly highlighted in the Executive Summary and the text of the EIS.

Technical information is available at www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet We can boil water with sunlight and mirrors-we don't need to burn coal just to boil water. The key to making this work is to build national transmission and start shipping electrons around the country instead of shipping coal on mile long trains. The key is to ship the finished product (i.e. electricity) not shipping the fuel (i.e. coal.) We have more than enough solar potential to run the country many times over-but we have to decide the planet is worth it and not keep burning coal just to boil water because that is how they did it 100 years ago! Thanks. Leslie

Leslie Glustrom 
 4492 Burr Place 
 Boulder, CO 80303 19lustrom@gmail.com 
 303-245-8637 


Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

• I

"Leslie Glustrom"  12/24/2008 02:42 PM To IITeresa_Johnson@blm.gov"  cc bcc Subject South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 5--Climate Change and Species Loss- IPCC Working Group II

HI Teresa--This bounced back because it was too big. I took off the IPCC WGII Technical Summary, but ask that you go to www. .ch and read it as it related to species extinction and then cite and summarize it in the EIS for the South Gillette coal lease. Also, the IPCC in turn cites many scientific articles on the relationship between global warming and species extinction. These articles should be cited and summarized in the EIS. The relationship between a coal, C02, a warming planet and species extinction is very, very serious and must be treated as such in the EIS on the South Gillette coal leases. Sincerely, Leslie Glustrom 19lustrom@gmail.com 303-245-8637 ---- Forwarded message From: Leslie Glustrom  Date: Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:13 PM Subject: South Gillette Coal Lease DEIS Comments--Part 5--Climate Change and Species Loss--IPCC Working Group II To: "Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov" 

Hi Teresa--Taking coal out of the ground and turning it into C02 can be predicted to contribute to species loss around the planet. It is essential therefore that the EIS thoroughly discuss the relationship between climate change and species loss. This is addressed in the report of Working Group II to the IPCC as well as in the numerous scientific articles that are discussed in the IPCC report. The full IPCC reports can be accessed at www.ipcc.ch and the scientific articles are referenced at the end of each chapter. The EIS needs to cite these extensive peer-reviewed studies and include a detailed assessment of this science on the relationship between climate change and species loss. The irretrievable loss of species needs to be clearly highlighted in the Executive Summary and the text of the EIS.

II

When coal comes out of the ground it will be oxidized much faster than it would if it stayed in the ground and the resulting C02 will impact species all around the globe. This should be addressed in great detail in the Final EIS. Sorry to create more work, but we must take these decisions to take coal out of the ground and oxidize it very, very seriously because the impacts on our planet will go on for thousands of years. Thanks. Leslie

Leslie Glustrom 4492 Burr Place Boulder, CO 80303 19lustrom@gmail.com 303-245-8637

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action Boulder, Colorado www.cleanenergyaction.org 303-245-8637 19lustrom@gmail.com

Response to Comment Letter 11: Clean Energy Action Comment Response 11A: The BLM’s Departmental Manual 516-chapter 4.26A states that “The minimum review period for a draft EIS will be forty-five (45) days from the date of publication by the EPA of the notice of availability.” The revised BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 January 2008, Section 9.3.2, page 99, second paragraph, states that, “The public comment period for all draft EISs must last at least 45 days (516 DM 4.26)…”. This information can also be found at 40 CFR 1506.10. We allowed 60 days for review, as stated in the “Abstract” and the “Dear Reader” letter in the DEIS. The 60-day review period on the South Gillette draft EIS commenced on the date the EPA published the Notice of Availability. Comments received after the comment period are still accepted for the record, reviewed, and are addressed to the extent practicable. Comment Response 11B: Coal leasing in the PRB operated as a certified federal coal production region, with leasing developed under the regional leasing process as described under 43 CFR 3420, through the 1980s. The Powder River Coal Production Region had no leasing interest during the late 1980s. The mines that exist today were operating or already had adequate reserves to begin operating. The PRB had become a mature mining region; that is, a region where sufficient mining operations had been established to meet expected coal demand. Based on the advice of the Powder River Regional Coal Team, BLM decertified the region as a federal coal production region in 1990, and it remains decertified currently. This is similar to most of the original federal coal production regions established as part of the Federal Coal Management Program. Many of the federal coal production regions were decertified in the later 1980s, in large part because of a decline of interest in leasing federal coal. There were certain conditions of the decertification established in part based on the RCT’s advice. The region was decertified for production maintenance leasing, and the RCT would remain active and periodically review BLM’s leasing activity to provide advice on the leasing in a regional perspective. The decision followed the process and notification requirements in 43 CFR 3400.5. In a region that is decertified, BLM is able to consider leasing by application under the rules at 43 CFR 3425. The RCT has met about once each year since the decertification. BLM has presented any lease by applications to the RCT and has considered their advice on how to proceed with those applications. Production of PRB coal has increased steadily since decertification. Part of this growth is due to an increase in the demand for electric power and the related increase in demand for steam coal as a fuel for low cost electric generation. There are also cost (mining and reclamation) advantages that have favored PRB

coal, over other domestic coal regions, as well as the low sulfur content which results in cost-effective air pollution control. However, the production increase has been made with no new mining operations opening since decertification, although several of the operations have consolidated. As shown in Figure 4-2 in the EIS, leasing under the LBA process has essentially been at the same rate as reserves existing before decertification have been being depleted. This level of leasing activity remains consistent with the 1990 decertification action. Comment Response 11C: The EIS contains a great deal of information all of which is necessary to address the issues and concerns that have been raised over the history of the program. The “Executive Summary” is a synopsis of the EIS. It has been modified in the FEIS to make it seem less dense and more reader friendly without removing any information. Comment Response 11D: Lands that are disturbed to recover coal must be reclaimed following mining in accordance with the requirements of state and federal law. WDEQ has strict parameters for coal mine reclamation procedures, species composition, final land surface contour, and environmental sustainability. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 requires sufficient bonding to cover anticipated reclamation costs. When mining is permitted, the WDEQ/LQD sets the bond amount for reclamation of all disturbed lands. The operator posts an acceptable bonding instrument for this amount with the State of Wyoming. The reclamation bond is not released until a minimum of ten years have elapsed from the date of final seeding and the WDEQ/LQD has determined that all reclamation verifications have occurred. Individual coal mine annual reports which include specific reclamation information are available to the public at WDEQ/LQD offices. The OSM also prepares reports describing reclamation activities in Wyoming. Currently, the BLM is using a regional technical study, the PRB Coal Review, to evaluate cumulative impacts of coal and other mineral development in the PRB. One of its tasks includes a look at past and present coal development in the PRB and a forecast of reasonably foreseeable development in the PRB through 2020. Tables 4-2 and 4-3 in the FEIS address baseline and projected reclaimed and unreclaimed mining acres in the PRB. BLM is also completing work on a comprehensive database to use in tracking development activities in the PRB. The database will track cumulative actual reclaimed and unreclaimed acreages of coal mines. The EIS discusses reclamation for each applicant in Chapter 2. Not all disturbed land has been mined. Some of the surface acres disturbed contain permanent structures such as buildings and rail lines. Reclamation follows as

mining progresses. It is true that as coal deepens, additional surface disturbance is required in advance of operations to allow a series of benches or a stable incline to reach the coal depth while maintaining a safely stable working area, and this practice does increase disturbance. Further explanation on the reclamation process has been added to the FEIS in Chapter 2. Comment Response 11E: Table 3-5 has been updated in the FEIS to include more overburden, interburden, and coal thickness information for the existing leases within the South Gillette analysis area. Comment Response 11F: The air quality sections are located at 3.4 and 4.2.3. Section 4.2.3 has been updated with new information. WDEQ/AQD regulates air quality in the PRB. That agency issues the air quality permits to each mine, monitors actual air quality in the PRB, and handles enforcement. The air quality information in the EIS does take into account the expected increase in overburden ratios. The statement you quote from page 3-30 relates specifically to particulate monitoring. For other climatic and air quality components, we have used nearby and reliable sources for monitoring data. Comment Response 11G: Visibility is addressed in the air quality sections, specifically 3.4.4.1 and 4.2.3. The Chapter 4 discussion addresses cumulative visibility effects. Figure 3-20 in the draft includes the most recent data from the IMPROVE website. Comment Response 11H: We agree that issues addressed in the EIS require the most recent data available from the most reliable sources. The 1988 study cited in your comment is the specific study that WDEQ performed to determine the AVF status of Duck Nest Creek. It was conducted for mining permitting at the Belle Ayr Mine. BLM is responsible to work with WDEQ to evaluate AVFs prior to leasing to assure that AVFs significant to farming are not leased. Comment Response 11I: A detailed discussion of Ute ladies’-tresses can be found in Appendix E. The Ute ladies'-tresses surveys for the SGAC mines completed to date are: Belle Ayr North: 2 surveys - August 2006 and 2007 by ESCO Associates West Coal Creek: 1 survey - July 2007 by BKS Environmental Caballo West: 1 survey - August 2007 by BKS Environmental Maysdorf II: 2 surveys - August 2005 and 2006 by ESCO Associates Both Coal Creek and Caballo will conduct surveys in the summer of 2009. This issue of Ute ladies’-tresses is also a concern of the USFWS who reviews this document and with whom we fully consult. The USFWS has requested that in the biological assessment (Appendix E) that any potential habitat that

has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’ tresses within the project area will be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. The biological assessments have been updated with the information requested by the USFWS. The USFWS is responsible for administration of the ESA. This agency manages threatened and endangered species and consults, through the Section 7 process, with other agencies in how proposed projects might impact and affect listed species. All federal agencies have a responsibility under Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA to conserve federally listed threatened and endangered species. BLM cooperates with the USFWS in fulfilling our Section 7 consultation obligations and responsibilities. The biological assessments (Appendix E) and the BLM sensitive species evaluation (Appendix F) for the FEIS have been prepared and provided to USFWS for their review. We continue to work with USFWS in order to address concerns and provide any additional information needs. The EIS has been revised based on comments and oral discussions with the USFWS. Section 7 consultation will be completed before a decision is made on whether to lease or not to lease any of the LBAs discussed in this EIS. Comment Response 11J: Impacts to raptors are discussed in several locations. There is a discussion of raptors in the “Wildlife” Section in the Executive Summary. In Section 3.10.4 there is a discussion of raptors broken down by each LBA with nesting detail. Section 3.10.6.1 addresses raptors again, and raptors are included in Section4.2.9.2. Some raptors are discussed under the “Special Status Species” Section 4.2.9.4. Please see these sections for information on raptors. Wildlife biologists at the USFWS, the WGFD, and the BLM Buffalo Office review the EIS and the raptor information presented. Concurrence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation is reached before BLM offers a lease for sale. Furthermore, wildlife as well as raptors and their nesting activities and other species are monitored yearly as part of each mines’ permit process. This information is available to the public through the Wyoming DEQ. Comment Response 11K: The EIS discusses greater sage grouse and other sensitive species in the “Wildlife” Section (3.10) and in Appendix E in Volume 2 of the DEIS. Among other important habitat components, sage grouse require vast expanses of sagebrush-steppe communities with extensive mosaics of sagebrush of varying densities and heights. As stated in the EIS, there are no large expanses of contiguous sagebrush in the South Gillette EIS general analysis area. Please see Section 3.10.5.1 for a discussion on sage-grouse. There are no known leks within the South Gillette EIS disturbance areas. About 25 years of annual or biannual monitoring studies from 1982 to 2006 performed by the mines in the South Gillette area documented that sagegrouse are rare in the survey areas. Requirements to protect sage-grouse during mining operations are addressed as part of the existing mining and

reclamation plan for each individual mine. An approved raptor mitigation plan is also in place for the applicant mines. If the proposed tract is leased and permitted for mining, the wildlife monitoring and mitigation plans would be amended, as required by WDEQ/LQD and USFWS, to include newly leased tracts. In 2007, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal commissioned a Statewide Sage-Grouse Implementation Team. On March 17, 2008, the team preliminarily identified and mapped recommended sage-grouse focus areas in Wyoming in an effort to better understand what types of habitat grouse prefer and what areas should be protected. The South Gillette EIS applicant mines’ general analysis areas are not located within any of the mapped focus areas as the EIS states in Section 3.10.5.1. In the “Affected Environment” Section (3.10.5.1.2) there is a discussion of the focus area outside and adjacent to the West Coal Creek LBA. Also, the South Gillette Supplementary Information document contains a more detailed discussion. Comment Response 11L: The discussion of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species can be found in the body of the text primarily in Sections 3.9 and 3.10 with more discussion in Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.9. As you note in your comment, more detailed discussion of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are included in the appendices. A summary of the threatened, endangered, and sensitive species which could be found on the LBA tracts is located in the Executive Summary. Comment Response 11M: Comments M and N are similar in that they highlight scientific investigation of the effects of sustained climate change. Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of GHG emissions, and changes in biologic carbon sequestration on the global climate. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these changes cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat radiated by the earth back into space. Although natural GHG levels have varied for millennia, recent industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2(e) concentrations to increase dramatically and are likely to contribute to overall global climatic changes. Tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with those factors for specific activities like mining of an LBA tract are presently unavailable. Consequently, impact assessment of effects of specific anthropogenic activities cannot be performed. Additionally, specific levels of significance have not yet been established. Therefore, climate change analysis in this EIS is limited to accounting and disclosing factors that contribute to climate change. To the extent that emission data were available or could be inferred from representative type data, we have identified potential GHG emissions that could result from development of the proposed LBAs, as well as emissions that will result from selection of the No Action Alternative.

The site-specific impacts analyzed in this EIS are based on the assumption that if LBA tracts are offered for competitive lease, a lease would be issued, and mining would be permitted. We further assume that the applicant would be the lessee, and the lease would be permitted as an extension of their current mining operations. In Chapter 3, we have estimated the change to emissions of GHG under each alternative LBA configuration, including the No Action Alternative (please see table 3-19 in the DEIS). In Chapter 4, the contribution of the site-specific alternatives to cumulative effects on the environment is evaluated. To do this, it is assumed that coal mining will proceed in accordance with permit conditions. We further assume that this coal will be sold to coal users in response to forecasts of demand for this coal. Historically these users have been electric utilities in the United States, although there is potential for sales outside the U.S. This coal market is open and competitive, and users can buy from the most cost effective suppliers that meet their needs. In Section 4.2.14.1 in the DEIS, we estimated the amount of GHG emissions that could be attributed to coal production as a result of leasing the proposed LBAs, as well as from the forecast coal production from all coal mines in the Wyoming PRB. This information is included in Chapter 4 (4.2.14.1). This was done by relating the portion of coal mined to the total emission of GHG from all coal mined in the U.S. We assumed that all PRB coal was used for coal fired electric generation as part of the total U.S. use of coal for electric generation. This gives an upper estimate of the GHG resulting from use of the coal that would be produced from the proposed LBAs, and for forecast total PRB coal production. Specific levels of significance have not yet been established for GHG emissions. Given the state of the science, it is not yet possible to associate specific actions with the specific climate impacts. Since tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with these GHG emissions are presently unavailable, the analysis cannot reach conclusions as to the magnitude or significance of the emissions on climate change. The impacts of climate change represent the cumulative aggregation of all worldwide GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. The EIS does provide a meaningful context and measure of the relative significance of coal use from the proposed LBAs and overall projected PRB coal production on total GHG emissions. Comment Response 11N: See response to comment M. Comment Response 11O: The exact amount of carbon stored in PRB rangeland soils has been tested and found to be typically very low (insignificant) due to low annual soil temperatures and the low organic content of the soil. To account for the range of carbon that could be present in the soils, and released during mining activities from PRB range soils, the calculations in Table 3-19 for “Mining Process” include an allowance for CO2

released from soil. The CO2 emission estimates used in this EIS for the SGAC combined tracts did include consideration of the loss of the carbon sink due to soil salvage vs. the benefit of the improved carbon sink from the reclamation (better vegetation cover). The discussion of the CO2 figures had left out mention of soil carbon sink and this has been corrected. Comment Response 11P: As stated in the response to comment M above, tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with those factors for specific activities like mining of an LBA tract are presently unavailable. Consequently, impact assessment of effects of specific anthropogenic activities cannot be performed. Additionally, specific levels of significance have not yet been established. Therefore, climate change analysis in this EIS is limited to accounting for and disclosing factors that contribute to climate change. To the extent that emission data were available or could be inferred from representative type data, we have identified potential GHG emissions that could result from development of the proposed LBAs, as well as emissions that will result from selection of the No Action Alternative. Actual greenhouse gas emission calculated for each LBA that include methane and CO2 released from soils at disturbance are located in Chapter 3 (Section 3.18.2). A discussion of greenhouse gas emission from the assumed combustion of the coal mined from these LBAs, as well as from coal produced in the PRB, is in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.14.1). Solar variability and other natural forcings are valid concepts. Comment Response 11Q: Groundwater, surface water, water quantity and quality, and wetlands are addressed in the EIS in Chapters 3 and 4. In Chapter 3, the discussion is in Section 3.5 (Water Resources), Section 3.6 (Alluvial Valley Floors), and Section 3.7 (Wetlands). In Chapter 4, please see Section 4.2.4 (Water Resources), Section 4.2.5 (Channel Stability), and Section 4.2.6 (Alluvial Valley Floors). Wetlands are discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.8.4), and fisheries are discussed in Section 4.2.9.3. These headings are listed in the Table of Contents and discussed in the Executive Summary. Comment Response 11R: The socioeconomic impacts from mineral development in the PRB are overall positive. There is currently little or no renewable energy resource development in the area. While it is true that local economies based on sustainable development tend to be more stable, as the EIS states, mineral development is currently the major source of economic stimulus in the Powder River Basin. Socioeconomics are discussed in Chapter 3 at 3.17 continuing through section 3.17.9. Socioeconomics is also addressed in Chapter 4 in sections 4.2.13 through 4.2.13.9. A synopsis of socioeconomics can also be found in the Executive Summary. Comment Response 11S: The EIS addresses a full range of alternatives to the proposed action--a lease by application submitted by the lease applicant. The range includes an alternative which would represent all lands that include coal

reserves that are comparable to those applied for, which may be efficiently recovered with the LBA, which may enhance competitive interest in the tract, and which could be bypassed if not leased. On the other end of the range is the No Action Alternative which explores the prospects of not leasing one or all of the tracts of federal coal. The scope and effect of the decision on this proposed action is reflected within this range of alternatives. The BLM is a multiple use land management agency that manages the federal coal reserves under the predominantly private land surface in the Gillette area of the Powder River Basin. In the land area covered by these LBAs, only 3% of the surface ownership is federal land. The BLM does not have authority over private land surface use and surface development. The BLM neither permits for the surface disturbance nor for the mining operations in coal mining operations. Therefore, the reasonable alternative options available for BLM to review in this EIS are leasing alternatives exploring the lease size, and shape, and the No Action Alternative where leasing one or more of these LBAs does not occur. As discussed in the DEIS, if this coal is leased, and if mining is permitted, coal sales would likely be into the steam coal open market for electrical generation, which is competitive, and where electricity users can buy from the most cost effective and appropriate suppliers of electricity that meet their needs for mandated carbon footprints. This market of electricity producers is influenced by electric demand. The DEIS contains an analysis of the likely portfolio of electric supply and the relative proportion expected to be met by coal fired electric generation. Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of GHG emissions on the global climate and is discussed in this EIS. Further, the addition of alternate sources of electric generation would conserve carbon fuels, which are not renewable in the short term, and would provide a broader portfolio of electric sources. This EIS estimates likely long term electric generation portfolios, assuming some form of constraint on carbon based fuels. However, the specific environmental effects of the variety of alternative electric generation technologies are not in the scope of decisions on the proposed actions for which this EIS was done. These non-carbon technologies would be evaluated under NEPA as well, as they are proposed on federal lands to be permitted and built. Major transmission lines in the Wyoming PRB study area that support the regional distribution system of electricity are associated with the Dave Johnston power plant located near Glenrock, Wyoming, and the power plants operated by Black Hills Power Corporation, which are located east of Gillette. These 230-kV transmission lines have been in place for several years. Currently, the electric transmission lines associated with wind development are predominantly at transmission capacity and not available for additional electrical distribution. Distribution power lines associated with conventional oil and gas and CBNG development occur within the study area. These lines

were also included in the scope of the analysis in this EIS. The issue with shipping electricity out of Wyoming at this time is the lack of available transmission line capacity. The PRB Coal Review estimates that by 2020, four major transmission lines would be constructed. Markets would dictate the size and location of such facilities, and these are not known as of this time. Because transmission lines are a necessary supporting infrastructure for power generating facilities to provide connection to the grid, the PRB Coal Review assumes they would be required as part of the overall system development for the proposed energy development discussed in this EIS. Six specific proposals for these transmission lines have been identified. There is currently insufficient information to analyze or assign likelihood of development by 2020 for all of them. The governors of California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming entered into a memorandum of understanding to encourage development of a high voltage power transmission line (Frontier Line) which would connect those states in April 2005. Since that time, no specific plans have been announced as to the exact location or timing of the Frontier Line. The 345KV Wyoming-Colorado Intertie, as well as the Trans West, Gateway West, and South projects have been proposed in Wyoming in order to move power from Wyoming to Idaho, Nevada, and other western U.S. load demand areas (Casper Star Tribune 2007a). The TransWestern Express proposes to move electric power from Wyoming to Arizona through Colorado or Utah. The High Plains Express proposes to move power from Wyoming to New Mexico and Arizona. Section 4.1.1.2.3 discusses electric transmission lines. For non-carbon based utility scale energy development to progress in Wyoming, a transmission infrastructure capable of transporting the load must first be developed and added to the network that is currently in place. Comment Response 11T: NEPA requires the evaluation of a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative for each tract considered in this EIS is to reject the lease application. Under that alternative, a tract would not be offered for competitive sale, and the coal contained within the tract would not be mined as proposed at this time. Chapter 2 contains an evaluation of the No Action Alternative and explains that rejecting an application would not affect currently permitted mining activities on existing leases at any of the applicant mines. Selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude an application to lease any rejected tract in the future. The No Action Alternative is also addressed in the Executive Summary. BLM participated in the 2007 inventory of assessed federal coal resources. This is a broad-scale assessment of the availability of coal resources in the PRB. As coal resources with lower overburden are depleted by mining, the general overburden ratio increases. Overburden ratio is directly related to

mining cost, making lower overburden coal relatively lower cost coal. The value and interest in acquiring a coal lease depends on the prospective coal lease applicant’s expectation that the coal can be mined at a cost far enough below expected revenue to result in a reasonable return on investment.

12
December 8 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Teresa Johnson Bureau of Land Management Casper Field Office FROM: Foster Kirby Acting NW Branch Manager Program Support Division OSM - Western Region, Denver SUBJECT: Comments on the "Draft Coal Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications" by Office ofSurface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Western Region, Denver, Colorado The Office of Surface Mining Western Region (OSM) as a cooperating agency has reviewed the "Draft South Gillette Area Coal Environmental Impact Statement for Campbell County Wyoming". The DEIS is well written, organized and successfully pulls together a vast amount of information about four potential coal leasing actions. The document adequately describes the purpose and need for the proposed action(s) and the alternatives considered. It is anticipated that the final EIS will serve OSM's NEPA needs in preparing a Federal Mining Plan recommendation (if one or all of the properties are leased) for the Department of Interior Assistant Secretary of Lands and Minerals under the Mineral Leasing Act. Our review found no substantive issues or areas needing correction or clarification in the main document or the appendices. NOTE: Volume 2 Cover - "Appendicies" should be "Appendices"

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions please call me at (303) 293-5039.

J

A

OSM Western Region 1999 Broadway, Ste 3320 Denver, CO 80202-5733 MAIL: POB46667.Denver.CO 80201-6667 303-293-5039 Fax 303-293-5032

Response to Comment Letter 12: Office of Surface Mining Comment Response 12A: The spelling error on the cover of Volume 2 has been corrected in the final EIS.

,...;
"F';.1$:"~

13
CASPEH ;: iEi=h'~]FFICE

United States Department of the Interior
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Reston, VA 20192

: , ·~ti\·i; /!;,JG~' :~. :;:,~+D

;

I

ZOU8 DEC I 5 P 2: 35
In Reply Refer To: Mail Stop 423 Ms. Teresa Johnson Bureau of Land Management Casper Field Office 2987 Prospector Drive Casper, WY 82604 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications, WY Dear Ms. Johnson: As reques~ed by your correspondence of October 1, 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has reviewed the subject draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and offers the following comments.

DEC02_

SPECIFIC COMMENTS Executive Summary, pages ES-18 (bottom) to ES-19 (top)
The DElS states, "CBNG (coal bed natural gas) resources that are not recovered prior to mining would be vented to the atmosphere and irretrievably lost when the coal is removed. BLM's policy is to optimize recovery of both resources, ensure the public receives a reasonable return, and encourage agreements between lessees or use BLM authority to minimize loss of publicly owned resources." While there has been significant CBNG recovery in the Gillette area and it is possible CBNG resources in the area of concern have already been depleted, methane is a significant greenhouse gas. Perhaps prior environmental documents have addressed this issue, but ifnot, then BLM may need to consider addressing the impact of CBNG release to the atmosphere in the Environmental Consequences section of the DEIS.

A

Section 3.5.1.2.1 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives, page 3-90 to 3-104
The text misrepresents the limitations of ground-water flow models. A flow model was used to predict the extent of water level drawdown in the Wyodak coal aquifer. Due to CBNG production, the rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the late 1990s became much greater than the modeled drawdown. It is correctly stated that predictions of observed drawdown were made obsolete by the CBNG withdrawals. However, the conclusion that drawdown specifically attributable to mining cannot be defined and numerical ground-water models are no longer practical to predict drawdown due to mining alone is not true (p. 3-90, third full paragraph, last sentence; p. 3-94, first partial paragraph, last sentence; p. 3-104, first partial paragraph, third-to­

B

2
 last sentence). Ground-water flow models can still be used to determine the amount of drawdown that would occur if CBNG withdrawals were not taking place. If pumping for mining is occurring at about the rate predicted in the 19905 simulations, then that model is capable of predicting the contribution to the total drawdown produced by mining. The model predictions will not match "observed" drawdowns, however, because the potential drawdown from mining is overshadowed by the much larger CBNG pumping. In order to predict the actual observed drawdown, the area covered by the existing model would need to be expanded and the model modified to include the CBNG pumpage. Eliminating the misconception that model simulations will be useless as a predictive tool merely because another larger stress, specifically CBNG pumpage, has been added to the system is important to the credibility of the DElS, which states on page 4-52 (fourth full paragraph) that numerical ground-water modeling was used to predict the impacts ofthe cumulative stresses. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIS. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Lloyd Woosley, Chief of the USGS Environmental Affairs Program, at (703) 350-8797 or at lwoosley@usgs.gov. Sincerely,

B

Senior Advisor for Science Applications

Response to Comment Letter 13: U.S. Geological Survey Comment Response 13A: A new discussion on the estimated amount of coal bed methane released from the exposed unmined coal face in 2007 and the projected annual amount of methane vented from exposed unmined coal with the addition of the four LBA tracts was added to Chapter 3 at the end of Section 3.18.3. Table 3-20 has been calculated to show the effects of the primary greenhouse gases released during mining operations. The calculations have been updated from those presented in the DEIS. Comment Response 13B: Revisions have been made in the FEIS to Section 3.5.1.2.1 to clarify the drawdown modeling concept to clarify the practical use of such models, and the causes of modeled results relating to observed drawdowns.

"~

... ,

~

...-."""""

GOVERNOR OAve FREtJOEN'noIAL

14

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
5400 Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne, WY 82006
Phone: (307) n7-4600 Fax: (307) n7-i610
Web site: http://gf.state.wy.us

DIRECTOR STE'JE FERREll COIIMlSSIONERS
JERRY GAlLES - Praldent

CLIFFORD KIRK - VIce President ClARK AllAN
FREO LINDZEY

RONLOVERCHECK EOMIGNERY BIll WILLIAMS. DVM

December 10, 2008 WER 11596.02 Bureau of Land Management Casper Field Office Draft Environmental Impact Statement South Gillette Area Coal, Campbell County

Teresa Johnson Bureau of Land Management Casper Field Office 2987 Prospector Drive Casper, WY 82604 Dear Ms. Johnson: The staff of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for South Gillette Area Coal in Campbell County. We previously submitted comments in a letter dated June 6, 2008. We have no additional concerns at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

JOHN EMMERICH DEPUTY DIRECTOR
N
i-:l.~'·'.'

JE:MF:gtb cc: USFWS

"Conserving Wildlife - Serving People"

Response to Comment Letter 14: Wyoming Game and Fish Department Comment Response 14: We have incorporated your previous comments into the draft and then the final EIS. Your concerns will be considered in any decision BLM makes on the lease applications.

i'

15
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 

1595 Wynkoop Street 
 DENVER, CO 80202-1129 
 Phone 800-227-8917
h~p:/Iwww.epa.gov/region08

DEC 1"91008
Ref: 8EPR-N Ms. Teresa Johnson Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field Office 2987 Prospector Drive Casper, Wyoming 82604 Re: 	

Q

o

;"

.­

South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Draft Environmental Impact Statement CEQ # 20080426

Dear Ms. Johnson: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 (EPA) has reviewed the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Our comments are provided in accordance with our authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Section 4332(2)(C) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, 42 lJ.S.C. Section 7609. The Bureau of Land Management proposes to hold competitive lease sales and issue maintenance leases for four Lease by Applicant (LBA) tracts (Caballo West, Belle Ayr North, Maysdorf II and West Coal Creek) located adjacent to four existing coal mines (Caballo, Belle Ayr, Cordero Rojo and Coal Creek). The DEIS also considers two alternatives that modify and expand the proposed tracts. The area under consideration is located in Campbell County, Wyoming between eight and twenty-five miles south-southeast of Gillette. The Belle Ayr North LBA Tract includes a portion of the Bishop Road, and the MaysdorfII LBA Tract includes portions of Highway 59, Haight and Hilight county roads, and MaysdorfCemetery. The DEIS indicates that the coal underlying these structures is considered unsuitable for mining, although a study is being done to analyze the feasibility of relocating Bishop Road and plans are underway to relocate Maysdorf Cemetery. After carefu1 review of the DEIS, EPA's primary concern is air quality. Additional comments regarding wetlands, noxious weeds and greenhouse gas emissions are enclosed. EPA is particularly concerned with assuring that air quality in the Powder River Basin does not exceed the Clean Air Act standards and minimizing potential localized air quality impacts from blasting and mining activities to the surrounding school bus stops and residences. Section 3.4.2.3, references the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and EPA (January 24, 1994), which acknowledges that some limitations may exist in modeling short term Particulate Matter (PM 10) and that PM 10 monitoring should be used for compliance purposes. While no exceedances have been measured recently at the South Gillette Coal Mines listed in the DEIS, EPA is concerned

A

since a significant number of exceedances have occurred in the last 2-years at nearby mining facilities. The control measures described in the DEIS Section 3.4.2.3 significantly reduce point source and fugitive dust emissions and should be updated with cooperation with the WDEQ as appropriate or if exceedances of a standard occurs. A condition of the MOA is to continue PMIO monitoring near the mine to ensure compliance with the 24...hour PMIO NAAQS. BLM should ensure that the mine operators consult with the WDEQ on any monitoring site adjustments or additions due to changes in the active mine area. Particular attention should be made to shifting active mine areas and the placement of air monitoring sites in order to determine maximum air quality impacts from the mine. The DEIS also includes the results of the cumulative analysis for the Powder River Basin 
 Coal Review (2006), which are presented in Tables 4 ... 10, 4-11 and 4-12. The Coal Review 
 analysis predicted several negative adverse air quality impacts for the base case year of 2002 and 
 future year for the lower and upper production scenarios of2010. The Final EIS needs to be 
 updated to include the findings of the most recent Task 3A Powder River Basin Coal Review 
 analysis (2008), which projects exceedances ofPMlOand PM2.S for both annual and 24-hour 
 NAAQS in Wyoming in 2015. 
 EPA is also concerned about the proximity of the mining operation to homes and school 
 bus stops. Children may be especially susceptible to the health effects ofN02 and fine 
 particulates. Children have greater exposure to air pollution because of their faster breathing 
 rates and the amount of time spent playing outdoors. Particulates and N0 2 can aggravate asthma, 
 irritate airways, and cause coughing and breathing difficulties. The Final EIS (FEIS) should 
 detail mitigation and monitoring measures that will be undertaken to minimize exposure to 
 particulates and N02 for children waiting at bus stops near the mining areas. 
 It i~ EPA's responsibility to provide an independent review and evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the project. The DEIS includes the proposed alternative as well as two alternatives that slightly modify the lease tracts being proposed for lease. The DEIS does not indicate which alternative is the preferred alternative and most of the impacts are the same for the proposed action and actions 2 and 3. Because of this, it is impossible to determine which alternative is the least environmentally damaging. EPA is rating this DEIS as Environmental Concerns - EC, Insufficient Infonnation - 2 (EC-2). The Ee rating means that EPA's review of the proposed alternatives has identified environmental impacts to air quality that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Mitigation measures should be fully fleshed out and implemented to reduce the environmental impact. The 2 rating means the DEIS does not contain sufficient information to fully assess the environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. A full description of EPA's EIS rating system is enclosed. If you have any questions regarding the NEPA process or this rating, please contact 
 Rachel Eichelberger at 303-312-6008 or me at 303-312-6004. 


A

B

C

2


Sincerely,

cY-­ Larry2boda
Director, NEPA Program Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation Enclosures

3


Additional Comments by the Region 8 Environmental Protection Agency 
 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease DEIS 


Air Quality

EPA commends BLM for updating the Powder River Coal Review (2008) to help evaluate the cumulative impacts of coal and other energy development in the Powder River Basin through 2015. EPA recommends the updated modeling be included in the South Gillette Area Coal Lease FEIS. EPA recommends that the DEIS disclose that emissions from coal combustion have been identified as a significant source of atmospheric mercury. EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercury.html has several reports summarizing the environmental impacts of mercury, primarily bioaccumulation in the aquatic food web. Concentrations of mercury emitted as a result of combustion vary depending on the chemistry of coal deposits and the type of air pollution controls. For purposes of the DEIS, we recommend including any existing information on mercury emissions from power plants currently burning coal from the mines. Table 3-6 contains background measured ambient data through 2002 or 2004. Data should be updated to reflect current conditions through 2007 please refer to the following link: http://www.epa.gov/air/datalindex.html
Proximity to Residences and School bus stops

D

E

JF
G

EPA is concerned about the potential health risk to the public associated with short term exposure to N02 from blasting emissions. In Section 3.4.3.3, the DEIS discusses various mitigation strategies that have been used historically to mitigate NOz exposures in the Powder River Basin, but does not commit to any specific mitigation strategy. It goes on to say that the WDEQ has not required the mines to implement any specific measures, but the mines have voluntarily committed to control blasting emissions. The DEIS acknowledges that while no one single procedure has consistently proven successful in mitigating blasting-related N02 emissions, the most successful control measure has been to reduce the size of the cast blasting shots.
Wetlands

Executive Order 11990 directs all Federal Agencies to provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Indirect draining of, or direct disturbance of, wetland areas should be avoided. If there may be wetlands in the project area, EPA recommends consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine whether any of the project activities require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit. If disturbance is unavoidable, EPA suggests BLM require a commitment to replace in'kind such impacted wetlands. As studies indicate that traditional mitigation is generally not successful in fully restoring wetland function, EPA suggests that BLM require a two-to-one mitigation of wetland disturbance. Due to the time

H

it can take to adequately reclaim disturbed wetlands and the potential life of this project, BLM may consider requiring mitigation to begin concurrently with the disturbance. Noxious Weeds

JH
I

Noxious weeds are becoming an increasingly difficult problem to manage on western lands, including in the Powder River Basin. The FEIS should list the noxious weeds and exotic . plants that occur in the resource area. EPA recommends the FEI S detail a strategy for prevention, early detection of invasion, and control procedures for each species of noxious weed that may pose a threat in the project area. EPA is pleased that the reclamation plans for the existing mines include steps to control invasion by noxious weeds. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Warming EPA is pleased that the DEIS includes a section on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, including estimates of CO2 equivalent emissions at the SGAC Mines. However, there is no mention of any greenhouse gas emission mitigation measures in the DEIS. The FEIS should include some potential mitigation for the additional greenhouse gases that will emitted by the SGAC Mines if the maintenance leases are issued. BLM should also include an estimate of the greenhouse gases emitted in the burning of the mined coal, as that is a logical consequence of mining the coal, and accounts for a large percentage of greenhouse gas emissions.

2


Response to Comment Letter 15: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comment Response 15A: There have been no monitored exceedances of the annual PM10 standard in the Wyoming PRB. Also, there have been no monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard at the four South Gillette mines through 2006. However, as discussed in Section 3.4.2.1, monitoring sites at some of the surface coal mines have shown some numerical exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard since 2000. According to WDEQ/AQD, the circumstances associated with the monitored exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard in the PRB prior to 2007 provide adequate reason to conclude that high wind events and blowing dust had caused exceedances of the ambient air quality standards that otherwise would not have occurred. In response to the measured exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 ambient air quality standards and in anticipation of conditions that would potentially lead to future exceedances, the WDEQ/AQD collaborated with the Wyoming Mining Association to develop a Natural Events Action Plan for the coal mines of the Powder River Basin. The plan was based on EPA Natural Event Policy guidance. A report describing the plan was submitted to EPA. Section 3.4.2.3 and Appendix H (H-3.2.8) in the EIS describe the plan, its proposed measures for implementation, and dust control measures considered best available control measures. The WDEQ permits the mining and issues the air quality permit. WDEQ works closely with the mine operators to monitor air quality by using required placing of air quality monitoring equipment as well as additional data from monitors placed by the mining operators. Compliance with the air quality permit stipulations are enforced by the WDEQ. Comment Response 15B: The “Air Quality” section (4.2.3) in the final EIS has been updated to include the most recent Task 3A Powder River Basin coal review analysis. Comment Response 15C: Text has been added to the appropriate pages to indicate that mitigation measures should reduce NOx exposure to the areas around active mining, including bus stops and residences. Comment Response 15D: See response to comment B. Comment Response 15E: A discussion of atmospheric mercury released from coal during combustion is located in Section 4.2.14.2 (Mercury, Coal Combustion Residues, and Other By-Products) in Chapter 4. This section addresses mercury in the food web as well as mercury emissions from power

plants burning PRB coal. This discussion uses EPA mercury reports which are more recent than December 1997. Comment Response 15F: Table 3-6 has been updated as requested. Comment Response 15G: See response to comment C. Comment Response 15H: If the South Gillette Area LBA tracts are leased and mined, restoration of jurisdictional wetlands will be required. Additional consultation with the COE would be completed during the permitting process. The COE requires mitigation of all impacted jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. They approve the plans for wetland mitigation and restoration as well as the number of acres to be restored. The COE considers the type and function of each jurisdictional wetland that will be impacted and may require restoration of additional acres if the type and function of the restored wetlands will not completely replace the original wetland. The wetland mitigation plan approved by COE then becomes part of the WDEQ/LQD mining permit. There are special required permitting procedures to assure that after mining, there would be no net loss of wetlands. WDEQ/LQD is the agency that permits mining operations and has authority to enforce mining regulations. Comment Response 15I: Section 4.2.8.3 addresses noxious and invasive weed species. A list of the plants that the State of Wyoming has designated as noxious weeds is included. Campbell County does not have a declared county list of weeds. There are few occurrences of noxious weeds in the mine areas because WDEQ/LQD rules and regulations require surface coal mine operators to control and minimize the introduction of noxious weeds in accordance with federal and state requirements. The South Gillette Area mines work with Campbell County Weed and Pest Department and conduct an active noxious weed control program on their existing coal leases. A plan for controlling noxious weeds is included in the mining and reclamation plan permit for each mine. Mining and reclamation plans for newly permitted coal tracts would also include steps to control invasion from noxious weeds. Comment Response 15J: The final EIS has a new subsection in Chapter 3 (3.18.3) covering greenhouse gas mitigation. Wyoming Powder River Basin coal is sold on the open market; therefore, it is not possible to know with any reasonable certainty what power plants would use this coal or in what amount. The variety of burning and emission control apparatus installed in the many facilities to which PRB coal is sold would also We agree that some sort of make calculating CO2 emissions difficult. calculation is possible for CO2 released during laboratory combustion of coal, and that this estimate would give a relative value to reported national or international totals of CO2 emission. The following information has been added

to the final EIS in Section 4.2.14.1: “In 2006, the Wyoming Powder River Basin coal mines produced approximately 432.0 million tons of coal. Using factors derived from laboratory analyses, it is estimated that approximately 716.9 million metric tons of CO2 would be generated from the combustion of all of this coal (before CO2 reduction technologies are applied). This number is based on an average Btu value of 8,600 per pound of Wyoming coal and using a CO2 emission factor of 212.7 pounds of CO2 per million Btu (DOE 1994). The estimated 716.9 million metric tons of CO2 represents approximately 33.6 percent of the estimated 2,134.1 million metric tons of U.S. CO2 emission from coal combustion (DOE 2007a). In 2006, Wyoming PRB mines accounted for approximately 37.2 percent of the coal produced in the U.S (DOE 2007d).”

I
 I
 I I I I I I i I I I I J
 I I I I I

16

1

2 3 4 5
6

Bureau of Land Management

RECEIVED 

PUBLIC HEARING

JAN 232009
Bureau of Land Mar;8~1·:n:HI\ Casper Field Of:.:.r:­



NOVEMBER 19, 2008 GILLETTE, WYOMING

7 8
9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LBA EIS

Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

I I
 I I I I I I i I I I I
J )

2

1 2

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2008, 7:05 P.M. PROCEEDINGS

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 door? hearing. First of all, has everyone signed in at the Looks like Sarah said if you haven't I would MR. KARBS: Now, we'll start the public

appreciate it if you will sign in before you leave tonight. Also, please include your address if you want

to be added to the mailing list for this coal EelS and also since we have several others going on if you want to be included on any or other mailing lists. Please note that the comments B1M receives during this hearing and the registration sheets that you signed in with will be available for public review. Individuals who want to withhold their name and address from public review or disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act must indicate that in the comments they submit or on the registration form. Submissions from

organizations or from individuals who identify themselves as representing organizations or businesses will be made available to the public. I would like to welcome you to this hearing for the South Gillette area coal ElS. Again, I am Mike

I I I I

24 25

Karbs, assistant district manager for solid minerals at Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

I I
 I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9

the Wyoming High Plains District of the BLM, and I will be the hearing officer this evening. the court reporter this evening. If you wish to make a statement during the hearing, we ask that you come up to the podium here, and it's kind of a tall podium so just come up front, whatever you're comfortable with. Theresa has got a Dwande LeMay is

microphone if you'd like to use that if you want to stand here. The important thing is so Dwande can see you and then make sure we get a good transcript, so she may direct you a little bit. And also we want the folks in

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19

the audience to hear any statements or testimony you provide. If you want a copy of the transcript please

contact Dwande and she can make arrangements to get you one of those. This is a public hearing for the purpose of gathering comments on four proposed coal lease applications or LBAs, lease by applications. a forum for questions or debate. It is not

20 21 22 23 24 25

The purpose of this

hearing is to accept and record public comments on the environmental impact statement that BLM prepared for the South Gillette area coal lease by applications. I would ask that you let B1M know if you are aware of any information that we should consider -- oh, Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

I I
 I I I I I I

4

1 2 3 4 5 6
7

I would also like to ask if you are aware of any information that you would like us to consider in evaluating fair market value of any of these coal lease applications or the maximum economic recovery of federal coal included in the applied for applications. By way of background RAG Coal West Incorporated filed an application on July 6, 2004, with the BLM to lease federal coal reserves in the tract north of and immediately adjacent to the Belle Ayr Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately ten miles south, southeast of Gillette. RAG finalized the

8
9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

i I I
I I I I I
J

sale of the Belle Ayr Mine and the applicant became Foundation Coal West in August of 2004. BLM refers to this tract as the Belle Ayr North LBA tract. The federal coal reserves were

applied for as a maintenance tract for the Belle Ayr Mine. The applied for coal lease application includes

about 1578 acres and approximately 208 million tons of coal. Ark Land Company filed an application on February 10, 2006, with the BLM to lease federal coal reserves in a tract west of and immediately adjacent to Coal Creek Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 25 miles south, southeast of Gillette. BLM refers to this tract as the West Coal Creek LBA Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

I I

25

'I
I I I
 I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

5

tract.

The federal coal reserves were applied for as a These 


maintenance tract for the Coal Creek Mine.

applied for coal lease applications includes about 
 1,151 acres and approximately 63 million tons of coal. Caballo Coal Company filed application on March 15, 2006, with the BLM to lease federal coal reserves in the tract west of and immediately adjacent to the Caballo Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 8 miles south, southeast of Gillette. BLM refers to this tract as the Caballo west LBA tract. The federal coal reserves were applied for as a maintenance track for the Caballo Mine. The applied

:1 I
I
j

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I I I I I I I I I I

for coal lease application includes about 777 acres and approximately 92 million tons of coal. And, finally, the Cordero Mining Company filed an application on September 1, 2006, with the BLM to lease federal coal reserves on tracts west and south of and immediately adjacent to the Cordero-Rojo Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, approximately 15 miles south, southeast of Gillette. Maysdorf II LBA tract. BLM refers to this tract as the The federal coal reserves were

applied for as a maintenance tract for the Cordero-Raja Mine. The applied for coal lease application includes

about 4654 acres and approximately 504 million tons of coal. Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

'I
I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I
1 2 3 4 5
6
7

6

The BLM is preparing one enviromental impact statement for these four coal lease applications. EIS

will be used to help decide whether or not to offer the federal coal included in the lease applications for competitive sale in accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR 3425. The United States must receive the fair market value of the coal included in the lease applications before the land applied for can be leased. B1M mailed a draft EIS for the coal lease applications to the public starting in October 17, 2008. The

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17

comment period on the draft EIS ends on December 24, 2008. 
 BLM may not be able to consider comments 
 received after December 24th on the final EIS, and again this EIS will be used to make a decision whether or not to offer the coal in any of these LBAs for competitive sale. To reiterate, written comments to be

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

faxed or mailed to Theresa Johnson at the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming High Plains District. accept written comments here tonight. I know some of that was repetition but it never hurts. Before I begin to recognize those of you who have asked to testify, I would like to set a few simple Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter We will

I I
 I I

7

1 2
3

grounds rules. please do so.

First, if you have not registered

You're all good. If you indicated that you wished to testify when you registered, I will recognize you in the order that you have registered. If you did not indicate that

4

J

5 6 7
8

J
I I i J ) I J
J I

you wished to testify when you registered but decide

you want to during the hearing, at any point now, I
will ask for additional comments after all of those who have registered to speak have had an opportunity. When you're recognized please come up to the podium or up to the front here. It's important to

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

state your name and address and if you represent someone other than yourself, the name of that organization. Please speak clearly so that Dwande can I don't think we're going to put At least we

hear your remarks.

any particular limit on the testimony.

don't have a lot of people registered to testify, so I won't worry about that. And, again, to help our

transcript if you have a copy of your statement that will help the reporter make an accurate record. And, finally, this is a public hearing for the purpose of gathering comments on the South Gillette Area Coal Environmental Impact Statement. I ask you The

) J I I

not to question anyone during their testimony. Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

'I
I I
1 2
3

8

reporter or I may need to ask a question for clarification of those who do testify. And I realize that some of you may have questions or discussion after we close the formal hearing. All of us will stick around and attempt to

I I I
I	 I i I I I I
.1

4
5
6

answer any questions you have or any items that you want to discuss. So feel free to do that after the

7
8

hearing has been closed, we'll be glad to accommodate you. With that I'll call the first speaker registered to testify and that would be Shannon Anderson. MS. ANDERSON: Shannon Anderson. Resource Counsel. in Sheridan.
Good evening.

9 10 11 12 13 	 14 15 16
,17

My name is

I'm with the Powder River Basin OUr address is 934 West Main Street

For those of you that are not familiar

with our organization, the Powder River Basin Resource Counsel is a local organization based in Northeast Wyoming. Most of our members are rural family farmers

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

J I I I

and ranchers in the Powder River Basin who live near the coal mines in the basin and other energy development there. We do first want to acknowledge B1M for this environmental impact statement. I think the breadth

and scope of the statement are much stronger than Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

I	

I
I
 I I I I I I
j
1

9

previous statements, the analysis particularly of climate change, how air quality impacts with the additional appendix and other information. We greatly

2
3

4 5 6 7 8
9

appreciate, together, you know, a better picture of the impacts of coal mining in the basin. With that said I do have, you know, just a few comments. I will be submitting, you know, larger

written comments later on down the road, but the first comment is just about the purpose and need of this environmental impact statement. The permit statement we feel is much too narrow. It's stated on page 119 that the purpose is to

10 11 12
13

I I I I I
J

allow the applicant mine access to a continuing supply of low sulfur compliance coal, and we question whether or not that's really the BLM's purpose or whether, you know, it's actually a private purpose. That shouldn't

14 15 16 '17 18
19

A

necessarily be the purpose of an environmental impact statement. We also believe that the statement that new lease tracts will help provide a stable supply of power to meet increasing demands without a potentially significant increase in power costs completely ignores a carbon constrained future with carbon taxes or cap 
 and trade regulation. So, you know, the BLM as a manager of the Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

20 21 22 23 24 25

I I

I

B

I

10 


public lands should be considering other uses for the land in addition and maybe alternatives to coal mining for part of its duty and its job, you know, if a wind farm should be there, you know, other potential uses as alternatives. And it's possible that coal mining still

B

is the best option but you need to kind of do that alternative analysis. We also, you know, slightly question the statement that continued extraction of coal is essential to meet the nation's future energy needs given the fact that Powder River Basin coal is now being exported to China so -- and that was actually stated by Ralph Purlis, who's the governor's energy adviser, this morning before the joint minerals comnittee. So we do know, you know, that coal fire power plants and demand for coal fire power in the nation right now is decreasing whereas internationally that demand is still there. So we urge BLM to kind of

c

D

tighten that analysis and really give a few, you know broader picture of where this coal is going and if it's really being used to meet domestic demands. Secondly, we would -- you know, we have great concerns about reclamation in the basin right now. know, according to OSM documents the current rate of Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter You

I I
 I

11

1 2 3
4

reclamation is about three to one.

You know, given

this map's requirement for contemporaneous reclamation, you know, that ratio should really be one to one. encourage B1M to take a step back and look at reclamation particularly to these four mines and see if that ratio is one to one before new tracts are leased. Thirdly, again, we would just like to acknowledge climate change impacts and particularly local impacts to Wyoming as a result of climate change, you know lack of water resources, increased drought and wild fires. OUr state climatologist Steve Craig and We

J
I I I I
~

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I I I I I I J

other experts have acknowledged that climate change will have dramatic impacts on the state, particularly agricultural users like our members. The USDA recently came out with a report that, you know, kind of overlays climate changes has for agriculture producers in our nation. So I would

E

encourage BLM to appropriate some of those analyses particularly talk about local impacts of climate change. We continue to be concerned about air quality in the basin. I think, you know, anybody who works out

J
I I

there, who lives out there does know that the air is being degraded as, you know, this environmental statement documents. So, you know, we are continuously

F

Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

'I
I I I I I I I i I I I I I I
1

12

concerned about air quality.

I'll submit a document

2
3

for the record that's from Score Card.org. It's, you know, an analysis of different, know, environmental impacts, in particular smog and particulate reports documenting that Campbell County is in the worst 10 percent of the counties in the nation as far as PMI0 and PM2.5 levels. And that, you know,

4 5
6

7
8
9

really concerns our members, you know, third and fourth generation ranchers in the basin. You know, they've

10 11 12
13

seen the impacts of air quality deteriorate over their lifetimes, you know, and we just worry about the future of this county when we talk about, you know, new coal fire plants, new development. You know, at what level is there a tipping point, you know, where this country would no longer be healthy to live in. So, you know, maybe the tipping

F

14 15 16 17
18

point is for these new coal mines but, you know, we need to have a broader, a broader look and a broader analysis of, you know, air quality and, you know, management alternatives. And I think EIS does a good job of talking about mitigation measures and management options of the mines who currently employ and are projected to employ with these particular lease tracts. We also do

19 20 21 22
23

I I I I

24
25

encourage -- particularly that I know blasting Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

I I
 I I I I I I i J I
 I I I I
"

13

1

requirements that some of the other mines do in the basin, especially given the proximity of same of these mines to Highway 59. You know, you see the signs as you go down by, you know, Black Thunder Mine and we'd encourage as these mines go a little bit closer to Highway 59 to include some of those warnings. It's probably more

2 3 4 5
6

"

7
8 9

appropriately their province but to think about those issues. And then, finally, on that note we would encourage BLM to maintain the hundred foot buffer between the coal mining and roads, particularly Highway 59. I regularly drive down Highway 59. I know You 


10 11 12 13 14 15
16

G

a number of you do probably more often than I do.

know, it is the main thorough fair between Gillette and the southern part of the state. You know, we've invested significant tax dollars in Highway 59 through the passing lanes. know, we're going to invest more tax dollars and potentially get a four lane highway on all the way and, you know, when these new tracts come online, you know, 10 to 12 years down the road, we hate to see those tax dollars go to waste. And, you know, having to move the You

17
18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

I
J I

entire highway doesn't seem like the right, the right thing to do. Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

I

I I
 I I I
,. )

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

And, finally, we'd just like to encourage BLM to think about the Buffalo R&P amendment process and how that process will work with these lease tracts just as that's going forward right now. Okay. Thank you so much for the time. All right. Thank you, Shannon.

MR. KARaS:

That was -- Shannon was the person that registered to testify but, like I said, if anybody else would like to testify now is the time to let us know and we'd certainly welcome you to do that. Going once, twice. Okay. All right. Well, if I didn't say it

I I i I I I I

.1 I

8
9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

before, and I don't remember if I did, I do appreciate you all carning out tonight and participating in this and I appreciate the comments we got and I'll close the hearing. 
 I did want to, since Shannon brought it up, 
 the concept that we had mentioned. BLM is in the

process of amending, modifying -- I'm not sure of the exact word -- the resource management plan for Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan counties which is for us our Buffalo field office and at least one of us, me, will be a part of that process. So I'm kind of painfully aware of what we're doing but that process will be going on over the next Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

I I I I

I I
 I I I .1 I I i I J I J J I I I I

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

several years and we just started in to it. we'll start our scoping on that.

I think

The resource

management plans are kind of our guideline basic operating policies or resource, or management of all the resources that BLM administered in a geographic area. So I encourage you to get involved in that if

you're interested. Again, thanks and safe travels and we'll be around if anybody wants, has any questions or follow up to do individually. out. (Off the record at 7:36 p.m.) We'll stay until you all wander

I

Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

I	 I
 I I I I I I i I I I	 I I I I I I	

16

1	 2
3

CERTIFICATE

I, DWANDE E. LEMAY, Professional Court Reporter and a Notary Public of the State of Wyoming, do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate transcription of my stenographic notes of the BLM hearing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal this 21st day of January, 2009 


4 5 6
7

8

9 10 11 
 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25
Dwande E. LeMay Court Reporter

I	

Response to Comments from the November 16, 2008 Public Hearing Shannon Anderson – Powder River Basin Resource Counsel Comment Response 16A: The purpose of the EIS is to assess and disclose the impacts of competitively offering for lease certain coal reserves applied for by four operating coal mines. The EIS also analyzes alternatives to these leasing actions and discloses those impacts prior to a decision. As noted in Section 1.2, leasing is recognized as a prerequisite to mining but it is not the enabling action that will allow mining. In their application, the applicant companies have identified their need for coal. The rate at which remaining reserves at these mines would be mined and sold is based on forecasting coal demand into the future. Coal production has increased through 2007 both domestically and internationally. The FEIS contains additional discussion of the forecasting used to identify future coal production rates, both at these mines and on a cumulative basis for the PRB. This forecasting depends on market demand. A major factor in this market has been, and is predicted to be, electric demand. The statement under the “Purpose and Need for Action” section relating to maintaining a stable supply of power to meet increasing demand without a potentially significant increase in power costs is in the context of the costs of pollution compliance, alternate coal supplies, as well as the relative cost of electricity from alternate generation methods. In the Chapter 4, there is a discussion of GHG emissions, the cost of electricity, as well as the mix of electric generation sources in a carbon-constrained scenario. Comment Response 16B: Other forms of addressing increasing electric demand are noted in this EIS. Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of GHG emissions on the global climate. The addition of noncarbon fueled electric generation sources could reduce GHG emissions. Further, the addition of alternate sources of electric generation would conserve carbon fuels, which are not renewable in the short term and would provide a broader portfolio of electric sources. The EIS estimates likely long term electric generation portfolios. However, the specific environmental effects of the variety of alternative electric generation technologies are not in the scope of this EIS. These technologies would be evaluated under NEPA as they are proposed to be permitted and built. The BLM is a multiple use land management agency that manages the federal coal reserves under the predominantly private land surface in the Gillette area of the Powder River Basin. In the land area covered by these LBAs, only 3% of the surface ownership is federal land. Although there are many wind and solar resources that can be used for energy development, the BLM does not have

authority over private land surface use and surface development. The BLM neither permits for the surface disturbance nor for the mining operations in coal mining operations. Therefore, the reasonable alternative options available for BLM to review in this EIS are leasing alternatives exploring the lease size, and shape, and the No Action Alternative where leasing one or more of these LBAs does not occur. Comment Response 16C: Coal is sold in an open market which can include non-domestic buyers. There are a limited percentage of PRB coal exports. The heat value disadvantage of PRB coal for export would indicate that the likelihood of extensive export is minimal. Information from the Energy Information Administration for 2001 to 2007 shows that both imports and exports have increased with a net export of coal in 2007 of 23 million tons (2% of the total domestic production). Ninety percent is exported to Canada and Europe. Most exports are of eastern coal which is higher in heat value, an advantage in export. The expectation (GLG News 2008) is that PRB coal may be used to replace the eastern coal that is exported. Comment Response 16D: There is considerable uncertainty now as to possible regulation of coal fired electric generation, the resulting costs, and the effect on coal demand. The EIS does look at the long term mix of electric generation sources, and these show a large and fairly stable requirement for coal fueled electric generation through the year 2030, the period of time these LBAs would be in production if leased and permitted. Coal is sold in an open market which can include non-domestic buyers. There are a limited percentage of PRB coal exports. The heat value disadvantage of PRB coal for export would indicate that the likelihood of extensive export is minimal. Information from the Energy Information Administration for 2001 to 2007 shows that both imports and exports have increased with a net export of coal in 2007 of 23 million tons (2% of the total domestic production). Ninety percent is exported to Canada and Europe. Most exports are of eastern coal which is higher in heat value, an advantage in export. The expectation (GLG News 2008) is that PRB coal may be used to replace the eastern coal that is exported. Comment Response 16E: Climatic change analyses are comprised of several factors, including GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. We have identified the effects of recent global climate change on the environment in the area of the proposed action. We have assumed that existing land and resource conditions within the analysis area have been and will continue to be affected by climate change under all alternatives. Existing climate prediction models are not at a scale sufficient to estimate potential impacts of climate change within the analysis area. We have referenced national and regional data that is available, most recent being the report, The

Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States (U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2008). Comment Response 16F: Air quality impacts are addressed in this EIS, both in the area of the proposed LBAs, as well as in the context of all development, past present and reasonably foreseeable, within the PRB. In the FEIS, we have added new air quality modeling for cumulative air quality effect predicted in 2015. We have also added more discussion of monitored ozone levels. The air quality sections, located at 3.4 and 4.2.3, have been updated with new information. WDEQ/AQD regulates air quality in the PRB. That agency issues the air quality permits to each mine, monitors actual air quality in the PRB, and handles enforcement. The air quality information in the EIS does take into account expected increases in development. Comment Response 16G: Lands within 100 feet of the right of way for a public road are considered unsuitable for mining. There is a process in the regulations (30 CFR 522) governing mine permitting under SMCRA, which provides mechanisms for exceptions. However, the most typical occurrence is that roads are relocated if economically feasible in order maintain separation of public roads from mining operations.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

In Reply Refer To:

Ecological Services 
 5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A 
 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009 


ES-61411/W.021 WY09FAOOll

Memorandum To: 	 Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field Office, Casper, Wyoming

From: /.2-(>'-Field Supervisor, u.S. Fish and

u· wyomjn~ ./JrkJ)/J

W~ldlife Service, Wyoming Field Office, Cheyenne,

Subject: 	

Comments for the South Gillette Area Coal Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received the Bureau of Land Management's (Bureau) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease Application on October 20,2008. This OEIS assesses the environmental consequences of the competitive lease of an approximately 8, 161-acre tract of Federal coal located in Campbe)) County, Wyoming. In response to your request for our review ofthe DElS, the Service is providing the following comments.

General Comments
The Service finds that the DEIS is generally well written and by incorporating the recommendations below, the BLM will have effectively addressed sensitive species, threatened, and endangered species, and migratory bird issues.

Specific Comments
Section 3.9.3 Threatened. Endangered. Pmposed. and Candidate Plant Species. and BLM Sensitive Species (Page 3-148): Based on new information, the Service has reevaluated the potential for occurrence of the blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) in this area. Blowout penstemon is a perennial herb with stems less than 12 inches tall. The inflorescence is 2-6 inches long and has 6-10 compact whorls ofmilky-blue to pale lavender flowers. Blowout penstemon was listed as endangered on October I, 1987. Blowout penstemon is known from multiple populations in western Nebraska (Fertig 2001). The plant's current known range in Wyoming consists ofthe Ferris dunes area in northwest Carbon County where the plant is restricted to two habitat types: steep, northwest facing slopes of active sand dunes with less than 5 percent vegetative cover; and on north facing sandy slopes, on the lee side of active blowouts with 25-40 percent vegetative cover. Known populations in Wyoming are found between 6,680-7,440 feet (Fertig 2001). However, recent surveys have indicated that systematic surveys may be warranted in some lower elevations (below 6,700 feet) in Wyoming where active sand blowout features occur (BLM 2005, Fertig 200 1).

A

Blowouts are formed as strong winds deposit sands from the windward side of a dune to the leeward side and result in a sparsely vegetated crater-like depression. Associated vegetation includes blowout grass, thickspike wheatgrass, lemon scurfpea, Indian ricegrass and western wheatgrass. Threats to the plant occur when sand dunes are removed or overly disturbed by vehicular traffic. Surveys should be conducted from mid-June to early-July when flowering occurs by knowledgeable botanists trained in conducting rare plant surveys. Since blowout penstemon could occur in this area, we recommend the DEIS address this recent species update by including language such as:

"Habitatfor the blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) will be identified prior to any surface disturbing activities. If habitat is determined to be present on the site. surveys will be conductedfor the presence ofthis species. If the species isfound. a O.25-mi/e no surface disturbance b~ffer will be placed around the population consistent with the 
 Bureau's Biological Assessment (BLM 2005) . .. 

Appendix E. Page E-16. Paragraph I (same text also appears on pages F-lS. G-14. and H-19l: We previously expressed our concerns regarding the statement that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies' tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) as included in the first sentence ofthe paragraph 1. In our July 16, 2008 letter, we stated:

B

"In accordance with the Service's J996 formal consultation and resultant biological opinion to the Office ofService Mining. coal mines in Wyoming are required to develop species-specffic protection measures ffadverse impacts to threatened and endangered species may be anticipated. Therefore. we recommend that any potential habitat that has not already been surveyedfor Ute ladies' tresses within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. ..
We request that you specify in the biological assessments that any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies' tresses within the project area will be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities. Appendix I. Page 1-6. Black-tailed Prairie Dog: In the column "Observed on Maysdorff II LBA Tract", the black-tailed prairie dog is marked as a "recent breeder". We assume this is a typographical error referring instead as a response under the "birds" column. If not, we recommend clarifying what this means. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the South Gillette Area Coal DElS. Please feel free to contact our office at any time to discuss issues or concerns regarding this proposed coal lease. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Scott Covington at (307) 772-2374 extension 246. C") ~ 	U> 	 rn :> cc: 	 FWS, National Environmental Policy Coordinator, Denver, CO (Tim Modde)g ~3:§5 BLM, Statewide Listed Species Coordinator, Cheyenne, WY (C. Keefe) C"') ::u~rq WGFD, Lander, Non-Game Coordinator (B.Oakleaf) ~ f'T1Cj :':!>E; WGFD, Cheyenne, Statewide Habitat Protection Coordinator (V.Stelter) CSl~

c

»

.,..J 	
N
0-

n f'll

'l-f~

-'::,::.;::>­

"-),,:1 ­
CJ

2


n

MWJQI:i)

References

Fertig, Walt. 2001. 2000 Survey of Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) in Wyoming. Report prepared for the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, US Fish and Wildlife Service, a Wyoming Game and Fish Department by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessment: Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii). U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 115 pp. + Appendices. Available on-line at: http://www.hlm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialih/hlm/wy/wildlitc/pcnstemon.Par.88533.Filc.datlb

!!:llili'

3


Response to Comment Letter 17: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comment Response 17A: Revisions have been made in the FEIS to Appendix E adding a discussion about blowout penstemon in the endangered species discussion. Comment Response 17B: Appendix E has been revised in the FEIS to include the following text: “Any potential habitat that has not already been surveyed for Ute ladies’-tresses within the project area should be identified and surveyed prior to surface mining activities.” Comment Response 17C: The sensitive species appendix has been revised in the FEIS to change the classification of the prairie dog from a “recent breeder” to “No” to indicate that habitat is generally lacking or very limited.

18
Teresa JohneonlCFOlWYl8LM/DOI To Gin VICkeIsICFOIWYI8LMlOOt@8LM

cc 

bee
Subject A comment thats not on the Jist i think

0210412009 01:36 PM 


here is a comment that I dont think got onto the list. maybe its one of the corupted ones?

Teresa Johnson Environmental Protection Specialist BLM Wyoming High Plains DIstrict OffICe National System of Public Lands
ph: 307-261-7510

Teresa_Johnson@blm.gov
---- FOlWarded by Teresa Johnson/CFOlWY/BLM/DOI on 02/04/2009 01 :35 PM ----­

-Stowe. Robert­  0112112009 12:10 PM

To  

CC

"Hutchinson. Wendy" 

Subject

Teresa. Attached are general comments that Coal Creek and Black Thunder staff made to the South Gillette Coal Draft EIS document. which had been passed along to our corporate office. They chose to focus their comments on GHG and Climatic Change. but In the desire to put together as clean and accurate an FEIS as possible, we feft that we would pass these comments on to you.
Robert R. Stowe

EnvIronmental Engineer Black Thooder Mine PO Box 406
Wright. WY 82732

rstowe@archcoal.com
~:307~-2238

fax:

307-464-2313

********** Email Disclaimer ********** The information contained in this e-mail, and in any accompanying documents, may constitute confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information is intended only for use by the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action

in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system.

Conwnern on the South Gilette Draft EIS.doc

~

Comments on the South Gillette Draft EIS - Consolidated from TBCC
1. 	

2. 	
3. 	

4. 	

5. 	

6. 	

7. 	

8. 	 9. 	

10. 	
11. 	

12. 	

13. 	

Page 3-54 BACT measures #1 should read "out-of-pit open coal stoCkpiles') It currently reads "out-or-pit". The word "exceedances" is misspelled. {page 3-56 - 4th paragraph/l st . sentence} Reference is made to "If a Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) is designed3 and implemented". A NEAP was a~roved by EPA in 2007 for the PRB mines. {page 3-56 - 4th paragraph/4 sentence} There is distinct mention of ''mitigation plans" designed for "Black Thunde~ Mine, North Rochelle, and Jacobs Ranch Mine". Those mines do not fall within the project area of the SGAC. What relevant does the plans concerning those mines have with this project EIS? {page 3-56 - 5th paragraph} The reference to these mines should be removed. Coal Creek Mine's new Air Quality Pennit (MD-5393), was issued on ~ September 2, 2008 for a maximum production rate of 50 MM tpy. The new parameters associated with that pennit will change the paragraph {page 3-59}, {page 4-13, etal}, and all references to it throughout the document. In calculating the percentages of private water wells potentially impacted, the3 percentages add up to more than 100 per cent at each of the mines pages {3­ 119.& 3-120}. BLM should probably check the calculations provided in that sectIon. . The words "were recorded" should be removed from the 1st sentence in the 3 paragraph on page 3-209. The word ''relocated'' in the 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph is misleading and should be changed to "found" or "found in the field". The archaeological section {page 3-209} should be written consistently. The last sentence of the 4th paragraph should be reworded similar to the last sentence of the Belle Ayr Section 3.12.1.1. The last sentence of the Coal Creek Section is misleading and it should read: ''The West Coal Creek BLM study area has been surveyed at the current Class III level. Some of the area, located within the Coal Creek Mine permit, was surveyed prior to 1980 and may be considered substandard in terms of current methodology." The last sentence in the 3m paragraph of page 3-246 supplies incomplete data ) to detennine increased needs. Page 4-4-last paragraph. The document states that the North Rochelle has 'ceased operations'. That's not really true. The should rewrite the sentence to say N ••• the North Rochelle Mine has been incorporated into the Black Thunder Mine.... N Page 4-37. The January 1994 MOU between EPA and AQD does not Wy to implement best available work practices where an exceedance has occurred. The W AQD requires Best Available Work Practices in all permits, of whether or not an exceedance has occurred. . Page 4-45. paragraph 2; 4th sentence: should say "If major amendments ... " instead of "If revisions... " CHIA's are only done on 	 amendments and not on every little change to the permit.

3

A B
C
D
E
F

3

G

H
I

miJ

...s J
K

require3

regardless

JM

L

14. 	 15. 	

16. 	

17. 	 18. 	 19. 	 20. 	 21. 	

Page 4-51. paragraph 2. sentence 2. typo. need "is" after "power plants" The statement concerning total dissolved solids (TOS) {page 4-52} ''The 2005 Annual GAGMO report indicates that TOS concentrations in 2005 ranged from 802 mWI at BTB-24 (Black Thunder Mine) to 12,409 mgll at SP-4-NA (North Antelope Rochelle Mine)" needs to be removed from this document. Those two mines at south of the SGAC and the information included has no relevance to this document. Page 4-60. 2nd paragraph under soils. they say "...and the essentially permanent removal of soil resources at industrial sites." I think it would be more appropriate to say"... the temporary removal and replacement of soil resources at mining sites. " GHG discussion. There appears to be a considerable amount of opinionated discussion on what is presented as 'fact' vs. theory. Here are examples: ....J {Page 4-103} 'recent industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources ~ have caused C02 concentrations to increased dramatically" - is that true? {Page 4-104} last paragraph - ' GHG emissions ...cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere' {Page 4-107} first paragraph - "C02 ...is the most prevalent GHG" -- is it, or i s ) water vapor the most prevalent GHG? {Page 4-108} paragraph on supreme ct. - They need to be clearer on the sentence. the court said C02 qualified as an air pollutant under CAA only IF EPA could determine it endangered public health or welfare. that should be . stated clearly in the first sentence.

1

N

o
p

j

'l Q

R
S

firstJ U

T

Response to Comment Letter 18: Thunder Basin Coal Company Comment Response 18A: The spelling error in Section 3.4.2.3, item #1, has been corrected in the FEIS. Comment Response 18B: The word “exceedances” on page 3-56, 4th paragraph, 3rd line of the draft EIS is correct. Comment Response 18C: Revisions were made to the text in Section 3.4.2.3 to clarify the statement. The text now states: “NEAP was designed and implemented to minimize PM10 concentrations and EPA will exercise its discretion, under Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, not to redesignate areas as nonattainment, provided that the exceedances are demonstrated to be the result of natural events.” Comment Response 18D: The mines you refer to on page 3-56, 4th paragraph (Black Thunder, North Rochelle, and Jacobs Ranch) of the DEIS were referenced as examples of mines where NEAP control measures have been formally implemented. The reference will be left in place in the FEIS. Comment Response 18E: Text in Sections 3.4.2.2.1.2 and 3.4.3.1.1.2 have been revised to update the most recent Coal Creek air quality permit references (including modeling for PM10 and NOx). Comment Response 18F: In Sections 3.5.3.2.1.2, 3.5.3.2.1.3, and 3.5.3.2.1.4 of the DEIS, many wells were within 3 miles of more than one mine; therefore, the same well could be counted more than once. Revisions were made in the FEIS to clarify the discussion. Comment Response 18G: The duplicated text you noted in the DEIS has been removed from Section 3.12.1.2, the third paragraph. Comment Response 18H: The word “relocated” in the DEIS has been replaced with “found in” under Section 3.12.1.2 in the FEIS. The text now reads, “Only 13 sites could be verified (one site could not be found in the field and one site was combined with another site).” Comment Response 18I: The West Coal Creek general analysis area includes the BLM study area and ¼-mile buffer. Not all of the general analysis area has been surveyed at this time. No changes will be made to the section. The BLM is currently reviewing the 2007 Ark Land Company inventory report. Additional work relating to subsurface testing and Native American consultation is required before Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office consultation can be completed for the West Coal Creek LBA.

Comment Response 18J: Revisions have been made to Section 3.17.5.1 to clarify the text. The text now states: “In addition to general law enforcement, the Sheriff’s staff and city police officers provide court security, detention facilities, and animal control. The Campbell County Detention Center is a 24hour supervised 128-bed facility that includes separate modules for women and juveniles (BLM 2005b).” Comment Response 18K: A revision has been made to Section 4.1.1.1 in the FEIS to clarify the status of the North Rochelle Mine. It now reads, “Since 2003, the Coal Creek Mine has resumed operations and the North Rochelle Mine has ceased operation (as a distinct entity) following its purchase by the operator of the Black Thunder Mine.” Comment Response 18L: In Section 4.2.3., the text discussing near-field receptors in Wyoming has been changed clarifying the implementation of best available work practices in the final EIS. The text now states: “This agreement also requires WDEQ to include in each PRB mining permit “Best Available Work Practice” mitigation measures.” Comment Response 18M: The “Groundwater” section (4.2.4.1) in the FEIS has been revised to read, “If major amendments to mining and reclamation permits are proposed, then the potential cumulative impacts of the revisions must also be evaluated.” Comment Response 18N: suggested in the final EIS. The word “is” has been inserted where you

Comment Response 18O: Revisions have been made to Section 4.2.4.1 to revise the discussion on TDS. Comment Response 18P: In Section 4.2.7, the text discussing permanent removal of soils has been clarified in the FEIS. It now states, “In general, soil disturbance and handling from these activities would generate both long-term and short-term impacts to soil resources through accelerated wind or water erosion, declining soil quality factors, compaction, and the temporary and, in some instances, the essentially permanent removal of soil resources at industrial sites.” Comment Response 18Q: Please see responses R through U below. Comment Response 18R: The statement is based on measured increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1800. The inference is that this trend matches corresponding increases during that same time in population and industrialization.

Comment Response 18S: This paragraph is explaining the greenhouse concept as applied to atmospheric gases. A climatic change analysis would be comprised of several factors, including GHG emissions, land use management practices, and the albedo effect. Tools necessary to quantify incremental climatic changes associated with those factors for specific activities like the proposed actions in this EIS are presently unavailable. Consequently, impact assessment of effects of specific anthropogenic activities cannot be performed. Additionally, specific levels of significance have not yet been established. Comment Response 18T: Water vapor is the most prevalent factor in the greenhouse effect. Water vapor concentrations have changed relatively little over the same period (1800 to 2000) that is referenced when talking about CO2 concentration increase. CO2 has been identified as a principal anthropogenic GHG. Comment Response 18U: In Section 4.2.14.1, the paragraph that talks about the 2007 Supreme Court decision has been clarified in the FEIS. The text now states, “Additionally, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court (Massachusetts v. EPA) held that CO2 qualifies as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 302(g), if EPA determined it to endanger public health or welfare.”